Interesting article on Ecover today. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/ecover-eco-factory.php
What is interesting about it is that it's a green product, trying to do good and completely in line with my personal philosophy that the only way we're going to do good is if it can also be profitable.
What's interesting is that everyone likes to focus on the negatives of a nasty polluting organisation, but also, everyone wants to focus on the negatives of a lovely eco brand like ecover (such as 1 non e friendly chemical).
In the article it uses the example of a mouse on an elephants bottom. Let's not focus on the mouse until we've addressed the elephant. And I completely agree. Why is it that journalists have a compulsion to report and we have a compulsion to find interesting negatives, even on those trying to do good? If wind-farms require oil to lubricate the turbines, or a hybrid isn't as efficient as a smaller run around, or if a famous environmentalist takes a ride to a conference on a plane we all focus on the negatives and forget (seemingly) the good.
Perhaps it's because the brands are built on squeaky clean eco lovliness and we feel our trust is violated, or perhaps we just like seeing do gooders mess up?
But the thing I definately like is the elephant.
Ok, we can bitch about hybrids not being as efficent as they could be, the expensive and dangerous chemicals rechargeable batteries use, the inefficicency of certain solar power, etc, etc - but at least someone is trying, and at least it's better than nothing. Of course I guess if there was no consumer demand for eco-perfection then the manufacturers wouldn't strive to improve?