2024 – We’re Just Warming Up! Here we come!

  • We’re just warming up!  Figuratively and literally.  This warm winter has helped some pocket books, but also highlights the need to keep our energy reductions going at an even faster speed.
  • Interest in Federal 179d deductions is finally taking off.  Have a major renovation? Sweeten the pot with up to $5/square foot tax deduction.
  • Now a Certified Compressed Air System Specialist as of December, I am excited to continue saving clients energy at a new level.

Matthew Strebe

Thank you for an awesome 2023.  More savings and more rebates to deliver to clients in 2024.  Let’s do it!

Share

2023 – Fixing our gaze ahead, the best is yet to come!

  • New Faces – Welcome Nate Douvier to the SES Team! (below)
  • Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – direct impact to many the properties we support
  • Geothermal growth
  • Congratulations! Como Zoo Receives $2.2 million in federal spending to upgrade the Primates to Geothermal Heating – Star Tribune

Eric Johansen, Matthew Strebe, Sawyer Moorse, Nate Douvier

Thank you CenterPoint Energy and all our awesome clients!

Share

2022 – A Year of Gratitude

  • Xcel Energy – Energy Efficiency Partner Award
  • Continued success of our clients
  • 463,420 kWhs in electric reduction
  • 14,800 Dtherms of natural gas reduction
  • 12,8450 mtons of carbon reduction
  • Assisted CenterPoint in crossing its 2022 natural gas reduction goal
  • Kicked off Xcel Energy’s Building Energy Assessment Program (BEA)
  • Como Zoo Geothermal Feasibility Study makes Star Tribune headlines

For the 6th consecutive year SES, Inc. is honored to be recognized for being a top performing commercial trade partner by Xcel Energy in in the category of Business Energy Efficiency Programs!  This is a high honor and akin to winning an MVP award in our industry!

Share

Rethinking the Death Star: A Sustainable Approach to the Universe

Rethinking the Death Star: A Sustainable Approach to the Universe

 

By Mary Stokes

 

In response to the humorous petition for the U.S. government to begin construction on the third Death Star, White House Budget Manager Paul Shawcross replied, “Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be explolited by a one-man starship?”

In this season of political rhetoric, it’s a relief to find that we as Americans can all agree on something.

Politics aside and as sustainability obsessed as we are, it got us scratching our heads, was the second Death Star destined to fail?

 

If the Empire had used today’s sustainable practices to boost production, reduce costs, and make the best use of the available materials, perhaps the Death Star would have been completed on schedule, and if it had been fully operational, would the Rebel Alliance have been able to destroy it?

 

Supply Chains, Budget Cuts, and Unrealistic Expectations

One of the main problems Moff Tiaan Jerjerrod, the commander in charge of the Death Star’s production, ran into with the Death Star project was supply chain breakdown and accompanying budget cuts.  When one considers the size of the Death Star (160 km in diameter) and the required materials, it’s not difficult to imagine that supply chains could be difficult to maintain.

However, this is the Galactic Empire we’re talking about—it has dominion over thousands of planets and trillions of people under its control.  Even while waging a war with the Rebel Alliance, there were plenty of sources for the raw materials.

 

So the real question is, why were there problems with the supply chains?

 

Well, consider that a sizeable portion of the Empire’s resources were sunk in finishing the Death Star.  While it would be logical to assume that, for a project of such importance and magnitude, they would make the acquisition of materials a priority, the fact remains that such a project was a huge drain on the Empire’s resources, considering they also maintained a huge military force.

 

The time factor is important to think about, too.  The first Death Star took 22 years to finish; the second was scheduled to be finished in 4–5 years. Despite considerations that the Empire wasn’t starting from scratch with design and R&D, the obvious obstacle was the increase in size in addition to drastically reducing the project schedule would have put a massive strain on all involved.

 

While we hope most of you don’t have to worry about being force choked on the job if you are unable to meet deadlines, unrealistic timelines are nonetheless a real problem.  While challenging deadlines may encourage employees to rise to the occasion, inversely, unrealistic deadlines will intimidate them and squash their creativity, removing their sense of value.

 

People: The Most Valuable Resource

Although, Moff Jerjarrod worked exhaustively on the Death Star, daily poring over its plans and wading through a sea of endless paperwork.  Nevertheless, he was threatened with death if the Death Star was not completed on time.

Talk about a dead-line!

Which leads us to another issue in which Moff Jerjarrod faced difficulty.  A shortage of workers.  While droids performed the majority of the building, it was still necessary for people to both oversee and repair said droids.  The Empire being a militaristic force, it’s possible that the majority of its able citizens were drafted into the Imperial Military, so we can assume available laborers and craftsmen were few.  The Empire had to maintain a strong military presence in order to control its citizens.

 

The use of fear as a motivator and method of domination was a core principle in the Empire, thanks to a prior Grand Moff, Wilhuff Tarkin.  The problem was, as evidenced by many dictatorships, fear can bring order and discipline—to a point—but there is no love lost between ruler and subjects, and that can lead to downfall as surely as poor planning skills and project management. Check out workerscompensationattorneysacramento.net.

In short, members of the Empire had no real stake in its future; all they had to look forward to was a violent death if they failed their Emperor.  Clearly, the Empire did not buy into the idea that “a person that who feels appreciated will always do more than what is expected.”

 

If the triple bottom line had been implemented, and if the people were encouraged to take an active part in development and were made to feel part of the bigger picture, who knows how far the Empire could have gone?  Alas, the Empire’s disregard for people shorted them in an area they really could not afford.  People who are not valued will not produce value.  But what else would you expect from one of the greatest institutions of galactic evil?

 

Learning from the Past

In addition to its other problems, the Empire seemed to have forgotten that, ultimately, simpler is better.  The terminal fault of the first Death Star, the vulnerable thermal exhaust vent, was reconfigured in the second Death Star.  Instead of one larger vent, there were numerous tiny ones that were heavily armored and could close to avoid any projectiles.  However, the problem was not merely the exhaust vents, but the Empire’s inability to learn from past mistakes.

The loss of the first Death Star was an unprecedented disaster.  The loss of the second one was foolishness on the part of the Empire.  The Rebel Alliance succeeded in destroying the fully operational Death Star, which was capable of movement and complete defense.  Even if its planet-destroying laser could only fire every 24 hours, it had a multitude of other weapons.

The simple truth is that building a second Death Star was a terrible move for the Empire.  If a fully operational one couldn’t survive its first space skirmish, what chance did an incomplete Death Star stand?  It was a black hole, sucking up resources and manpower that could have been allocated for more productive ventures.

Sometimes, the projects that seem promising turn into dead ends, and must be scrapped.  It takes wisdom to make such a decision, but while it can be difficult or disappointing, it’s also an opportunity to learn and grow.

While confidence is not necessarily a bad trait for a business, arrogance often leads to ruin.  Project failure is not an ideal part of business, but it can be incredibly constructive for your business and employees if you can turn it into a learning experience.  Celebrate the individuals you employ; encourage them to take ownership of their work.

 

May Sustainable Practices Be With You

The Empire demonstrated a lack of self-awareness that is crippling; no one seemed to realize the toll their regime took on the galaxy or, indeed, on itself and its own people.  It failed to follow many basics of running a successful venture, including sustainable practices.

Sustainability practices involve frank assessments of a business’s impact on people and the environment.  It is a struggle to better not only your business, but yourself, and encourage your people to do the same.

The Empire failed to overcome basic problems like supply chain breakdowns, budget cuts, and unrealistic deadlines because it had no contingency plan for failure.  It failed to make the most of its most precious resource -its people- because it had no value for its individuals, and it utterly failed to learn from its past mistakes and move past unsuccessful projects.

 

Photo Credit: “Space” by Guillaume Preat permission through C.C. by 2.0

 

Share

 

It’s the question we’ve wondered about since we saw the Star Wars original trilogy. Could the second Death Star have been saved?  What if today’s sustainable practices had been utilized in order to boost production, reduce costs, and make the most efficient use of the available materials?  Would the Empire have won if the Emperor hadn’t passed on false information to the Rebels, thus alerting them to its existence?

What difference would sustainable practices have meant for the Death Star?

Supply Chain Management

One of the problems Moff Tiaan Jerjerrod, the commander in charge of the Death Star’s production, ran into with the Death Star was supply chain breakdown and accompanying budget cuts.  When one considers the size of the Death Star (160 km in diameter) and the required materials, it’s not difficult to imagine that supply chains could be difficult to maintain.  However, this is the Galactic Empire we’re talking about- it has dominion over thousands of planets and trillions of people; even while waging a war with the Rebel Alliance, there were plenty of source for the raw materials.  Not to mention that as a militaristic power that ruled primarily through fear, it would be logical to assume that the Empire could wrest resources from anywhere they pleased.  While the general populace would not have been aware of the Death Star’s existence, they would have been used to the Empire taking what they wanted.  Also, considering that a sizable portion of the Empire’s resources were sunk in finishing the Death Star, it would be logical to assume that for a project of such importance and magnitude, they would make the acquisition of materials a priority.  Additionally, the Death Star was situated to orbit the forest moon of Endor, a rich source of needed elements.  Presumably, they were able to mine their own resources directly from the moon.

However, this brings into play a potential problem with having an object with the mass of the Death Star orbiting the forest moon of Endor.  It’s been speculated that, since the Death Star had to continually be aligned with the bases on the moon in order to keep the shields intact, there would have to be additional propultion on the Death Star to keep it’s orbit constant with the spin of the moon, in addition to keeping a constant distance from the forest moon.  Because the Death Star always occupied that space adjacent to the forest moon, it would have caused both tidal disturbances and possibly quakes on the moon.  THis could have played havoc with the mining efforts on the moon and contributed to the overall shortage of supplies.

Ideally, the Empire would have secured several avenues of resources, and done so in a way that was minimally invasive to the suppliers, cut out any middlemen and minimized the number of hands the goods passed through, and ensured a steady supply of the materials.  Whatever means the Empire used to procure materials, it apparently did none of these things.

People:The Most Valuable Resource

Another issue in which Moff Jerjarrod faced difficulty was a shortage of workers.  While droids performed the majority of the building, it was still necessary for people to both oversee and repair said droids.  The Empire being a militaristic force, it is also possible that the majority of its able people were drafted into the Navy and other military forces, so the number of laborers and craftsmen may have been few and far between.  Also, since the construction of the Death Star was a secret, they were further crippled in their ability to gain workers, since a high level of security was necessary to prevent the premature discovery of the Death Star.  The problem lies not only with the shortage of workers, but also with Moff Jerjarrod and his superiors as well.  A man who worked exhaustively on the Death Star, daily pouring over it’s plans and wading through a sea of endless paperwork, Moff Jerjarrod was nevertheless warned by Darth Vader that unless the Death Star was completed on scheduyle, the wrath of teh Emperor would be forthcoming.  Despite working his men and himself into exhaustion with what he thought of as an impossible task, Moff Jerjarrod did not complete the Death Star by the time the Emperor arrived.

While he was passed over by the Emperor, his inability to complete the project eventually caused the Imperial loss in the Battle of Endor.  However, it is less Moff Jerjarrod’s failing than that of his superior – the Emperor.  The use of fear as a motivator and method of control is an ultimately destructive practice, as evidenced by the Empire.  It can bring order and discipline-to a point- but there is no love lsot between ruler and subjects, and that can lead to downfall as surely as poor planning skills and project management.  The Empire did not buy into the idea that “a person who feels appreciated will always do more than what is expected.”  If the triple bottom line had been implemented, particulary in the ‘people’ area, and people were encouraged to take an active part in development, if they were made to feel part of the bigger picture, who knows how far teh Empire could have gotten?  Alas, the Empire’s disregard for people shorted them in an area they really could not afford.  People who are not valued will not produce value.  But what else would you expect from an insititution founded on one evil man’s idea of total control?

Learning from the Past

In addition to its other problems the Empire seemed to have forgotten that, ultimately, simpler is better  Ther terminal fault of the first Death Star, the vulnerable thermal exhaust vent was reconfigured in the second Death Star.  Instead of one larger vent, there were numerous tiny ones that were heavily armored and could close to avoid any projectiles.  The time required to build the Death Star was also minimized – 4 or 5 years as compared to 22 for the original Death Star – but the original fault of the Empire remained: overconfidence.  The Empire demonstrated a lack of self-awareness that is crippling;no one seemed to realize the toll their regime took on the galaxy or, indeed, on itself and its own people.  The totalitarian Empire is meant to evoke images of Nazism, and it fulfills its purpose.  However, it failed to understand that when evil is rampant, sooner or later, good will rise up to confront it.

Sustainability practices involve frank assessments of a business’s impact on people and the environment.  It is a struggle to better not only your business, but yourself, and encourage your people to do the same.

Would sustainable practices have ensured the completion and survival of the Death Star?  Absolutely.  But in doing so, they would have negated the need for such a weapon.

 

 

Share

Like It Or Not, Sustainability Is Now Core to Your Business

int_brand_983_sa_grlwteacher_hr

 

 

What used to be considered green virtue has now morphed into a crucial competitive tool.

 

That business has a role to play in improving the environment and dealing with climate change is certain. What is much less so is how to do that, and for some, whether to try. After all, companies feel comfortable doing business as usual, and few want to threaten their competitiveness in favor of green virtue.

Our point is that this is not an either or question. A growing number of examples—from diverse industries—show that sustainable business practices can be good for business from the bottom-line up. For example, Unilever (UN -1.70%) has developed washing-up fluids that use less water—and sales are growing fast, particularly in water-scarce markets. And most everyone can name a favorite product or two whose brand is intimately associated with its green credentials. My point is that sustainability can be much more—that it has a role in any and all sectors.

Here are a few examples that McKinsey has been involved with that prove the point. (For confidentiality reasons, we cannot use the company names).

 

⦁ A major brewer identified some 150 possible improvements that could reduce GHG emissions—while saving $200 million over five years.

⦁ When a water utility benchmarked its performance against that of other utilities, it figured out where the biggest opportunities were—in this case energy and chemicals. After four years, the results were in: less leakage, fewer customer complaints—and $178 million in savings—a 25 percent reduction in operating costs.

⦁ A state-owned industrial company in China increased the energy yield of its coal significantly simply by tracking it better, making sure the first mined was the first used. That improved energy efficiency as well as carbon intensity, while reducing costs 13 percent.

The nitty-gritty of sustainability programs can get complicated. But the principles are actually pretty simple—and should be familiar to executives. First, and most important, is to acknowledge that sustainability is serious. The case is not that difficult to make. In a McKinsey survey of 340 executives, more than 90 percent said risk management—whether from consumers, regulators, or the market (for example, high resource prices)—was an important factor in pushing them toward sustainability initiatives, check  chiropractic techniques.
Once the decision is taken, define priorities, set measurable targets, evaluate costs and benefits, and create consistent incentives, including those related to executive compensation. For example, Nike (NKE -2.05%) tracks its suppliers on a range of metrics, including quality, timeliness, cost—and sustainability. Falter for long on any of these, and the consequence is fewer orders. Result: many more suppliers are hitting their sustainability mark. DuPont (DD -1.22%) has no trouble justifying its sustainability initiatives to shareholders: it is generating billions in revenue from products that reduce emissions. Intel (INTC -0.32%) has a dedicated finance analyst whose job is to calculate the value of its sustainability efforts. To reduce emissions and improve other environmental metrics in its food chain, Wal-Mart (WMT -1.48%) tracks not only GHG output, but also yield, water use, and other factors per ton of food produced. In addition to achieving environmental improvements, it cut the price of food and vegetables in the United States by $3.5 billion.

It is important to define targets that are both specific and achievable; it’s better to say “Eliminate X million pounds of packaging,” than the vague “Reduce the footprint of our packaging.” As of August 2014, though, a McKinsey analysis found that only one in five companies in the business marketing 500 had explicit, long-term sustainability goals, even though more than a third (36 percent) said sustainability was a top-three priority.

The larger point is this. Real sustainability efforts are core business efforts; because they are not always easy, they can help a company to raise its game and perform better in all kinds of ways. In mid-2014, McKinsey did a study that found a strong correlation between resource efficiency and financial performance; the companies with the most advanced sustainability strategies did best of all. In a study for the Harvard Business School that drew similar conclusions (higher return on equity and assets for higher-sustainability companies), the authors concluded, “developing a corporate culture of sustainability may be a source of competitive advantage in the long run.”

To think of sustainability as a niche gets it wrong. To do it right, companies need to be rigorous, goal-oriented, and accountable. The evidence is building not only that sustainability initiatives work, but that they are an important factor in creating long-term value.

 

Jeremy Oppenheim is a director of McKinsey & Company, based in London and a global leader in the Sustainability & Resource Productivity network. In 2014, he served as program director for the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. Martin Stuchtey is Director of the McKinsey Center for Business & Environment and is based in Munich.

Share

You’ve Been Thinking About Plastics All Wrong

plastic
Photo Credit: Carlos Jasso/Reuters

 

 

By Jeff Wooster

Plastics are an indispensable part of our lives today, and recent advances in material science have delivered truly amazing products from dissolving heart stents to lifesaving air bags to smart packaging that both protects our food and warns us when it’s about to be “past its prime.”

But over time, and with plastic being used in a growing number of products, some people have come to believe that these modern materials have greater environmental impacts than the materials they are replacing.

Is this true? Simply put, no – according to a comprehensive new study on the comparative environmental impacts of plastics.

A new study by the environmental consulting firm Trucost, “Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement,” is based on natural capital accounting methods. This methodology measures and calculates the value of environmental impacts—such as consumption of water and emissions to air, land, and water—that typically are not factored into traditional financial accounting.

The findings likely will surprise many. The study finds that the environmental cost of using alternative materials is four times more than that of using plastics. Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to a whopping $533 billion annually. That’s primarily because strong, lightweight plastics help us do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the entire life of products and packaging.

dow chemicalDavid McNew/Getty Images

These results disrupt the commonly accepted narrative around plastics—the assumption that traditional materials have less environmental impact. In fact, these findings stand that assumption on its head.

The study builds on earlier research by Trucost for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that looked at the environmental costs of using plastics. That study did not ask: compared to what? In other words, since we need cars, packaging, electronics, and other consumer goods, what would be the impact of using materials other than plastics to make them? The new study answers that question.

Everything we do impacts the environment, whether simply breathing air, mining bauxite, or harvesting trees. The Trucost study takes a comprehensive look at these impacts and their costs. It looks at the entire life cycle of products and packaging—from extraction to disposal—and gives us a fuller look at the overall environmental impacts.

Natural capital cost accounting is similar to life cycle analyses, which is now accepted as the most comprehensive way to assess the impacts of materials, products, and packaging. To help ensure that the study’s methodology and data were sound, the results were reviewed by two of the most respected practitioners of life cycle studies—Denkstatt in Europe and Franklin Associates in the US.

By comparing the environmental costs of various materials we use, and by using decision-making tools made possible by these studies, we can make better decisions.

For example, the study will help consumer product companies and policymakers make smarter decisions about what we produce and how we produce it. By understanding the environmental impacts of the materials used to make car bumpers, food containers, electronics, and athletic wear, we can transparently enhance sustainability and reduce our impacts on the environment. In other words, this study can help drive informed policies that deliver greater benefits to people and the planet.

While comparing environmental impacts is critical, we must dig deeper. We also need to reduce those impacts. The report’s authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental cost, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb ocean litter and conserve resources.

They also called for enhanced environmental leadership by the plastics industry, noting that the industry has “direct influence, or indirect influence… over a significant share of the environmental costs of plastic use… (and) is well positioned to play an enhanced leadership role in driving improvements in the environmental performance of the plastics value chain.” The plastics industry has embraced this challenge and has committed to ongoing innovations that will advance sustainability across major market sectors and the globe.

This new study helps provide the clearest and most comprehensive picture to date of the relative environmental costs and benefits of plastics compared to alternative materials. And by providing a path forward to further reduce these relative costs, the study provides valuable insights into how these materials can even further contribute to sustainability.

Jeff Wooster is global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Products and chair of the American Chemistry Council’s packaging team.  The Trucost study may be found here .

*Article originally posted in the Business Insider, July 29, 2016

Share

The Benefits of Sustainable Manufacturing

By Jerry Jasinowski, Fmr. President of the National Association of Manufacturers

If there is one salient feature of U.S. manufacturing today even more dramatic and promising than the growing re-shoring trend, it is surely the shift to sustainable manufacturing which is transforming the manufacturing landscape even as it boosts corporate earnings and fosters diverse innovation.

My interest in this topic began with the teachings of W. Edwards Deming whose revolution in quality improvement consistently stressed that “one must learn to do more with less.” I also found my contact with young people evoked a consistent theme that they wanted to improve the environment and give back to their community. Based on this, I proposed to the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University where I am on the Board of Trustees that they undertake a project to focus on the positive activities corporations are taking in this area. This led to a new report, “Success Paths to Sustainable Manufacturing,” which you can access here.

Our research focused on 12 prominent corporations including Caterpillar, DuPont, Eli Lilly, Proctor & Gamble and General Dynamics that are in the forefront of the sustainability movement. We looked for core themes that enabled the companies to embrace sustainability successfully, and cited numerous examples of those successes.

There are many obvious means for achieving sustainable manufacturing such as reducing use of energy, reducing use of water, decreasing emissions from manufacturing processes and reducing physical waste. And there are myriad benefits — demonstrating a company’s commitment to community and stakeholders, meeting regulatory requirements and consumer expectations, earning awards and positive media coverage and attracting a new generation of bright young people into manufacturing careers. Others include creating wildlife habitats, deploying renewable energy production at plants, turning waste into revenue streams and improving communities where manufacturing facilities are located.

Of course, there is also a more crass and fundamental reason — money. Reducing consumption of energy and water and production of waste by definition saves an enterprise money, sometimes lots of money.

One of the companies reported that while growing 40 percent over the past 15 years, it had saved about $7 billion through sustainable manufacturing practices. Another firm reduced its manufacturing footprint in North America from 15 million square feet to 5 million square feet, even as the company grew, which reduced its bills for energy and real estate while increasing operational efficiency. Yet another has embarked upon a campaign to reduce its energy use by 20 percent by 2020 saving $80 million a year. And still another eliminated 14 hazardous waste streams, reducing its annual waste disposal tab from $750,000 to $40,000 in one year.

It goes without saying that initiatives like these also generate positive reactions among the public, increasing the likelihood that environmentally conscious young people will pursue careers in progressive manufacturing firms. Sustainable manufacturing is a wave of the future.

 

Originally posted in the Huffington Post, December 2014 

Jerry Jasinowski, an economist and author, served as President of the National Association of Manufacturers for 14 years and later The Manufacturing Institute. 

Share

Revisiting Mr. Ford

ford-model-t

 

I was chatting with my 11-year old Grandson, Alex recently.  I always find these discussions illuminating.  You see, Alex has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.  If you are familiar with children who have this disorder, you know that amidst significant social challenges, there can be this ribbon of super intelligence that presents itself when you least expect it.

So there we were, sitting side by side, me reading from my Kindle and he playing with some angry birds on his I-pad, when he asks me, “So, what are you working on at EPA now, Pop-Pop?”

I reply, “Oh, I don’t know, Alex, I guess I’m working on solving a puzzle of sorts.  We are trying to bring people together as a team and help people in this country who make things.  We want to help manufacturers make things that are better for them, better for you and better for the environment.”

He was quiet for a moment and I thought that perhaps I had given him TMI.  Ha!  He was just processing.

“You mean like Henry Ford when he invented the assembly line process for making cars”, he says, as he twists his I-pod to launch a particularly elusive angry bird.

“Yes, I replied, “like that.  It is hard sometimes to get the right people together and solve problems as a team.”

At this point, he put the I-pod down and I thought the conversation was over.  He popped up and announced that he was going to play on the computer.  As he left the room, he looked back at me and said, “Well, for a puzzle like that, why don’t you think like Henry Ford?”

I smiled and returned to my Kindle when I paused and then realized that Alex was right.

Over the last several decades we have become so specialized as a society that, perhaps, we have allowed it to affect the way we think.  As a result, when we address issues like jobs, advanced technology or preventing pollution as they pertain to American manufacturing, we typically confer with those in our peer groups, thought-leaders, if you will, assigned to one station within an assembly line. This may have worked well in the past, but I’m not sure it will work to solve problems illuminated for us by this new concept of sustainability.

We cannot redesign a headlight without first making sure the automobile chassis has been re-constructed to accept it.  Similarly, we cannot expect innovative ideas associated with advanced technology to be accepted by American manufacturers if they are not yet ready to pursue them.

What I’m suggesting here is that to be successful in helping American manufacturers thrive in this new era of sustainability, we need to turn traditional thinking on its side and engage with those in the sustainability assembly line with whom we traditionally have not.  Perhaps, this is why the E3: Economy, Energy and the Environment framework has been so successful.

Food for thought.

This post was originally posted on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) BlogTom Murray joined EPA way back in 1971 and has never lost the passion for pollution prevention and helping manufacturers become more sustainable

Share

Welcome to the new blog for SES Inc.

We’re thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, here at SES Inc.  We are passionate about sustainable energy solutions and passing the savings along to you. Our YouTube channel is completely dedicated to sustainable energy and development themes and subscribers and comments for it are provided from our trusted partner. We’ve had the great pleasure of providing services for outstanding clients such as Fleet Farm, Gander Mountain, Colliers International, and even our very own Minnesota Twins.

You won’t want to miss out on all of our industry tips!

Sign up via email for the latest posts for more Sustainable Energy Savings!

Share