And now Ikea has launched a new program that offers used IKEA pieces online, with plans to extend this idea to foreign outlets. As Peter Agnefäll, CEO of IKEA Sweden, explains,

“It is about taking an environmental responsibility for how our products are used in the longer term and making it easier for our customers to do their part for their responsibility towards the environment.”

This isn’t necessarily a new concept. Apple, for example, has been selling “refurbished” products for years, but this move by Ikea could be another trend-setting moment for the innovative retail giant.

[Source: Time, via Inhabitat]

Related LLT posts:

IKEA’s Flat Boxes Actually A Good Thing?

Retailers Explore Renewable Energy

When Tropicana debuted its “new and improved” packaging last year, for example, the apparent goal was to update the box to fit the age of iPods. There was widespread consumer confusion. The $35 million redesign was so different that customers couldn’t find Tropicana on the shelf anymore. They missed the familiar orange-with-a-straw picture. The ‘crazy genius’ of brand guru Peter Arnell, the man behind the move, now seems, well, just ‘crazy.’ One blogger called Arnell “the Bernie Madoff of brands,” while others evoked the 1985 New Coke disaster. Less than a month later, Tropicana announced it would revert to the old packaging.

But Tropicana’s packaging ‘misadventure’ had been an effort to modernize the brand’s aesthetic. What about when a brand is trying to modernize its efficiency and environmental impact? Heinz literally turned its packaging tradition upside down, changing from its iconic glass bottle after more than a hundred years. The ketchup maker’s Top-Down™ and Fridge Door Fit™ bottles have won awards for packaging innovation and rave reviews from consumers. According to Heinz, the packaging’s lighter weight “reduces the overall weight to transport them, saving fuel and improving efficiency,” reflecting the company’s concern for it’s “impact on the environment.”

We spotted this piece by Liz Alderman in yesterday’s NY Times about the Champagne industry’s “drive to cut the 200,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide it emits every year transporting billions of tiny bubbles around the world. Packaging accounts for nearly a third of Champagne’s carbon emissions, with the hefty bottle the biggest offender.” But the industry must balance its mandate to lower its environmental impact with its  ”the luxurious image and ritualistic traditions of Champagne.”

As Alderman explains, that luxury and tradition has “been symbolized for centuries by the bottle, ever since Dom Pérignon, a Benedictine monk, thickened the glass in the mid-1600s to contain what was often referred to as “the devil’s wine” because its vessels exploded so often. Over time, the bottle was recalibrated until 900 grams, or about two pounds, became the standard weight in the early 1970s.”

Alderman writes,

Designing a new bottle was no small feat. The container still had to withstand Champagne’s extreme pressure. It would also need to survive the four-year obstacle course from the factory floor to the cellars to the dining table, and fit in existing machinery at all Champagne houses. And it had to be molded so that consumers would barely detect the difference in the bottle’s classic shape.

Alderman suggests progress is being made. The director of St Gobain, the factory where most Champagne bottles are made, claims “using less glass lowered the carbon emissions necessary to make each bottle by 7 percent, and allowed about 2,400 more to be placed inside delivery trucks, reducing the number of trucks on the road.”

As brands heed to the call- from within the industry and from consumers- to be “new & improved,” big questions loom large. Can a brand’s packaging evoke ‘luxury’ and ‘green?’ Can ‘tradition’ survive ‘forward-thinking?’ The ones that do it right will save money, strengthen their traditions and, if we’re lucky, help in saving the planet.

[Source: NY Times]

Related LTT post:

LTT Opinion: greening life’s little luxuries

WSJ Scrutinzes Bamboo Couture

This type of grading system will, we think, have a profound effect on how cars are perceived. It’s one thing to know, on some level, that you car isn’t as fuel efficient as other cars. It’s another entirely to know you’re driving around a D+.

What grade will your car receive? Hybrids such as the Ford Fusion, Honda Civic, and Toyota Prius will get an A-minus, with a MPG rating between 40 and 58. Fuel-efficient cars such as the Nissan Altima, Toyota Corolla, and Volkswagen Golf will be given a B-plus for mileage between 30 and 30 miles per gallon. (Click PDF to see the full list of mileage and grades.)

Any Ferrari drivers out there? You’d get a D rating, where mileage is 12 miles per gallon or lower.

Officials expect to be finalized with new rating system early next year and used in 2012 model year cars. The published labels will be available for public comment for 60 days.

[Source: CNET]

Palmer explains, ”environmental analysis can be an endless balancing of this versus that. Do you care more about conserving water or avoiding toxic chemical usage? Minimizing carbon dioxide emissions or radioactive nuclear waste?” But, in quoting Cleantech, which aggregrated a series of studies on this subject, Palmer delves into the numbers that shapes this debate.

A few excerpts from Palmer’s piece for Slate:

A single book generates about 7.5 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents—the value of all its greenhouse gas emissions expressed in terms of the impact of carbon dioxide. That includes production, transport, and either recycling or disposal. (Attention students: Your textbooks are particularly bad, releasing more than double the CO₂ equivalents of the average book.)

Apple’s iPad generates 130 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents during its lifetime, according to company estimates. Amazon has not released numbers for the Kindle, but independent analysts put it at 168 kg. Those analyses do not indicate how much additional carbon is generated per book read (as a result of the energy required to host the e-bookstore’s servers and power the screen while you read), but they do include the full cost of manufacture, which likely accounts for the lion’s share of emissions. (The iPad uses just three watts of electricity while you’re reading, far less than most light bulbs.) If we can trust those numbers, then, the iPad pays for its CO₂ emissions about one third-of the way through your 18^th book. You’d need to get halfway into your 23^rd book on Kindle to get out of the environmental red.

Water is also a major consideration. The newspaper and book publishing industries together consume 153 billion gallons of water annually, according to the nonprofit Green Press Initiative. It takes about seven gallons to produce the average printed book, while e-publishing companies can create a digital book with less than two cups of water. (E-book publishers consume water, like any other company, through the paper they use and other office activities.) Researchers estimate that 79 gallons of water are needed to make an e-reader. So you come out on top, water-wise, after reading about a dozen books.

E-readers also have books beat on toxic chemicals. The production of ink for printing releases a number of volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, including hexane, toluene, and xylene, which contribute to smog and asthma. Some of them may also cause cancer or birth defects. Computer production is not free of hard-to-pronounce chemicals, to be sure, but both the iPad and the Kindle comply with Europe’s RoHS standards, which ban some of the scarier chemicals that have been involved in electronics production. E-readers do, however, require the mining of nonrenewable minerals, like columbite-tantalite, which sometimes come from politically unstable regions.

[Source: Slate]

]]> http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/30/reading-between-the-lines-e-reader-vs-paper-book/feed/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/27/damn-that-traffic-jamchinas-62-mile-long-traffic-jam/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/27/damn-that-traffic-jamchinas-62-mile-long-traffic-jam/#comments Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:59:58 +0000 Rich http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/?p=5425 We spotted this post from PopSci:

You may not have heard about it during your local traffic report this weekend, but anyone negotiating the Beijing-Tibet expressway in recent days is painfully aware of the problem: a 62-mile jam that slowed traffic to a crawl between the Chinese capital and Jining city. But while such huge traffic jams aren’t unheard of, China’s traffic woes are unique in their duration – the current traffic snarl (it’s still ongoing) has been unfolding since August 14, making for nine days of gridlock.

This story provided welcome perspective this morning, after my 8 minute commute was stretched into a “maddening” 15 minutes (!!!), on account of the annual late-August arrival of anxious parents and excited college freshmen. I’m not gloating. The thought of a nine day traffic jam makes my brain hurt. But a story like that reminds us that “one degree change” is, by necessity, a relative concept. Course corrections throughout the day depend on the choices each of us face. The single greatest influence on what those choices may be is where we live. It’s easier here, perhaps, than other places to consider “pace, space, and interface,” that is, to take a moment to consider our pace of life, to connect with our surroundings and notice our interactions (with each other, with products and technology).

But we’re also lucky to travel, and we know that, while the choices that we can make everyday aren’t achievable by all, one degree change is realistic for everyone anywhere. We spend a lot of time in Asia, and we’re working to build a design community that uses LTT as a lens to develop products and practices to support the growing concerns of a new generation, living in the one of the most densely populated places on the planet.

Why “one degree change” is a relative concept, innovative solutions are often born out of the most challenging of situations. Somewhere in that 62 mile long traffic jam, there’s an innovative thinker saying, “how could we do better?”

According to PopSci, the Beijing-Tibet expressway traffic jam puts squarely into focus the global impact China’s car manufacturing boom is having. “While Detroit declines, China is quickly becoming the world’s largest auto economy. China is selling passenger cars to its own citizens at a pace that seems unfathomable during an overall global economic decline (last year China automotive market moved 13.6 million cars, compared with 10.4 million in the U.S.). China is also on the brink of becoming a major automotive exporter, meaning Chinese manufacturers and designers will soon be deciding what commuters drive in other parts of the world.”

Time to ride my bike to work!

[Source: Popsci]

]]> http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/27/damn-that-traffic-jamchinas-62-mile-long-traffic-jam/feed/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/26/brands-proctor-gambles-sustainable-packaging/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/26/brands-proctor-gambles-sustainable-packaging/#comments Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:58:59 +0000 Rich http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/?p=5422 In the late 1980’s, Kelly LeBrock starred in a series of Pantene print and television ads* with the slogan, “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” We didn’t. And now Proctor & Gamble, which makes Pantene, could run with “Don’t hate me because I’m sustainable.” The beauty giant has announced that beginning next year, the company’s Pantene Pro-V, Cover Girl and International Max Factor product lines will feature packaging made from renewable sugarcane-based plastics. The new packaging will be made by Brazilian plastics manufacturer Braskem, consisting of sustainably grown Brazilian sugarcane. The plastic will also be 100% recyclable.

According to Gina Drosos, Group President, Global P&G Beauty, “As we talk with women around the world, they tell us that they want to make themselves more beautiful without making their environment less beautiful. With this new packaging innovation, women can have confidence that their favorite brands are helping to make a difference.”

[Source The Living Principles via PSFK]

*By the way, everything is on YouTube these days.

Related “sustainable packaging” posts from LTT:

Brands: Curtis Packaging

When a company “goes green,” does motive matter?

Brands: Frito-Lay’s Compostable Bag

Dupont’s Awards For Packaging Innovation

Pre-Consumer Sustainability?

]]> http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/26/brands-proctor-gambles-sustainable-packaging/feed/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/25/plastic-bag-ban-in-california/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/25/plastic-bag-ban-in-california/#comments Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:05:52 +0000 Rich http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/?p=5417
Yesterday’s post sparked some interesting emails. The post- on Cleveland’s plan to monitor how much its residents recycle and to fine those who do not- raises the question ’should government force people to go green?’ We’ve examined this question from a few angles on this blog, but our focus has always been on individual responsibility. We seek to answer the question “what can I do, today?” We know “living better” begins with the countless little decisions we each make throughout the day. But is that enough? Should good intentions be ushered by good policy? Should individual progress be spurred on by legislation that rewards our better choices and punishes our “lesser” ones?  California legislators could be voting tomorrow on a bill that would do just that.

The proposed bill, AB 1998, would prohibit stores from providing plastic carryout bags to customers. Similar “plastic bag bans” have succeeded in places all over the world. China, of all places, banned plastic bags two years ago, a measure that has saved an estimated 100 billion plastic bags from landfill or worse.

For our California readers, here’s what the bill says:

This bill would…on and after July 1, 2011, prohibit a store, as defined, from providing a plastic carryout bag to a customer. The bill would require a store, on and after July 1, 2011, with regard to providing carryout bags to a customer at the point of sale, to either make reusable bags available for purchase by the customer or provide a paper carryout bag that is subject to the green bag fee that would be imposed by the bill. The bill would require a store to charge a green bag fee of not less than $0.25 for each paper carryout bag distributed at the point of sale. The bill would establish the Paper Bag Pollution Cleanup Fund in the State Treasury and would require a store to remit these fees, less a specified amount, to the State Board of Equalization for deposit in that fund.

Read more: http://plasticbagbanreport.com/ab1998-california-assembly-bill/#ixzz0xeX3ZpDJ

Here’s how it works, according to a recent piece in Fast Company; “chips embedded in recycling carts will keep track of how often residents take the carts to the curb for recycling. If a bin hasn’t been taken to the curb in a long time, city workers will go rummaging through the trash to find recyclables. And if workers find that over 10% of the trash is made up of recyclable materials, residents could face a $100 fine.”

According to Cleveland.com, the city has actually been testing the system since 2007. As Fast Company explains, “if the chip system works in a city as big as Cleveland, other small to medium sized cities will probably take note.”

What should a city’s role be in fostering better habits among its residents? San Francisco has made composting mandatory, for instance, and threatened to fine residents who don’t comply. What role should government play in making sure we love tomorrow today?

[Source: Fast Company]

The Cornucopia has two modes- as a picking bag slung over your shoulder or as a backpack-and has three shelved pockets, a main compartment, a laptop sleeve and a built-in change pocket.

The $120 price tag is pretty steep, and it’s only available online, but this could seriously improve those farmer’s market outings.

[Source: Gizmodo, via PSFK]

]]> http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/20/betabrands-cornucopia-bag/feed/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/19/around-the-world-in-80-days-the-zero-race-gets-under-way/ http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/2010/08/19/around-the-world-in-80-days-the-zero-race-gets-under-way/#comments Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:17:52 +0000 Rich http://lovetomorrowtoday.com/?p=5397

It’s not quite how Jules Verne* imagined it, but teams from three continents have set off from Geneva in a race ‘around the world in 80 days.’ The ‘Zero Race,’ as it’s called, will see electric cars navigate the longest and greenest race of all time, traveling across more than 19,000 miles, from Geneva, through Moscow, to Shanghai, across the ocean by ship to Vancouver, down the west coast of North America to Cancun, board a ship once again to Portugal, returning across western Europe to Geneva.

As Louis Palmer, organizer of the race, explains, “We want to show that we have solutions, like electric cars and renewable energy.” Race officials say any emissions generated from the race will be offset through solar energy being fed back into the grid and other investments in renewables.

After 80 days, the cars will have passed through 16 countries, with 150 city stopovers, returning to Geneva by January, 2011.

See related LTT posts:

Solar Roadway Captures Energy, Heats Roads

Motivated By The Impossible- flying around the world on solar-power

Japanese Solar Car Wins Aussie Desert Race

*Jules Verne was quite a visionary. Known as the “father of science fiction,” he imagined scientific exploration (through space, air and water) before means of such travel had been devised. In 1865, for example, he penned ‘From The Earth To The Moon,’ a half century before the Wright brothers’ first successful flight at Kitty Hawk, and more than 100 years before Apollo 11 touched down on the moon.