Green Hard Truth

Environmental Claims:

• Staples Eco Easy notebooks are made with 80% bagasse, or the waste plant fiber from sugarcane waste
• Eco Easy paper products both reduce the number of trees cut down while also maximizing the use of all parts of a rapidly renewable agricultural product
• eco-conscious vegetable- and water-based inks are used for the printing process

Product Evaluation:

At the heart of Staples’ Eco Easy notebook line is their use bagasse, so in order to understand the claims about these products we must first understand what bagasse is and how it is created. Bagasse is the byproduct which remains after sugarcane stalks are crushed to extract their juice, and makes up two thirds of the total mass of the plant. Sugar cane itself is an annually renewable resource, as the crop grows in a 12 month cycle, making it a far more sustainable option for paper pulp than wood. Also, the energy and chemical requirements in order to refining bagasse into paper is significantly less than those for wood.

The inks used by Staples in the printing of their Eco Easy notebooks is another positive step. These inks, unlike conventional ink, are not petroleum based, and while they are not 100% biodegradable, as they are mixed with the same oils used in standard ink, they do degrade four times faster than petroleum inks. Also, these inks have a significantly lower level of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) which help to reduce toxic emissions. Overall these inks are significantly more environmentally friendly than their petroleum counterparts.

Verdict:

Staples’ Eco Easy notebook line is a winner. Their use of bagasse for paper is truly moving in the right direction, and the addition of using vegetable- and water-based inks for printing shows that they thought to go the extra step. Other environmentally friendly notebooks are also available and primarily use recycled content; however before purchasing one of these notebooks, make sure that the paper is in fact made from post-consumer waste (see coffee cup comparison for more info on post-consumer waste).

Sources: Staples.com, BioSmart, Wikipedia

This post is a slight departure from the standard GHT product evaluation; however the Ford Escape in car fuel economy display is a very good example of how seemingly objective numbers and facts can be manipulated in order to make a product appear more green.

As is standard in many new hybrid vehicles, the Ford Escape hybrid has a display screen which shows the car’s fuel economy. The standard measure for this of course, is miles per gallon, or mpg, and just as it sounds, mpg usually measures the distance that the car can travel on one gallon of gas. Many people calculate this figure themselves by simply measuring how far they drove on one tank of gas, and dividing this distance by the size of the gas tank. This gives a true and accurate average mpg; how the Ford Escape calculates the average mpg, however, is slightly different.

As can be seen in the image above, the Ford Escape fuel economy display charts the car’s mpg minute by minute, with a new bar appearing in the chart for each. This graph allows the driver to observe their gas millage over a time scale, rather than a distance scale, which can be easier to grasp. These bars are then used to calculate the average mpg figure displayed on this screen. At first glance this appears to be a reasonable way to perform this calculation, but actually, calculating the average mpg this way can inflate the figure considerably. An example is included below to depict this.

Example:

1. You’re driving on the highway at 60 mph getting 27 mpg for 5 minutes
2. You hit a mile-long back up at the toll booth for 8 minutes, during which time you’re running on your electric engine, getting 60+ mpg
3. You’re back moving, cruising at 80 mph, getting 25 mpg for 2 minutes

The real mpg calculation for these 15 minutes is as follows:

1. You have driven for 5 miles and used up 5/27 (.185) gallons of gas
2. You have driven for 1 mile and used up 0 gallons of gas
3. You have driven for 2.67 miles and used up 2.67/25 (.107) gallons of gas
4. Summing these results, you have driven a total of 8.67 miles, and used .292 gallons of gas, resulting in an average mpg of 29.7

The Ford Escape mpg calculation for these 15 minutes is as follows:

1. 5 bars at 27 mpg
2. 8 bars at 60 mpg
3. 2 bars at 25 mpg
4. 5*27+8*60+2*25=665mpg*minutes, 665mpg*minutes/15minutes equals an average mpg of 44.33

This example, while exaggerated due to the limited time sample, illustrates how oftentimes numbers can be manipulated in a decieving manner.

There are perhaps no businesses as concerned with their green images than coffeehouses. Whether you get your daily fix at the local cozy independent store (if you’re ever on the east side of Providence, try Coffee Exchange), or at one of four Starbucks within walking distance of your home, you are constantly being reminded of the need for social responsibility, and how your caffeine dealer is doing their part. Over the past week or so GHT has shelved our travel mugs and ventured out into the world of to-go cups in order to examine just how well what’s printed on the cup is embodied within them.

Cup 1: Starbucks

Environmental Claims:

• Introduced the first ever cup made with 10% post-consumer recycled fiber, which reduces wood use by 78,000 trees per year
• Uses an insulating sleeve which is made from 60% post-consumer recycled fiber and uses approximately 45% less material than a second paper cup

Product Evaluation:

First of all, what is “post-consumer waste”. The long and the short of it is that post-consumer waste is what you generally consider recycled material to be. This means, that the recycled fiber that makes up 10% of the Starbucks cup comes from the newspapers, magazines, and whatnot that get placed in the recycling bin by conscientious consumers. “Well, isn’t this what all goods with recycled content are made from”, you may ask? Unfortunately, no. Oftentimes when a manufacturer claims that their product is made with recycled content, this refers to pre-consumer waste, meaning that the product was made from leftover scraps that never left the factory. In this case, a product may be made from 100% virgin material, and yet claim that it is made with recycled content. So now that the issue of post-consumer waste is clear, the use of it in Starbucks’ cups is laudable.

One major problem with the Starbucks coffee cup is that the post-consumer material used in the cup is not truly being recycled, but instead it is being downcycled. Many environmentalists refer to downcycling as the process by which goods are reused in inferior goods down to the point in which they can no longer be recycled. This is occurs often in plastic recycling where a plastic bottle is not reused to make another plastic bottle, but instead a car bumper. The Starbucks cups are an example of this as well, as because of the plastic used to line the inside of the cups, they themselves are not recyclable. This means that the cups cannot be taken and used as recycled material, but instead they provide only one extra use for the post-consumer fibers which they contain.

On the upside, one should also note that Starbucks is the first company to gain FDA approval for the use of any post-consumer content in a beverage container. This first cup using recycled fibers is certain to lead to subsequent iterations using more and more recycled material. Also, the company intends to address the current problem of the plastic lining by replacing it with a biodegradable material.

The insulating sleeve provided by Starbucks contains an even higher post-consumer fiber content, of 60%, as regulations for materials not in direct contact with food are more lenient. Insulating sleeves in general, are becoming prominent at all environmentally conscious coffeehouses as for a customer to be able to comfortably hold a steaming hot coffee the alternatives are either a second cup, or a more heavily insulated cup, made of a material such as Styrofoam. While most of these insulating sleeves employ some form of recycled material, the 60% post-consumer waste used by Starbucks, is indeed impressive.

Verdict:

Over recent years Starbucks has come under fire from many concerned citizens who feel that the company is not doing their part. Complaints range from the companies recycling record, only 73% of stores that control their waste removal do, to their reluctance in providing “for here” ceramic mugs. As far as the to go cup is concerned, however, Starbucks seems to be doing their part. While improvements can certainly still be made, whether they be in the amount of recycled content used in the cup, or in the cups liner, this cup represents a very solid first step.

Sources: Seattle Times, GreenBiz.com, Starbucks.com

Cup 2: International Paper Ecotainer

Environmental Claims:

• Cup is made from fully renewable resources
• Compostable

Product Evaluation:

The Ecotainer paper cup, manufactured by International Paper is a good example of a “green” to-go cup which you might find at a local coffee shop. This cup claims to be made completely from renewable resources, and also compostable. The primary difference between this cup, and a standard paper cup, is the lining. As mentioned before in the Starbucks cup evaluation, disposable beverage containers usually use a plastic lining, which is petroleum based and neither compostable or a renewable resource. In order to remedy this, International Paper has used a corn based bio-plastic. This bio-plastic is safe for use with even steaming hot beverages, however, can be broken down by microbes into organic matter over time. The major issue with a corn based bio-plastic, is that currently corn is being treated as a miracle plant which can provide the solutions to petroleum dependency both for plastics, in products such as this, and in fuel with corn based ethanol. While this appears to be a good solution, it is hardly a sustainable one, as our food supply is already heavily dependent on corn. Much of the rising price of food seen recently is due to the heightened demand for corn as outside industries are attempting to replace petroleum products with its corn based equivalent. While the bio-plastic used to line the Ecotainer is a good solution to the environmental problem of petroleum based plastic linings, it is unlikely to be the permanent replacement.

Unfortunately, while the Ecotainer succeeds where the Starbucks cup fails, it also works the other way around. The Ecotainer currently does not use any post-consumer recycled content in their cups, meaning that the paper used to make the exterior of the cup comes from virgin wood. How can they claim that the cup is fully renewable then, one may wonder? The answer here is that International Paper claims to use only trees harvested according to Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) guidelines, a program which prevents the harvesting of old-growth forests. SFI acts as a third party certification program which accredits auditors who carry out the certification of wood harvesting operations. Several other such organizations, such as the Forest Stewardship Council, exist, and while they all claim to certify wood which has been harvested in a sustainable manner, the requirements demanded by the SFI are generally considered to be the most lenient, and they are hardly worth considering sustainable. Organizations such as Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club all support FSC harvesting over SFI, and you can read more about this issue at credibleforestcertification.org. With this knowledge, considering the Ecotainer a cup made from fully renewable resources is a stretch, as the paper used for its production is made from 100% virgin wood, and not harvested in a fully sustainable manner.

Verdict:

Good in theory, bad in practice. While the idea of replacing the petroleum based plastic lining of paper cups with a bio-plastic is a good one, International Paper fails to deliver a truly green product with the Ecotainer. The use of 100% virgin paper made from wood harvested along sub-par guidelines cannot be ignored. Presumably, greenhouse gas emissions are saved in the switch from a petroleum based liner to a corn one, which is a plus, but overall this cup is hardly green.

Sources: Internationalpaper.com, buildinggreen.com, credibleforestcertification.org

Claims:

• Made with 30% less plastic than the average half-liter bottle
• Features a new label that’s 30% smaller
• 100% recyclable
• Is flexible so it’s easier to crush for recycling

Product Evaluation:

The Poland Spring Eco-Shape bottle is a very interesting case of green marketing. Unlike other campaigns which use vague terms to frame their product in an environmental context, Poland Spring instead lists several very specific facts. Their primary claim, that the bottle uses 30% less plastic than the average half-liter bottle was found in a March, 2007 nationally conducting audit of half-liter bottles, and the new Poland Spring Eco-Shape bottle was in fact found to use 30% less plastic than the mean of the 34 bottles tested. Even if these 34 bottles were the heaviest, most environmentally offensive bottles that the company could find, in all likelihood this new design does demonstrate a significant, if not 30%, decrease in the amount of plastic used. Also, the label is clearly smaller than the previous Poland Spring bottle design. The last two facts that Poland Springs lists are also true, but irrelevant. That the new bottle is 100% recyclable makes it no different from the old bottle, or any other plastic bottle for that matter, this is just a feel good fact that looked good on the list. Also, stating that the new bottle is “flexible”, and easier to crush for recycling, is just Poland Spring justifying that the new design is flimsy, which is expected from a design using less plastic. No real analytic data accompanies this claim, and as bottles are not crushed one by one for recycling, but in giant heaps, this new flexibility is fairly inconsequential.

Now that we have examined and verified the facts of the Poland Spring Eco-Shape bottle we can go ahead and proclaim that they are not lying, and this is a good, green product. Well, not quite. When studying just the facts about this new bottle, one can be mislead from the real truth of the matter which is that bottled water can never be considered green just as ice cream can never be considered health food. Although, in some respects, this new Eco-Shape bottle is quite similar to the new onslaught of hybrid SUVs. Just as with SUVs, environmentally, getting rid of bottled water all together would be the best solution; however, if they stick around, they might as well be better.

Below we have compiled a list of facts which will hopefully help to illustrate the environmental impact of bottled water. The Poland Spring Eco-Shape bottle may help to reduce the magnitude of some of these problems, but with only a reduction of the plastic used in each individual bottle and not a paradigm shift away from them, all of these issues will certainly persist.

• Annual production of the plastic bottles to meet U.S. consumer demand takes the equivalent of approximately 17.6 millions barrels of oil
• The transportation of bottled water uses a significant amount of energy, and as the Earth Policy Institute’s research director states “Tap water is delivered through an energy-efficient infrastructure. On the other hand, nearly a quarter of all
  bottled water crosses national boundaries to reach consumers.”
• While all plastic bottles are recyclable, about 86% of empty bottles end up in the garbage
• Plastic bottles take 700 years before they begin to decompose in a landfill

Verdict:
While the Poland Spring Eco-Shape bottle may in fact use plastic more efficiently than its competitors, it is difficult to praise Poland Spring for attempting to sell an environmentally deplorable product on the merits of its eco-friendliness.

Sources: earth911.org, foodandwaterwatch.org, polandspring.com

Environmental Claims:

• Water Conservation – Feeding with Scotts Water Smart Formula builds a healthier lawn which using less water, which can save thousands of gallons of water a year
• Air Quality – Water Smart lawns keep outside air cleaner and reduce pollution by trapping and filtering dirt, dust, and smoke
• Climate Change – A Water Smart lawn cools the environment and acts like an exterior “air conditioner” for your home

Product Evaluation:

Scotts Water Smart Formula’s claim that it may save thousands of gallons of water a year is difficult to evaluate. The use of fertilizer will indeed assist a lawn to grow with less water than an unfertilized lawn; however, the amount of water saved due to this brand is unclear. Their assertion is certainly not firm as they state that the product may save thousands of gallons of water, and they give no hard figures, such as the size of the lawn for which one may expect to save thousands of gallons of water, or the climate in which these savings occur. Also, in a footnote, they state that their claim is in comparison to an unfertilized lawn, although this is to be expected.
While the first claim of the Scotts campaign may in fact hold some water (ha), the attempt to stretch the environmental merits of fertilizer any further is difficult to swallow. Below I have compiled a list of the negative environmental impacts of commercial fertilizer, as well as general lawncare. The downside of the non-fertilizer aspects of lawncare is justifiably included here, as Scotts cites the overall benefits of maintaining a healthy lawn, which includes not only fertilizing, but watering, mowing, etc.

• Runoff of lawn fertilizer into streams, lakes, and ponds contributes to eutrification (excessive algae growth that results in oxygen depletion), which can dramatically alter or destroy aquatic ecosystems
• The production of most nitrogen fertilizers consumes huge quantities of fossil fuel (while lawn fertilizing is certainly not on the same scale as agricultural fertilizing, to get an idea of just how energy intensive making fertilizer is, consider that a third of all energy in the agriculture processes goes into fertilizer manufacturing)
• Fueling the U.S. fleet of 40 million lawnmowers consumes several hundred million gallons of gasoline each year
• Lawnmowers with two-stroke engines emit as much air pollution each hour (excluding CO₂) as a new car with California pollution control standards driven 2,200 miles, according to Bill Welch of the Center for Emission Research, Analysis and Certification

Verdict:

Scotts Water Smart Formula may help to conserve water; however, marketing a lawn fertilizer as a “green” product is simply that, marketing.

Sources: Scottswatersmart.com, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service, Environmental Building News