As I'm writing this, we're hours away from the launch of Greener By Design 2009, and a lot of people are asking me, in effect, "Why would you do a conference on green product design during a recession?"
It's a good question, but a bit misguided -- that is, it's based on ages-old assumptions that environmentally preferable products are, by nature, a costly luxury for both producers and consumers. It assumes that in order to be green, a product must make sacrifices, or cost more, or be otherwise undesirable. There's some justification to these assumptions: In the early days of green products, this was indeed the case.
But there's a deeper rationale for integrating green thinking into product design, manufacturing, use, and disposal: It's become an expectation in some sectors. That's certainly true in the information technology world, for example. Customers -- at least corporate and institutional customers -- expect that electronic equipment will use less energy, contain minimal toxic components, and will be easy to recycle, if not actually to upgrade and keep in service. It's pointless to make an IT product these days that doesn't have a green story to tell. (Our sister site, GreenerComputing.com, reports week in and week out on developments in this arena.)
Beyond that are the growing legal implications of making products or materials that aren't up to society's expectations about environmental and human health. This week, Dr. Richard Liroff, executive director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (and one of the speakers at this week's conference), tells Managing Editor Matthew Wheeland about the legal and shareholder implications of designing products without regard to environmental considerations.
We'll be reporting on the proceedings at Greener By Design in the coming days and weeks. Stay tuned for blogs, videos, feature articles, and Twitter tweets. There will be a lot to share, I promise.