Posted on

The Seven Sins of Greenwashing – Sin #6

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 #6 – THE SIN OF FIBBING
Outright lying drives me nuts. I can understand stretching the truth (although I don’t agree with it or condone it), but deliberately messing with the numbers or stats to give a result you want is not acceptable. Period.

Early in 2010, LG Electronics, maker of the refrigerator pictured above admitted to using an illegal device on some of its refrigerators to skew the energy saving results. It’s interesting because the refrigerator actually uses MORE electricity to operate and could endanger your food. So not only was LG lying, it appears they don’t care about your health and safety as much as they care about their energy label.

There was also apparently another instance of a manufacturer putting the big yellow Energy Star guide on their dryer. Does anyone know what’s wrong with that picture? (hint: dryers don’t have Energy Star labels).

As with everything that we read, see or hear, I believe it is our responsibility to check out all claims as best we can from reliable sources. This won’t be a fool-proof 100% guarantee, but I can tell you I’ve easily found the information I’ve wanted for about 95% of the cases I’ve tried to check. That means the correct data is out there and relatively easy to find. We just have to go looking for it. The manufacturers who outright fib are betting we don’t.

And, judging from most of the political stuff ( I thought of a few other, less kind words) out there I’ve heard over the last couple of years, the manufacturers will win that bet; we won’t go looking for that information.

Next Post: Sin #7 – The Sin of Worshipping False Labels

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

Empty Buses and Mass Transit – Part 3

Social Equity and Culture

I briefly talked in my last post about the free-market and bus fares of $15 and $10-a-gallon gas. I wanted to expand that some more here.

Even though we are in a culture where most people own cars, there are still those who do not. So what about them? How can or should they get around? And even if everyone DID have a car, how would that affect our street and road system? To answer that, if you live in or visit the Eugene-Springfield area, just drive out West 11th most any time of day or Beltline Road any weekday afternoon after about 3:30 pm.

Building and widening roads is not the answer. You can find all sorts of evidence that transportation options (cars, buses, bikes, walkability) all contribute to a more livable community and greater social equity. When people have options, are able to walk or bus or bike or drive, then the financial impact in their life becomes more of a choice than a burden. And I hear people complaining that LTD is cutting routes and services while wanting to spend money on the EmX route. The problem with that is the monies come from different sources: regular routes are largely payroll taxes and constructing the EmX is largely Federal funding. If we don’t spend the Federal money on the EmX, the Feds will spend it somewhere else. It can’t be used for regular service; plus Bus Rapid Transit such as the EmX is much more efficient.

I’m fortunate enough that I could afford to drive my car every day to and from work. It’s a nice car and gets relatively decent mileage. I can afford to pay the regular service on it and all that. But when I discovered my transportation choices, it has done several things in my psyche.

First, when I ride my bike, I get exercise and fresh air and my metal attitude when I arrive at work is much calmer. Multiple benefits.

Second, when I ride the bus, I can read a book or strike up a conversation with a new acquaintance and broaden my circle of friends. Multiple benefits.

Third, when I drive, I can have the option of not having to plan my day quite as tight. Multiple benefits.

But some people don’t have all three choices. And the most expensive of those three options is the car. While there may be many who ride the bus because they want to (and I think there are; after all, I’m one of those), there is also a segment of our society who need the option of mass transit in order to make their monthly budgets work.

Do we really care about our neighbors?

Posted on

Empty Buses and Mass Transit – Part 2

Money and Subsidies

It often really gets down to money. Seems like that’s always the case, doesn’t it? Just for the record, some facts from Lane Transit District (LTD) on the most recent costs and expenses…

LTD has, as of May 2010, an annual ridership of over 11 million boardings. For perspective, my daily ride to and from work alone would be considered 4 boardings. After all, there are only about 250,000 people in the Eugene-Springfield area. The average passenger fare is $0.62 of the actual expense of $2.91 (about 21%). The remainder is made up from payroll taxes. An all-day pass costs a passenger $3 and a monthly pass is now $48.

I am an employer so I know full-well about the payroll tax. I think there is part of the rub. Bottom line is none of us really like paying taxes. Doesn’t matter if it’s payroll, income, sales; if it’s a tax, we don’t like it. Now that we’ve got that on the table, taxes are necessary in our culture. And we can debate taxes and subsidies and name things whatever we want and probably reach no concrete solutions.

But the argument I often hear is for the bus system to be self-supporting. That we shouldn’t subsidize it and it should run just like a business. I understand that view, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), virtually all forms of transportation are subsidized (maybe with the exception of bicycling, but let’s talk bike paths and bike lanes…).

Most of the argument is centered around cars when people talk subsidies for the bus. I really think that’s because those arguing that point only drive cars and don’t ride the bus. If it doesn’t affect me, it doesn’t matter as much. It’s much easier to support a tax on cigarettes when you don’t smoke.

But where this argument breaks down is in the oil subsidies that exist. Many people don’t realize that the oil and gasoline industry (even while raking in billions in profits), is one of the most heavily-subsidized industries out there. And I’m going to make you Google that yourself; do some searching and see what you come up with.

So my first thought was “let’s just get rid of ALL the subsidies; oil, gas, bus, etc” and let the free market rule it all. But then I got to thinking that would probably mean a bus trip would cost $15, a gallon of gas would cost $10 or more and what about the person making minimum wage trying to get to and from work? I think you can quickly see the vicious cycle we are in. As I am wont to say: Everything is connected.

I really think the answer is balance. And perspective. If you complain about the bus, do you ride the bus? If you complain about the new bike bridge over Delta Highway, do you walk or bike? If the answer to either of those questions is “no” or “no, but…” go back and read my Transportation Options post. Then walk, bike or ride the bus one day.

It can change your perspective.

Next Post: Social Equity and Culture

Posted on

Empty Buses and Mass Transit – Part 1

As you’ve probably read and figured out by now, I’m a proponent of mass transit. Even here in sleepy little Eugene, Oregon (well, maybe “sleepy” isn’t the right term, but I think you get my point). We are currently having a community “discussion” about extending the West Eugene EmX line. In many places, there are “No Build” signs from people and businesses who don’t want the extension of our BRT (bus rapid transit) EmX system.

One of the arguments against the BRT (and, I think the bus system in general) is the comment about “empty buses”. I hear people (generally non-bus-riders) often comment, “the buses are running empty most of the time, why am I paying subsidies to run empty buses?” or “we should charge riders what it actually costs to run the bus and not tax employers” and “LTD (Lane Transit District) is cutting routes, why are they spending money on extending the EmX?”

Over the next few posts, I’d like to comment on each of these.

Empty Buses
I’ve been riding now for about a year. Not every day, but often; probably about 35-50% of my commuting is now by bus. I won’t go into my philosophy on this (but I would encourage you to read some of my previous posts). But I do want to respond to the “empty bus” comments. As I ride to work, I catch the 36 at my Park and Ride in West Eugene, head to Eugene Station (our “hub”), then transfer to the 66 to my office. When the 36 arrives at my Park and Ride, there are probably 4 or 5 people on board. As we approach downtown, we end up with probably 20+. From downtown (on the 66), we start with 10-15 people. As we approach the midpoint of the “loop”, we drop people off at work and at Valley River Center (about the halfway mark), we’re often down to 1 or 2 people. And this continues for maybe one or two stops, then we start picking up people again as the 66 loops back into town.

And here’s my point: at any time if a person looks at a bus, it may have 20 or more people or it may have 1 or 2. At the times you see 1 or 2 people, I would bet the bus is at the midpoint of its loop, having dropped off a bunch of folks and is now starting to pick people up. A better observation would be to see how many are on the bus into and out of Eugene Station; that would be a better test of true ridership.

And I can tell you at those points, the buses are often standing-room only.

Next Post: Money and Subsidies

Posted on

Junk Mail

So last time I talked about phone books. Today I’d like to talk about junk mail. No one gets junk mail do we? Oh, really? You do?

Our recycle bin at home is dominated by the junk mail that comes to us in the snail mail. I think that’s the dominant form of paper we recycle. Some, we don’t even open or look at. It simply goes from mail box to recycle bin to making more junk mail.

It’s even worse at my office; and with the economy the way it is, it seems to have ramped up. We get some of the trade magazines for free. And we get eight copies– one for each staff. Sometimes two or three per staff if they have multiple spellings of our names. One trade company I know was sending us 10 copies. I contacted them, said we really only need one (it’s still a good publication), they said they would get it down to one. We’re still getting 10 and it’s been over a year. Maybe I should publish their name here…

There is a company I discovered a few years ago and I will publish their name here. I discovered them when I was getting 3 copies a month of an Eddie Bauer mailing advertisement (when there isn’t an Eddie Bauer store within 100 miles of my home). It’s called Catalog Choice (http://www.catalogchoice.org/). It’s free and it works. Think of the number of trees and water used simply to make and print the paper junk mail is sent to us on.

Like I mentioned with the phone books last time, it’s a way to opt-out of catalogues you don’t want to get. Or multiple catalogues to one address. It’s easy to use. And, since I originally joined, they have added an opt-in for electronic catalogs called iCatalog. The way it works is retailers really do want to target their mail ads. We really only want to get what we want to get. Catalog Choice puts that together in a database and viola! less junk mail. Retailers are happy, I’m happy, it’s a win win.

And, with diligence, it has made a difference. Our home junk mail has been probably cut 60 to 70%. Not all retailers participate, but many do. And there are more and more each month. Check it out; it’s a way to more the “halve” your junk mail.

Posted on

Phantom Electricity

This handy little device is called “Kill A Watt”. I have one. It’s been very educational. You can buy them at most any hardware store and our local library will even check one out to you for free.
What is does is measure the amount of electricity flowing to any device: computer, TV, DVD player, stereo. You may or may not know this, but many devices draw electricity even when they are off. If you have a tv with a remote, it’s sucking electricity 24/7. All so you can have that “instant on” feature we absolutely can’t live without (forgive the sarcasm). This post meshes well with our thirty second rule I talked about earlier, only it could be almost a 24/7 rule.
It’s estimated that about 10% of our electricity use in our homes goes to phantom power. and that might not seem like much, but would you enjoy getting a check in the mail for 10% of your electricity use each month? I would.
Newer TVs and devices can get an Energy Star rating, and that’s better, but plug strips are becoming very popular. We have a TV/DVD/Apple TV in our bedroom. The TV and DVD are Energy Star and draw barely 1 to 3 watts while off (that’s not bad, but two devices x 3 watts x 24 hours x 365 days adds up). Plus, as big a fan as I am of Apple, our Apple TV (an older model, I’m an early adopter), was drawing 29 watts just sitting there!
So I got a plug strip. After, all, it’s not often we watch TV in bed, so even the 3 watts was more than we wanted to consume. Now, when we want to watch TV, I click on the plug strip. The down side is instead of instant on, I have to wait about 15 – 20 seconds. What’s unbelievable about this is that in our culture we would actually notice that. We should all just step back, take a deep breath and relax. We’d all be healthier for it.

I recommend you get or borrow a Kill A Watt and check out the phantom power in your home. It may be educational for you, too.
Posted on

CFLs and LEDs

In addition to the thirty second rule, we went through our house and replaced quite a few of our light bulbs with CFLs (compact fluorescents) ad some LED (light emitting diodes). We started with the exterior porch lights. This was because we leave our porch lights on all night for security. And, since we live in a house that sits on a corner, with three bollard lights, two porch lights and four “over the door” lights, we had some serious wattage going on.
Originally, we had 60 watt bulbs in our three bollards, 100 watt bulbs in our two porch lights and 50 watt bulbs in our over the door lights. That was a total of 580 watts going all night!
Well, we changed out the 60s and 100s for 11 watt CFLs and the 50s for 3.7 watt LEDS. That dropped our wattage from 580 to just under 70 watts. Not only do they last longer, but they put out almost as much light (except for the LEDs — they’re quite a bit dimmer and they’re expen$ive!).
But they all work fine for security. And, based on this success, I’m going through the rest of the house and replacing bulbs where I can (we have a lot of recessed can incandescents on dimmers, so it’s slow going). I’ve started with closets and am working my way through the house.
Consider CFLs or LEDs where you can.