http://forums.industryweek.com en Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:54:22 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.industryweek.com/IWImages/misc/rss.jpg http://forums.industryweek.com http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/ZQ-AqHBZtNM/showthread.php Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:58:18 GMT Although health care and Afghanistan seem to be dominating the news lately, there is some fascinating, if underreported, news concerning the environment lately. For instance, did you know that the single best thing you can do to prevent the spread of global warming is to stop eating meat and become... Although health care and Afghanistan seem to be dominating the news lately, there is some fascinating, if underreported, news concerning the environment lately. For instance, did you know that the single best thing you can do to prevent the spread of global warming is to stop eating meat and become a vegetarian?

Since the methane gases emitted by livestock is largely responsible for global warming, obviously the answer isn't merely to stop eating these animals, but rather to eat every last one of them, and not allow them to reproduce. In other words, the complete eradication of cows and pigs from the planet will eventually save the planet. Of course, all those whose lives depend on these animals might suffer a bit (farmers, dairy products, restaurants, leather goods, ranchers, not to mention those whose primary diet is in fact meat), but if Lord Stern (who is neither an environmental scientist nor a licensed dietitian but is, in fact, an economist) is correct, going without pizza, ice cream and meatball subs is a small price to pay to ensure the sustainability of Planet Earth.

While you, errrrr, digest that news, on the opposite side of the political spectrum comes the revelation that we have the ability to stop global warming, right here and now, and it won't involve much more than a really big helium balloon, a few miles of hose and a supply of sulfur dioxide. The basic premise, according to the authors of the new book, SuperFreakonomics, is that a single volcano erupting sulfuric ash into the air back in the early 1990s resulted in the entire planet's temperature dropping one full degree. So if we recreate that type of activity, circumventing the whole messy lava flow business and going straight into the clouds with the sulfur dioxide, we can similarly reduce the planet's temperature.

The good news, say the folks who dreamed up this idea, is that the "seeding the clouds" idea would cost only a few hundred million dollars, rather than the trillion dollars per year that a full-scale "reinvention of the way we live" plan advocated by those in the global warming-prevention business. The bad news is that this idea sounds a little too much like the scheme of Hugo Drax in the James Bond film "Moonraker" to make me feel like this project wouldn't go horribly wrong. But then again, even if it does fail, we'll still have our hamburgers cooking on the grill, so the sulfur dioxide plan at least has that going for it. ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9111 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9111 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/mUeAO84lEnE/showthread.php Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:17:45 GMT Everybody wants to know—and rightly so—exactly how much it would cost the U.S. economy if we went ahead and adopted regulations that would restrict the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit. One answer, based on a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), is: 4 million jobs.... Everybody wants to know—and rightly so—exactly how much it would cost the U.S. economy if we went ahead and adopted regulations that would restrict the amount of greenhouse gases companies could emit. One answer, based on a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), is: 4 million jobs.

The non-partisan Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) has taken a look at the report, and concluded that legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate “should include a steady and sufficient supply of emission allowances for energy-intensive, trade-sensitive industries to rebate the cost of compliance, as well as a border adjustment fee on the carbon content of goods from countries that fail to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted in the production of goods.”

However, the AAM adds, there’s a very real risk that climate legislation could seriously damage any chances for a near-term economic recovery, particularly if U.S. manufacturers decide it’s far easier and cheaper to step up offshoring efforts than attempt to meet the GHG regulations.

If the United States develops climate change policies that only apply to domestic companies without regard for their effects on trade, the reports author,

Robert E. Scott, author of the EPI study, predicts two things could happen if the climate change legislation ignores the effects such policies could have on trade:

1. “Production of energy-intensive manufactured goods, especially price-sensitive manufactured products that already face high levels of import competition, could rapidly be outsourced to countries like China and India that do not restrict GHG emissions. This could lead to job losses in manufacturing and related industries, and to a growing trade deficit.”

2. “Increased production of energy-intensive goods such as iron and steel, pulp and paper, basic chemicals and glass products in developing countries would be likely to increase net global GHG emissions,” a process known as carbon leakage.

“The stakes are simply too great, and the potential damage to the economy and environment too large, if we fail to adequately address the trade-related implications of climate change,” adds Scott Paul, executive director of the AAM.

The full report can be found here. ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8891 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8891 http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IWChainReactions/~3/PTRqpItuZDY/showthread.php Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:07:17 GMT Let's say you're a major brand-name manufacturer, watching the recession suck 20% of your sales right down the tubes as consumers hold off on big purchases, and you're stuck with so much inventory that you've got 15 warehouses full of unsold stuff. What do you do?

If you're Whirlpool, you leverage the power of supply chain management to deliver some rather impressive results. Try these:
* a reduction in annual inventory by $250 million a year
* savings of $100 million annually due to improved efficiency
* product deliveries in 48 to 72 hours

According to this story in the Wall Street Journal, the supply chain is one of the few areas of the company that hasn't suffered from budget cuts, and that's for one main reason: The supply chain delivers results. Thanks to a new state-of-the-art distribution system revamp (a program launched, of course, before the dog days of the recession set in), the appliance maker's warehouse is much more efficient these days, with slow-moving items pushed to the center of the facility while fast-moving goods sit near the loading docks.

Nice to know the value of a good supply chain is still being recognized. ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8331 http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=8331