Last year, I was discussing with someone in Silicon Valley who ran a rather large foundation the realities that much of the current direction of environmentalism has been shaped with the wrong message. My acquaintance, was into recycling, and wanted to see more of it. She would be quite content if it were mandated, and required of all companies.
Still, I disagree with that motif and it seems to me that it would be better to educate companies to explain to them why it made sense to recycle, and how they could save more money doing it, and by producing less waste they would become more efficient and more profitable.
Then, just the other day I was talking to a rather brilliant electrical engineer out of Springfield Massachusetts who had experience working with large IT systems for big corporations. He had come up with a scheme to conserve the energy in a data center, which would have in fact saved millions of dollars in air-conditioning equipment and the cost to run it over the next 5 to 10 years. The company chose not to use his innovative idea, but rather to put in the expensive air-conditioning system. He reiterated to me that often executives and companies don't understand why it is important to conserve energy, recycle waste, or reuse that which you've already paid for.
When he explained this to me, I totally understood, not only because Winslow Friedrich Taylor is in my family tree, but more so because I understand the principles of Six Sigma, and because I have run a company myself prior to retirement. Any time a company or corporation wastes energy, or throws things in the trash, or has leftover byproducts that it does not reuse from its manufacturing process, it is throwing money down the toilet.
Not long ago, I was talking to an individual about all the animal waste from livestock, he indicated to me that growing meat without the animal made sense because there would be less waste. Now then, before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, or that's a crazy idea, I'd like to mention to you that research scientists are now able to grow animal meat in a very safe way, and under ideal laboratory conditions which would prevent food borne bacteria, and other challenges with the meat we eat.
The good thing about this is perhaps for chickens, pigs, and fish for instance you wouldn't have all those leftover body parts, and other things which are very high in protein which cause a lot of problems when that bacteria gets into the groundwater or a nearby river, stream, or lake. Not to mention the fact that it costs a lot to grow an animal, just to get the meat later.
Still, I disagree with that motif and it seems to me that it would be better to educate companies to explain to them why it made sense to recycle, and how they could save more money doing it, and by producing less waste they would become more efficient and more profitable.
Then, just the other day I was talking to a rather brilliant electrical engineer out of Springfield Massachusetts who had experience working with large IT systems for big corporations. He had come up with a scheme to conserve the energy in a data center, which would have in fact saved millions of dollars in air-conditioning equipment and the cost to run it over the next 5 to 10 years. The company chose not to use his innovative idea, but rather to put in the expensive air-conditioning system. He reiterated to me that often executives and companies don't understand why it is important to conserve energy, recycle waste, or reuse that which you've already paid for.
When he explained this to me, I totally understood, not only because Winslow Friedrich Taylor is in my family tree, but more so because I understand the principles of Six Sigma, and because I have run a company myself prior to retirement. Any time a company or corporation wastes energy, or throws things in the trash, or has leftover byproducts that it does not reuse from its manufacturing process, it is throwing money down the toilet.
Not long ago, I was talking to an individual about all the animal waste from livestock, he indicated to me that growing meat without the animal made sense because there would be less waste. Now then, before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, or that's a crazy idea, I'd like to mention to you that research scientists are now able to grow animal meat in a very safe way, and under ideal laboratory conditions which would prevent food borne bacteria, and other challenges with the meat we eat.
The good thing about this is perhaps for chickens, pigs, and fish for instance you wouldn't have all those leftover body parts, and other things which are very high in protein which cause a lot of problems when that bacteria gets into the groundwater or a nearby river, stream, or lake. Not to mention the fact that it costs a lot to grow an animal, just to get the meat later.
