Fibers and Fabrics

I suspect that greenwashing occurs to a much larger degree than many consider, but then if we got away from this "green BS" we could get back to actually manufacturing worthwhile products. I'm not saying all green products are worthless, just that too much emphasis is put on green engineering (by the environmentalist crowd) while letting the rest of the world walk away with the shekels.

just that too much emphasis is put on green engineering (by the environmentalist crowd) while letting the rest of the world walk away with the shekels.

Please explain after "...crowd)"

Specifically, "walk away with the..."

Or to put it another way: One scam (global warming) has provided the fertile ground to produce many scams (CFLs, cap and trade, etc).

But as in any new marketing field, there will be quality products, and there will be snake oil. I think some benefit will come out of the green philosophy, but the initial problem statement and the reaction to that problem statement (global warming) is folly.

One scam (global warming) has provided the fertile ground to produce many scams (CFLs, cap and trade, etc).

Interesting point: How did everyone miss the danger inherent in sequestering CO2? Back in 6th grade general science I was taught that most CO2 comes from combining Oxygen from the atmosphere with organic carbon, whether from current sources or fossil sources, whether by the actions of man or natural processes. Plants return that oxygen to the atmosphere through photosynthesis. ERGO, sequestering CO2 is effectively removing the Oxygen we breathe. If these idiots find a really efficient way to sequester CO2, they will eliminate all animal life on the planet chasing the Almighty Dollar. The only sane answer can be found in Gaviotas, Colombia, where they have successfully restored a fairly large section of closed canopy tropical rain forest and found a way to make the forest pay its own way. Google "Gaviotas" and check it out.

Of course there is some greenwashing, but there is also good certified green or sustainable products. I help companies with making their manufacturing process more sustainable in order to make the same quality product with less of an environmental footprint (e.g. less energy used, materials used, cradle-to-cradle management, and so on). I always question those that are not certified through some third party or part of US EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program.

Sustainability is also about protecting human resources (employees). When environmental, human resources and waste costs are added in to the cost per unit, sustainably built products cost less than the competition. Look at what zero landfill has done for Subaru (Lafayette, Indiana plant). Or Honda or Toyota. Wal-Mart wastes large sums of money paying for injured employees every year and tries to claim to be a sustainable business. On top of it, everything there comes from China.

The skeptics of global climate change need to read up on all of the scientific data supporting it. Computers advances have made it possible to compile all data in order for us to fully understand the damage that we have done. All US government agencies (EPA, Agriculture, NASA, etc.) that it effects have been working together to determine what effects it will have on the US. The western states are already seeing the effects. Water scarsity has become a big issue for many of the western states. In the midwest, the great lakes have not been gaining enough water to keep up with evaporation. This is all with a record low sun spots over the last year.

Sorry for the rant. I tried to keep it short while still making my point. Sustainability is the next step to remain competitive and at this point, to stay in business. I don't understand why businesses don't do everything they can to reduce production costs by using sustainable manufacturing.

Don't worry about ranting. You did it the right way. However, explain "I always question those that are not certified through some third party or part of US EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program."

Unless certified by a third party, companies are allowed to use the term "green" or "sustainable" very loosely (e.g. as long as one part of the production process is green or sustainable, the company puts green or sustainable on the packaged and marketing.). Even Orbitz is greenwashing. They only require one environmental standard be met in order to be listed as an ecotourist destination. Third party certifications have strict criteria. One of the primary requirements is a ISO 14001 certified environmental management system (EMS). Or so I thought http://www.thegreenlifeonline.org/greenwash101.html I guess that I need to revise that to most third party certifications have strict criteria. I usually look for GreenSeal. Here is one of their standards: http://www.greenseal.org/certification/standards/household_cleaners_general_bathroom_glass_carpet_GS_08.pdf The US EPA's DfE program can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/

Here are some examples of greenwashing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greenwashing/United_States http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/great-greenwashed-advertising

Here is an article on the "Don't Be Fooled" report: http://www.greenwashing.net/ The actual report is lengthy and provides a detailed list of facts why the companies made the list.

**The skeptics of global climate change need to read up on all of the scientific data supporting it.**

I am a very busy person. I don't have time to do the independent research. But when I hear that the lead man for an idea is a politician (Al Gore), and over the years we keep hearing from the political class that "the debate is over, GW is a fact and we HAVE to do something about it NOW", and of course, the only solution is for the government to get involved and pick winners and losers through taxation, then the whole concept gets unbelievable.

There are many smart people out there that sit on both sides of the issue, and for some reason, we are not allowed to hear from the other side in mainstream circles. Sorry, but all things taken into consideration set my BS detector offscale.

Couple that with the fact that (as pointed out later on this thread) that CO2 is now a pollutant, CFLs have obsoleted the light bulb (can you say toxic waste, anyone?), and reducing our dependence on foreign oil by building windmills (can anyone connect those dots for me please?), the GW movement has lost any credibility with me as to their real goals and ambitions.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for being a good steward of the earth that has been entrusted to us. I work very hard to improve the efficiency of our plants for economic as well as environmental reasons. In fact, our company tells us that they will be big winners in the cap and trade game, and are in fact lobbying for it. But I still believe that increasing taxes on energy with no real alternatives does not stimulate anything but the government at the expense of the private sector and ordinary Americans.

I definitely agree with you on Al Gore. Those of us that work in the environmental field hate that hypocrite! Claims to be an environmentalist while flying around in a private jet to speak at all of these events, and spends $3,000 per month on electricity for his house.

As for scientific evidence of global warming, there are many factors that man has introduced that has changed the environment. 80% of the forests in the U.S. have been cut down. There goes natures carbon capture system. Here are some websites for you to update yourself on the myths of the past and the current facts. http://oregonstate.edu/groups/geco/pages/GECO_climate_change_myths_facts.html http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/acpp/downloads/acpp_mythsvsfacts_flyer.pdf

I am not for the taxes either. Taxes should naturally keep up with the population and the services required to take care of that population (in an ideal world. In our world, the gap between poor and rich keeps getting bigger with a dwindling middle class.). I think the cap-and-trade system is the answer to push industry to go the right direction. If limits and fines were not put in place years ago for the currently regulated pollutants, industry would not have changed its ways to provide a cleaner environment. The fees for cap-and-trade are only to fund the system (although I am sure that some republican or democrat will have their earmark attached to it in order to line their pockets. Politicians are another subject. We can't even get ours (Indiana's) to pass a budget. Now they are in special session with only today and tomorrow before state government shut down.).

Back to greenwashing! Indiana's ESP (Environmental Stewardship Program), Clean Communities, and P4P2 (Partner's for Pollution Prevention) struggle with this issue. Accepting or declining a company or community based on their environmental performance. EPA's Performance Track system failed at this and no longer exists. Greenwashing is a deep mud hole for those of us that choose to be environmentally conscious.

As for scientific evidence of global warming, there are many factors that man has introduced that has changed the environment. 80% of the forests in the U.S. have been cut down. There goes natures carbon capture system.

Grassland doesn't capture carbon?

Look at:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore

This is only one of several which could be quoted to show the science of anthropogenic global warming is very shaky.

I have copied the following from Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's paper (written 2007 and ignored rather than rebutted).

The upshot of fig. 2 is that pre industrial CO2 was as high as now, and at times even higher.

It should also be noted that anthropogenic additions to natural production of greenhouse gases represents 0.28% of the total if water vapor is included (as it must be to obtain meaningful results). Of this CO2 is about half. (I'm trying to locate the reference for this and will post when I have it).

For this reason, it is proposed to increase every one's costs, while at the same time excluding China, India and Indonesia - all in the top 10 of world greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. (China is now ahead of the US as world number 1).

This sounds more like an attempt to disadvantage the developed world in favor of the undeveloped world (how China and India get in as undeveloped I don't know), while pretending it has something to do with the environment.

Figures 1A and 1B

The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9]. (My comment: Why is Mauna Loa the baseline when it is on an active volcano in the vicinity of at least 2 other active volcano's? This despite the Cape Grimm records (Tasmania, Australia) being available).

Figure 2

sustainable

Doing paperwork to prove I'm being sustainable is not logical.

WWkayaker said --

"I don't understand why businesses don't do everything they can to reduce production costs by using sustainable manufacturing."

Me --

Why businesses don't do ...? You need to go bankrupt every once in a while. I think it happened to Toyota in the late 40's. They didn't even make cars back then! I think they made textile looms at the time.

www.vodka360.com claims to be an eco luxury vodka. This is greenwashing at its best.

I've seen this mug before. A confused squirrel perhaps?

Anticipation is enjoyable, it is the waiting that spoils it.

That is the problem the squirrel is up against.

The problem with forcing US manufacturers to go green (cap and trade, tougher emissions restrictions, mandated "sustainable" practices, etc., etc. ) is it will soon cause them to run out of what little green they have left. And before that happens, rest assured that the remaining few, those patriotic US manufacturers who believe it's actually good for American society to have a healthy manufacturing base, will move their production to countries where restrictions on carbon emissions are much less onerous or non-existent and which reward rather than penalize companies for creating jobs and improving the quality of life of their citizens. Meanwhile, worldwide carbon output will only increase under this scenario as will the US jobless rate.

Washington and the "greenies" just don't get it.

Businesses are about persuading you to buy their product.

If the political and social climate encourages people to "think green", then any business will take advantage of this, especially if the spin doctors can project the image without the Company having to do anything.

For this reason, we should expect a lot of the "green" claims of business to be "greenwash".

As a side issue, I can't help noticing that the support base and the major efforts of the environmental movement are concentrated in the cities, criticizing the countryside (farmers and miners mainly). They seem to say little about the effects on the environment of the massive concentrations of people living in cities. That might erode their support base.

(The last para is purely a rant and can be ignored by all intelligent readers)