Letter to the Editor – Green is Good Economics
By Gail Nickel-Kailing on September 22nd, 2008
A reader sent me a note, basically saying “there’s nothing new under the sun.” He was distressed that we’re so busy talking about being green that we forget it’s good business.
Here’s what he had to say:
For thousands of years, if an item was reused or recycled it was considered common sense or economic reality. For almost 50 years, since WW2, reused or recycled was not even considered by many because you could buy new and pitch the old.
Now reusing or recycling or reducing the use of just about anything is called being “green.” The economics of recycling has always been there. Even if you have to pay more to have something recycled than it costs to trash an item, it is still an economic advantage.
Today recycling can be quite profitable.
If lowering your cost of manufacturing just happens to result in using less of anything involved, it now is considered “green;” 25 years ago it was just a good economic decision.
Think about this: does “greening” your business result in an economic advantage or is it that being economical results in being “green?”
Is it good marketing to get on the bandwagon and tell all of your industry peers that you have changed your manufacturing method? All these news releases should be aimed at users of our manufacturing expertise, not at each other.
In less than 20 years, this “green” stuff has gone from trade secret manufacturing to the farmer flipping his suspenders and saying: “Hey, look at me!”
Pat
What do YOU think? Are we just “strutting our stuff” in our own barnyard? Are we forgetting to tell our customers and prospects that we have been doing some of these things for a long time; that they’re good business? Your comments, thoughts, additions, etc., are welcome!
4 Responses to “Letter to the Editor – Green is Good Economics”
By Kristy on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
As a printer we have been doing alot of these things for a long time and why not recycling paper is great for the environment and its income.
By Tom Stodola on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
I feel there is much more attention being given sustainable practices. I agree that from the standpoint of the printing department not much has changed in the last 20 years (unless you are in So. Calif.). There is, however, a whole bunch of great improvement taking place outside our plants that makes us all “greener” i.e. more electricity generated from renewable sources, cleaner chemistry used in the manufacture of paper, delivery trucks producing fewer emissions and the like.
I am one of the first to point out the hype does not equal the result, but once you expand the scope to include all suppliers, change is taking place for the better.
By Pat Berger on Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
What is so special about So. Calif?
There are hundreds of shops around the country that have technology that meets or beats the South California present enviro regs and have been using it for years.
This is nothing new.
The PIA/GATF have been combative with the South Coast AIr Quality Managment District since 1999. After almost 9 years of arguing the District said no more extensions and the present regs are now in place.
By Tom Stodola on Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
By reg. 1171, All Printers in Southern California must be using cleanup solvents with 100gms/ltr or less VOC. By 2011 All printers in California will be covered by this requirment. While I may applaud all printers nationwide who have strived for sustainability, to say that all the printers are using these solvents is confined to Southern California at this moment.