What is Fluff?
According to the dictionary: Fluff [fluhf] - noun 1.light, downy particles, as of cotton. 2.a soft, light, downy mass: a fluff of summer clouds. 3.something of no consequence: The book is pure fluff, but fun to read. 4.an error or blunder, esp. an actor's memory lapse in the delivery of lines.
So, why do I want to talk about Fluff as related to Greentech?
Because in this MEGA trend called Greentech there is a lot of Fluff (as it relates to the definition #3).
We see it every day. A commercial of ANY product has to have a "green" edge. IBM is not just selling computers and servers, they sell "greener business solutions", they have a website to prove it IBM.com/green and hundreds of thousands of dollars in a TV ad campaign that shows the "green" side of doing businesses with IBM.
Like IBM there are thousands of other companies pushing their products with a green "excuse". I see no substance on this adds (only energy savings for more efficient computers), I would rather see an IBM campaign to recycle all their computer cases (collecting and paying for them) and the safe disposal of the mercury of old electronic equipment.
People and institutions are adding to the "Fluff agenda". Governments, universities and non-profit organizations all around the world have spent millions of dollars in brochures and info on how to be more green (use fluorescent bulbs, regulate the a/c in your house and office, take advantage of the carpool, plant a tree, conserve water, etc etc etc.) And even though all these advice would really be helpful for our environment I suspect the driving force behind these initiatives is more to follow the trend rather than to search for a REAL impact on the environment issue. At the end of the day more money is spent on "telling" you how to be more green than the money spent on more efficient a/c or changing all the bulbs of that same institution to fluorescent.
An example of Fluff vs Substance is the extra push Hotels are offering for the guest to be more "green" by not sending their towels to the laundry everyday and instead using them over and over. I call this Fluff because its a "moral trap". If you send the towels everyday to the laundry, then you are a mean earth polluting person. But, if you use the same towel three days in a row then you are a contributor to a "greener" planet and OH! BY THE WAY, WE (THE HOTEL CHAIN) HAVE JUST SAVED $20 ON YOUR ROOM'S COSTS AND THAT PROFIT GOES DIRECTLY TO OUR POCKETS! YOHOO!! I wonder if there is a Hotel somewhere that offers a cost incentive for guests that re-use their towels and actually INVEST money on THEIR green initiative?!
Where is this leading us?
I foresee two possible scenarios:
Scenario A- If the Fluff movement wins, then green initiative will become a fashion. And like all fashions it will die! People will get fed up with this trend and three years down the road no one will want to buy something that is "green" or because is environmentally friendly. Therefore the chance that we have today of changing the course of our planet will be lost because of "over exposure". We have a real possibility of this scenario if we factor the current financial crisis of the world. In hard times like these is about survival and not about "change to become green"
Scenario B- Substance wins, people are able to look beyond the fluff. New technologies get implemented and people change their habits to become TRUE GREEN CITIZENS. And as a consequence greentech becomes a major industry. (i.e. IBM starts building computers that control the a/c temperature and that communicate with other households to plan the ideal carpool for all IBM users, all at a competitive price of a regular computer with components that are recyclable and not harmful for the environment!)
Which scenario will we see? I can't wait to find out!, but for now I say "SHALOM!"
Posts
3 comments:
I like your points, and, as someone whose career is tied to energy and environment issues, this "greenwashing" makes me nervous. It's important for people with training and quantitative capacity to insist on numbers as an accurate representation of real environmental advantages. We are duty-bound to look at the entire system and compare alternatives in our analyses.
Earth Day first happened in 1970.
Mother Earth was Time magazine's man of the year in 1991.
Yes, the spotlight does swing, but there are not just your A and B scenarios ... it's a gray area, hopefully a green-gray made better when we take the right steps, both technically (adopting the right products) and mentally (committing ourselves to right steps.
Chris: The problem is that environment damage is happening at an exponential rate, whereas solutions are implemented with linear speed. Therefore if we don’t leap in front of the curve we will lose the opportunity to correct all these years of damages and the possible consequences can be terrible!
Kelly: I agree completely. What we need is a decisive and strong leadership (it sounds like a cliché, but it is really what is needed). Whereas it comes from the government or from private industry I don’t really care!
Post a Comment