The discussion about our environment and the car for, it is very good but it results often in strange contradictions and activities on the wrong level. As a designer (artist) and entrepreneur I think it's important to have an understandable point of view and to make people think. The discussion in design is very much about using ecologic friendly materials and to make durable products (which can be part of a solution). However the major theme should be to think about the way we live.

In western society most people don't realise that their every day life is full of luxury we can't afford. We don't live near our work so to be able to work we have to travel everyday. Everybody is in his or her own car losing time, wasting oil and industrial efforts and charging infrastructure. The solutions people are talking about are making cars more efficient and extending infrastructure not about changing habits like live nearby work travelling together or by train etc etc. People seem to think it's not luxury but an right, in the end it will be luxury and the rich people will travel as much as they want and the poor won't.

After the Second World War everybody has been working to rebuild our society. Major theme after solving the most urgent problems was to work as less as possible for the best possible fee. By improving efficiency and working hard we succeeded. Now we have all kind of luxury we can afford more then ever. Because we're working and paying as less as possible attention is almost scarce. Products and services are realised with as less as possible labour. Because labour is so dominant material isn't, we throw away huge amounts of leftovers. Probably it'll be exactly the other way around in the future every little piece of material will be gold and labour will be cheap. Which of course will be a major social change. (In Holland we already have problems with education and health. In those sectors you can't use a robot or computer to teach or nourish)
In our leftover project we turned it around. We act as if the leftovers are worth a fortune and labour is irrelevant. It started as an art project but people understand and feel the quality and different approach probably and hopefully they feel the extraordinary efforts.
Again we could make a major difference by reconsidering the value of our labour. If we don't circumstances will force us.

Little examples;

If for example Ikea sells a teak product and the teak is from a plantation (fsc) and a consumer buy's it but throws it away after a short use because of pour quality (both design or practical quality) or it wasn't his intention to keep it for long the ecological implications are huge because the wood has been produced shipped etc. The damage which is done is probably bigger comparing an inland teak product which is bought and built to last for a lifetime. (best is of course plantation teak for durable products but the story is about the mentality of the consumer. ( the story about Ikea is out of my own experience)

If we use scrapwood it's recycling but the benefits are less then one should expect.
Because of the labour and transport intensive process part of the advantage is lost in the end.
The product however is very durable.
It's almost impossible to ruin it in fact its improving by using it.
The design was made very much to show that an imperfect product can be desirable, imperfection is much more durable then perfection!
A change in taste and perception will make a much bigger difference then the results achieved with recycling.
( again recycling is very good but is more or less and often solving a problem in the end instead of at the start)

Committee Born in Holland in 1967, graduated from Academy for industrial design in Eindhoven. Established v.o.f.company in 1993. His design work unites his sense of beauty with functionality and is created from natural wood and scrap materials.