Here’s why I like this ad:

-Major company talking about the connection between rampant consumerism and environmental degradation

-Honest and transparent

-Given their ethics as a company, good integrity

-Gives us a sense of trying to make change from within the system.

-Catchy tag

Here’s the reality too:

-While it’s a courageous approach, the ethics it demonstrates will have a halo effect where consumers decide, IF they are going to buy stuff , they may as well buy it from a company like Patagonia.

See Ad Week’s take.

The GOP is up in arms about a vote taking place tomorrow. The House is set to vote on legislation that would repeal federal lighting efficiency standards, which passed with wide bipartisan support in 2007 and are scheduled to kick in next year. I mean, that’s crazy to think we’d set a national standard for how much power it takes to produce a certain amount of light. (quite different than kidnapping people and forcing them to buy the “dreaded” CFL)

What next?

-Could we get asked to let our grass turn yellow (like me and my neighbors do every summer) and save a bit of water?

-Might we continue to give space up for the carpoolers to zip by us on the highway and possibly create more bikelanes while we’re at?

-Don’t even think about rewarding me for recycling or offering me even more items on my list that can go in the yard waste as compost.That’s is just pure nonsense.

Whatever you do, don’t bother checking out or believing these facts:

According to an editorial in the Washington Post:

“Bulbs that meet the federal standards are more expensive than older ones. Nevertheless, Philips, the Dutch electronics giant, estimates that replacing a traditional 75-watt incandescent bulb with one of its latest light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs would save a household $160 in energy costs over its life. The company also reckons that replacing just the 90 million or so 75-watt incandescent bulbs sold in America annually with these advanced bulbs would reduce yearly energy use by 5,220 megawatts, saving $630 million and 3.26 million tons of carbon emissions — comparable to taking a million cars off the road.”

And Jim Snyder of Bloomberg:

-Consumers would save about $92 billion from 2012 to 2030, including higher up-front costs of replacement bulbs, according to Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project in Boston.

-Supporters of the phase-out include one of Edison’s great- grandchildren. Barry Sloane, a 61-year-old risk-management consultant, says he cut his power bills by about 10 percent since he replaced the familiar pear-shaped bulbs in his 3,000- square-foot Woodbury, New Jersey, home. He now uses CFLs.

-The legislation, which was debated on the House floor yesterday and may be voted on this week, would cost Americans $6 billion in energy savings in 2015, the White House said in a statement yesterday.

Come on. If we let it, our government will encourage innovation to produce more efficient light bulbs. That doesn’t seem so much to ask, or does it?

Full disclosure:

We have two cars. One is a 1980 mercedes that we run on Dr. Dan’s bio-diesel. One is a Euro-van (no matter what Toyota says, we couldn’t but a mini-van) that we run on regular super expensive gas.

When we considered a hybrid, my husband convinced me that  the manufacturing of the battery alone  for the hybrid (at least the Prius) was worse for the environment than a convention car that runs on bio-diesel.

When we have considered the electric, I’ve been torn about size (how do we fit 3 kids? and then some), price, availability,etc.

I thought this side by side comparison in this past Sunday NYTimes was quite helpful– makes the question of cost pretty clear. Looks like I need to start researching more.

According to Deloitte, more than half (60%) of U.S. consumers say two hours or less is the longest amount of time they would be willing to wait to fully recharge the battery if they were to purchase an electric vehicle. Only 23% find eight hours of charge time acceptable. (Green Car Congress  4/19/11)

And if can be patient and you are worried about long road trips check this out: A map for electric car charging stations…

-Oligvy Earth: Green intentions but not enough motivation to fulfill them

-Packaging Digest: Shoppers say its not my problem

Yawn. Yawn. Do these studies really tell us anything we don’t already know?

-People are inherently lazy

-People are often blissfully naive about the consequences of their actions

-Companies have to take on the green responsibility and clearly communicate to the consumer how they (oh, yes and the earth) benefit from their efforts.

Sound complicated?

“Consumers who buy products that give a portion of their sales to charities are less likely to give direct donations to that same charity.”

Hmm. The study was based on 300 college students. College students DELIGHT in cause marketing- they kill two birds with one stone, they get to buy & give all at once and they can feel a little less guilty spending their loan money on cosmetics.  This is a generation, however, that knows the red jackets, that actually rolls up their sleeves to volunteer and that sees interconnectedness in a way that few consumer groups do…. that AND cause marketers have gotten more savvy in their outreach- Facebook causes/landing pages, on going campaigns (Pepsi Refresh), events to compliment their campaigns (TOMS One Day without Shoes),etc.  These 300 students sound like a bunch of duds…

These duds do  not reflect the general population.  The general post-recession population is a consumer group who is seeking authentic connections with brands and often having a consumption process as a channel for learning about causes and engaging further.  Cause consumption and donations are not necessarily in competition rather they are often complementary.

Get a sample size that matters. Get a sample size that reflects the general public. And then I might be interested in your findings.

Now, as per the box, “to learn about more ways Crayola colors are getting greener all the time, go to crayola.com”, I went. And I searched. And I couldn’t find anything. And I searched by product and found some products buried in their pages of markers but come on Crayola- leverage this suite of products and your efforts:

-Create a stand alone URL: www.crayolaeco-evolution.com (they trademarked it after all)

-Create a button on your site that leads us to the products that are greener

-If I search for, “eco-evolution” in your search box, give me some results.

It kills me when a brand gets close but doesn’t quite get it.  Perhaps Crayola has something up the eco sleeves for Earth Day– a big announcement, a site skin, a micro-site launch?

They have about 24 hours to go for it just in time for the greenest retail month around.

That’s right folks, “earth month” starts tomorrow!

p.s. Just did a little surfing around and see that the black marker product got some bad “marks’ for being too hard for kids to replace the lids due to the black barrel nature of the marker, teachers are up in arms. Seriously? All the extra hard work to keep the planet a little greener? Shades of the noisy sun chip bag. Greenvenience  is NO JOKE.

“the company has discovered that a simple rubbery adhesive placed between the bag’s layers can cut its sound to 70 decibels, compared to up to 85 decibels for the original biodegradable bags.”

It definitely felt awkward, like when you see a character forced to insert a product into a scene where it doesn’t quite belong….but I rewound and watched it a few times to hear the dialogue. Cause product placement- straight up.  If anyone has seen other examples of this, please send my way.