In a perfect example of green design, a firework company has developed a new type of casing which creates a perfect sphere when it explodes, is biodegradable and is cheaper to produce. By mixing sawdust and rice chaff with biodegradable plastic, they've developed a product which is cheaper and greener than it's predecessors. Company president, Tokuo Kon, said, "we used materials that are unique in Akita, an area that is rich in wood and rice," Kon said.
My only problem is that I hear the term 'green' far too much now in relation to product design. It's something that all companies should be working on, constantly. If an item is truly revolutionary or innovative, then I have no problem with the term. However, if the 'green' item is just a slightly less harmful product, then does it really deserve the moniker? There are so many products that profess to be less harmful to the environment than existing brands, that surely we are reaching the point where new products should be assumed to be green? Today, we should be punishing harmful products with a negative prefix, rather than promoting less harmful ones with a positive one. Perhaps we should drop that term, and instead label non-green items with a prefix indicating how antiquated and harmful they are. But what color to choose; grey, brown? :: Asahi