One of my favorite bloggers, Megan McArdle, posted yesterday that traditional products are not greener because the industry understands the performance tradeoffs associated with green products.
They knew how to make more energy efficient dryers, which is why even on high, I have to run every load through the dryer in said house twice. And they knew how to make inexpensive compact flourescent bulbs, which is why my head hurts from the glare emitting from my bedroom lamp. They also knew how to make asthma inhalers without CFCs, which is why I am hoarding old albuterol inhalers that, unlike the new ones, a) significantly improve my breathing and b) do not make me gag. Etc.
In fact, when I look back at almost every "environmentally friendly" alternative product I've seen being widely touted as a cost-free way to lower our footprint, held back only by the indecent vermin at "industry" who don't care about the environment, I notice a common theme: the replacement good has really really sucked compared to the old, inefficient version.
Initially, this struck me as an overly aggressive and simplistic take on the traditional vs. green product dynamic. However, after further thought, I think that this sums up the perception and reality of many green products, especially those that are mandated. Products are the way they are for a reason... it certainly is not true that they have been fully optimized, but companies don't stick harmful chemicals into their products for fun. Taking out toxic chemicals, replacing virgin plastics with natural materials, and other green manufacturing techniques can improve the footprint, but may reduce product performance by other measures. This strikes at the heart of the challenge that product developers face and what this blog is seeking to address...
To create truly sustainable products, the green version needs to be the mainstream product. This means that it needs to perform better than the non-green alternatives on the things that are important to the masses... cost, convenience, aesthetics, usefulness, time, etc.
Comments