22 March, 2008
Hey Steve-
I have submitted all the required paperwork to allow us to be considered a "green" business. Having done that, I feel that I have to point out a couple things, just to assuage this vaguely guilty sensation I have acquired since faxing that document.
For one thing, we are a tiny business, and even though the corporate officers don't like to admit it, we can't really afford to be green. The processes we would have to put in place to truly minimize our 'carbon footprint' would put us even more out of business than we already are. Changing our electrical system, updating our inefficient equipment, installing scrubbers and filters, using non-toxic materials- and administratively keeping track of the documentation for these improvements- this stuff is all financially unfeasible for us.
And the other thing is that the way we have defined our 'greenness' is actually a backward description of our polluting policy. It is true that our size makes us much less 'toxic' than our full-scale cousins in the Aerospace Industry. But that condition in itself does not make us cleaner as we stated in the documents. And it is true that almost all of our material is found on the streets, taken from dumpsters, donated by other polluters, or just re-used stuff from other projects, and yes, if we actually bought all that crap it would contribute to the pollution that comes from overconsumption- but we still are processing the material, creating toxic plumes or organic vapor, putting large quantities of the material back into the waste stream, and using extra energy to process unusual items, such as refurbishing machines found at garbage dumps.
The biggest worry for me is the ultimate use that our products are put to. On the forms we indicated that since we aren't actually able to get our spacecraft into space, we are actually helping to clean the environment. However, the manufacture of these elaborate devices that go into our missions doesn't seem to have as much of a purpose when they just sit around or appear in some art gallery or person's bathroom.
I think our motto 'doing less with more' could be misconstrued by the authorities, who I predict will see right through our cynical ploy to get this "Green" designation. I for one suggest we continue polluting in the open until our activities are legislated out of existence. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Oh, I liked that last tweet of yours, by the way.
-s
BPL Environmental Control
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Brooklyn Navy Yard
CONFIDENTIAL
Hey Steve-
I have submitted all the required paperwork to allow us to be considered a "green" business. Having done that, I feel that I have to point out a couple things, just to assuage this vaguely guilty sensation I have acquired since faxing that document.
For one thing, we are a tiny business, and even though the corporate officers don't like to admit it, we can't really afford to be green. The processes we would have to put in place to truly minimize our 'carbon footprint' would put us even more out of business than we already are. Changing our electrical system, updating our inefficient equipment, installing scrubbers and filters, using non-toxic materials- and administratively keeping track of the documentation for these improvements- this stuff is all financially unfeasible for us.
And the other thing is that the way we have defined our 'greenness' is actually a backward description of our polluting policy. It is true that our size makes us much less 'toxic' than our full-scale cousins in the Aerospace Industry. But that condition in itself does not make us cleaner as we stated in the documents. And it is true that almost all of our material is found on the streets, taken from dumpsters, donated by other polluters, or just re-used stuff from other projects, and yes, if we actually bought all that crap it would contribute to the pollution that comes from overconsumption- but we still are processing the material, creating toxic plumes or organic vapor, putting large quantities of the material back into the waste stream, and using extra energy to process unusual items, such as refurbishing machines found at garbage dumps.
The biggest worry for me is the ultimate use that our products are put to. On the forms we indicated that since we aren't actually able to get our spacecraft into space, we are actually helping to clean the environment. However, the manufacture of these elaborate devices that go into our missions doesn't seem to have as much of a purpose when they just sit around or appear in some art gallery or person's bathroom.
I think our motto 'doing less with more' could be misconstrued by the authorities, who I predict will see right through our cynical ploy to get this "Green" designation. I for one suggest we continue polluting in the open until our activities are legislated out of existence. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Oh, I liked that last tweet of yours, by the way.
-s
