What does Green Mean?

[Daniel Rustin]

Perhaps you've seen it...the section on our website called "Eco-Awareness"? In essence, it is our interpretation of what it means for Acrilex to be a "Green" or greener supplier of plastics.

If you're like me, you might be a little confused about what it means to be green, and I'm one of the people involved in the actual "greening" of our company. So if I'm confused, what hope is there for everyone out there? On second thought, it's not such a challenge to confuse me.

In our Eco-Awareness section, we talk about the energy-saving methods in place at our factory, and recycling initiatives for our waste products. Now with the introduction of our Acriglas Minerals series and Ecoglas Environmental Acrylic sheets, we also have several product offerings which take advantage of the ability to incorporate post-industrial scrap materials into our decorative acrylic sheets. I feel satisfied that we have joined the ranks of responsible companies in the green-stream. But is that what it means to be Green?

I've been asked, "Is Acriglas bio-degradable?" The answer is no. I've also been asked, "Is Acriglas recyclable?", and the answer to that question is yes...but by processors overseas who recycle post industrial acrylic scrap. This raises the shipping issue, which gets into "carbon footprint". These are the questions asked in regard to the products we manufacture, the other questions are related to the products we distribute. Suddenly, where our suppliers are located in geographic distance from our warehouses, and whether a bio-plastic product like Natureworks PLA needs to ship in a refrigerated truck and be stored in a temperature-controlled warehouse become "issues" for discussion in the world of Green. Whether a product has 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent or more recycled content is now relevant, but what answer is the right answer to be Green enough?

My head starts to spin, from the marketing pitches that tout the environmental advantages of particular products, and the backlash from manufacturers who are quick to point out that their competitors "Green products" don't fit nicely in the Green world because they aren't this, that, or the other thing.

Is 'Greenguard" or "Leeds" certification the best way to determine whether or not something is Green?? Maybe in our rush to save the planet, we have completely lost the real meaning of environmental responsibility, and Green manufacturing. Products are submitted for certification (a process that a manufacturer has to be willing to pay for, and the certification is the marketing tool to be purchased), and often times it is only the information relevant for achieving a "Green" stamp of approval that is volunteered. The arguments against the benefit of a particular product are often left ignored, or even squashed. So can a certification really be trusted? Should specifiers just use products that have a certification to cover their behinds on the issue, even if the designations lack real teeth?

I don't know...I may be a cynic, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Personally, I really believe the Green Movement has lost it's way, and is busy being distracted by the over-selling of virtually everything as environmentally responsible. So now there are "Green Police", who decide whether a product is really green, or just said to be green. If you make the claim to be environmentally responsible, you better be able to back it up...or at least have really, really good green marketing tools to make it look that way, or the "Green Police" will bust you.

So again I ask you...what does Green mean? I want your opinions! Is it:

a) Reduced carbon footprint in manufacturing?

b) Close proximity from production to end-user?

c) Products manufactured with whatever percentage of recycled content is deemed green enough?

d) Products which are recyclable?

e) Products which are bio-degradable?

f) Products which are blessed with a "Greenguard" seal of approval?

g) Products made from bio resources rather than petroleum?

h) Products made from other "renewable" resources?

i) Non-green products which are made by companies that use green principles of manufacturing like wind, solar, etc.?

My last question to you all is ... does affordability factor into this equation? Is the world really ready to pay the higher prices associated with "Green products" and "Green technologies"? As an environmentalist, I really hope so, but as a pragmatist, the lagging sales of the products bearing the eco-friendly banners, and lack-luster response from customers when they hear the price tags for the new designer greens, suggests not. It seems to me one of the benefits of a good economy is also the ability to take the righteous path, or moral high ground, but when times are tough and competition is fierce, paying more green to be Green is not such a priority.

[Daniel Rustin]

Susan,

Great answer! Precisely the kind of feedback I was hoping for when I began my tyrade. Based on some of your key hot buttons, you might also find this blog entry to further reinforce some of your cynicism (which I share): http://www.acrilex.com/blog/post/2010/04/30/Made-In-the-USA.aspx

Additionally, I believe you share in the feeling of loss a credibility on real green issues by organizations that essentially sell certifications, with only minimal criteria for qualification, and virtually no meaningful auditing process for debunking claims of companies touting their "Greeness". Perhaps "Green-ish" would be a better way to describe many attempts at achieving some degree of meaningful reduction of impact on the planet.

Relevant to the issue of China, it's easy for us to distance ourselves as a separate entity, however we can not lose sight of the fact that the majority of large volume US manufacturing companies have set up facilities in China to take advantage of the "generation of expendable young men", lax environmental standards, Chinese government subsidies, and ability to bypass many of the costs of doing business in the US in order to maximize the bottom line ie:medical benefits, taxes, social security, etc, while applauding their own efforts domestically in regard to their green initiatives.

How do we want to hold these companies accountable? Should we boycott "U.S." products manufactured in China? What if, for every employee a US manufacturer hires in China, the company contributed 12% of the employee's pay to our Social Security Administration? What if US manufacturers were required to employ the same "green" practices in China as they would if they operated here in the US? All subjects for future blogs.

As for well respected, educated people who do not believe in global warming, I think most will agree with the idea of global climate change. This planet for many reasons has gone through prolonged periods of heating and cooling. How many "Ice ages" have there been? Natural processes, asteroid impacts, magnetic pole shifts, and many other "scientific" reasons can be studied that make it obvious global climate change occurs. The only question we need to determine the answer to is: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? This is the big gray area on Green. Regardless of the conclusion, can anyone really debate that lessening our impact on our little blue marble is not a good idea??

[Suzanne VanGilder]

Ooh good post. While I understand the theory behind "green" certifications (simplify the buying process for consumers who don't have the time/education/knowledge to understand the technology behind a product) I am also a little put off by the fact that these certifications are essentially for sale and generally quite one dimensional, looking only at certain things, but ignoring others. Here are my quick answers, derived from what I have learned in a few years of talking to professionals all along the value chain:

a) few people actually understand what the carbon footprint means or why it is important. In fact, I know several very respectable and well-educated people who do not believe in global warming at all. With an apology for my cynicism, I get the impression that when lay people talk about this they are parroting back what they assume to be important. Some of the life cycle research is compelling, but it only gives an assessment, it does not look at the environmental impact beyond the analysis (what does it mean practically?). In addition, I know of several operations that operate very respectably (like a company that salvages logs in Brazil when mining companies like Alcoa clear land) but they are too small to qualify/afford certifications.

b. I think this is increasingly important, particularly with the cultural return to locally grown and sourced products. To me personally, domestic (North American) is important. I can even go broader than that, and include European and South American products, particularly wood products where true reduced impact logging is practiced. One thing that is a big, scary turn off to me for many reasons is China. Beyond the dismal human rights and environmental standards, I think there are real reasons to be concerned with quality control. Not to mention all the many reasons why China is not philosophically qualified to be a world leader, yet they are buying up debts like crazy, acquiring all sorts of cutting edge technology and raising a generation of expendable young men. Moreover, although I am a capitalist and understand that everyone benefits from trade, I believe the the US can be energy independent and food independent, and that that should be fundamental.

c.d.e. are all good concepts, yet again, the more I learn essentially the less I know. And there are so many variables it is difficult to make a definitive statement. I am a fan of reusing and recycling materials because we have evolved into something of a throw away society. That being said, sometimes the cost of recycling out weights its benefits, particularly if that material is naturally biodegradable.

f. Ah Greenguard, see my above views on certifications. I worry about the overblown formaldehyde emissions drama as it relates to composite panels because 1. formaldehyde is an organic compound found nearly everywhere, 2. once a panel is sealed (and 90+ percent are sealed with a decorative surface) than those emissions essentially are nullified. Beyond that there is always collateral damage in anything. In a perfect situation the by-products from one process fuel another. I am less concerned about domestic products and their pedigree, and more concerned about those made with off shores, and I realize that may come off as xenophobic, but to me it is the perceived unknown that is scary. There are many reputable companies that produce off shores for a variety of reasons, but until I know the story, I am a little uncertain. Do certifications assuage my fears? somewhat. But then again, what is the measurement tool? What about the recent Energy Star debacle? How much research is a consumer expected to do to be able to discern a legitimate certification from a red herring?

g.h. Bio-resources are good, though I am not empirically against petroleum. However, I do think petroleum products should be used to create durable, long-lasting products and that I there are good alternative technologies available for more disposable products. I also suspect that they may encounter some resistance on the way to market. Renewable is good, though there is always more to any story, and even renewable materials come at some cost to the land or rely on other technologies for processing. A good example is the electric car, where does the electricity come from?

i. I am a fan of this because often it is the process that is more damaging than the process

And with that, I am going to curl up in fetal position for a while and then maybe see if I can beat my score on Bejewled Blitz in an effort to reset my overly taxed mental resources, which are local and renewable, and often made out of recycled content.