Can You Save the Planet and The Bottom Line

?

No.

Oops. I was answering the last question, not the title question.

Can you do your job responsibly today without thinking about the carbon footprint or the effect your work has on the environment?

No, of course not. If you don't think about the effect your work has on the environment, you are acting irresponsibly, by definition. That is just as true today as it was 30 years ago.

The title question: Can you save the planet and the bottom line?

Of course. The implementation of environmental controls on cars has been a boon to the automotive industry, adding hundreds of dollars of content and the attached profit to every vehicle. Designing and producing these controls (along with mandated and independently-offered safety features) has created thousands of jobs. The Toyota Prius is a hot seller (at a significant premium) because it is environmentally friendly.

There is no question that "green" sells. There are loads of questions regarding what is "really green" as opposed to having the appearance of being green, but increasingly people will pay a premium for green products and services. In most buying behavior, we are anything but rational, and make even our largest purchases based on fashion, ego, wanting to belong, etc. So making money with green products and green practices is a marketing opportunity: make people want green stuff and they will buy it.

"If you read the rest of this newsletter...". What newsletter?

The job of an engineer is to make the best product at the lowest cost ideally. If the employer requires all the "theme of carbon footprints and "greening" stuff also, then the engineer is stuck with it and may have to make things which are not as good and cost more. The market soon weeds them out.

"Can you do your job responsibly today without thinking about the carbon footprint or the effect your work has on the environment?" Now that is a loaded question, meant to create guilt. If the best design, the most efficient, reliable and cheapest one produces more carbon than a worse one that is less efficient, reliable and cheap but produces less carbon, then guess which product will win in the market. So forget all the carbon footprint and other nonsense.

I have been an engineer far longer than most "greens". You state:

The job of an engineer is to make the best product at the lowest cost ideally.

The best design, the most efficient design, has, for as long as I can remember, been the best solution at the lowest cost. This is inherently the "green" solution- lowest cost ultimately results in lowest environmental (much more significant than carbon) footprint.

Engineering is, by definition, a green profession...

Over the years any good engineer should save waste, energy, and time so that we reduce - even less than zero - our carbon footprint. This contributes to the company's bottom line and our continued employment.

Well the last new trend was to produce less by waiting till the last possible moment to use any raw materails. Only produce what met the demand and maybe a little under to not only control prices but if you only pay your supplier when you take the raw materials from the warehouse and use them your saving money on both ends and keeping a firm grip on prices.

When the consumers see half empty shelves they feel strange and maybe buy an extra just incase. This fuels the demand over time so you can increase price easy.

All this come from that book the Isreali Economist wrote I forget his name.

He said it is good to have workers not working all the time, only when they needed to. Save energy and don't over produce.

Well, save it? this will be probably more in the -GOD- area of powerful expertise but at least 'we the people' may contribute to it balancing nature way of doing things all around.

Working places will need to be re-mind it at total level from Top-Bottom. I will start with the 'Top-Bottom' first by re-doing it and make it out with a different approaching system of decision making system. As you may all know the 'Famous Murphy Law' standards do will have to be seriously taking into account at the time of 'Authorithy Channels' and doesn't have to be complicated actually. Check this out; If we let say send out a set of instructions without investigate first how are the possibilities for the 'Bottom-Line' individuals to make it through following the expected schedule or in others words, what have to be done first? As always accordingly with the 'Murphy Law' rules then there a chance that the 'Bottom-Line' people get confuse or in the limbo stand-by hanging in there waiting for what else have to be re-do-it again or who's instructions to follow-up then. How many times you may see these things happening in your workplace area? I do see it almost every single day and the problem with this are that nothing is being done for real at the end of the journey.

You have the picture, is a -No Win Situation- enougth with the story. The Bottom-Line is that everything is about the greens one way or the other. So in my modest opinion by reviewing the -'Murphy Law'- rules closely we all help out the Bottom-Line definetly.

Interesting topic here always at CR-4 absolutly... You have the Technology.

Back to the Grind,

MC