MAR 26

Neither ! The 'Bold Look of Kohler' seems to be a moneymaking scheme behind a very convenient green facade.

It is not too surprising, and not a bad thing for a company to sell legal products. They are trying to meet the range of consumer demands. Some rich people might want the super-fancy shower. In water districts that do not have a constrained water supply, it should not make much ecological difference other than carbon output for purifying and delivering the water. We give people the freedom to choose how to spend their money - the society can influence such choices through means such as taxation. Resource redistribution can even take place by varying taxation levels based on the usage.

The art of talking out of both sides of the mouth has been mastered! Walter Kohler's quote eerily applies to both visuals...

Every large company, or any company with the means to do so, targets their advertising to different niche audiences. Just like Toyota targets the Prius to neo-environmentalists with earth shots and happy woodland creatures while selling the Tundra to the Tim "The Toolman" Taylor (more power!!!) types with its 15 MPG.

Just because all sorts of companies do this sort of thing and just because some people can afford to waste money doesn't mean it isn't hypocritical. What is clear, here, is that Kohler is not committed to helping care for the Earth and keep it habitable for future generations. They are here for the money. Their commercials touting their conservation "efforts" are just one more form of greenwashing.

Duke Briscoe: the amount of energy embodied in potable water is *not* insignificant. "It is estimated that the use of water consumes approximately 8 percent of the nation’s energy for its treatment, conveyance, use (including heating), and disposal." (from http://ici.coloradowaterwise.o..._brief.pdf) Just because someone has enough money in their own pocket to waste a precious natural resource doesn't mean they should be allowed to. We all die without water, therefore it belongs to all of us.

I don't know what exactly is being advertised but I used to have a Kohler shower spa. You took a shower, got clean, then closed the drain in a small foot bath holding about a third the volume of a regular bathtub. There was an intake for a powerful pump that sucked water out of the tub and sprayed it out of heads. "30 times the volume of a regular shower" but it was the same water over and over. Maybe not the most green device in the world, but not so bad. In fact I'd rush through the normal part of the shower (water going down the drain) to get to the recirculating part. A 30 minute shower with only about five minutes of water use.

Greenwashing?!!

So they advertise differently. People are going to buy what they want to buy.. How come no one who read this caught the fact that someone who seems to be very conscious of the environment to be offended by this, is the same person who chooses to subscribe to magazines????? There's the paradox.

What is the environmental impact of subscribing to multiple magazines? Valuable resources go into the production and distribution of magazines. Wrong? Hypocritical? No. Simply a person exercising choice. She may choose to consume valuable resources for her reading pleasure, but offset that by paying bills online.

I've checked out Kohler's website. They actually seem to offer a great number of water saving products. Sure, they also have some water consumers, but on balance I'd rather see companies like Kohler getting in the game.

Keep advertising a range of choices, and the marketplace will decide.

If I were Kohler (which I ain't), I'd want to sell to all markets too! They know what they're doing and we're just jealous that we don't have as much money and smarts as they do!

Dann does raise a good point. I think the reader who submitted this actually inadvertently (or perhaps purposely?) raises the issue of choice. She decides to subscribe to two printed magazines (and Wired comes on some pretty heavy paper stock). This has a negative impact on the environment--no question about it. Likely a greater impact than a 10 minute shower--her magazines consume paper and water (even if recycled) and energy to deliver. But so what? She likes to read mags, more power to her.

I like to take a long hot bath once or twice a month. But I have one of those toilets that uses less water (I think it's called WaterStar or WaterSense or something, it actually lets me choose to use less water or more water, depending on my...um..."needs"). I turn off the water when I brush my teeth. I wait until I have large loads to do laundry. I have rain barrels. And yes, I "take back" some of those savings to enjoy a bath or two.

I'm guessing the reader also makes many smart choices. If she decides to offset those by having hundreds of pieces of paper sent to her home every month, good for her. She probably deserves it.

Great discussion, great debate. A difficult issue to reconcile. I just don't like seeing companies get tarred and feathered for "hypocrisy" when we most of us haven't earned the right to cast the first stone.

BTW, the post references 1 gallon per second. Can't see how that's possible....60 gallons a minute?

At least in the Wired ad they are doing their laundry while showering. :-) On a side, note, there are very few water saving faucets that actually meet Canada's Ecologo flow rates no matter what company they come from.

For every one of the water-shower systems installed, Kohler probably sells a thousand of their water-saving heads that meet federal guidelines. The high price of these sorts of systems puts it effectively out of reach of 99.9% of homeowners who are pinching the pennies these days, and that forces conservation.

It makes for dramatic advertising, but isn't what regular joe installs in his house.

I had a friend have one of these "body washes" in their house, and rarely ran it, they knew it was expensive in terms of water, and used more energy to heat the water. Just 'cuz its there doesn't mean it gets used everyday. Again, choice, with an occasional luxury. It's okay... we don't want to turn eco-lifestyles into class warfare, that won't get us anywhere.

Well done. This is the definition of green washing.

target market much? dang. But I don't think I've seen such contrasting messages in advertisements. makes me wonder what the company is really about, do they just want my dollar?

If they can invent a device that can hit you with the same jet of water you used 7 days before (i.e. recycled water) then I'd be impressed.

Wow! Duke wrote a comment above that is disturbing and short-sighted. In this country we always have difficulty "legislating behavior." The age old question of "freedom" rises up to combat proactive work for the common good.

The Corporate States of America needs to be undermined by citizenry but we the people like our super soaker shower heads, a/c 20 degrees below the outdoor temp, and heat set at 78 degrees in the winter.

It takes the minority to point out the lies perpetrated by corporations that claim different, and conflicting, stances for different audiences.

Is there a chance that this 'shower' works by recirculating the water. Like use a a normal shower to get clean then turn this thing on to get your kicks or what ever. That would of course consume energy to pump, but so do hot tubs, swimming pools ect.

Hey at least they're washing their clothes at the same time as having a shower!!!....