Which Green Ranking System Should I Believe?

All right, here's the problem in a nutshell. We've got a whole lot of green indexes and sustainability ranking systems being created. But they're contradicting each other.

For instance, according to a post on the blog SustainGenuity, Hewlett-Packard and Best Buy were judged to be among Ethisphere’s "World's Most Ethical Companies," but were both included on Consumerist’s “2010 Worst Company in America” list.

Okay, so which is it?

I suggest you read the blog for details. It doesn't answer the question, so much as explain the nature of the problem.

Is It Ever 'Green' to Build in the Desert?

Actually, the question is whether it's ever "green" to build in inhospitable places like deserts. The issue was raised in an article about the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (or KAUST) built in Saudi Arabia -- and the world’s largest project to be awarded a LEED Platinum designation by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Not that the builders didn't employ "green" features. The design included shaded walkways, wind turbines and solar panels (jeez, I'd hope so -- we're talking about the desert here). They even recycled 80% of waste materials and used sustainably harvested wood.

The problem is getting the materials to the location. The transportation of said materials creates greenhouse gas emissions. Quite a lot of them, it seems.

When asked about this, one of the project workers had this to say:

"It’s always a dilemma. Should we develop in those areas? Should we be going after greenfield developments in such a harsh environment? But if we don't go after them and win them and try to make them as efficient as possible, some other firm will come in. The king was going to build in that location regardless. We had to make the best of it."

Interesting article. And check out the comments.

What's Happened to Earth Day?

Being that this a blog about what it means to be green (or not), I'd be remiss in not mentioning that today marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. The question is, what's happened to Earth Day over the past 40 years?

The first Earth Day took place in 1970 (well, duh -- 40 years ago), when it became an excuse for high school students to smash a car to smithereens. Okay, that was back in the good old days of rabid activism and youthful exuberance on the part of hippies, radicals and bored high school students.

Flash forward 20 years, and Earth Day had become more of a media event. An actual extravaganza was organized to celebrate it -- with loads of media coverage, of course. Everything orchestrated and promoted in high Madison Avenue style.

Flash forward 20 more years, and Earth Day has become the centerpoint of corporate pitches for their sustainability programs. Various lame Earth Day pitches have been tossed out like confetti at a ticker tape parade. Plus various businesses are starting things like Best Buy's huge electronics recycling effort (which they decided to start on Earth Day -- what a coincidence).

Basically, a day that started as one of free-thinking activism has turned into commercialized big business.

And, God knows, the media's eating it up with a spoon.

Lest you seek to blame the baby boomers for selling out the original vision of Earth Day, consider that Gen-Xers have shown themselves to be slackers on these issues, according to one of their number.

Oh, well. Happy 40th anniversary, Earth Day. I remember when you meant something.

Books vs. E-Readers: Which Are Greener?

With the popularity of Kindle and other mobile reader devices (plus the introduction of the amazing iPad), it looks like ebooks are going to become increasingly popular. However, is using these devices "greener" than reading so-called "dead tree" books?

The New York Times developed a life-cycle assessment of both, and came to the conclusion that e-readers aren't better for the environment. (See Umbra's discussion on this in Grist.)

After considering all factors from obtaining raw materials to production and, ultimately, disposal, the article reached this bottom line:

"With respect to fossil fuels, water use and mineral consumption, the impact of one e-reader payback equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books; with human health consequences, it’s somewhere in between.

"All in all, the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library."

Green Buildings Don't HAVE to be Ugly

Once upon a time (wa-a-ay back in the 70s and early 80s), green buildings were kind of odd and ugly structures. They tended to feature solar panels built at weird angles or in odd, geodesic domes and other slightly bizarre shapes. Or they were austere, energy-efficient boxes with little to recommend them otherwise.

However, today's "green" house doesn't have to be ugly--far from it, according to this article by Alex Wilson, the executive editor of Environmental Building News.

Solar panels have evolved to the point where they can be added in a more aesthetically pleasing manner.

In addition, the article states, "Other aspects of green homes--including materials used in construction--provide a full range of aesthetic choices for any taste. It used to be that if you wanted low-VOC paint your color options were limited, or if you wanted natural linoleum flooring you were limited to a grandmotherly-looking few paisley patterns. There are far more options available now.

"Beyond the design flexibility offered by technology advances and a larger palette of product choices to meet style preferences, we might be seeing a new aesthetic emerging. It used to be that bigger houses were seen as better by most people. Some are still in that camp, but a lot of people now prefer more compact designs."

So rather than a huge McMansion surrounded by a perfect and pesticide-laden lawn, why not go for a compact home with a simple roofline, a few well-integrated solar panels, a nice porch and a kitchen garden up front.

As the article points out: "This is the 'timeless' design that I believe we will still find attractive in 20 or 30 years when those monster homes have become white elephants, many abandoned because of their exorbitant operating costs. Who knows, we may even come to appreciate multifamily and attached homes."

Music to my ears.

More Than One Reason Not to Eat at KFC

First, and just to be clear, I'm not a big KFC fan to begin with. I don't really need to be eating artery-clogging foods like KFC's fried chicken. That, in itself, is plenty of reason to avoid the place, in my opinion.

Well, add to that, that KFC mistreats its chickens, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Okay, so you might choose not to believe PETA. So, how about the Federal Trade Commission (even the Bush administration's crew), who got on KFC's case about its false advertising?

Not enough for you? Well, try this--KFC is mowing down virgin forest to create its paper packaging. Now, that just sucks. And, apparently, the company engages in large-scale clear-cutting and replacement of diverse woods with monoculture plantations.

And to add insult to injury--according to the article, KFC "engages in greenwashing by touting its support for an industry-backed forest certification system called the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) that undermines a more rigorous standard established by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)."

For its own part, KFC's responses to this are as follows: "KFC is as committed to the environment as we are to our food and to our customers."

The article calls this "a dubious claim if you think about it for more than a second. Still, the company has taken some meaningful steps, saying:

"All KFC's paper bags are 100% recycled content
"All KFC's in-store napkins are 100% recycled content
"30% of every KFC Bucket Lid is made out of recycled content
"By May, more than 90% of KFC's paperboard packaging will be Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified" [the more-liberal certification, you'll note]

Clean Energy Problems and Irony

I'd like to direct your attention to yet another article about the toxic waste created by the solar energy industry.

In a nutshell, the problem is "potential environmental, health and safety issues associated with the production and disposal of solar photovoltaic panels -- as well as the reluctance of some well-known industry players even to talk about their practices."

End of life handling and recycling of old panels are among the issues.

"There are hazardous materials and rare metals in solar panels that don't belong in landfills," said Sheila Davis, the executive director of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. "Anytime you have a product that you can't recycle, that's waste, and it's a pollution problem."

The flip side of this is that solar panels last for decades. Hopefully, the industry will use the time to work out the recycling and reuse bugs.

Meanwhile, does anyone else find this method of charging an iPhone ironic? (We're talking apples and oranges here. Get it?)



Damn. That takes some major juice.

15 Totally Recyclable Things That Get Trashed

Wow! I just scanned this list of 15 totally recyclable things that we tend to overlook, and I can't believe the stuff I've thrown out that should have been recycled instead.

Like aerosol cans, for instance. I've never thought to recycle them.

Or anything made with aluminum--including pie pans, siding, lawn furniture and foil.

All sorts of stuff from DVDs and fishing nets to crayons and metal clothes hangers.

Just check out the list. You may be surprised what you find there. (Would you believe those styrene packing peanuts and Tyvek envelopes??)