Green Daily

Since you cannot trust anyone who likes to make a profit the only good way out is either:
* Not participating
or
*doing it yourself

This way you do not contribute to manufacturing, shipping, disposing of any product, or at the very least can guarantee that your product is harmless to the environment. Most of the stuff anyone living in the USA and Canada who is older than 20 buys is not necessary for survival (unless it is replacing something that cannot be repaired). Stop getting involved in the nonsense of buying what you do not need. You can easily mix household cleaners yourself. They work and are completely harmless. You can begin purchasing only products that can be fixed. Or those that are available used and still work.
There are many ways of reducing your impact. The good ways do not include "buying stuff". Check the site below.

If being "green" turns into a fashion it will be out of fashion soon.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Reply

Openeco.org is a coalition centered around helping companies reduce their carbon footprint to achieve measurable "real" results-- a good tool to add actual credibility to 'going green.'

Reply

Karsten,

Visited your site, and found it badly designed, inaccessible to users with special needs, and misleading at best. I'll give you just one example (there were several):

I ride a motorcycle. According to your questionnaire, this is a bad thing. On the other hand, I live in a city with a horribly-designed public transit system (Chicago) ...I can tell you from personal experience that when I take public transit to work, I spend an hour or more each way often alone on a bus, other than the driver. According to your site, I'm sinning twice here, since I'm driving myself to work and participating in my motorsport; do you really think that bus pollutes less than a fuel efficient motorcycle? Or that it's economically sound to waste 2-3 hours of my day traveling when I could do it in 30 minutes? The difference would be even more damning if I used a 49cc scooter instead of a heavier motorcycle with a larger engine. The price difference is also a factor; public transit is expensive, and getting more expensive every season in Chicago.

Apply the same example (motorcycles) to a long distance trip...riding across the country, which I do for work, is far less polluting on a motorcycle than it would be on a flight.

Your site, from what I've seen so far, is filled with the usual eco-propaganda seeking to make sweeping statements without much real thought; this turns me off as much as greenwashing. I honestly think a lot of folks who would otherwise champion the green movement are turned away by statements, questionnaires, and press that seem to over-market the cause; the minute someone thinks your spiel sounds a little like propaganda, they become much less likely to care.

Personally, I'm trying to make ecologically sound choices anyway, because I think it's important, but sites like yours seem to hurt the movement far more than they help it.

It's easy to point the finger and say "you are part of the problem, please don't teach or have children" (I quote from your site), but it's more effective to ditch the holier-than-thou attitude and put some thought toward how people think, interact, and evolve in their opinions. Otherwise, your church will be an empty one, no matter how righteous the preacher.

Reply

Well Dave, thank you for visiting my site. I would appreciate if you could be a little more specific regarding the problems you have experienced for folks with special needs. First time I hear this.

If you believe that you are informed enough to decide that your behavior is acceptable, by all means, choose to do what you think is best. There are exceptions to any general rule and a site that lists practical ideas to pollute less in so many areas cannot be perfect for all individuals. So what if you find ONE example where you discovered a conflict that only applies to you?

A few questions and comments right away:

What makes you think that riding your motorcycle to work is a motor sport?

What does your time wasted have to do with protecting the environment? Of course faster is more convenient, but no one disagrees that using fossil fuels has created more convenience for many. Many (if not most) activities that include the use of fossil fuels are time-savers.

What makes you think that behaving in ways that are better for the environment would be cheaper for you personally? Most likely it is the opposite in most cases. However, your less expensive behavior is only cheaper because you let other people pay (the society as a whole or your/other people's children or people in other countries). Who cares about the money? If you want cheap for yourself, continue what you are doing.

It is written on the site that riding a smaller motorcycle is better than a bigger one. If I may quote: "A small motorcycle pollutes less."

If you operate a motorcycle you indeed may be polluting much more than a bus loaded with 30 people. It depends on the bus and the motorcycle. The better bus is loaded with many people and has a modern engine, the better motorcycle is small and loaded with two people.

Same with a trip with a motorcycle across the country rather than flying. It is written at the site that driving is better than flying, especially for short trips. Did you read that far?

Check this very interesting article http://www.worldcarfree.net/resources/freesources/motorcy.htm
to learn more about the myth of motorcycles as the better solution to the car.

If you quote from my site, please have the courtesy to quote complete sentences to avoid distortion of what is written. It should say "If you have no intention to develop further interest in this issue, you are part of the problem. Please don`t plan to have or teach children." And you only reached this point on my site AFTER CLICKING THE LINK FOR PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES AS NOT CARING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. So don't complain.

And yes, I disrespect people who do not care about pollution. Just like I disrespect someone who beats children. It is wrong, it hurts people, there is no reason to be nice about it. I decided that I will not participate in pussyfooting around the issue and begging for participation. You choose. If you don't care, go somewhere else.

The USUAL eco-propaganda you hear (and seem to be missing at my site) is that with only a few simple steps you can change your life and become a "green" living inhabitant of this planet. I disagree with that thinking. It won't be easy and most adults will not change enough to make a difference. In my opinion, there is little hope for most people in North America older than 11. Nevertheless, if you want to read about practical advice you can CHOOSE to use and learn whether it will make a difference, go see my site. If not, don't.

It seems to me that you discovered that you pollute more than you thought and you do not like to hear it. Can't say I am sorry. Now you know - that is what I wanted. Do something about it, but do not complain to the messenger. And read the advice rather than the other stuff. The site gets to the point (= reading the advice) after just three lines on the first page. The rest is for those who are interested.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Reply

The "irrelevance" point reminds me of the Esso leaflet I picked up while unfortunately shopping at their store. It states what they're doing to solve Climate Change and the points seem to revolve around "We were the first to introduce Lead-free petroleum" to "We're investing in Natural Gas technology".

Reply

"...companies flat out lie (less than 1% of companies make this mistake, but does happen)."

The way PR and marketing people work, they lie more than one percent of the time just by accident.

Reply

Kirsten,

Accessibility: not enough contrast, use of a splash screen, use of frames. These are all bad SEO as well as bad usability / accessibility, so correcting them would help the site's internet presence in general. If this is the first you've heard of it, then we've identified the problem; accessibility is something your web developer should have been well-versed in before moving forward, and something the design / development team should have been discussing from day 1. Otherwise, hire an accessibility / UI expert. Target was recently sued for similar problems, and most federal or foundation funded nonprofits are *required* to be in compliance with WCAG and ADA guidelines. Besides, it just looks bad for an activist movement to exclude special needs users...though of course this is very, very difficult for smaller nonprofits to implement, since most tech folks won't work for nonprofit salaries.

While it's easy to point the finger at your visitors and assume they simply read something they didn't like, it might be more worthwhile (for your cause) to step off your high horse and figure out how to effectively build and manage relationships with people. I wish the site's voice had been developed more professionally; it would have been far more effective.

I'm certainly aware that motorcycles are less regulated than cars. However, I had a few problems with the study you linked. I'll list two:

1. The comparison between a mid-sized motorcycle's mileage with that of a 1300-1500cc car. Actually, my 1100cc highway bike gets much better mileage than my 1.8L car, even though the car is known as a very high mileage, economical model to own and drive. A cruiser bike's engines run at similar RPM levels to a car, too...the article neglected to mention that that paragraph only holds true for sports bikes, which are an entirely different beast. Most riders in the US will report similar mileage experiences, even with sports bikes, however...the significantly reduced weight of a motorcycle enables far greater efficiency.

Also, when was the last time you saw a 1300cc car for sale in the US? In this country, that is not a viable option. Similarly, a smaller motorcycle is not a safe option on highways or even on major American urban routes.

An 800cc bike will frequently hit 60mpg or more on a highway. A more modern engine with fuel injection will do even better. If the choice is to travel by myself to work or back (I can't carpool), then a motorcycle is by far the most ecologically sound solution I have.

2. The assertion that a large percentage of motorcycles have polluting two-stroke engines. This is certainly not true in the US; dirt bikes still retain the older engine technology, but even 49cc scooters are more modern 4 stroke engines nowadays. The last major street bike with a 2 stroke engine popular in the US (as far as I know) was the Yamaha RD 350, RD 400, and related models, which died out in the late 70's.

The reason your site left a bad taste in my mouth was the questionnaire; unfortunately, it didn't make me feel that I was polluting more than I expected, just that the questions were deliberately structured / phrased to *make* me feel like I was polluting more...i.e. propaganda. In some cases, such as in using a motorcycle to commute, I pointed out that taking an empty bus using an old engine pollutes far more than taking a motorcycle to work, though your questionnaire provides the opposite viewpoint. It's not within my power to reform Chicago's public transit system, get newer, greener buses, and revise their planning and logistics to keep buses from running empty or nearly empty so frequently. In that absence, public transport is simply not a green option for many Chicago residents. Since this is the third or fourth largest city in the country, I'd assume that your quiz is similarly biased for large pockets of the country's population; including the entire rural population...not just me with my motorcycle.

"It seems to me that you discovered that you pollute more than you thought and you do not like to hear it. Can't say I am sorry. Now you know - that is what I wanted." This identifies a marketing goal; to inform visitors on how much they really pollute. You fail in this goal by presenting me with an inaccurate questionnaire. You asked me if I read further on the site; I did not, because I found the questionnaire came across too much as propaganda. Your site failed to "convert" me (to use marketing lingo) because it presented me with a questionnaire, which I clicked on, and which annoyed me rather than opened my eyes. The design put me off, the content put me off, I didn't feel like following it further. It is *not* my responsibility to read further; I realize this might be anathema to your current tone and voice, but it is *your* responsibility as someone developing a website to shape and channel your traffic as efficiently as possible to achieve your goals...otherwise, you are letting your ego get in the way of professionally working toward your goals. If you would rather I didn't do the questionnaire before reading the articles, then you need to change the structure and user interface of your website to ensure that this is the case.

Then I was baited with a link, which I clicked, which gave you an opportunity to be smart at me :) The site comes across as a personal soap box, not a serious attempt to inform or change human behaviour; if anything, it hurts the cause more than helps it, because I might mistake your ego to *be* the voice of a cause.

I'm not sure why the green movement in the United States is so filled with folks who are looking for an opportunity to preach at people; to be successful, the movement *will* need more professional, better marketed, and better thought out web projects. Remember that you are trying to *inform* people first, and empower them to make change as a result; at least, that's your stated goal as opposed to "I want to preach at people and make myself feel superior" ...which is how the site came across.

But don't take *my* word for it! If you're serious about the web, hire a professional developer and designer, get the site reworked, and do usability testing with focus groups of the kinds of people *you* want to target as your web audience. Am I entirely in the minority on this opinion? Or are thousands of web visitors simply navigating away from your site as soon as they see the splash screen (which is a UI no-no)? Where are the conversion bottlenecks? Do you even have any visitors that aren't coming from this blog? Or do you have thousands this week alone from a writeup somewhere else that you didn't even know about? You won't really know till you track your visitors; most of them won't post here to tell you they didn't like your site :) In my experience, the unsatisfied user tends to vanish while only the happier ones remain as regulars, making it a difficult responsibility to get information on traffic and conversion metrics.

Sorry to come across as harsh; I've been building and marketing websites for almost a decade now. Your site could be much more effective if it were handled differently; as-is it fails on several levels, unless this was a basement feel-good project between a group of friends. I'm posting this because it *sounds* like you're serious about your cause and not just looking for a soapbox; if this is the case, then your website could do far less damage and be of far more benefit with some honest revision.

And as for me personally, I'm entirely willing to change my lifestyle (even in unprofitable, uneconomical ways) to be more eco-friendly; I just didn't learn anything new from your site, despite feeling preached-at.

Dave.

Reply

Thank you Dave. Lots of things to think about. I copied your comments onto hard drive for review and possible implementation in the summer. Some of it is in unknown language.

I will work on the "me feeling superior" or "preaching" taste of the website. The re-design will have to wait since there is no professional web developer involved and I am busy with other things as well. The website design and layout is homespun and originally was intended to look homespun as well. I wanted it to not look that slick since I am personally rather turned off by the "professional" look. Looks too much like someone wants to sell something and it is not the content they are selling. This site is for people who look for information rather than those who need to be impressed by flashy layouts. And, yes, it is also for those who feel similar to what I feel about those who continue to not care.

Now about the motorcycles: You are making the common assumption that all you need to worry about is the energy required to OPERATE the product. That is one reason why hybrid cars are so popular. You forget the energy that is required to manufacture, transport, dispose off, etc. any product. The making of a motorcycle requires a pretty good amount of energy. You most likely will not be able to ever save this amount with less gasoline consumption.

It may be that your motorcycle uses less energy while it is used by you, however, putting 2 or more people in one car that has a 30 mpg mileage versus putting one person on a 60 mpg motorcycle, the car is at least equal or wins. Unless you do not own a car. And 30 mpg for a car is pretty pathetic for 2007 if you ask me. The folks I have talked to do not get 60 mpg on the bikes. More like 45. Of course, most people do not drive with 2 or more in one car. Just like most bikes do ride alone. This is just math and you need to make sense of your personal situation yourself.

Of course you do not have the power to change the public transportation system ALONE. But not using it makes it less efficient. The bus runs every day and the reason why it is empty is because folks drive their personal vehicles in addition to the bus. The bus may actually get to move faster if fewer people where congesting the roads. You know that. But I have not been to Chicago. Have your written letters to your city officials? How about a strongly worded letter to the editor to a local newspaper about this embarrassing situation in Chicago? I may be dreaming, but if enough people complain, change happens. We will only change away for m the car culture if we begin not participating and increase the pressure on those who are responsible for decisions. OF course, there may just not be enough people who care. Looking at the state of agreement between people on our planet I have doubts.

BTW, even if the bus has a really old engine, the moment you use you motorcycle instead you are on the road in ADDITION to the bus. You and everyone else who could take the bus. It is not like those people who are not in the bus stay home. The folks who do not take the bus drive their personal vehicles. That results in more pollution.

The reason that so many people are looking for soapboxes is that the issue is so VERY important and so few people seem to care. Some are nice about it, I am tired about being nice about it. This is not a business. I want people to find the opportunity to discover good ideas on how to pollute less. The rest is extra. I will put it more in the background.

I will not return to this particular section of greendaily.com. E-mail me through my site if you have further things to say. I will be polite.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Reply

i love how greendaily finishes out this article by linking to the "10 most accountable big companies." wtf? i don't really know much about greendaily (are they a front group?) in general, but how can you support calling BP the number 1 of 10 most accountable companies at the end of a greenwashing article??? BP is the end all greenwashing king. it just seemed irrelevant and, well, wrong to me...now some happless reader is going to feel better about supporting BP than Citgo or something because they are "beyond Petroleum" and they cleaned up their oil spills well.

Reply