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.

This question comes up a lot in my work with regards to food, “So, what matters most to consumers? Organic, natural or local?”…Local has definitely become a nuanced new form of patriotism, a chance to support your neighbors rather than the “man”, a chance to keep your monies close by and invested in your own community.   I  personally have taken to washing my greens a bit extra in order to support the farmer 20 miles from Seattle over the folks at Earthbound farms. I also take note of companies like Chipotle  – large companies that still let me feel local… Chipotle announced that it expects to use more than 10 million pounds of produce from local farms this year, up from its 2010 goal of about 5 million pounds. Chipotle’s local produce will be grown on farms within 350 miles of the restaurants where it will be served. They also recently produced this lovely little ad that’s worth a watch….

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?