Tsz Wai Jenny Ng's Secret Garden…

One of the most important issues in society is “how to become more sustainable?”  Companies take “sustainability” seriously to gain better reputation and increase job satisfaction.  According to LiveSmart BC, cars and trucks produce the greatest emissions per household.  Government always encourages people to take public transit to avoid producing more emissions.

In car racing competitions, the Formula One cars actually produces a lot of emissions.  Formula One teams has announced to the public that they aimed to reduce emissions by 12.4% for the next 3 years.  Electricity consumption, reduced operational fuel use and parts and raw materials are the main areas in which emissions could be reduced.  By cutting the carbon footprint, F1 car racing seems to be more “appropriate” in today’s society.  However, the “12.4%” of reduction is quite misleading to the pubic.  In this article, it does not say how big this percentage represents.  The total emission could be thousands of liters; then the “12.4%” might be a small amount.  It is unquestionable that less carbon footprint would be beneficial to the environment.  But, would changing the structure of the race car be more helpful?  For example, those race cars could try to use battery or hydrogen fuel for operation.  By doing so, this sport would contribute to the sustainable society and the Earth as well. 

“F1 Teams Seek to Cut Carbon Footprint”
The Globe and Mail, June 30, 2010
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/f1-teams-seek-to-cut-carbon-footprint/article1624519/>

Picture from:
<http://carmaker.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/formula-one.jpg>

Right now, it is very hard to find any product which is not made in China.  Many businesses have set up their factories in China to reduce the cost of production.  According to the article “China loses competitive advantage as wages rise,” the businesses are starting to move their production sites back to U.S due to the increased wages for the Chinese workers recently.

In the corporation perspective, it is a reasonable decision to try to minimize any cost.  However, why can’t the corporation think in the workers’ perspective?  Moving the factory means that the worker would be unemployed.  Their salaries are already relatively low compared to the workers in U.S.  It is reasonable for the Chinese to demand for higher wages or benefits.  Also, they are all skilled, and willing to work for long hours.

If the factories are located in U.S., it will cost more money to re-build the factory, buy the equipments and train the new workers.  Some corporations have moved the factories to Mexico, or Vietnam.  However, the similar labour issues could happen on those countries too.  Why moving the factory when more money and work are needed when the corporations could simply raise the wages and gain more dedicated workers?

“China Loses Competitive Advantage as Wages Rise”
CBC News, July 8, 2010
<http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2010/07/08/con-china-costs.html>

An existing corporation always has to come out with new business ideas to compete with others in the market.  In one way, revenue would be increased.  In other way, new products maintain the customers’ interest.

Google has always positioned itself as the searching engine in customer’s mind.  Recently, it is also involved in the cell phone market with its new Android smartphone.  Even though the smartphone is not as successful as the iphone from Apple Inc., Google has developed another new product to try to gain a market share.  The new Google TV device combines regular television programs with internet functions.  Customers could surf the net and use apps on the television, just like a bigger version of the smartphone.

This product seems very appealing.  However, why would customers buy a television to access the internet when a computer is always handy?  Also, people could easily connect their computer to the TV for a bigger screen.  It is unquestionable that Google generates a new purpose to television but will this TV be successful to cause a similar “iphone” trend?  Furthermore, Google has not informed the publicthe cost of the device.  If this “special” television has a higher cost than a normal television, it would be hard for Google attract a lot of customers.

“Google TV due this month in U.S.”
CBC News, October 4, 2010
<http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/04/google-television.html>

Video:
What is Google TV?
Google, June 15, 2010
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS0la9SmqWA>

The author of this article, Gwyn Morgan, criticizes the professors who teach in universities are irresponsible.  Morgan states that “professors show up only occasionally, sending harried, low-paid graduate students to teach so they can concentrate on their personal research.”  He also points out that online learning can be a “competitor” for universities.  

I do not agree with Morgan’s perceptive.  Morgan is over generalizing at this problem.  Not all professors in a university are irresponsible.  At least at UBC, my professors all are very dedicated to their jobs.  They are willing to spend time to work with students individually rather than just focusing on their research.  

It is unquestionable that online learning and self learning through textbooks could be competitors for universities.  There is definitely a potential market for this new opportunity of learning.  Online learning could provide learning chance for people who work full-time or have physical disability.  However, universities provide knowledge that could not be learned through books; for example, teamwork, communication, and professors’ personal experience. 

The title of this article is “If universities were in business, they’d be out of business.”  If universities were in business, then students and staffs might have to pay unreasonable fees, just like the Ryanair has charged to its customers.  

Morgan, Gwyn “If universities were in business, they’d be out of business”
Globe and Mail, October 03, 2010
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/gwyn-morgan/if-universities-were-in-business-theyd-be-out-of-business/article1740246/>

Picture from
<http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~ghosh/Pictures/winter03/UBC_snow_lib.JPG>

The Green Mcdonald's

People living in the 21^st century want to have a more sustainable environment.  “Going green” is an effective way to attract new consumers and not loose any old consumers at the same time. 

McDonald’s is trying to be more environmental friendly as a new “selling point”.  Recently, the restaurant has added more healthy food, such as many salads, or products with vegetables or fruit into the menu.  Also, it has used a new fryer called “The Low Oil Volume Fryer.  The fryer allows restaurants to cook the same amount of product while using approximately 40% less oil; the machine also reduced packaging waste for markets using “jug-inbox” oil delivery.  

Most importantly, it has changed its traditional red colour for its sign to a deep green colour in German, Britain and France McDonald’s restaurants. 

“Going green” might only be a manage skill to attract more customers for many of the companies.  However, it is important to reduce any impact to our environment despite the reasons behind it.  McDonald’s is a very good example on how to improve their public images and become more environmental friendly.  This would not only benefit the company but everyone and the future generations as well. 

“McDonald’s rolling out green logo in Europe”
Associated Press, November 23, 2009
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34111784/>

Picture from
<http://www.carycitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/GreenMD.JPG>

Louise Kissa. “Marking Garments for a Fair Pay.”
 New Europe 25 Oct. 2009
<http://www.neurope.eu/articles/-Making-garments-for-a-fair-pay/97045.php>

Sweatshop workers work for long hours under bad working condition for little pay.  The author of the article, Louise Kissa, criticizes the employers including big enterprise like Wal-Mart for treating the labours badly.  Labour force working in a sweatshop is definitely a social problem that is affecting our economy deeply. 
Our economy growth depends on money circulation.  When workers have a low paying job, they could not buy highly priced necessities.  This means that Producers would have to lay off some workers to compensate lower income due to decreased demand.  As a result, high unemployment rate would occur. 
Furthermore, this article has also pointed out that some NGOs try to help the sweatshop labours by proposing a better working condition and a higher pay.  Government could raise the minimum wage law and set up social programs providing language classes, and practical training for sweatshop workers to “upgrade” themselves.  People should pay more attention to this problem. One day, if one walks into a store, please do not just look at the price tag, but also look at where the produce is made.  One should decide if one wants to encourage inhumane employers to hire sweatshop workers by buying their products.

Picture from
< http://www.globalenvision.org/files/sweatshop.jpg>