Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (0)

“Green” and “Sustainable”
November 2, 2007

Inside Furniture writer “trenchant marketing communicator”, Ivan Saul Cutler, has a thought provoking piece about Green  and High Point Market.

If I heard the phrase “planned obsolescence” once, I heard it many times during October’s High Point Market. In fact, the sell-anything-who-cares crowd has always embraced a throw-away furniture ethic.

Susan Dickenson, Retail Editor Home Accents Today wrote World Market Center and the Sustainable Furniture Council are partnering to present a series of retailer-focused educational seminars during the Las Vegas Market, Jan. 28–Feb. 1, 2008.  They are looking for retailers who are … looking to transform their business to a more environmentally friendly.

She continues, quoting the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability, “The race is on and the best margins go to the early adopters. Recent figures show the sustainable products market is exploding with 20-75 % long term annual growth in certified organic products, certified green buildings and homes, FSC certified wood and certified sustainable products.”

I want to tread lightly here. “Green” and “sustainable”, in my opinion, are not compatible with “planned obsolescence” or bashing America.  Sure, furniture sales would be brisker if furniture was disposable after a short time, and you may want that sofa buyer of five years ago to come back because the last one you sold this customer is worn out.  However, we do our planet no favor by filling our garbage dumps with furniture from five years ago.  That’s not practicing “green”

What’s wrong with a well-built piece that can be passed down from one generation to the next.  Good design always is in style.  My first wife inherited a hand made, round oak pedestal table and an oak piece with a drawer on the bottom, a standing mirror and hatbox dresser on the side.  Now one of the girls has these pieces.  

The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability has words in its mission statement to the effect that if the industrial world consumes the natural environment and drives it to extinction a large part of the world's fauna and flora will be lost.   I couldn’t agree more.  (I think we should thank the animals and the other living creatures for their sacrifices, so that we can live as we do, or at least treat our planet with more respect.)

 Unfortunately, the Institute goes off course by bringing up politics: “Even conservative bipartisan leaders like David Gergen support an aggressive response:

[We] must move swiftly. � With only 5 percent of the planet’s population, we account for one quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. �. The United States is not living up to its responsibilities as a steward of the Earth."  

Aside from the fact that the use of the word ”Even” is derogatory and a stereotype, many would argue that Gergen is not a conservative.   America has done more than most countries in cleaning smokestack emissions, protecting endangered species, and cleaning up our rivers and air.  Of course, we can do more.  The point is India and China, with a combined population of 2.5 Billion, want what we have and they are way behind us when it comes to protecting their environments. 



The NY Times recently reported that that in 2003, more than half of the CO2 emissions in the world came from the U.S. and China.  If present trends continue, by 2025, China would produce twice as much as the U.S.  We will not make friends with half our customers if we belittle America.

Green and sustainable can have a greater meaning if we share and promote our concern for the environment with those coming up behind us.  What better way to be “steward of the Earth.”

Thoughts on “Green” or “Sustainable”?  Email them to landfair3554@comcast.net

Posted by Mike Landfair on November 2, 2007 | Comments (0)