RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
The Dispatch wrote
Is Columbus a green city?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
BY ROBERT VITALE AND MARK FERENCHIK
In 2005, Mayor Coleman issued a set of directives that put Columbus on the same path as many Americans who’ve tried to reduce, reuse and recycle in an era of growing concern for the environment. With what’s now called his “Green Memo,” Coleman ordered city government to use less energy, toss out less trash, buy more recycled products, and adopt more environmentally friendly ways of constructing roads and buildings.
The city would encourage green businesses with tax breaks and contracting preferences, according to the plan. It would push private developers toward greener construction with incentives and new rules. Columbus has made notable progress in the ensuing three years, if not the “light-years” leap that Coleman boasts.
Even the city’s recycling, which he described as “pitiful” a few years ago, has improved, Coleman said. Now, he laughs, “It’s just embarrassing.”
According to a survey by the trade journal Waste News, Columbus’ recycling rate ranked 21st among the nation’s 30 biggest cities. “As a community, we have to do more,” the mayor said. “People need to take initiative themselves, regardless of government.”
Related Stories:
- Columbus to stop footing cost of curbside recycling
- SWACO reporting recycling records set in 2007
+1
Is it just me or does this whole focus on “green” seem like more of a marketing strategy (i.e. bandwagon) than a genuine interest in conservative consumption?
… I could use some heathy perspective on this (just don’t have the answer)
Well I was just going to respond with “Dawon Hawkins, posting machine,”
but since you said something dear to my heart (my heart where grievances are held anyway) thank you for saying that.
I liken it to any business in Columbus with a marquee and Go Bucks.
How the product is green, whether the company has actually made steps to do anything for the environment has to happen in EVERY commercial now.
This reminds me, I need to go visit the pet peeves thread.
First thought that comes to mind: Was this memo printed on recycled paper which was then tossed into the recycling bins in government buildings labeled “Paper Only” – while ALL other recyclable waste is IGNORED?
It’s not only still pitiful and embarassing – it is a pathetic disgrace. How dare Columbus try to tout itself as a “green city” when recycling costs money and garbage service is free. ASS backwards.
Exactly. It’s nice that many many people ARE indeed trying. But until the city takes the initiative to regulate and require environmentally responsible operation we are most definitely more of a baby poop after pea-soup green. Go us! :roll:
YES!!!! Preach it! +10000 In fact – go for the gold and DO BOTH.
Sorry – in the 5 minutes it took to post this I could have taken my recycling to Kroger, gone for a bike ride, or done something else positive. I’m just peeved because I am in our nation’s largest higher learning institution right now and every building I enter lacks recycling bins. On average I am lucky to find ONE in a 5 story building. :cry:
… I could use some heathy perspective on this (just don’t have the answer)
You bring up a great point. Allowing the term “green” to be hijacked and freely manipulated as a marketing tool poses a threat to the progress of the entire movement/mindset because it undermines the term, people involved, well-meaning companies and marketers, framework and goals and encourages distrust. It is one thing to work hard to set up a system of regulations and create incentives for businesses to change their operations in a way that still allows them to follow their strategies and make a profit. It is quite another thing to encourage the overuse of a term until it eventually no longer holds its core meaning or fails to get attention.
In a time when people are extremely weary of being mislead and used by consumer-devouring corporations, the widespread use of a well-intentioned term works against the honest and deeply important backbone of a movement to simply get people to put more energy into caring about the environment and communities in which they live. Someone who isn’t taking efforts to educate herself on ways to reduce her impact, recycle, use alternative means of transport, or support local business can still feel like she is part of the cool crowd with the shiny bright green label because she bought one product from WalMart that claims to offset its carbon emissions in China and drove it home in a brand new SUV.
I don’t mean to rant but this became close to my heart while marketing for OxFam. At first I thought that the term becoming popular, thanks to products and media jumping on the band wagon, would help to spread the word to people who aren’t connected to these issues and make learning about it more accesible. But we seem to be at a point in the era of advertising where it is easier for someone wanting to do their part to think about buying a brand new hybrid (that uses batteries destroying the ozone over their Canadian factory) than it is to just sign up for onstreet recycling.