think green

Carbon footprint aware for Etihad Airways

Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways plans to upgrade more than half of the engines in its A330 fleet over the next 2 years as it looks to improve fuel efficiency, explaining delays to Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner.

35 Dreamliners are on order.

By upgrading the existing planes to new engines it would reduce its carbon footprint by more than 10,000 tonnes per year and save over 1 million gallons of fuel on completion.

This is what we call being eco-friendly. The airline company is going to invest to save the planet. If Etihad Airways can do it why can't the others follow their foot steps?

Chief operations officer Richard Hill said:

"This means less fuel burn which at current fuel prices should equate to fuel savings of approximately $170,000 per aircraft equivalent to $2.6m per annum for the retrofitted A330 fleet." (source: arabianbusiness.com)

The UAE airline has a wide fleet: you can check all details on a dedicated site.

The company has taken a different angle of thinking. As fuel costs keeps increasing, the research and investments have to be put into  enhancements that can minimize fuel bills.

...Airlines will face fines of up to €100 for every tonne of carbon dioxide they emit above the limit, in a bid to cut pollution by five percent through 2020...

So plenty of time to sort things out, but when you think that a flight to Nagoya can take around 12 hours from Europe, the amount of fuel is rather impressive, especially when this trip is direct.

  A6-EYE - Etihad Airways - Airbus A330-243

Etihad is also involved in sponsorships. The picture above shows  the Airbus 330-243 with the Manchester City Football Club Livery.

Will other company follow the idea of investing in better engines for a better environment and planet for our future generations?

When fashion could involve health problems

Fashion is sometimes intriguing. A designer brings an idea  which could be a big seller.

Someone decide then to mass produce the items: shoes, clothes, accessories. However, the way it is manufactured, assembled or made can be shocking.

In this case, let's take the example of sandblasted Jeans.

As reported by BBC News, Jeans with an already worn look have been popular since the 90s. However, this effect is achieved by blasting them with real sand! Unfortunately, this can give factory workers a serious and incurable lung disease.

The question being: should they be made and should we buy them?

An 18 year old factory worker in Bangladesh is saying that he has (already) breathing issues and his eyes are painful due to the dust.

Despite of knowing the issue and the risks, the worker needs that job to earn money for his family. He declared that he has to work 11 hours a day in the dusty factory for around $70 per month.

Rather awful conditions and not a lot of cash especially when the retail price will be considerably higher and will bring a good margin to the manufacturer. Do they actually not care about their employees? Is the turnover more important than the health of the staff?

Legal advice should almost be compulsory as working such long hours in these conditions could be perceived as unacceptable in the rest of the world. Workers have some rights and employers should respect that!

If that worker says something about his shifts he could probably lose his job and would struggle to survive. However, when the silicosis hits,  it's too late and the life of the hard working person will be reduced.

Silicosis is part of the same pneumoconiosis family as asbestosis.

Asbestos claims have increased as exposure to asbestos may have occurred many years ago, but you might have only recently developed symptoms.

Incredible attitude from these big corporation not caring.

Luckily some businesses such as Levi Strauss & Co as well as H&M have publicly announced a ban on sandblasting for their denim.

How much does it take to choose health over money?