Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Helgoland]

-snip-

So go found a company! If the industry really is as wasteful as you describe, you'd beat them out of their shoes by not repeating the same mistakes. Helping the world, and profiteering~

[Angle]

...Founding a company is neither simple nor easy, and SamonGod doesn't sound like he has the time, experience, or resources for it right now. That said, it might be worth looking into that kind of thing eventually. I've actually been thinking about trying to start a network of interrelated non-profit industrial organizations, with the express intent of revolutionizing the way we do a lot of things. I need to solve a lot of problems before I try that, though.

[SalmonGod]

The business term for it is "Just-in-Time" (as prefix to Manufacturing/Inventory/Supply Chain Management/Etc). 

I expected there would be, but I went ahead and did some googling to check and there is shitloads of material out there on it already.  Most of it is business analysis on how the model increases production efficiency, market responsiveness, and profitability.  While I couldn't quickly find any studies specifically focused on environmental impact, almost every writing I skimmed through did acknowledge that the model requires drastic increase in transportation requirements (some also mentioned that workers were generally opposed to it because it creates a bloody horrifically stressful work environment).  I did find the following quality bit of data here. (most relevant sentence bolded for emphasis)

Obtaining large reductions in energy use and GHG emissions by shifting freight truck and air traffic to other modes will also be difficult. Significant reductions in energy use and GHG emissions are possible if large volumes of freight can be shifted to rail and water (Facanha & Ang-Olson, 2008; IEA, 2008).61 But obstacles include the growing demand for just-in-time delivery, which favors the faster modes; the small share of fuel cost in total freight costs (often less than 8 percent); the high costs of transferring cargo between modes, often necessary in using rail and shipping; and the great scheduling flexibility of trucking and its ability to cost-effectively handle small shipments and short shipment distances (Southworth, 2010). In fact, trends have gone in the opposite direction, moving from the more fuel-efficient to the less fuel-efficient modes. Between 1985 and 2004, about one quarter of the increase in U.S. freight energy consumption has come from mode shifts from rail and water to air and truck freight (DOE, 2008).

This isn't a new or unstudied thing.  But it's a thing that businesses really like that helps them make money, so it's not going to go away unless something is done about that incentive.

-snip-

So go found a company! If the industry really is as wasteful as you describe, you'd beat them out of their shoes by not repeating the same mistakes. Helping the world, and profiteering~

What kind of company?  A freight forwarder that encourages businesses to operate in a way that they don't want to?  A transportation service that operates by modes that businesses don't want to use?

[Angle]

The trouble also looks like it comes from the fact that this is economically efficient, it's just environmentally damaging.

[alway]

The trouble also looks like it comes from the fact that this is economically efficient, it's just environmentally damaging.

Is it though? I mean, sure, they are using less efficient modes of transportation, but outside of bulk-good raw materials (which for the most part are still carried on slower, more efficient means of transport), production energy is so much higher than transport energy.

Assuming it is able to cut down on waste or excess from overstock even a little, I strongly suspect it is at least close to equivalent. Any wasted material from overstock is a massive energy loss. On top of that are the costs of running warehouses; keeping them in adequate temperature ranges (for products and employees), lighting, construction & land use, managing all the stuff that goes into running it and so on. Without those other supply chain energy costs factored in, one can hardly make an analysis of JIT's energy cost compared to traditional supply chains, especially when the whole point is trading off one for the other.

[SalmonGod]

The trouble also looks like it comes from the fact that this is economically efficient, it's just environmentally damaging.

Is it though? I mean, sure, they are using less efficient modes of transportation, but outside of bulk-good raw materials (which for the most part are still carried on slower, more efficient means of transport), production energy is so much higher than transport energy.

Assuming it is able to cut down on waste or excess from overstock even a little, I strongly suspect it is at least close to equivalent. Any wasted material from overstock is a massive energy loss. On top of that are the costs of running warehouses; keeping them in adequate temperature ranges (for products and employees), lighting, construction & land use, managing all the stuff that goes into running it and so on. Without those other supply chain energy costs factored in, one can hardly make an analysis of JIT's energy cost compared to traditional supply chains, especially when the whole point is trading off one for the other.

Maybe so, but it's hard for me to believe.

It's not just less efficient modes, it's also much, much more frequent use of those modes.  I think the rough comparison for the account that I work on (I'm on the air freight team shipping stuff for a company that produces audio equipment) is that when they move a part from shipping ocean by default to shipping by air, they will go from one ocean shipment every couple months to a flight every couple weeks.  And there are some parts I see flown almost every week. 

Those bulk transportation modes also consolidate more.  There are dozens of parts in a speaker.  Every part is produced by a different vendor.  When shipping ocean, they will gather stuff from multiple vendors in the same region and then transport it all together.  By air, cargo planes are normally filled to capacity regardless, but then every shipment is delivered by truck from the airport individually.

It also creates a lot of chaos that results in inefficiency, because there is no room for error.  If there is a delay anywhere in the supply chain, drastic measures have to be taken to correct it.  I've seen planes chartered to fly from the other side of the planet just to carry a handful of pieces of a single component, to prevent shut down of a production line.  Just a couple months ago, this happened multiple times for one product before the situation could be brought back into routine.

I find it hard to believe that it could be more environmentally costly than all that for material to sit around for a while longer.  They still continually have the JIT stuff on hand, so they must have storage facilities for it.  The only difference is in the quantity and the rate at which that material cycles through.

And anyway, I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate about shipping methods.  I was just agreeing with an earlier comment, and providing an example of the kind of stuff I wish environmentalists would focus on instead of marketing themselves on "blue sky" energy strategies and such.

[Helgoland]

-snip-

So go found a company! If the industry really is as wasteful as you describe, you'd beat them out of their shoes by not repeating the same mistakes. Helping the world, and profiteering~

What kind of company?  A freight forwarder that encourages businesses to operate in a way that they don't want to?  A transportation service that operates by modes that businesses don't want to use?

A logistics company that does the necessary storage by itself, thus assuming the associated costs but eliminating the monetary and other disadvantages of just-in-time shipping, becoming cheaper and more reliable than the others. To the customers it'll look like just-in-time delivery because all the storage is happening 'under the hood'.
Essentially you'd have a company others outsource their storage to, with added transportation on top.

[mainiac]

Unless of course there aren't great savings to be made because the inefficiencies are simply a visible minority.

[RedKing]

So no one's talking about Jeb Bush officially throwing his hat in the ring for 2016?

I'm already seeing a potential Bush-Clinton general election for 2016, which makes me want to retch.

[smeeprocket]

gawd Bush.

Clinton is business as usual, but better than some potential options.

I am not sure if anyone less moderate would be able to win, though.

There are better female candidates, though. And I would very much like to see a woman president. I think the party is going to push for that this year.

[Helgoland]

Unless of course there aren't great savings to be made because the inefficiencies are simply a visible minority.

Actually trying to make a business out of it would be the empirical test, yeah.

[smjjames]

So no one's talking about Jeb Bush officially throwing his hat in the ring for 2016?

I'm already seeing a potential Bush-Clinton general election for 2016, which makes me want to retch.

It's already been mentioned, but nobodys really discussing it here because everybody agrees that Jeb Bush would be a bad choice.

It's also really early and theres still plenty of people who could throw their hats in officially.

If it comes down to Bush vs Clinton, it would be an automatic vote for Clinton because, well, she's the only alternative to Bush in that situation honestly.

I should note that Hillary has yet to officially throw her hat into the ring, so to speak. Also, I hope nobody else is too intimidated by the two heavyweights on both sides possibly running.

[LordSlowpoke]

the best choice in a bush v clinton campaign is voting vermin supreme

remember: a vote on vermin supreme is a vote as useful as any other

[smjjames]

Again, I hope that other possible candidates aren't too intimidated by the possibility of two heavyweights being in the race.

Hillary hasn't even officially said she is in the running yet, it's all been speculation and 'crowning as the inevitable nominee'.

[Rez]

Nothing else could say commitment to status quo quite like electing Hilary Clinton.