Nation wakes up to coffee cup recycling on-the-go-go

Veolia’s coffee cup recycling bins brew up a solution

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Underpinned by insight into coffee cup disposal habits and with trials supported by partners such as Costa and Starbucks, Veolia, the UK’s leading resource management company, is rolling out a national coffee cup recycling solution.

With 84% of takeaway hot drink consumers still using disposable cups, Veolia’s coffee cup solution aims to collect takeaway cups as soon as the consumer has finished their drink to reduce cup contamination and increase recycling rates.

The solution is now available to existing customers nationwide and to potential new customers, as part of a packaged service, and offers multiple service options. These include a specialist designed in-house recycling bin, a bulk collection option and a post back service – which is available to all business types nationally.

By capturing cups before they enter the general waste stream Veolia’s solution aims to get a higher quality of material that can be reprocessed into a new product. And the public is onboard.

The latest YouGov research shows a staggering 88% of the public would use a purpose-built bin to ensure their disposable paper cups is recycled. Almost half (47%) would even be willing to hold onto their cup for longer if they knew they would pass a purpose-built bin, and nearly a quarter (24%) would go out of their way to use one. As a result, Veolia is calling for more disposal locations, such as train stations, university campuses and offices, to step-up and help solve the coffee cup conundrum with them.

For regular takeaway hot drink consumers, those that buy at least four drinks a week or more, the most popular location for cup disposal is at work. In fact, over half (52%) cite the office as a disposal location, with ‘on-the-go’ locations such as train stations, service stations and on trains, the second most popular (40%) and then in coffee shops third (31%).

Estelle Brachlianoff, Senior Executive Vice-President at Veolia UK & Ireland, comments: “Over the last six months a lot of activities have been taking place with our customers, such as Costa and Starbucks to overcome our biggest challenge – contamination in the cups. As a result, we’ve worked on a solution that will separate the cup from the general waste stream as soon as the customer has enjoyed their drink – and we’re thrilled to see so much public support for cup recycling.

“Coffee cup recycling is now happening across the country but I’d like to take this opportunity to further encourage a mass collaboration between designers, manufacturers, vendors and consumers as we all have a part to play in making all of our packaging more environmentally friendly and ensuring our resources are kept in the loop for longer.”

Once the consumer has ‘Tipped-it, flipped-it and stacked-it’ – a process to ensure any remaining liquid is drained and the lid, sleeve and cup are separated – Veolia undertakes a further separation process to guarantee all rogue items have been removed. This is key because it will help to ensure a higher quality of material that can be reprocessed into a new product.

After the cups have been debagged, separated, checked for quality and contamination, and baled up they go on to further treatment at paper pulping facilities, which recover the fibers and separate the polymer plastic lining. Working with a number of outlets, the fiber could potentially be used to make a multitude of products such as egg boxes or cup holders given back out in stores or alternatively used in the manufacturing of cellulose-based insulation for homes.

OK, so much for what Violia UK says and now let's looks at the way the world really works, at least according to what I am being told by other experts in the waste management industry.

Violia UK is claiming to have a facility that can separate cardboard from the polymer liner of those cups. If that is the case than this is the only such plant and no one else in the waste industry heard of it being possible.

I know that I am a skeptic and rather sarcastic with regards to this but when 99.9% experts in the industry tell me that those “paper” cups with their polymer linings cannot be recycled and that separation of the two components is not possible I find the claims of one or two companies questionable in the extreme.

As I have said it is either the case that Violia UK has a facility that is capable of doing the things that the vast majority, bar one or two, claim cannot be done or somewhere along the line someone is rather economical with the truth.

It would be better by far if the beverage industry would get away from those cups and people would carry their own. There are enough alternatives available.

© 2017

Pizza boxes, fast food cardboard and similar

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

On those boxes we can see greenwash in action almost in the extreme.

All those containers are marked with the recyclable logo and the imprint “recyclable” and while they are recyclable when they haven't been used the fact is that, once those containers have come into contact with foods, which is the case once they are in our hands, and thus have gotten food residue and/or fat on them, they can no longer be recycled.

Should they end up thrown into a bin for recycled paper and card the entire contents therein is considered contaminated and is sent to landfill as it cannot be used in the production of new paper or cardboard.

This is about the same kind of greenwash that we are faced with with regards to the so-called compostable plastic bags, disposable cutlery and such. While the latter may be compostable they are not in a general composting environment but only in commercial hot composting plants.

So, if the consumer believes the message on the boxes he or she will throw it into the paper and card recycling thus contaminating the entire batch which is then going to landfill instead of recycling.

At many catering establishments the same happens on a much larger scale where the staff is either unaware – or uncaring – throwing all paper and card into the paper recycling leading, again, to entire loads of paper and card to be sent to landfill instead of to where it really should be going.

The main problem is also that the message is not given out to households, as well as businesses, that even the slightest “contamination” will cause the entire batch to be not recyclable.

This does not only apply to fast food packaging. Your cardboard cake box, the “paper” bag with croissants, Danish pastries, or such from the bakers, the paper wrapper from the chips shop, and more, also are not recyclable.

When it comes to ordinary recycling of paper the fat and other residues on those items, which is seen as contamination, make this impossible but we must find a solution so that this stuff does not have to be sent to landfill.

It must be possible to even recover contaminated batches and either sort through them – manually – to recover the useable paper and card or, alternatively, have that paper and card go to a composting plant. Even, though I am no engineer, it should be possible, I would think, to take that material and pulp it for fire logs, insulation material for various applications including houses, or such.

© 2017

'Biodegradable' plastics are not at all great for the environment

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The UN has stated that 'biodegradable' plastics are not so great for the oceans but the truth be told they are not so great anywhere actually, just a feel-good sop to our consciences.

Biodegradable plastic sounds like a wonderful idea when you first hear about it but the truth is a different one to be honest.

Most plastics are notorious for how long they stick around in the environment and how hard it is to break them down naturally, so to think that all those bits of plastics that end up scattered to the four winds could just melt away harmlessly sounds almost too good to be true. And well, once you read the fine print, it kind of is. The same also goes for “compostable” plastics. 

A new report by the United Nations looks at these so-called biodegradable plastics and their impact on oceans, and compared to the theory, reality is a lot less rosy. The biodegradable plastics rarely actually degrade because they require long-term exposure to high-temperatures (around 122F, or 50C), like those found in large municipal composters, to actually break-down. Those conditions are not found very often in nature, and especially not in the oceans.

To add insult to injury, once those biodegradable plastics are in the oceans, the water reduces UV and oxygen exposure, so they degrade even slower than they would otherwise... Basically, biodegradable label or not, those plastics will be there for a very long time. And even when they do break down, after years, the small pieces still pose a threat and just add to the existing microplastics problem that we've written about in the past.

On top of all this, biodegradable plastics are less recyclable than regular plastics, and they can contaminate the feed of recycling plants:

"If you're recycling plastic you don't want to have anything to do with biodegradable plastics," says Peter Kershaw, one of the authors of the UNEP study. "Because if you mix biodegradable with standard plastics you can compromise the properties of the original plastic."

So unless we can somehow make biodegradable plastics that actually degrade under regular conditions fairly rapidly without causing problems, and that can also be easily recycled, or at least kept out of recycling plants, maybe these aren't the best idea. It might make people feel good when they see the label, but if they don't work as intended, then it's just greenwashing.

But it is not only in the oceans that the so-called biodegradable plastic is causing havoc. It is no different in the environment on land and the fact remains that even plastic that is made from plant polymers still remains plastic and plastic just is and will remain a problem. With the additional problem mentioned above that that biodegradable plastic and the plant based plastic cannot be recycled together with ordinary plastic and in some cases cannot be recycled at all.

Thus we are being sold a dud, as they say, as regards to compostability and biodegradability of much of those plastic products made from those kind of polymers which brings us back to the issue of plastic per se and that we should simply – if and where possible – avoid the stuff, with some exception, and some products.

© 2015

How to find a company that is truly green

Here are some tips on how to be a savvy shopper who consistently gets past the greenwashing.

Companies have caught on to the fact that going green means business. Everyone is jumping on the green bandwagon, making claims of being “all natural,” “non toxic,” and “eco-friendly” in hopes of attracting the attention of consumers. The problem is, these claims are often not authentic. There aren’t many regulations in terms of what companies can put on their packaging, which means that consumers have to use their own skills of critical assessment to determine whether or not a company is green for real. Here are some things to look for:

Watch for specific statements.

If an item has green-sounding phrases such as “natural” and “eco-friendly” without providing any further information, it’s probably not true. A company that has real relationships with certifiers such as organic, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, Oeko-Tex, B Corp, etc. will make that loud and clear. They will sing their product’s virtues without hesitation and explain in considerable depth why and what they do.

Look for mission statements online.

A company’s mission statement can go a long ways toward revealing their true environmental intentions. Visit a website such as Patagonia’s, for example, and see how impressively different it is from most other clothing retailers. Patagonia lists the specific textile mills and sewing factories for every piece it sells, setting a high standard for transparency. This is different from other retailers, many of which have “environmental commitment” sections on their websites but actually say very little, when you examine them closely.

Read more here.

The Great Bamboo Lie

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Four companies that use bamboo for clothing and other household fabrics were charged by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for deceptive advertising techniques: claiming that the fabrics are made from “bamboo fiber”, are manufactured using an environmentally friendly process, are naturally antimicrobial, and will biodegrade. In point of fact, says the FTC, “bamboo fiber” is really rayon, the same fiber invented in the 1850s. Rayon is traditionally made from wood pulp, but it can be made from any pulpy substance, including bamboo, and the FTC had issues with these companies selling rayon under a misleading label that made it seem more eco-friendly than wood-based rayon. Furthermore, they add, both wood-based and bamboo-based rayon are manufactured using air-polluting caustic soda, or lye, which is not environmentally friendly and destroys any antimicrobial characteristics that may have existed in raw bamboo pulp. Regarding claims of biodegradation, the FTC says that bamboo will not biodegrade if tossed into a landfill, where most of our trash ends up.

The FTC is not the first to criticize bamboo-clothing manufacturers for advertising the fiber as eco-friendly when the process of converting the pulp into fiber employs such caustic chemicals. In a recent article for the Council of Fashion Designers of America, a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is currently working with textile mills to lessen their environmental impacts, recommended that any designer looking for more eco-friendly fabrics should avoid bamboo. And the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW has, more than once, criticized the claims made about bamboo, and especially bamboo-clothing and I believe that the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW was, in fact, one of the first to take an issue with the promotion of bamboo and especially bamboo-based textiles as greenwash.

Bamboo is always claimed to have an environmental upside in that grows quickly, replenishing itself in as little as 5 years after it has been harvested always compared with 15 to 20 years for trees, though no one seems to look at proper coppice rotation in this matter. It is said to require few pesticides and very little water. I have yet to see wood grown in most environments to require pesticide and for water, well Nature takes care of that with trees.

Bamboo clothing is not – really – natural and neither is it biodegradable or compostable. It is a viscose material and the same as Rayon with the only difference being that one is made from wood pulp the other is made from bamboo pulp. Same difference.

Someone from the green movement stated in response to the US FTC ruling with regards to bamboo clothing that no clothing, not even from natural fiber biodegrades. I would like to dispute that fact and suggest to that person to try to see what happens to a cotton T-shirt or a wool blanket after a year or two in the compost heap. They will have disintegrated. How do I know? I've done it!

Bamboo fiber bowls, cutlery, etc., are still being promoted in the UK, even and especially on green (trade) events as the be all in green but it is a lie plain and simple.

While traditional bamboo products, including furniture, made in countries where this grass grows are fine and good it is not good and sustainable to import them thousands of miles to Europe and the USA and then call them eco-friendly products. Such imports are, in the same way as bamboo clothing, flatware, etc., are not green nor sustainable.

It we want to be eco-conscious and sustainable then furniture should be from homegrown wood (or better still from reclaimed wood) and the same goes for flooring and treen ware. And as far as clothing is concerned this should be from real fiber or if man-made then it should be marked and marketed as such. Bamboo for clothing is Rayon, which is a viscose material and thus, regardless of the fact that it is either wood or bamboo pulp, man-made. Period!

When it comes to bamboo flooring we encounter the bamboo lie and that on a real heavy level. Bamboo flooring is but a laminate flooring type, like wood laminate flooring, and is not green and environmentally friendly at all regardless of the growth rate of bamboo. You cannot cut bamboo into planks or slabs as bamboo is hollow in the round and a lot of heat and other energy, plus powerful glues, are required to make this kind of flooring. It is also not as hard and hard wearing as normal hardwood flooring. It is greenwash in the extreme and it is time that the truth be told and broadcast far and wide.

If you want green flooring – aside from a “dirt” floor – then choose hardwood and ideally here reclaimed hardwood flooring. Now that is green and sustainable.

If you want sustainable clothing then go for real fiber or recycled fiber materials and, ideally, go pre-used from thrift stores. I have not bought new clothing, bar underwear and socks (I would never go as far as buying them pre-owned), for I do not know how long. And, when the clothes really come to the end of their lives then reuse them for cleaning rags and such like before condemning the material, finally, to the waste stream or, if made of truly natural materials, to the compost heap to return to the soil.

The greatest problem that we are facing as consumers who want to be environmentally conscious and do good to the Planet is the amount of greenwash that is about and whose misleading claims are not just misleading but outright lies, such as in the case of bamboo textiles and bamboo flooring, for example. We must, thus, arm ourselves with the knowledge and combat greenwash wherever we encounter it.

© 2014

Go Green, Go Paperless, Go Jobless

Print and paper have a great environmental story to tell

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Time and again we see the messages that ask – nay, demand even – that we go paperless and it is then referred to as going green. Many people, especially government agencies put on the bottom of an email a text such as “consider the environment before printing this email” or similar.

However, what are the broader implication of the choice to go paperless. First of all it has nothing to do, from the side of the companies and agencies, with saving the environment; it has all to do with money.

On the face of it opting for paperless, seems pretty innocuous to most people, generating the feel-good, albeit unsupported, vibe that corporate marketers intend. But there is a hidden consequence in using unsubstantiated environmental claims to promote paperless communication: potential job loss for millions of people.

Millions of people could lose there jobs? It sounds like a stretch until you consider how many families depend on the paper, print and mailing industries for their livelihoods. The U.S. mailing industry alone supports 8.7 million jobs.

These are people who are directly employed in forest products, paper, printing, direct mail design, mail management and mail delivery jobs, 91.7 percent of them in the private sector.

Include here supply chain jobs, many in small companies that would go belly-up if print and paper go away, and the reach of a collective online click extends even further.

There are also some 10 million family forest owners in America who depend on income from the wood they supply for pulp and paper making.

These folks are the backbone of the print and paper industry, filling the demand for the sustainably grown wood fiber used in printed phone bills, bank statements and other customer communications.

In fact, 60% of the wood used to manufacture paper in the United States comes from these small family owned tree farms.

According to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), family forest owners account for 92 percent of all private forest owners and 62 percent of the private forestland (35 percent of all forestland) in the United States with the average family farm holding at around 25 acres.

Without the demand for sustainably grown wood to make paper and the income it provides, many families would be tempted to sell their land for development, the leading cause of U.S. forest loss, rather than continue to manage it responsibly. This is especially true in today's tough economic times.

The USFS says U.S. family forest owners have held their land an average of 26 years. Should these people on the front lines of sustainable forest management be forced to make the difficult financial choice to

sell long-held family land when a drop in paper demand results from green marketing claims that don't hold water?

If companies and government agencies want to encourage a switch from paper to electronic communication because it's speedier or more cost-effective, we cannot argue with that. But don't tout that electronic bill or monthly statement as the greener alternative because it's just not true.

The green movement also needs to gets its fact right about paper as the claim that going paperless saves the trees of the tropical rainforests is not only a fallacy but it is an outright lie. Hardwood trees are not suitable for the making of paper pulp and about 99.9% of the trees of the (tropical) rainforests are hardwood.

The only broadleaved trees that are suitable for the making of paper are poplars, and one or two other species, as their wood is light enough, but hardwoods per se just not for paper pulp make.

Paper is made, predominately, from coniferous woods, that is to say from the likes of spruce, pine and fir, grown more often than not on marginal land that cannot grow hardwoods or have much use for agriculture.

Trees are not saved if and when people reduce their use of paper. The contrary would be the case for the paper companies that own those forests and others who supply the timber for the making of paper would, if the market should dry up, fell the trees and turn the land over for other purposes, more than likely for urban development. Not the result we should be aiming for.

Let's stop greenwashing and tell the real story, and the green movement should be waking up the truth as well.

© 2013

'Reduce waste, buy packaged' crusade looks to bust food waste myths

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A campaign to educate consumers about the role that packaging can play in reducing food waste has been launched to counter negative public perception on the issue.

INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, has launched 'The Good, The Bad and The Spudly' initiative in response to growing awareness of wasteful food habits, both in the home and throughout the supply chain.

INCPEN director Jane Bickerstaffe argues that used wisely, packaging kept food fresher for longer and that over the past 20 years, material innovations had come of age.

"Packaging has got cleverer and cleverer at doing more with less," she asserted. "There's always room for improvement, there is some not very good packaging out there but we think it's in the minority. I believe that all parts of the (packaging) supply chain are trying (to be better)."

She also pointed to the fact that in terms of overall resource inputs, packaging accounted for a fraction of the overall food supply chain.

"More than 10 times more resources are invested in making the food than in the few grams of packaging that's used to protect it," she said.

"The packaging is a sensible investment in resources and if manufacturers can use it well, it will keep their costs down as well as their environmental impacts - it's a win-win situation."

Bickerstaffe said one key challenge was to communicate these benefits to the consumer in a way that was meaningful enough to influence their purchasing habits.

"It's very difficult, people aren't interested in packaging," she acknowledged. "What they want is their food in good condition so that's the message we need to promote - if you want fresh peas, then buy the packaged option, especially frozen."

She added: "People have been fed a diet of 'packaging is bad' - they will avoid packaging and buy unpackaged and wonder why it's gone off."

Questioned about the rising complexity of material use in packaging and the challenges this creates for reprocessing, Bickerstaffe admitted that far more collaboration was needed across the entire supply chain.

"To understand the environmental impact of packaging you have to have to engage with not only the raw material suppliers, the packaging manufacturers, the brands and the retailers - but re-processors, councils and the waste management sector too."

However she maintained that compared to more recyclable materials, complex packaging such as foil laminate packs was just as environmentally beneficial as they used far less material at the design stage.

I must say that I have never heard so much garbage – pardon the pun – for a long time and this is nothing but an attempt by the packaging industry to greenwash the industry and to keep themselves in business.

Fruit and vegetables, for example, do not keep longer if left in the packaging. The opposite rather is the case.

However, various green media outlets fell all over themselves with regards to this as to how positive news this was not realizing, it would appear, that it is nothing but greenwash.

The greatest problem with buying packaged is that often the packages contain much more than can be used up by those buying the produce and thus waste also occurs.

The truth is that buying loose, ideally from independent stores, such as greengrocers or on the market, and then storing the produce in the proper places at home.

Do not store produce in the plastic bags that they are purchased in, even if bought loose but either open, in the correct compartment in the refrigerator or, as in the case of potatoes, in a burlap bag in a cool and dark place in the pantry.

Packaged will not reduce food waste whatever the packaging industry may wish us all to believe simply because they have conducted a study. That's like putting the fox in charge of security at the hen house.

© 2013

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

Greenwash, greenwash everywhere

Greenwash, greenwash everywhere and not an ounce of truth

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Bamboo products such molded bamboo (made from bamboo sawdust and touted as green alternative to plastic), and bamboo flooring are still being promoted as the green choice in favor of wood. Sorry, but this does not compute.

While bamboo is an interesting material the flooring is nothing but a laminate, which means glues are being used and, compared to wood laminate flooring, a great deal of heat and other energy has to be expended to make the bamboo flat.

Molded bamboo products, as an alternative to plastics, is also a load of bull dust, as our Australian cousins would say, as fair as sustainability is concerned and is but greenwash.

But there is so much greenwash around in general, and the bigger the company the bigger the lies, it would seem, that we almost drown in the stuff.

OK, let's get back to bamboo once more. Bamboo is not a tree, for starters, but a grass that has a very hard stem when dry and there are indeed many great products that can be and that are being made from bamboo which are, indeed, very green, but only when they are made in the way that they have always, traditionally, been made, by the local craftsmen and -women in those countries where bamboo grows and those products have evolved out of need and creativity of the people that have always relied on bamboo. But bamboo flooring, bamboo board made by gluing strips together, bamboo “plastic”, and such like are greenwash and not green.

The other greenwash, as already indicated, is being perpetuated by the likes of Coka Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Nestle, and other corporations of their ilk, only in order to bamboozle (sorry about the almost pun) the consumer.

A supposedly 100% plant-based PET plastic bottle that, upon closer inspection states, made with 30% plant material, is not 100% plant-based but maybe 30% and because of this content recycling of that type of PET, according to information from recyclers, is almost impossible. In addition to that, despite the fact that the plastic has a plant-based content it is not, though people are led to believe that, biodegradable and compostable.

Yes, there are indeed plant-based plastic which break down in the environment and which even composts quite nicely. In the latter case most of the time, however, only in commercial hot composting facilities and not in the home compost environment, but they are totally based on corn starch or potato starch and are not a PET.

We can now come to fuels, such as bio-diesel and bio-ethanol. While green, to an extent, in that they are not fossil fuels they are, however, not good for the environment either.

Studies state that the particle emissions from bio-diesel is several times higher than those of oil-based diesel and it is such particle emissions from diesel vehicles that are the cause of respiratory illnesses, especially among children. In addition to that, while not being fossil fuels, they are still being used in an infernal combustion engine and thus still release CO2 and other pollutants.

The people, that is you and I, are being conned left, right and center by industry and by our governments, in the same way as they keep touting, especially in the UK, nuclear power as a green energy. Or, if they try to be less disingenuous, as a low-carbon or even zero carbon energy. But those claims do not compute either for they do not add into the equation the energy, more often than not fossil fuel energy, and thus carbon, in the mining of the uranium and in the shipping of same and then the production of the fuel rods, etc.

Their greenwash simply does not wash and we must equip ourselves with the knowledge to understand the ins and outs so that we can challenge those that make such unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.

Oh, and before I close I think I also better mention “clean coal”. This is a total and utter oxymoron as there is no such thing as “clean coal” and never will be and carbon capture in rocks, caves and under the sea are first and foremost untried and untested and, much like nuclear, a very dangerous undertaking in case of an accident. A nuclear accident releases often dangerous radiation, and we all know that, but consider the release of millions of tons of previously stored CO2 at one foul swoop in an accident. The entire climate balance will collapse within a short space of time without anyone being able to do anything about it and – bang – here goes life on Earth.

Other systems are also being greenwashed to turn out whiter than snow and one of them is so-called geo-engineering in order to reduce warming by blocking out the sun. Or weather manipulation so as to bring rain to drought stricken areas, and such like. Cloud seeding is already many decades old but still almost each and every time that it is being tried it either does not work or, in the worst case, it cause deluges that cause serious flooding and destruction. But man believes himself to be so superior that he thinks he can play weather god and more. Well, we are not that far advanced and we cannot control the weather. We can just cause disasters playing god.

Act against greenwash of all kinds and keep telling others as to what is going on so that people will come to understand how the cookie crumbles.

© 2013

Npower and its shenanigans

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Is Npower the new Starbucks? At the same time as hiking our energy bills, Npower are using accounting tricks to dodge paying their fair share of tax in the UK. On April 16, 2013 it was revealed that they have not paid a single penny in corporation tax for the last three years!

But now that this is out in the open, Npower are vulnerable and just like the PR disaster this issue was for Starbucks when their tax affairs were exposed in later 2012 so it could be for Npower. And just like with Starbucks it could cost them their customers and should.

But this is just one of the shenanigans this company engages in. it also cons the public with their sales pitch where the company claimed to be an wholly British company and one that is green.

As I personally pointed out, in front of many potential customers on a consumer fair to one of the salesmen, the claim is false as the company of wholly owned by RWE AG, formerly Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG, as German company and one that had, at that time, the greatest number of German nuclear power stations. I asked the sales rep since when RWE, their parent company, was British and he was totally lost and tried to continue with his spiel.

RWE also owned Thames Water and many other utilities worldwide. RWE produced in 2007 electricity from the following sources: 32.9% hard coal, 35.2% lignite, 1.1% pumped storage, 2.4% renewables, 13.6% gas and 14.9% Nuclear power, with lignite, which is referred to in German as Braunkohle, being one of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the market.

As far as the tax scam is concerned NPower’s accounting scam works like this: they are turning UK operating profits into accounting and tax losses by making large "interest payments" to other parts of their own business, based overseas. This is currently legal, unfortunately and the people must push the government to close this blatant loophole.

They make those "interest payments" in the main, more than likely though this would require further investigation, to their parent company in Germany, and thus they are not liable for tax in the UK.

But not only their tax and accounting scams need to be stopped. Also the miss-selling of their services to unsuspecting punters needs to be nipped in the bud and they need to have the knuckles wrapped over this.

In fact, it is time that the utilities, electricity generation, gas, water, etc., be brought back into British hands, and best the way it was; back into the hands of the country itself. Such vital services should never ever be allowed to be owned by foreign companies and investors.

Powergen, now E-on, also makes false sales claims stating to be a British-owned company, which it is neither. Powergen, which took the name of its parent, E-on, is a wholly-German owned company and it would appear that most of the utility companies in the UK which are owned by foreigners, bar EDF (Électricité de France S.A.) who are open about being French, claim that they are British. Time the people spoke up and told them to come clean, and that in more than one aspect.

We have the power to change the system...

© 2013

Natural Home Guide

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Natural Home Guide from www.vine.com. Here you can find room-by-room tips and product suggestions, so you can create a comfortable, inviting and happy natural home of your own.

Bamboo is, once again, greenwashed in this guide. While the material is indeed, when used as it comes, a very sustainable material but when it comes to chopping board and such then local hardwoods, such as oak, sycamore, etc., is a much better and way more sustainable choice than bamboo. Do no get fooled.

Bamboo, while being a fast growing grass the plants of which can reach forest proportions, comes in round hollow stems and hence planks cannot be cut from it.

Any chopping board and other flat items are created by the use of energy and even glues and thus the entire green and sustainable claims go right out of the window here.

There are bamboo products and then there are bamboo products. Those that are made in traditional ways and processes in the way that they are used by the natives of the countries where bamboo grows are the good products; the rest is greenwash. Don't fall for it!

Other products, not necessarily in this guide, also engage in greenwash, not just the bamboo brigade, in that they claim to be so very green when they, however, resist to remove chemicals such as 1,4-dioxane from their cleaning products, as in the case of Ecover.

Know what's what and get informed as to what is in so-called green and eco products and how they are made. Don't fall for the claims by the manufacturers and proponents.

Also, instead of running to the stores to buy products made from recycled materials consider reuse and repurposing and upcycling stuff first yourself. Only then go for buying such products. There is no need to go and buy a pencil bin made from recycled steel when you might as well use a cleaned up tin can for this task. Or, instead of rushing out to buy a set of recycled glass storage jars use some that come free with products that you buy. You have, after all, paid for those anyway and thus if you toss them into the recycling bin you waste your money.

You can also make your own counter/windowsill peely-bin from a large tin can with, is you so desire, a wire handle attached. As you should be tossing that stuff into the compost anyway at the end of the day there is no need for a lid though I am sure you can find something that will fit for that purpose too.

Rethink the use of your dryer when it comes to doing the laundry. Consider the good old washing line or the pop-up dryer for the outdoors. Let wind and sun do the drying for you. Indoors there is always, in winter or such, the heating, be it using a drying rack near the stove or the radiators themselves. It also add humidity to the home, which is very useful if you are using a central heating.

Make reusing, repurposing and upcycling the first choice when wishing to green your home and life; not buying “green” products.

http://www.vine.com/naturalhomeguide

© 2013

Non-Profit Initiates Next Stage of its Mission to Stop Greenwashing

Two Sides Urges Leading U.S. Companies to End Misleading Claims about Print and Paper

(CHICAGO) March 12, 2013 – Two Sides today announced the next stage of its nationwide initiative to urge major U.S. banks, utilities and telecommunication companies to end the use of misleading marketing claims about the sustainability of print and paper. Phase Two will include a second round of communication intended to initiate productive discussion with senior management in the target industries, reminding them of their responsibility to adhere to best practices for environmental marketing as outlined in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s recently revised Green Guides.

Last year, Two Sides contacted senior bank, utility and telecom executives, encouraging them to follow the yet-to-be-released FTC Green Guides, which say that environmental marketing claims should not exaggerate environmental impacts and must be substantiated. While some responded positively, many of the nation’s top banks, utilities and telecoms continue to tell their customers that switching to online billing and communication is better for the environment than print and paper with no verifiable or credible supporting evidence. With the release of the updated Green Guides in October 2012, the FTC made it official that that unqualified environmental language would be viewed as deceptive marketing, strengthening the Two Sides call for change.

“Two Sides has no desire to cause unnecessary negative publicity for these companies or to undermine their cost-saving and efficiency reasons for driving customers towards e-billing, but claims that print and paper are environmentally unfriendly need to stop,” says Two Sides President Phil Riebel. “Rather than call these respected companies out publicly with greenwashing complaints, we’d much prefer to amicably work with them behind the scenes to help develop messaging that meets the Green Guides standards for environmental marketing,” he says. “However, we’re prepared to use the strongest means necessary to put an end to the use of unsupported environmental claims that are potentially damaging to the paper, printing and mailing sectors which support millions of U.S. Jobs.”

Two Sides conducted a similar campaign to get companies in the United Kingdom to drop or revise unsupported environmental claims about printed media with great success. More than 80 percent of the U.K. companies approached – including well-known names like British Telecom, Barclaycard, Vodafone and EON Energy – worked with Two Sides to eliminate misleading or factually incorrect environmental claims about the use of print and paper.

“The fact is, print and paper products made in the U.S. have a great environmental story to tell,” Riebel says. “Paper comes from a renewable resource – trees grown in responsibly managed forests – and it’s recycled more than any other commodity, including plastics, metals and glass. The continuing demand for sustainably sourced paper gives U.S. landowners a financial incentive to continue managing their lands responsibly and keep them forested rather than selling them for development – the number one cause of deforestation in the United States. Thanks in great part to the sustainable forestry practices advanced by the paper and forest products industry, the volume of growing trees in U.S. forests has increased nearly 50 percent over the last half century and the total acres of forestland has remained essentially unchanged for 100 years.”

The direct impact of electronic products and services replacing paper is far from negligible, and the trade-offs between the two depends on how often we use the different technologies and how we dispose of the products. Both electronic and print media are important, and both have environmental impacts that must be taken into consideration. Electronic communication has a significant and growing carbon footprint due to the energy requirements of a vast worldwide network of servers necessary to store information for immediate access. Electronic communication also relies on significant amounts of fossil-fuel energy and non-renewable raw materials for processing and manufacturing. With electronic waste becoming the fastest growing waste stream in the world and related environmental and health concerns escalating rapidly in many countries, promoting “going paperless” as the best environmental choice is unfounded.

It’s also important to note that equating electronic billing and statements with “going paperless” is misleading. When traditional bills and statements are converted to electronic communication, much of that paper is replaced by home or office printing by those who prefer or require a permanent hard copy. Furthermore, a recent study by NACHA, the Electronic Payments Association, showed that up to 40 percent of consumers receive both electronic and paper statements.

“Some of the major U.S. companies in the financial, telecom and utility sectors are to be commended for implementing sustainability initiatives that focus on true performance measurement and factual environmental claims, but others are lagging behind in terms of credible messaging,” Riebel says. “Two Sides is committed to help change this, and our experience to date shows that we’ve been successful in finding mutually acceptable solutions.”

Two Sides is an independent, non-profit organization created to promote the responsible production, use and sustainability of print and paper. Started in Europe in 2008, Two Sides is now active in more than 12 countries. The organization has more than 1,000 members that span the entire print and paper supply chain, including pulp and paper producers, paper distributors, ink and chemical manufacturers, printers, equipment manufacturers and publishers. For more information about Two Sides visit the Two Sides website at www.twosides.us.

Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.

Coca-Cola's switch to plant-based bottles not as green as may be thought

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

You may have heard and seen the news that Coca-Cola is increasing its production of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) made with plant-based glycol instead of petroleum-derived glycol. In the language of sustainability, this would be described as replacing a non-renewable feedstock with a renewable feedstock.

In some ads it has been claimed by Coca-Cola that their bottle is 100% plant based but when anyone looks at the bottle itself it says up to 30% plant-based plastic. That, in my book, is not 100%.

While plant-based PET sounds very green, doesn't it, it, in fact, is not for it is still PET, that is to say polyethylene terephthalate, no more no less. And it is a PET now, that does have a mix of oil-based and plant-based plastic, making is more difficult to recycle, according to some sources. There’s no easy way (yet) to separate the different constituents and put them in their respective preferable recovery systems.

Even if they would be making PET entirely from plant-based materials (which is not truly possible today, considering all the catalysts and polymer chemistry whatsits that are not made from plants), the PET would still be an inherently non-biodegradable material.

If we really want plant-based plastic then we must (1) ensure that it can be recycled and (2) better still that it actually would be compostable, albeit in commercial composters rather than the backyard compost heap.

Despite the fact that someone from the company has been threatening me should I continue telling the truth about their plant-based PET not being as green as they are painting it I will continue to do so.

Greenwash is greenwash regardless of who is doing it and Coca-Cola does not have a good record as far as the environment is concerned.

So, don't let anyone fool you and research everything you are told...

© 2012

Don't fall for greenwash

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Tom's of Maine, best known for it's supposedly environmentally friendly toothpaste practices, is seen by a great many people to be a real caring company but few know that it is almost wholly owned nowadays by Colgate-Palmolive and that means by one of the biggest corporations in the personal care market.

While it is being claimed that the products are remaining the same as the were when the original owners were in (full) control the association with Colgate-Palmolive should tell us something already.

This is a story very similar to the sell-out by the original owners of the Body Shop to another huge corporation. It is very much a “buyer beware” scenario out there and we really must do our research in that department.

We must be very, very careful and carefully research the backgrounds and actions of many companies that claim to be green and environmentally friendly and ethical. The question always had to be as to who is the true owner.

When the likes of Colgate-Palmolive or similar are the true owners, or the absolute majority owners, then we must come to our own conclusions as to the claims being made when it is known and obvious that the company itself is involved in unethical and environmentally destructive actions in other parts of their business.

And I believe that we also must question the integrity of other supposedly green and ethical companies that, in any way, shape or form, align themselves with them, have them as sponsors, or whatever.

As consumers we all have that power, namely to vote with our feet and wallets and to shun those whose practices, or whose parent companies' practices, are questionable, and also those companies that in other ways associate themselves with those corporations.

© 2012

Radflek Radiator Reflectors: The wheel reinvented – HELP!

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Radflek Radiator Reflectors, sold by a number of eco stores are said to reduce wasted heat from radiators by 40%.

However, what are they really? A sheet aluminium foil that is hung behind a radiotor and nothing more and for that people are supposed to pay from £12.95 for 3 sheets, which apparently can deal with 6 radiators to £34.95 for 10 sheets, said to be good for 20 radiators.

While it is right that the use of the Radflek Radiator Reflectors will reduce your energy bills and get the most out of your central heating good aluminium baking foil will do the same thing for much less. All it is to do, once hung down the back of your radiator, it to reflect the heat back into the room. Aluminium foil on its own will do the same equally well and has been used by people in days gone by.This is nothing new and just a reinvention of the wheel fleecing the green consumer. We must get away from this and give the environmentally conscious consumer some real proper goods that last.

Don't get Radflek Radiator Reflectors but buy a couple of rolls of turkey foil, even cheap versions will do, and put that at the back of the radiators. Stop allowing unscrupulous manufacturers and vendors fleece you in the name of the environment and energy efficiency.

© 2010

Reinventing the glass bottle

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

When you think that you have seen it all as regards to fleecing the “green” consumer and the environmentally conscious along comes this; a range of glass water bottles which sell for from US$18-US$22. Am I crazy or is it everyone else?

The new Metro line of glass water bottles from “Be Truly You” are, so the company, designed to help folks “fall in love with their tap… all over again.” And they continue to state that the glass bottles are 100% recyclable and fit right into a regular sized cup holder. Every glass bottle is 100% recyclable and, as will all glass containers, infinitely.

Unlike plastic, glass does not lose quality in the recycling process, and that is why I could quite happily go along, and in fact do, with using a good solid glass bottle in which to carry my tap water for drinking, instead of buying bottled water, when the bottle finally has to go to the recycling center. However, I do find the prices just a little more than extortionate.

This even more so seeing that anyone with but an ounce of sense and can repurpose a Snapple lemonade glass bottle or a glass Ketchup bottle for the same use. I do! Those bottles come for free with the product and why waste them.

Even the fact that the founders of the company, “Be Truly You”,Heather McDowell and Ann Caiola, are donating $1 from each Metro bottle sold to the UNICEF Tap Project, cannot in any way justify the prices quoted for those bottles sold by that company.

With all the rip offs going on under the “green products and services” umbrella it is not surprising that so many people of the lower income brackets think that they cannot possibly go “green”.

That belief of those people, however, is not correct and going “green” should not be something that should cost you lots; on the contrary, it should be able to save you money.

You do not have to buy into the green consumerism, and you do not have to either in order to do your part for Mother Earth.

The truth is that we are replacing one side of consumerism with another and this was never the idea, I am sure.

When it comes, for instance, to the idea of such water bottles from glass there is no need – none whatsoever – to spend 18 bucks of more on one when, as I have said, you can simply repurpose and upcycle a Snapple lemonade bottle or a Ketchup bottle to do exactly the same, and that for basically zero dollars.

It is time, I think, that we all woke up to the truth that there are people out there who would like to take us to the cleaners. And it is also time that we stood up and refused to be fleeced.

I am well aware of the fact that there are things that we cannot make ourselves and cannot make through repurposing, upcycling and such, I do feel that the finger must be pointed though when there is someone who is jumping on the green bandwagon with but the thought of making lots of money out of such simple things such as these.

So, before you go out and buy such a bottle think as to whether you cannot repurpose one that you have.

You want a label that proudly states the fact that you are using tap water? The create one on the computer using free clipart and word processor, and stick it to the bottle, or be creative and paint it on. But don't spend nearly twenty buck on one.

Copyright © Michael Smith 2010

Just a Drop ethical bottled water

Greenwashing in action

by Michael Smith

In a recent circular from the charity “Just a Drop” tried a bit more on greenwashing its ethical bottled water by stating that it now comes in a new BIODEGRADABLE and COMPOSTABLE bottle.

It does not matter whether it comes in a PET bottle or a BIODEGRADABLE and COMPOSTABLE one; bottled water is not and will never be ethical. Period.

Obviously having bottled water, if one has to have it, at conferences and such like and for personal use, in BIODEGRADABLE and COMPOSTABLE bottles is much better than having it in PET (plastic) bottles but why the supposed need for bottled water in the first place.

Also, as in this case they were trying to aim at bottled water as a promotional item at trade fairs and conference, why does water have to be given out in such bottles. Why not provide water dispensers and give out also small reusable sports bottles from lined aluminium, for instance.

Yes, such bottles are more expensive and in addition the provision of a water cooler, the latter which ideally should be a tap water mains fed one that has a built in filtration system, but such gestures would remain in the memory of the visitors a lot more than a plastic, whether biodegradable and compostable or not, bottle of water.

Bottles water, in my opinion, can never be classed as “ethical”, whether or not is it being sold by a charity which uses the profits from those sales to provide drinking water projects in the Third World. Bottled water simply is not and cannot, as I said before, ever be “ethical”, not even with the best intentions.

We have spoken about the issue of bottled water, especially the water in plastic bottles many times and the debate is going on in all green circles, but it is not just the plastic bottle that is the issue but the extraction of water for the purpose of bottling and selling in bottles itself that is rather contentious. This is particularly so in countries such as Britain, the USA and the like where the public water supplies are safe to drink, safer even than some of those sources from which the bottled waters are drawn.

I, for one, will rather drink – filtered, if need be – tap water from our municipal sources than so-called spring water that may have contaminants in it for which it may not even have to be tested, though for which tap water is being tested.

Most readers would be amazed as to what level of pollution and contamination is permitted in “spring” water compared to tap water. Tap water is by far, at least in those really well developed countries, safer than so-called bottled spring water and therefore we should use it, at home and in restaurants, in the same way as on the move.

Let's demand tap water wherever we can and if this is being refused then, maybe, we should no longer frequent that establishment.

© M Smith (Veshengro), January 2009
<>

Ethical bottled water – a contradiction in terms

by Michael Smith

Ethical bottled water must be the biggest oxymoron of our time. Bottled water simply can never be ethical regardless of whatever and whichever cause it may be meant to help and aid. Bottled water is unethical, period!

I know of more than one bottled water company that claims “ethical” status because a percentage of its profits from the sale of the bottles of water is used in water projects in India and elsewhere in the Third World, to provide, say, clean water wells for villages and such. The cause supported with however much of the profits still does not make water, whether spring or even tap, sold in a plastic bottle “ethical”. That is the short and long of it. In other words, bottled water cannot be “ethical” regardless of what cause it might support.

I do not care who runs those water companies and why and what causes are supported from the sale of the water in bottles, nor do I care how many awards those people may have been given. Bottled water simply is NOT ethical. End of message! What part of the word “not” is so difficult to understand?

None of those ventures I could ever see myself supporting simply because, in my opinion, water put into a plastic bottle and then sold simply is not, as I said before, ethical.

“We Want Tap”, on the other hand, is a campaign and cause that has my wholehearted support.

You want to do something ethical about water? Sell water bottles and encourage people to use tap water – filtered if need. That is ethical and if you want to go that step further then you can use part of the profits from the sale of the water bottles for a cause, such as proving potable water for villagers in India, or such.

“Bottles for a Cause”, now there is a title for a campaign.

© M Smith (Veshengro), November 2008
<>

Green gimmicks

by Michael Smith

What do I mean with green gimmicks? The answer to that can be short or long but let's just cut it down to size and it is all those gadgets and things that are given the prefix of “green” and/or “eco” and which, in reality are not or not really.

Firstly, let me say that there are lots of things out there, whether gadgets or not, that have been given the prefix of “green” or “eco” but are in fact neither. Many are actually a burden on the environment.

The “eco-button” is one of those useless gadgets that I am trying to name and shame in this little article for using and abusing the name and notion of “eco” and “green”. The only thing that is green on the “eco-button” is the color. I like to point the reader to the review of this device within the pages of this journal (found here).

Another one of those gimmick, in my opinion, is the ceramic cup that looks like take out paper cup. Can someone please tell me who, in their right mind, would carry such a cup with them to go to, say, Starbucks, Wild Bean Cafe, or whichever other coffee outlet? While I am all for the notion of “bring your own” it has to be something that won't break should I happen to drop it. Hence the metal coated insulated mugs one can buy, whether at the outlets themselves or elsewhere, is a different kettle of fish but a ceramic cup; that is a load of greenwash but nothing else.

There are way too many gimmicks, as I have already indicated above, that are given, now, because of climate change, the prefix of “green” or “eco” and it beats me at times how they can even make such claims.

The biggest problem with this is that many consumers fall for the claims of those gadgets and other items that are thus claimed to be “green” and doing something to save the environment. Most people have not got the discernment, it would appear, to spot a gimmick and fake and also, as they want to do something for the environment, often as a kind of a conscience calming effort, that they go with all of those things.

While I have only mentioned those two items as regards to green gimmicks I am sure the readers will have their own encounters with such things and I invite you all here to share your experiences with the rest of us.

© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>

Jumping on the Green Bandwagon

Greenwashing in action

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Recently we received an email here at the Green (Living) Review from KEEPME BAGS of Greenhithe, Kent, advertising – whether this email was intended to us as a “press release” or something else I do not know – their “ECO Bag of non-woven polypropylene”. The claims for those ECO PP Bags from “Keep Me Bags” are as follows:

“100% recyclable, robust & 100% reusable, biodegradable, non toxic, made using very clean and energy efficient manufacturing processes, printed with water based inks, flame retardant and air permeability, ECO friendly - new generation of environment-friendly materials, made from spun bonded 100% Polypropylene.”

While I am not arguing in any way with the claims for being 100% recyclable, and those of robustness and and of the ability to be reused, nor have any problems with them, I am having great problems with the claim of those bags as being biodegradable. Polypropylene is a plastic, basically; a synthetic material, that is oil based and that is NOT biodegradable, whatever any vendor or manufacturer might like to claim in order to sell those to companies who may be rather ignorant as to what is or is not biodegradable.

Plastics of any kind break down in the environment, that is true. But that is just it; the material slowly breaks down by the action of light and and soil and weather into ever smaller fragments of – plastic. And, while doing so it releases harmful substances into the soil and water. Cheers. They do not compost and therefore are not biodegradable.

The same applies for any other plastic bag unless the bags are made of PLA, that is to say corn starch or lactic acid based “plastic” type of materials. Those latter ones do, indeed, biodegrade; they in fact compost nicely.

It would very much appear that the green bandwagon is the one to jump on at present and too many companies wishing to be seen as green buy such bags unbeknown of the fact that they are being lied to as to the biodegradable claims and such like.

In this case we are talking about a polyester fibre, non-woven – which means the fibers are being bonded together (by some sort of glue, one should guess) and we are being given all those “green” credentials. This is a definite case of greenwashing, much like the “Eco-Button”, that useless piece of electronic trash.

© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008