Green products – marketing or real change in values and attitude?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Numerous “green” products, claiming to have but a small environmental footprint in comparison to their conventional counterparts, give us the feeling to think and live more sustainable. But, has really enough been done and are the products really as environmentally friendly as their claims suggest? The answer here must be an emphatic NO.

The potential as far as consumer products to become “greener” is immense. According to German research consumers in that country in 2011 spent around 36 Billion Euros worth of “sustainable” products, around 14 Billion of that on products in the energy savings and energy efficient living sector. I do not, I have to admit, any figures for Britain or the USA but that is neither her nor there in the discussion.

The problem is that many of those so-called “green” products are not actually as green as they make out to be and greenwash still rules the roost supreme, and this in almost each and every sector of the sustainability market, so to speak.

While it may be eco-friendly to buy this or that product made from recycled materials in many cases people have to look no further that their trash can or recycling bin where to find the raw materials from which to make the very things themselves. In fact, those things should not even end up in those bins and be reused as much as possible.

That is, however, but one area. When it comes to energy efficiency and saving of energy and water it would be much better rather than buying and using special devices to reduce consumption and use in the same was as reuse, reduction is better than the other options.

In the EU, including Britain, we have had the supposedly energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) forced upon us which, in themselves, in their manufacture and disposal, present an environmental problem, rather than having worked on more efficient use of the old style of light bulbs, that is to say the incandescent ones.

The latter ones, while being a little more juicy as to the consumption of energy is concerned, do not pose a health risk or one to the environment, unlike strip lights and CFLs and the latter are but a compact version of the former, due to their mercury content.

We should have rather developed better lamps with mirrors and such like or, like the on shoemaker's globe, with lenses to increase the lumen output of even the lowest power incandescent bulbs rather than having gone for enforcing upon an entire population those CFLs which may do more harm than good. I doubt that it would have been difficult.

In the old days we used sconces to reflect the light of a candle or an oil lamp away from the wall and magnify it and there would have been many ways of increasing the lumen output of the incandescent light bulb by making lamps more efficient without the need for high wattage ones instead of messing about with the CFLs which are not at all safe. Greenwash this is in the same way as with so many other products.

The problem is that the consumer either is not given a choice by having something forced upon him or her or is being sold a lie or both. And I do not even want to start with the electric car.

Industry and governments alike are conning the consumer into believing that he or she is doing a good deed for the environment – and in other instances governments even force consumers to this – but the truth is often different than what we are being told.

People have also been conditioned to think recycling before anything else and hence waste reduction and the reuse of anything that can be has fallen by the wayside and the supposed recyclability of products such as computers, cell phones, etc., has led top an increase in waste rather than a reduction as people believe that everything is fine in going to get new even if the old one works fin as the old one can be entirely recycled. Somewhere along the way the point is being missed, namely the one that we must reduce and not just waste products but consumption.

However, the mere advocating of this can now be construed as an act of domestic terrorism as it could slow down the economic growth, this word that keeps popping up time and again. Growth on a finite Planet, and the Earth is finite, it cannot grow, is a misnomer and a recipe for disaster.

In order to grow the economy, under the guise of reducing the effects of a changing climate, it has been mentioned that people might be forced to replace their white goods, that is to say refrigerators, cookers, washing machines, etc., with energy efficient models even if their old ones are still working perfectly. This does not help the Planet, it just helps industry and creates a mountain of waste. A present people are just being “encouraged” to buy those, supposedly, energy-efficient white goods but, as said, it could come to people being forced to replace and the new “smart meters” could possibly be used to do just that. The latter are also being forced upon the people whether they want them or not. And those can, in fact, cut people off the grid if the powers-that-be decide that the householders use too much energy.

Total people control all in the name of combating climate change. But I digressed a little.

When it comes to green products and such like one can but wonder whether industry just manages to blind both the consumers and governments alike with the claims often attached and even scientists seem to be involved in this scam, such as with reducing paper use and going paperless saving the tropical rainforests. The wood from those trees is actually not suitable for the making of paper pulp.

Going paperless, especially in governments, has nothing whatsoever too do with saving trees, regardless of the claims, but with saving money as far as printed materials are concerned. And the paper industry, in fact, keeps many forests in existence that would not be there would it not be for the paper industry. So, going paperless could cost us forests as the industry owns those and if there is no benefit in keeping them they might sell the land off to developers.

There is more to many things than meet the eye but the public is often being blinded by the powers-that-be on purpose as to the truth of things. A proper book is more than likely more environmentally-friendly than is an e-book reader and electronic books and, in addition to that, you actually own the book unlike the electronic ones (unless they are PDFs on your PC) which, in the case of Amazon on Kindle, the company, despite the fact that you have paid for it, still maintains to be its property. You cannot legally and technically pass them on to someone else and neither can you print them out.

The public has to learn to be much more discerning if we, as a whole, really every are going to make an impact as far as reducing our impact on the Planet is concerned for there is so much greenwash around from industry and government that cutting through this fog of war requires more than night vision goggles and infrared equipment.

© 2013

Green products 'should be the norm' – UK Government

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The British government has said that green products must become the norm on Britain's supermarket shelves and that the most harmful products need to change. I assume that one can but agree. However, one can also but wonder with what draconian laws they are going to want to enforce this.

The most harmful products, maybe, need not change; they must be superseded with products that do the same job but that are not harmful or, if need be, maybe, that are a lot less harmful.

Ministers made that call as they published updates on progress with the “Waste Strategy and the Sustainable Products and Materials Programme”. Oh dear, now there is a mouthful. I presume that it will have an acronym like WSSPMP or such.

Waste Minister Joan Ruddock said that government and industry were working together to make the whole life cycle of products and services more green.

"We know that people are concerned about their effect on the environment, but they do not get to see the full picture of what goes into producing the goods they buy and they do not see what happens after they have thrown them away," Ms Ruddock said.

"It needs to be easier for people to buy products that will save them money and reduce their impact on the environment, and that's exactly what we're doing.

"There are real savings to be made. Through this action to green the products and materials we use, UK households could save £5 billion a year on their bills." That is billion as in English billion and not American billion.

She added that the so-called “credit crunch” was making it even more important for businesses to use resources more efficiently.

Now it would be very nice if those green products actually would save people money and would be safer. Most of the time the green products cost an arm and a leg to buy and, as we can see with CFLs, have themselves an inherent danger, namely that of mercury.

When it comes to some products of the green range than may, nowadays, be cheaper on the supermarket shelves, such as Ecover dish washing liquid for instance, then there are issues there too. Firstly Ecover has been linked to high level a dangerous substance – namely Dioxane 1,4 – in it and secondly I personally have found that it cannot stand up in cleaning power and in value for money against a leading general brand of washing up liquid. The other one, though a little more expensive, of a non-green kind (though its color is very green) requires less of the liquid to use and works much more efficient with less irritation to my hands than with Ecover and, as one uses less, one saves money. So, where the savings are going to come from that Ms Ruddock mentions beats me.

The Sustainable Products and Materials report, which sets out progress with the piloting of ten Product Roadmaps, including the Milk Roadmap, was launched earlier this year.

It also includes details of government initiatives such as the “agreement” with retailers to take inefficient light bulbs off the shelves by 2011.

I really must say I like the term “agreement” here. Do we call that whitewash or greenwash, for the truth is that there is a law coming into effect that will make it illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs of the aforementioned inefficient kind and only CFLs will be permitted to be sold (and used) after the law comes into effect. So it is not so much as an agreement as a requirement on shops to remove the incandescent light bulbs from their shelves and from sale.

That is the way Britain tried to tackle all the environmental issues, with laws and threats and such. Same as in regards to waste reduction and recycling. It just does not appear to be possible to offer incentives for people to do “the right thing”, as is the case in so many other countries.

The summary of progress with the Waste Strategy revealed that the amount of residual household waste has dropped and household recycling is increasing.

Is this indeed the case or is it just a case that the bins are emptier, simply because fortnightly collections have been started and people fly tip rubbish rather than putting it into the bins.

It also showed the amount of commercial and industrial waste being sent to landfill has continued to fall and less biodegradable waste is finding its way to landfill.

The parks and open spaces, and farms, I should think, have seen a significant increase in fly tipping of ordinary household waste, including biodegradable waste, and especially also the so-called “green” waste, that is to say, garden refuse. The latter because in many ares the councils have been “forced” to take away the free collections of garden waste from householders and people now either have to bring such waste to the municipal refuse tips or have to pay a fee to have it collected.

Not a very green alternative that having to take it by vehicle to the rubbish dump as that often involves waiting in long lines for and hour or more with the engines of the cars left running.

Ministers said further work is needed to identify whether an increase in reports of fly tipping is a result of more fly tipping or improved information from local authorities to its Fly Capture national database.

This, no doubt, means a lot of wasted money for long-winded studies to then claim it is due to better reporting. That is a load of poppycock.

As someone who is involved with parks and open spaces on a daily basis I can vouch for the fact that the incidences of fly tipping, from small to large, are on the up and up, and I am certain that they are going to continue to rise the more we see the fortnightly collections and the removal or reduction of the other collections.

M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008