Question to guests:

Why isn’t there more awareness raised among Americans, especially among the younger generations, about the environmental consequences of their electronic purchases?

It is well known that the manufacturing of the electronic appliances, gadgets, etc contribute to extreme toxicity in our environment, though not in our backyard but someone else’s backyard in China, India or wherever they are produced. Additionally, these countries don’t have strict rules about recycling and proper disposal so that creates more problems.

Please comment. Thanks.

slate.com’s green lantern does comparisons like this regularly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2174662/landing/1/

Isn’t efficiency of recycling (garbage) a huge factor? As to plastic bags, if I don’t get one at the grocery, I have to buy plastic bags (less flimsy), and I know someone elsewhere sorts my trash (on behalf of the landlord), and takes it where one hopes value can be extracted, while the process costs.
My city is running to the end of a landfill, so it’s uppermost in awareness. A product equals what happens to its remains.

The most important ecological impact factor for me is whether or not products are tested on animals. That is one immediate criteria that I can use to select products that I am comfortable with using, and, I suspect that company concerned with being cruelty-free will also be reasonable enough to consider and address other ecological impact factors as well.

Tom–

This is EXACTLY the problem with modifying our environmental behavior: MEASURING the precise impact of different choices.

Which is better, my wool pants that are natural but require constant dry cleaning, or my artificial polyester blend that goes in the regular wash?

We get so caught up on minutiae that can really mitigate our environmental impact at such small margins at best, and even there we can’t be sure what are the real impacts of our choices.

And no person–and no functioning market–can make intelligent choices without transparency and full information.

So please keep informing us!

How do (or can) the ‘avoided costs’ created by technology get factored into the footprint analysis to get a net effect. For example, the better communication technology have significantly changed my legal practice over 20+ years with far fewer plane and car trips now than in prior years because of my Blackberry, video conferencing, real time document editing (and, yes, I did get an iPad too and love it) allow me to stay in the office and still service clients far and wide? Trading transportation environmental costs for other costs incurred in building the gadgets?

Thanks

Question to Guests:

To put an agricultural spin on today’s conversation, is there any way to find alternative plants & means of production (besides hemp) to the historically soil, water, and energy-taxing elements of cotton planting, harvesting, and clothes production?

It does seem incredibly complicated to fully evaluate the ecological impact of any one thing from concept through burial. Going to the library for a book is an example…on the surface seems very low impact, but does it consider the the impact of someone who lives 9 miles from the library using their vehicle to get there (and returning it too)??

When comparing the costs of books and Ipad, I’m curious if Daniel has factored in the cost of building, insuring, heating, cooling, carpeting, etc… of all the space needed for books and libraries over a period of the life of each book. I’m also curious if he has factored in the transportation of books now, and the several other instances they will change hands in the future? Also, the Ipad isn’t just a book, it also does what many computers do, but with less weight, and I’m guessing, with less energy. A better comparison would probably be with a digital reader using digital paper.

How much detail went into this sort of comparisons?

Tom,

To many products say “GREEN” to no effect on truly being green.

Lost me on this years ago.

Not only a stay-in-place office, given internet and digital technologies, but a less labor-intensive office. Paperless and people-less. Fewer paper-pushers.
Second point: one can stay put and work, and then if you want to discard your television or battery pack, you probably want reverse-UPS to pick up your item and take it to the recycling center. I have tried bicycling computers and printers a few miles across town to a high-school sponsored take-back-your-junk undertaking. Exhausting.

I put a great deal of thought into my purchases and attempt to select the options with the least impact: I buy refurbished phones, used books, locally-produced foods, reusable products. I re-use everything I can as often as I can, even rinsing out Ziploc bags and re-using them until they fall apart.

But I found the Sony Daily Edition eReader irresistible.

So, to help assuage my guilt:

What about the weight of books? I travel quite a lot for work and read an awful lot of books, often big, thick heavy ones. It saves me so much weight and space in luggage… I can fit several on my eReader, as well as daily electronic delivery of a newspaper. Does this represent a significant offset to the purchase of my sleek electronic toy?

It would be great if the Good Guide could use some of the research that is done by an independent research group like Consumer Reports. It would be helpful to know which of the least toxic products perform best. For example, the laundry detergents without phosphates may be the most eco-friendly but which of those do the best job of cleaning your clothes. That is a problem with alternative formations of products, they may be eco-friendly but may not do the job.

I used cloth diapers for my first child and plan to with #2 coming in 2 weeks. I use a lot of water and energy washing them. Are they really more eco friendly than disposables?

re: e-readers

Have they in their analysis taken into account the costs of shipping to the bookstore or home, packaging, electricity for lighting to read by, driving to the store, driving to the customer’s door, cost of physical research? Space in the home for book cases, shelves, etc.?

Does the cost curve begin to drop with volume of books sold?

What about the cost of drilling, transporting, then refining the oil into gasoline. What about the pollution created transporting the gasoline to the pump?

People always say “What is the pollution cost of generating electricity?” but NEVER say “What is the cost of delivering oil from the ground to the gasoline pump”.

USA Building Codes (I’m in Florida) have long-required ENERGY CALCULATIONS, to ensure a lower-energy-using structure. However, it does NOT allow for TOTAL ECOLOGICAL footprint, as today’s Guest advocates.

Why isn’t such a Criteria required of Building Codes, please?!

And, in all fairness, there has to be an additional Criteria for the Affordability of the product, too. Or, even Local Supply. Quite a looong list of necessary Criteria we MUST include.

Life-cycle footprint is not only hard to see at the point of purchase – the impulse to buy greener, more responsible choices too often gets sacrificed to a simple price-tag comparison. Note how shoppers bypass organic food, even as they recognize that its nutritionally better for them.

If consumers could see the overall eco footprint cost right on the price-tag, it would shift our purchases dramatically – towards locally-sourced and made, and towards green.

The sad fact is, even though ecological costs are hidden from the price-tag, we end up paying anyway – in direct dollars, or at least in lifestyle impact. Like we can ignore the impact of packaging materials and chemicals on end-of-life disposal, but then we end up paying taxes to provide the Superfund cleanup of our landfills.

Rather than (or in addition to) providing eco cost data as a side benefit in the store, doesn’t it make sense to move society towards requiring manufacturers to fund the cost of responsibly discarding or recycling their products and manufacturing processes, including funding solutions for depletion of non-renewable natural resources. If they had to include these costs in their manufacturing budget, then the costs would show up on the price-tag, no?

-Jim Smith

Life-cycle cost is not only hard to see at the point of purchase – the impulse to buy greener, more responsible choices too often gets sacrificed to a simple price-tag comparison. Note how shoppers bypass organic food, even as they recognize that its nutritionally superior.

If consumers could see the overall eco footprint cost right on the price-tag, it would shift our purchases dramatically – towards locally-sourced and made, and towards green.

The sad fact is, even though ecological costs are hidden from the price-tag, we end up paying anyway – in direct dollars, or at least in lifestyle impact. Like we can ignore the impact of packaging materials and chemicals on end-of-life disposal, but then we end up paying taxes to provide the Superfund cleanup of our landfills.

Rather than (or in addition to) providing eco cost data as a side benefit in the store, doesn’t it make sense to move society towards requiring manufacturers to fund the cost of responsibly discarding or recycling their products and manufacturing processes, including funding solutions for depletion of non-renewable natural resources. If they had to include these costs in their manufacturing budget, then the costs would show up on the price-tag, no?

-Jim Smith

If there was ever a job for the government, this is it — take a step back, analyze the worlds resources, pollution, and report on it. Explain why if we continue this way what the repercussions will be. With consumers and governments informed , the government can stear this ship on a sustainable course. Saving our planet one would think would be the most uncontroversial thing in the world.

e-books. Can’t be recycled through the League of Women Voters, whether to libraries in Africa or high schools. Once you’re done with an e-book, can you send it to your nephew?

In addition to chasing consumer dollars, smart companies have found that taking a sustainable approach to manufacturing good makes good business sense and they can be more profitable than conventional manufacturing.

Tom, you may recall there was a presentation by the CEO of Stonyfield Organics last week at the conference you also spoke at Babson. He made this very point.

Also, the market needs clarity in labeling these products and the non partisan verification and auditing to make sure the claims are accurate.

Karen Coyne
Chairman of the Board
BRIDGES to Sustainability Institute (non partisan NGO),

and

Past President
The Auditing Roundtable

Hi, it seems as tho we should remember the other “R” in reduce, reuse and recycle when shopping for say, new handbags. That is, why not look for used handbags in our consignment/Salvation Army stores? That would reduce manufacturing of so many new things if we all shared each others’ castoffs…

Tom please ask which is better. Keep my ‘78 volvo (clean running rebuild engine) or junk it for a high tech new vehicle?

Giving items grades is a tricky business. How can we be assured of the independence and reliability of the organizations that are doing the product ratings for Good Guide? At some level, isn’t the business of rating the products subjective? Is the information about the raters and the process also transparent?

2points
1st when speaking about cost of books did they figure in the excess books printed and then recycled also aluminum plates press chemistry and distribution to and from local store front.
2nd
what about energy vampires chargers, tv remotes, clocks on microwaves, vcrs, other appliances that the doe estimates consumes 10% of household energy use without providing any useful benefit ?

Great to hear about the new rice-and-mushroom-based styrofoam. Personally, I use styrofoam for insulation around my windows, and as lifts on furniture. I expect that in case of fire, the styrofoam would burn (toxically, but still). Is that not so?
As for the rice-and-mushroom stuff, it sounds like a likely candidate for morphing into the next generation of diapers — self-destructing diapers.

Hi Tom and guests,
can you give some background on the field of ecological intelligence? Are there any public or private universities with degrees in this or related fields (natural resources, etc.)
Thanks for the great show!
Dan
Doctoral studen, The Ohio State University

Hi Tom and guests,
can you give some background on the field of ecological intelligence? Are there any public or private universities with degrees in this or related fields (natural resources, etc.)
Thanks for the great show!
Dan
Doctoral student, The Ohio State University

Does Government have a role in the green consumer movement? While tools like Good Guide provide greater transparency, the process of LCA is complex and highly subject to manipulation. Who oversees the process to ensure that information remains useful, understandable and fair.

OMG — Daniel Coleman is undoubtedly brilliant, but maybe in a specialized field. The rhetoric breaks down a bit when he mentions hydrogen power. He says hydrogen is dirty in its production phase. He’s never heard, then, of solar hydrogen.

You use solar arrays to hydrolyze (electrically) H(2)O. This is coming and yet people (maybe even Mr. Coleman) aren’t listening. Mark these words — solar hydrogen IS coming and it IS the solution to the world energy problem. All the talk of wind, biofuels and battery powered cars is still of the super hyped variety.

The amount of detail going into measuring things is also not environmentally friendly. Our government spends so much time measuring, labeling and regulating things already; everything we add to do more measuring, and regulating, has a huge hidden cost. We may be spending as much energy on regulating, as we are on producing, and that isn’t very green.

Population control needs to be part of the solution.

Regarding the 100 cups a day.
Why can’t they just use plastic and wash them?
Fill up a sink with hot soapy water, rinse, reuse.

I think until people are willing to do more work on their own, this will always be a problem.

I am interested in heating options. Which is most enviornmentally positive woodstove, natural gas, propane, or electric?

“I have tried bicycling computers and printers a few miles across town to a high-school sponsored take-back-your-junk undertaking. Exhausting.”

Good point, I drove mine to the HS recycle. I couldn’t have done it with a bicycle. I have a Prius so I wasted no fuel and produced no pollution while threading through the 1/2 hour long line. Can’t be said for 99% of the vehicles there. How much ‘idling’ pollution was created on ‘mass recycle’ day that would have been avoided if people could just drop them off any day? A half hour of idling uses about as much gas as it takes to start the vehicle once a day for 1/2 year.

I keep hearing the word “I” used instead of “me”. I think a grammar show would be a good idea…

The idea that a single number from 1 to 10 can fully encapsulate the scientific, cultural, political, and manufacturing issues involved in deciding “greenness” seem overly simplistic. Surely this is a complex equation of many variables that does not have a simple solution.

But more importantly, I don’t want the process of protecting society to depend on a number, one which may or may not include all the factors or account for what is truly important in the long run.

And what about the role of government and health organizations? Shouldn’t they be the ones enforcing policies on companies that put carcinogens and toxins in our products? How about focusing on not having lead and PCBs in consumer products in the first place? I would rather there not be a carcinogenic shampoo than having a number that tells me to avoid it.

Just because we cannot see something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

The invisible embodied energy or “grey energy” used to manufacture digital technologies and the toxic e-waste associated with electronics are largely out of sight and out of mind, but their impacts can be profound.

According to MIT researcher Timothy Gutowski manufacturing a one kilogram plastic or metal part requires as much electricity as operating a flat screen television for 1 to 10 hours. The energy requirements of semiconductor manufacturing techniques are much higher than that, up to 6 orders of magnitude (that’s 10 raised to the 6th power) above those of conventional manufacturing processes.

In addition to considering the way digital media can create new possibilities for a better world we also need to consider the less obvious impacts of the purchased energy, embodied energy, dark content and e-waste associated with the growing use of digital media.

For more insight on the environmental impacts associated with IT you may want to read recent article:

Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print?

http://to.pbs.org/a0roih

Don’t forget about disposal of prescription drugs. Antibiotics in the water supply that force bacteria to evolve and adapt so they are immune to the drugs, and besides aren’t good for us water-drinkers. I think twice now about tossing expired prescriptions into the toilet, the trash — actually, I suppose the millions of prescriptions actually ingested would also end up in the water supply via sewage. Just a thought.

I used cloth diapers for my first child and plan to with #2 coming in 2 weeks. I use a lot of water and energy washing them. Are they really more eco friendly than disposables?

Amy, I recently heard of compostable diapers. Maybe they could be part of the solution for you? This brand’s site explains the concept: http://www.gdiapers.com/

Then there’s diaper-free – eek! (Google it; it’s not a joke!)

BTW, thank you for keeping a mountain of diapers out of the landfill, by whatever method!

“Which is most environmentally positive wood stove, natural gas, propane, or electric?”

Tough question.
- Wood is renewable but even the best wood stove puts a lot of nasty stuff up the chimney including very small particles that cause lung issues.
- Natural gas and propane burn clean without a lot of pollution but are not renewable.
- Electric resistance heat will break the bank.

Expensive, but I would look into geothermal heat pumps. They run water (or other fluids) in a loop into the ground where it is naturally warmed to 50 – 55F then a heat pump extracts the heat. The pump that runs the loop uses very little electricity. They are usually connected to forced air systems. They can also run in ‘reverse’, cooling in the summer. LOTS more efficient than an air to air heat exchanger, especially as the air temp drops (for heat) or rises (when you want to cool). Consider the electric cost to squeeze 70F air out of 0F or 100F air.

I wonder if one built a really well insulated house, with a lot of winter sun exposure, you could just run a loop from the ground line through the house on a ‘hot water’ baseboard loop and not require much in the way of supplemental heat.

I just finished Goleman’s Ecological Intelligence; it started a bit slow for me, but then took off about halfway through, with lots of concrete and cogent thoughts and writing. So I’d recommend it. Also, for those who’re interested, Goleman is giving a live talk on his latest book in Newton MA on Wed., April 27. For info: 617-559-6999.

Great show!
Tom, your show and a professor I had in college (UMB) have been the only sources I’ve heard speak of electric cars adding to our power plant uses. Why haven’t the rest of the media picked up on this yet?

What about obsolete electronics? Sure there are cell phones, TVs, computers, etc., but there’s also plotters, printers, digitizers and other large pieces of equipment.
One solution is to donate them to schools or other countries, when municipalities or businesses get new equipment. Yet even if the old equipment is kept, whoever is using this equipment will run into maintenance issues and the lack thereof of replacement parts and tech support, never mind the incapability of new software and USB/port connect-ability.
Though I believe everyone should upgrade to the 21st century, I also understand that it’s expensive and adds to our waste. How do we begin to upgrade our machines efficiently, when it’s financially beneficial to Sharp/HP/etc. to sell us brand new inventory?

BHA, where I live a senior center was built a few years back using geothermal heat, and I have been comfortable there season-in, season-out. A year or so after that, a private school nearby put up a dorm for students using geothermal, and that seems fine. I am waiting for architects to start designing geothermal apartment buildings, not luxury, not “affordable,” but reasonable, designed for the “sustainable cities,” that Neil Pierce (columnist) predicts will be half the planet in years to come. I hope my retirement funds are investing in whatever construction firm and developers are going after that whole-hog, wherever the geological situation allows.

People are,at their core, sheeple. They will do whatever they are trained and programmed to do. Just as America has been hypnotized into being glutinous pigs that despoil the environment all in the guise of commercialism being good for america (since WWII). So we can all, over time, be re-programmed to want the right choices that are good for the environment and good for all animals once we recognize that the “real cost” to us in the long run is not to only look at the economic well being of coporate america. Unfortunately the solution, it’s all about the dollar.

What we as consumers need is a green product label that has a range from 0 to 100 that rates a product from cradle to grave looking at the total environmental cost of, say, gathering the raw materials, delivery of the product to market and disposal after the use by the consumer. It ain’t easy but that is the information one needs to make informed decisions. This is something that government as an institution could be most valuable to society– to protect it’s people.

I went to the goodguys.com website during the show. all it appeared to be was an ad for go daddy. Where are the links to the information discussed?

Women who would like to reduce their monthly (pun intended!) footprint and save a bunch of money in the process should read this article, which touches on menstrual cups and washable pads – or more importantly, read the comments. http://www.slate.com/id/2247396/

If the info is no longer relevant for you, consider passing it on to daughters, nieces, etc. – these products have zero ad budget, so most people are unaware of this eco-friendly, healthier option.

Tom,
There has just been the expense of 25 lives in the West Virginia coal mine. Why don’t you talk about Acountability for the CEO and Corporation that killed those 25 miners. Look it up and see how many violations were at that mine. That is not only a foot print – that is 25 grave sites.
Marylin

verall, I agree with your view on consumer choice leading to change but one aspect which is missing in this narrative and also in some of Dara’s work for good guide is the issue of livelihoods, particularly in developing countries. Consumers should also consider that in their decision — this is particularly an issue when focusing on local produce as a measure of a “good metric” since this might be at the expense of livelihoods in places where they are more needed.

In my new book, Treasures of the Earth (Yale Univ Press) I have argued for a similar approach to dealing with ecological problems but with an added developmental imperative. Adding a sustainable livelihoods index to the metrics of performance would be welcome. I have spoken to Dara about this as well.

Tom please do not confuse hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with electric vehicles.
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, you need to convert some other energy source, either by reformatting natural gas(cheaper & nonrenewable) or by electrolysis(expensive & inefficient).

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a boondoggle that the energy companies push to keep us using oil.

Electric vehicles can use energy from a variety of sources so they can easily use renewable power and they are so efficient that using them releases less CO2 than gas cars even if the power source is a coal fired power plants.

The batteries in electric vehicles can be recycled into new batteries.

Can anyone name another public institution which is totally devoted to recycling and available to all which is as visible and comprehensive as the Public Library?

Interesting show. I hope sometime in the future Tom will talk about the pros and cons of recycling as well – as in which types of materials recycle easily and cheaply and which end up taking more resources during the recycling process than making something from scratch. For instance, I can buy milk in plastic, cardboard, or glass jugs. The first two go directly into the recycle bin. But which has the smaller footprint after the fact.

When they say you would have to read 100 books on an e-reader to break even on the environmental impact of not buying printed material, I suspect the research is incomplete at best. For one, how about the gasoline for 100 trips to the library or 50-100 book shipments? How about recycling 500 paper books as opposed to a single 10 oz reading device?

This was a great show, if just to challenge people to think about what they buy. I once floated the idea that every cheap electronic gadget should publish the amount of fuel used in its production and shipment but was told by many people that they would still want their new 42″plasma. All these transparency assessments are great for those of us who do care.

I think in this topic I see one of the problems with American higher education: That universities have departments for and offer degrees in such drivel diverts such talent that is there from something more useful — like advanced basket weaving.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if people really want to “save the planet” the best place to do it, or more accurately not do it, is in the bedroom.

I don’t often switch off On Point, no matter how ridiculous, but this program did it. The caller who was getting all misty eyed over these guys’ “green” app was just too much to stomach.

[...] [...]

[...] Sizing Up Your Green Footprint: author Daniel Goleman’s new book Ecological Intelligence, WBUR On Point Radio. [...]

One straightforward solution, which is politically inexpedient, in today’s economy is simply to tax bad stuff, i.e. CO2, mining activities, landfill, emissions, effluents, waste, etc., and incentivize good stuff renewable energy, telecommuting technologies, organic farming, etc.

Such taxes and incentives will send a strong and reliable signal to people — from consumers to retailers to manufacturers — to change their ways and align themselves with today’s needs.

Of course, if you tax US-made products, imports might become more attractive, but that’s where we need strong international governing organizations (IMF? UN?)

But, meanwhile, consumers should always remember that “not consuming” is probably always the best option.

“All technology is guilty until proven innocent.” — David Brower

[...] Daniel Goleman, author of Ecological Intelligence: The Hidden Impacts of What We Buy during a recent interview with public radio’s Tom Ashbrook. [...]