The Platform Group Gallery manufactures ecologically friendly packaging - every item in the galleryboard packaging line is made from 100% recycled content. We use top-sheets that are environmentally friendly and colored with chlorine-free dyes. We conduct ourselves as much as possible in a green fashion -- emailing invoices, vs. faxing and mailing -- reading documents from our computers. vs. printing -- recycling paper for multiple use, etc etc. We keep the AC on as high a setting as is feasibly possible in Houston TX and we consolidate our inbound freight as much as possible to conserve fuel.
All of us in the company practice green behavior in our personal lives as well -- driving Mini's, biking when possible, limiting shopping trips, etc etc.
It is necessary for us all to conserve to make a difference in the environment and reverse damaging trends.
But truly there is a bigger opportunity than conservation -- and that is development of new approaches to energy. Here is a summary of a discussion I had recently with my father -- a veteran of the oil industry and now the CEO of a nanotechnology firm.
"....the real issue is not conservation--it is the development of new
energy sources. We have an abundance of energy available to us. We
have just been too stupid, lazy, arrogant to pursue sensible
alternatives. The high cost of energy now is the best thing that could
happen as far as actually solving the problem. Without doubt, the
transition from low cost energy to higher cost energy has and will
continue to be painful for our country and for many people, but it
still is the best incentive. I only wish we had created the current
prices 20-30 years ago by putting a major tax on energy, a $3.00 per
gallon tax on gasoline, for example. That money, if used to support
real scientific study, may very well have gotten us away from the
dependence on the Middle East. Instead, we have paid that same amount
to the OPEC countries. It would be difficult to think of a worse
approach.
Here are some facts that I am rather certain about. There are
coal reserves to last probably more than 100 years. Coal has numerous
problems--it contains sulfur, various metals and produces more carbon
dioxide than any other hydrocarbon fuel. That sounds awful, but these
problems are solvable. The sulfur, metals and related materials can be
captured, at a cost for sure, but they can be removed. The carbon
dioxide can also be captured, although it is not yet clear how to
handle such high volumes. That is where scientific research comes in.
It would seem impossible to me that these problems can not be solved.
Nuclear is a second alternative. People worry about the danger,
but, in fact, the waste generation from a nuclear electrical power
plant is not so large that it can not be handled. A plant in south
Texas which has been operating for 20 years has generated nuclear waste
which would approximately fill a swimming pool, according to what they
told Rick Smalley (winner Nobel Prize for Bucky Balls - Nanotechnology) a few years ago. That is a problem but not an
insurmountable one. Waste of this magnitude can be protected from
terrorists. Simply collect the waste from multiple plants, store it in
a single location, and guard it. Surely this would be better than
sending those potential guards to Iraq. Nuclear is not the total
answer because uranium supplies are decreasing, but it could be a major
factor.
There still are tremendous reserves of heavy oil and remote
natural gas around the world. It is difficult to recover much of the
oil, and it is not clear that the issues are worth it. The natural gas
in remote locations could be straight-forward, however, if we could
convert it to electricity in place and transport the electricity long
distances by wire. That is not possible now, but carbon nanotubes have
the potential to solve that problem. This is a problem which will
almost certainly have to be solved regardless of how we move forward.
Electricity is almost certainly the most viable power for the future.
Most people do not want a coal or nuclear electricity generating plant
near their home, so the best answer will be to build them in remote
locations away from population centers and then transport the
electricity to cities. To do that, we need materials with high
conductivity and low weight--that is carbon nanotubes. We also will
need ways to store the electricity during non-peak utilization, and
those could be relatively small batteries or fuel cells located at
houses or business locations.
The ultimate solution must surely be solar energy, where resources
are infinite. Every moment of every day, there are 165,000 terrawatts
of power hitting the earth. To put that in perspective, the world
consumption of energy in 2004 was the equivalent of 14.5 terrawatts.
By 2050, the world will require 60 terrawatts of energy equivalent,
assuming that the countries which are now underdeveloped reach the same
standards as the rest of the world. So, solar can provide the energy.
The issue, of course, is that we are not capable of converting this
sunlight to electricity in an economically efficient manner. It has
been estimated that, at 10% conversion efficiency, one could supply 20
terrawatts of electrical power using 6 square spaces of land
strategically located around the world for collection, with each space
being about 60 miles on each side. This problem is solvable if
sufficient research is put on it.
The U.S. has the best scientists in the world, although that is
beginning to change, but we have them directed toward issues which mean
virtually nothing. For example, for energy, we are focusing on making
ethanol from corn. It would be hard to think of a dumber idea. Not
too long ago, George Bush announced that the cornerstone for future
energy would be hydrogen generation. That rivals ethanol from corn for
stupidity. It may be a valuable component of an energy solution as a
way of storing energy, but it can not be a way of creating a new energy
source. Hydrogen exists primarily in hydrocarbons--oil, gas, coal--so
it doesn't solve anything to use that. Of course, hydrogen is also
abundant in the structure of water, and it is conceivable to capture
it. But I wouldn't bet on that route for long term viability.
Once the U.S. realizes that we have a major energy problem, I hope
we will devote the resources to solve it. There is no question that we
can, and, in my mind, there is no question that it will be good for the
country and all of us. This has the potential to be another Manhattan
Project or another Space Exploration Project of the 1960s. Both of
these projects were hugely successful and also had a spectacular side
effect. They created such an interest in science, that a generation of
students chose science fields for their career. The result was rapid
scientific development in hundreds of areas and, without question,
leadership from the U.S. for both the development of scientists and
scientific development.
Right now, we have the reverse of this. Other countries are
producing far more scientists, many of them still from U.S. schools but
going back to their country of origin. This has risks at least equal
to those of depending on the Middle East for oil. I feel certain that
a drive to solve the energy problem would be the best thing that could
happen to the U.S. And, if/when we are successful, abundant energy
will mean the solutions or major progress toward solution of many of
our major concerns--poverty, food production, water, etc.
None of this will be done without major cost, the cost to do the
research and development and the cost of future energy. It is unlikely
that we will ever have low cost energy again. Alternative forms can
not compete with low cost energy, but, also, low cost energy is not
sustainable. And, as long as it is sustained, there will be no long
term solution.
This is probably more than you ever wanted to know. But I feel
strongly that the transition we are now going through is a normal one
and also an inevitable process. I could even argue that conservation
just prolongs the issue. I won't argue that because conservation is
good for so many reasons--saving money, reducing pollution, etc. But I
will state that both the energy and the pollution issues can be solved
if we go after them. And I will also state that we will not go after
them until we have to. The economic reality of the Wall Street Journal
will prevail. I don't like it that they are right, but they are. We
will not solve this problem until we must.
The June edition of ASI's Advantage magazine highlights a just of few of the efforts in the promotional products industry to support important community organizations. The Platform Group Gallery is included in the feature.
