Shiny Green Button

I’m a writer by trade, so I go through a fair amount of pens. I hate tossing dead ones in the trash, but there’s really no good alternative. Until now:

Sharpie, Paper Mate and EXPO have formed a partnership with TerraCycle  to repurpose used pens, markers and other writing instruments. Touted as the world’s first program to collect and reuse writing instruments, the partnership will also help raise funds for schools, charities and non-profits nationwide, as well as reduce waste headed for landfills.

Each pen recovered is worth 2 cents to the school, community group, charity or nonprofit organization of the participant’s choice. Drop locations will be set up at corporations and schools. Shipping is prepaid. And then returned pens will be upcycled to make new products.

Not to reduce it to a crude formula, but there’s a lot to like about this program. It’s simple for anyone to participate. There’s an incentive. It covers both environmental and social angles. It’s got the backing of companies. And it’s got economic upside for TerraCycle.

That’s a story that can virtually write itself.

Just wish I’d thought of it first.

Photo credit: tiffanywashko on Flickr

This past Tuesday, I arrived home to find a box on my front stoop. It contained two brand new SIGG water bottles, and a letter that began like this:

Thank you for your participation in our SIGG Voluntary Exchange Program.

We understand that you may not have heard from us as often as you may have wished during the process – and may have had to wait an extended time for your new SIGG bottle. We can assure you it was not due to a lack of effort on our part. We are a small company (15 people in the USA) and this program has been a huge undertaking for us. We truly appreciate your patience and understanding.

My AHA! cohort Shelby posted back in October about how SIGG has bungled their communication around the BPA content of their water bottles. And I have to admit, I was a pretty frustrated customer when I returned my water bottle only to wait months to get my replacement. But this letter (and the bonus bottle!) went a long way to make me a SIGG fan again. Here’s why:

1. It fesses up. I’m immediately more receptive when a company doesn’t claim they are perfect.

2. It shows they care. They tried. They really did.

3. It’s human. Fifteen people were all they had to deal with this PR and product take-back nightmare! Wow. I feel for them.

The letter does one last smart thing in its conclusion: it encourages me to pass on my extra bottle to a friend in order to help more people kick the bottled water habit. Nice. More SIGG fans for them, and a free way for me to feel like I’m doing a good thing.

Three keynotes, three stories
I kicked off my CES hearing Ford’s CEO Alan Mulally talk loosely and repeatedly about innovation. It was comparable to a behemoth company in a staid industry that notoriously stymies innovation telling a different, highly innovative industry that, what do you know, innovation is essential. Actually, it wasn’t comparable to that. It was that.
Takeaway: Apparently there’s a revolution going on, and it has something to do with a Ford Taurus and hands-free parallel parking.

Intel’s Paul Otellini closed out Wednesday with show-and-tell. He showed us how to shoot 3D home movies, that my clothes will apparently be chosen by an in-store computer and that someday everything really will be connected … in 3D. Basically, 3D will save the tech world—the more complex the content, the more processing power needed.
Takeaway: The revolution will require a lot of processors.

Best in show goes to Nokia’s Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. In a nutshell: The developing nations have different needs than the developed world. If we continue to throw the same gadgets (mobile phones in Nokia’s case) designed for customers in Tokyo at customers in Kandahar, nothing good will come of it. Bad business is bad for people. Good business is good for people.
Takeaway: If we don’t listen to the people, there really will be a revolution.

Green machines
It was hard to tell at times, but sustainability is on the mind of the industry. Several key players devoted whole sections of their booths to eco-conscious solutions. The catch is that these “green” displays were all too often about potential solutions and not about real products. It’s great that a company, Panasonic for instance, has developed super-light, energy-saving insulation. But what does that mean if it’s not being used in any products? It’s especially deflating when, just five feet over, the TV exhibit is sapping enough juice to power a small planetary system.

There were a few companies with interesting eco products, though. My fave: Miniwiz. Their portable, compact solar- and wind-powered chargers looked both useful and, more importantly, cool. They get added points for their Solarbulb, a gadget that stores and then uses solar power to act as a lamp and a water sterilizer.
Takeaway: Energy efficiency is cool, but nobody is doing anything revolutionary, especially compared with those awesome 3D TVs.

Did I mention 3D?
CES’s main message was basically this: 3D TV is real, it’s here and it’s pretty amazing, regardless that it’s expensive and there’s hardly any 3D content and you have to wear goofy, disorienting glasses. I couldn’t really tell one 3D TV apart from another 3D TV. What made the biggest difference was what the TV was showing. Nature docs and movies? Meh. Sports and video games? OMG. And I wasn’t alone in this reaction. Any 3D TV showing mountains and underwater scenes had a handful of viewers. Those with 3D sports or video games could have been mistaken for Lady Gaga from all the attention they got.
Takeaway: The revolution will be televised … in 3D.

Photo credit: The Plan8 Podcast on Flickr

We’ll be tweeting our 140-character observations of the trends, technology and speakers at CES 2010. You can follow our tweets at http://twitter.com/AHAwriters. We’ll also compile much of what we observed about communications and sustainability into a couple blog posts here on Shiny Green Button.

Photo credit: tonystl on Flickr

Consider this potential solution to global warming: the Stratoshield or “hose to the sky.” The Stratoshield was proposed by a collection of scientists, engineers and intellectuals at a company called Intellectual Ventures, funded by some of the world’s largest Fortune 500 companies.

An overly simplified explanation: Take a long hose. Attach it to large balloons. Float it up to the stratosphere. Use it to pump sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Block the sun’s rays. Reduce the earth’s temperature. Save the polar bears. Of course, it’s much more complicated than this, but that’s the gist.

Opponents say it’s too simple, too easy, too cheap and targets the symptoms of global warming rather than the cause. Supporters say it’s simple, easy, cheap and targets the symptoms of global warming rather than the much more daunting cause.

Hmmm…

When I first heard the idea, I thought it was crazy. But then something happened to change my view. A brand that I have interest in—Freakonomics—presented the idea as if it were totally valid. After I read that Freakonomics authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner supported the Stratoshield in their new book, Superfreakonomics, the idea went from “crazy” to “a legitimate solution,” all because it gained the power of a brand I enjoy.

But my brand-influenced shift didn’t end there. In this same book, another brand that I respect—the brand of Al Gore—opposes the idea. Al Gore thinks the Stratoshield is crazy.

So, here’s a breakdown of how my stance shifted in the time it took to read a few pages.

1. Seems a little out there, but whatever. (Intellectual Ventures? Who are they?)

2. This is starting to make perfect sense! (Freakonomics! I know those guys!)

3. Wait, is this idea crazy? (Al Gore says so, and he’s, like, the patron saint of saving the earth!)

I like to think otherwise, but maybe this just means I’m fickle and easily influenced. Even if that’s the case, it’s worth remembering that I’m not alone. Progress is made, products are sold and ideas are accepted, not always because of their necessity, value or worth, but because of who is selling them.