Green Manufacturing Insights

There is a good update on some topics at the 2010 Green Manufacturing Summit in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel this week.  A topic of interest was the discussion by Foley & Lardner of the requirements being placed on suppliers by their customers, as well as state versions of Cap and Trade.  These requirements, which are driven largely by Fortune 50 OEMs.   60 companies including 3M, Pfizer, Siemens and Kraft Foods are cooperating on a standard to require their supply base to reduce their green house gas emissions.  These 60 companies have set a goal to reduce greenhouse gases from their supply chain by 20 million tons over the next 5 years.  This will likely be a much more effective approach than a government mandate and will be much cheaper as it will be enforced by industry. 

Maybe more meaningful reforms could happen in the health care insurance industry if they chose to clean up their own backyards, rather than continue the turf wars that reduce effective competition.  Legislation is rarely the most productive or cost-effective method of enforcement. 

I think it is time for all companies to look at their manufacturing practices and see where they can have a green impact.  It’s the right thing to do, and frequently makes good fiscal sense too.

In another proud economic move for California, Freshwater Tissue, the only chlorine and  dioxin free  pulp mill in the United States will be forced to close after being unable to get stimulus  funds to convert the mill to an integrated toilet tissue plant.

Freshwater tissue had a goal to produce cost-effective, ecologically friendly products to compete against offshore competitors.  When the owners bought the plant they also planned to use wasted byproducts of the nearby redwood forest.  The tanoak tree, which has long been a fire hazard to the redwood forests, was to be used in the production of this tissue pulp.   The plant would have created  nearly 3000 jobs, as well as protecting vital natural resources.

This is the problem when stimulus money is controlled only by lobbyists and special interest groups. The money is not getting too small and midsize businesses who could use the money to create new industries in the new green economy.

Maybe Washington will eventually wake up and see that there are other industries that should receive funding. They are doing progressive and positive things in proven technologies that are good for the United States.  Many of these companies are in smaller niche markets which do not get the attention that the automakers and airlines get.  Until then, good companies will continue to fail, while mediocre ones benefit from their lobbyists and their greed.  This is a big loss for Samoa, CA and another loss for the US green manufacturing industry.

Well, the stimulus is in full swing and the Obama administration is promising millions of new jobs through the creation of “green jobs”, but what do these really mean.  Traditionally, a green job was a job working in a renewable energy sector, but this definition seems to be getting broader as more of the talking heads discuss it.  So that got me thinking (and now writing about) what REALLY constitutes a green job.

If manufacturing solar cells and wind turbines are green jobs, why not production of hybrid vehicles?  What about all of the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) in electronic manufacturing?  Are these jobs any less green because they are not NEW?  At VirTex Assembly, we take great pains to recycle, reduce and reuse as  much as possible, while minimizing the impact on the environment.   Does that make us green?  I would like to think so.

If a company making solar power or wind turbines is inefficient and wasteful by spending huge amounts of fuel transporting goods around the globe rather than producing them locally, does that make them less green?  I would like to think that is true too.  Green should be more than the industry you are in.  Green should be a corporate culture.  Sustainability needs to become the focus and companies working hard to reduce emissions and decrease their carbon footprint should be afforded the same opportunities.   Are the hundreds of thousands of new government jobs to oversee stimulus money so it is not wasted green jobs?  What about the jobs created protecting the habitat of Speaker Pelosi’s beloved salt marsh harvest mouse?  It’s environmental, right?  Doesn’t that make it green even if it is just another case of ridiculous pork barrel spending?

I am not naive enough to think that any of the stimulus plan will trickle down to traditional small manufacturing companies.  We are not a huge bloated behemothlike the auto industry who has squandered more money than we have donein revenue in our nine year history.  We will need to continue to find ways to make ourselves more competitive by focusing on ways to add value in a down economy through increasing responsiveness of service and logistics.   Saving money and fuel in reduced transport costs is green, Reducing the amount of packaging materials used to ship products is green.  Redesigning boxes and packaging to accomodate more product in less space while providing the same protection  is green.

I think I have a green job, as do all of VirTexAssembly’s employees.  And I am going to keep thinking so, until something in the very un-green (except for the color on the money) stimulus plan tell me otherwise.

Brad