Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #5

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #5 – THE SIN OF LESSER OF TWO EVILS
Well, I struggled with this sin. Not that I gave in (have never smoked, never had the desire to smoke), but that there were a couple of pictures I could have used. The lesser of two evils sin deals with making a claim that diverts your attention from the real problems. The picture I decided to use is that of a company that makes organic cigarettes. Really. Organic cigarettes.

And not only that, but the smoke screen (pun intended) continues because not only are these cigarettes organic (natural tastes better, after all), their tobacco has been grown “in a responsible, sustainable way through our earth-friendly and organic growing programs.” The ad goes on to list how they are reducing their “footprint on the earth by using recycled materials and renewable energy sources like wind power.” And, as ATIS547 from flickr (who posted the photo) added after their quote “protecting the earth is as important to us as it is to you” by saying “in other words, the earth is fine — it’s YOU we’d like to see dead.”

I used their picture because they seem to win the prize (at least in my book) for the most attempts at diversion. But I have to confess it was a close one between these cigarettes and the 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid SUV.

The Tahoe hybrid gets an amazing 20 mpg in town (better than the 15 mpg of the standard Tahoe) and hauls up to eight people. My problem is I rarely see more than one or two people in most any SUV. And that’s where the issue arises for this sin: the increase in fuel economy actually diverts your attention from the real problem. And that is that most times, you don’t need an SUV for carting one or two people around.

So I guess I just want to point out that we should, once again, be very discerning in the ads that bombard us all the time. The cigarettes even have the disclaimer “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” Oh, really?

And I’ll be the first to say if you regularly cart six or eight people around, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid might be a good choice for you. But if you’re like most of us who drive around with one (at most two) people in our vehicles, maybe a smaller car (or the bus…) might be a better option.

Don’t get sucked into the hype; stay focused on the real issues.

Next Post: Sin #6 – The Sin of Fibbing

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #2

"Mother Earth Approved"
photo by Adam Kuban
Today we’ll dive into Sin #2, The Sin of No Proof. But first, as a reminder, here’s a definition of Greenwashing:

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #2 – THE SIN OF NO PROOF
The Sin of No Proof is one where there isn’t a readily-available way to verify the claim. So my picture here of a wine “bottle” that claims to be “Mother Earth Approved” would be deceptive in that you can’t verify that claim. I visited the website for this wine and I think this is probably done largely in jest, but it’s still a claim that can’t be substantiated. The cartons are made of paper, “a renewable resource that comes from trees.” and are recyclable (much like milk cartons).

But many of the claims on this particular product’s website about package ratio, CO2 footprint, fuel efficiency (because they are lighter to transport) would be difficult to quantify. Sometimes a manufacturer will make claims that try to snow you with facts or figures or fine print that really can’t be determined or with data that is irrelevant or so vague as to be irrelevant.

“Green Guides” is a publication of the Federal Trade Commission that is seeking to set out some strict guidelines for what is appropriate in an advertiser’s claim and what isn’t. One example they give is a good indicator of what we need to be aware of:

“A trash bag is labeled ‘recyclable’ without qualification. Because trash bags will ordinarily not be separated out from other trash at the landfill or incinerator for recycling, they are highly unlikely to be used again for any purpose. Even if the bag is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.”

As with all advertising claims, green or not, we as consumers need to be smart and aware. We need to pay attention, read closely how claims are worded and be sure we make the best decisions we can on our product purchases. The purpose of advertising is to get us to buy the product. And while many manufacturers will make accurate claims, there are those who will not. And with the proliferation of “green” as a consumer buzz-word and desire most of us have, we need to be even more aware.

Next Post: Sin #3 – The Sin of Vagueness

Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #1

Eco-Friendly Disposable Diapers
In 2007, 2009 and 2010, a company called terrachoice published a report titled “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing”. And although they found that 95% of “green” consumer products they surveyed were found to be guilty of one of the seven sins, things do seem to be improving. More manufacturers are really living it, not just selling it. In my effort to raise your awareness of “green” claims (and being able to discern the truth about them), I want to post the seven sins here so you can have a better perspective and keep your guard up about manufacturers’ claims.

GREENWASH
Greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.”

SIN #1 – THE SIN OF THE HIDDEN TRADE-OFF
The first sin is suggesting a product is “green” based on a narrow focus without drawing attention to larger environmental issues. The example they use is that of paper from sustainably-harvested forests may not take into account the incredible amount of water and resources that go into producing that paper.

I’m reminded of an old ad that said “8 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.” Or “Brand Y Beer is America’s number one imported German Beer.” Both are very narrow areas of focus that may (or may not) miss the larger picture.

The eco-friendly disposable diapers shown above will still go into the landfills and, in my opinion, miss the whole point of whether or not disposable diapers are even a good way to go. Another example is the compostable or biodegradable disposable cups for coffee or water. An incredible amount of water goes into just making these cups, they are used once, then discarded. So while we have “backed up” from styrofoam cups to a more eco-friendly version, we have missed the point that we’re still throwing them away! A washable, reusable cup or glass (or diaper) will have a much more friendly impact on our world and our resources. And you know, it will cost less money in the long-term.

The three “R’s”, reduce, reuse, recycle start with reduce. We need to be willing to step back a bit and look at reducing what we consume first. Before we reuse something (which is the second step) and before we recycle something (third step), we should consider whether or not we should even be using it in the first place. And once we determine if we need to use it, do we really need something disposable or can we use something over and over? We get sucked into the “green” compostable cups or corn-based forks when a little extra time and effort washing glass cups and metal forks might be a better solution.

Our church is starting a new direction with our coffee bar on Sunday mornings. We are switching to glass cups and plates, metal forks and we’re going to wash them. It will be a bit of a challenge (the dishwasher is at the other end of the facility and a long walk), but our team is committed to at least giving it a try. Much of this stems from our belief of stewarding our planet and our spiritual response to our Creator, but you know, I think we’re going to find out we save money, too. And when you get into a win-win situation like that, it’s a good thing.

Next Post: Sin #2 – The Sin of No Proof

Posted on

Simple Sometimes is Really Good

OK, so a few days ago I dissed on the one-cup coffee makers with all the disposables. Now for something truly sustainable and amazing. It’s the Niagra Stealth HET (High Efficiency Toilet). Made by Niagra Conservation, the Stealth toilet is a single flush, using only 0.8 gallons. Most of the new dual flush toilets are 0.9 and 1.6 gallons per flush, depending on whether or not you are flushing #1 or #2. This toilet uses air-assist to achieve the results and seems to work very well.

I haven’t actually used one or seen it “in action”, but all indications are that it’s pretty amazing. It recently received recognition as one of the Top 10 Green Products for 2010 by the Environmental Building News organization.

It also is simpler, with less moving parts. It uses air and vacuum in the filling to help the efficiency of the flush, is quiet and retails for about the same as a good quality standard toilet: $300. It currently comes only in white. But it may the future of HE toilets.

Posted on

Easy Doesn’t Always Mean Simple

My wife and I were out and about today and visited Bed Bath & Beyond. As we wandered through the store we came upon one of those product demos for a Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Piccolo 15 Bar Single Serve Beverage Maker (whew!) in Titanium/Black. I had been talking about doing some product reviews and had some thoughts mulling around on different products I could comment on.

But this one tipped the scale for me. As we listened to the demo, we saw how you could take individually-wrapped “capsules”, insert them into the machine, flip the lever and, viola! have an espresso or cappuccino in just minutes. For regular espresso, only one capsule is needed, but for a cappuccino, it takes two. And, of course, the pods are disposable.

By now, you may have sensed where I’m going with this. To enjoy the easy brewing of an eight ounce cappuccino, I will throw away, two capsule containers (plastic, I think, but not recyclable since they are contaminated with food waste) and for every eight cups, will consume a small cardboard box (which at least is recyclable). And the cappuccinos will cost me about $1.13 each (for just the capsules).

There are many ways to brew coffee and espresso without disposing and filling landfills. I have an espresso machine that has a metal reusable portafilter. Nothing disposable in it. And my coffee grounds make a great addition to the compost bin (if you’re so inclined).

For regular coffee, there are the cone filters that are washable and reusable. Single cup and for the brewers. And at $1.25 per cup for the Krups Nescafe Dolce Gusto Capsules, you’ll pay for the cost of a $10 reusable filter in a few days and even a fancy, durable $300 espresso machine in several months. I’ve had mine for two years and it’s still going strong.

Does this take more time? A little. Is it less money? A lot. Is it better all-around? Absolutely.

Posted on

Save Ink and $$

My wife, Brenda, was looking through a magazine and came across an article on back to school stuff. Now, just a reminder, our kids are adults and out on their own; that’s why we’re wanting to downsize our house.

But this article intrigued her. It talked about a software program called EcoFont that saves 25% on the ink needed to print text. Some time ago, I talked about going paperless as much as possible. But sometimes, you do have to print. And when you do, this may be a great option. EcoFont leaves small voids in the text that don’t get filled with ink. This, in turn, saves the amount of ink you use (greener, because you’re consuming less and that saves all along the way from manufacture to product to disposal) and it saves you money.

You can download a basic font for free at their site. I did and printed out various sizes of text, from 10pt to 64pt just to see how it looked. And it looked fine for your basic text sizes (10pt and 12pt). At 14pt, you can start to see the holes and, as you can see from my picture with this post, at 64pt, it becomes a decorative font.

But most of our printing is text, and most is usually around 12pt font and this is where it shines. Based in the Netherlands, the software doesn’t appear to yet be available in the US. And it currently is only for Windows based computers running MS Office. So being a Mac guy, I’m a little disappointed. But they SAY, they’re working on other versions.

So, EcoFont, I’m waiting with anticipation! I just printed a sustainability report for a client and it was 20 copies with 24 pages, so it would have been nice to be able to print in a more responsible manner.

Posted on

theFERN – latest picture

stucco and roof are on theFERN in Marathon, Texas
Steven Jones sent us the latest picture of his version of theFERN that he’s building in Marathon, Texas. His comment: “I love it!”
Thanks, Steven, we’re looking forward to seeing it completed.
Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Rainwater, Part 1

In addition to harvesting the solar on our site, we are seriously considering harvesting our rainwater. Eugene gets about 50 inches of rain each year. The rooftop of our main house is about 3,400 sq ft (remember, this includes porches and the garage), and our secondary unit has a roof area of about 1,570 sq ft.

There are several resources you can get online to calculate how many gallons of water this translates into. that’s helpful as we get into our irrigation demand and other things we might want to do with our water.
I’ve talked with the people from RainTech in Jacksonville, Oregon, just over 150 miles from here. Their system (pictured above), is called RainSpace. It’s underground, simple low-tech and just seems elegant to us. Visit their site, watch their installation video and see what we mean.
We’re hoping to use rainwater for all our irrigation and maybe even flush our toilets and wash our clothes with it. I’ll get into a bit more about that tomorrow. Meanwhile, check out RainTech, their green certifications and learn a little more about their company.
Posted on

The Lawrence Street House – Solar Electric [update]

[added revised pricing on solar hot water system and total cost; even better than I originally thought]

In addition to thinking about our landscape design, finishing the structural plans and selecting some of our finishes (more on those to come), we’ve been looking at our solar configuration(s).

Typically, you’ll do a 2 or 3 KW photovoltaic and a separate hot water system. This maximizes tax credits and utility incentives and generates a lot of electricity and hot water. Photovoltaic systems are still expensive and the cells are getting more efficient, but they’re still relatively inefficient. HOWEVER, they are still worth it in my book.
Hot water systems typically generate a lot of hot water for a relatively low cost. As a point of comparison, a 2 KW equivalent hot water system will cost about $8,000 to $9,000 where a 2 KW stand-alone pv will be in the $13,000 neighborhood. Both of those are before credits and incentives.
But our LEED rater, Eli, has a friend who is an engineering type who had a thought. This, of course can sometimes be dangerous (engineers having thoughts can be kind of like architects having an idea). But the more I’ve considered his thought, the more it makes sense to me.
What he observed is during the summer, a typical solar hot water system will heat a normal 120 gallon solar water tank up to maximum temperature, then shut off. Two “problems” with that. First, 120 gallons is more water than most people use (a typical home has a 52 gallon water heater). Second, when it shuts off, in the time of year when you get the most solar, you are basically throwing away that extra energy by not collecting it. Two very intriguing points.
So his thought is to bag the solar hot water system with its oversized tank, pumps, plumbing, etc and put that money into upsizing your photovoltaic system. So I got some preliminary pricing on upsized pv. A 2.1 KW system is about $13,500 ($1,200 net after credits), a 3.2 KW $20,000 ($4,500 net) and a 4.9 KW system $29,400 ($9,500 net). A hot water system nets out at about $4,200 after credits. So a 3 KW plus hot water system nets at about $8,700 but boosting it up to almost 5 KW (3 KW plus the 2 KW hot water) nets at $9,500. And, during the summer, we can sell the extra back to our utility and build a credit for the winter.
We’re strongly leaning toward the 4.9 KW system. We’ll couple that with a small, 40 gallon high efficiency water heater (like the Rheem Marathon). I have Eli checking to see how much energy we should actually save (which is more important to us than the tax credits) and I’ll report how that pencils out.