WHAT IS GREEN ?
by Bronwen Griffiths
I thought I’d hop up onto the back of one of my pet hobby-horses. The concept of what is really ‘green’. Let’s be honest, unless you have your head buried up to your toes in the sand, you have been exposed to products, ideas or developments that are all deemed ‘green’. My problem is, how many are green and how many are just catching the band-wagon and stating that they are green on very minimal proof?
One of the first things you should do when presented with something that is supposed to be green is consider the real impact of that item across its entire life-span.
Cradle-to-Grave
The idea of ‘cradle-to-grave’ has floated around for quite a while now so I will discuss that first. ‘Cradle-to-grave’ includes from the start of the proposal or making of the product to when it is demolished or thrown away. For a development that will mean from planning, to construction, through to operation, and then finally to demolition and removal. All inputs and outputs to at least one step away from the development are considered. For a product it means from the point when raw materials – these are seldom raw but are usually pre-manufactured – are put into the manufacturing process, go through it and come out as the product.
Initially the model sounds perfect but it is flawed. The first problem with the model is that in some ways it is just too simple. Nature with all her diversity and linkages is anything but simple and linear. This problem leads to accusations of ‘silo’ developments.
Ideally any model should thus include the consideration of cumulative, knock-on and/or indirect impacts, as well as the easily noted direct impacts. Obviously this shortfall can be overcome through a rigorous planning process, but let’s be honest, this is often forgotten or only fleetingly thought of.
Secondly the model leaves out the decomposition portion of the cycle. To take a step back, all children at school learn about the nutrient cycle, so let’s use that as an example. Nutrients are taken in by plants, the nutrients are fixed in the plant material, the plant is eaten or dies, if eaten the nutrients move up through the animal food-chain, with nutrients being released back to the environment as waste products, or when the animal (or plant) dies, the nutrients are released back to the soil by decomposition for reuse by other plants or in some or other manner by the remainder of the ecosystem, and so on. So in summary we are looking at the resource cycle from the point of the creation of the product to its disposal only. The missing factors being the rest of the population or ecosystem and the recycling of the resources back to the start of the process.
I accept that to consider all the potential cumulative impacts for a proposed development or the consideration of every knock-on impact of creating a product would be ludicrous. But given that, I do still think we need to move further in that direction. Thank goodness the more ethical developers and producers, with specialist guidance, are moving in that direction.
Cradle-to-Cradle
Given that a critical step that completes the resource cycle has been left out in the cradle-to-grave concept, the newer concept is that of ‘cradle-to-cradle’. Cradle-to-cradle means that you consider the use of resources through the life-cycle of an entity to the point it is no longer used, then through decomposition / decommissioning and finally being made available for reuse as part of another entity. The cradle-to-cradle concept is beginning to be played with in the international arena but has not been considered much in the South African one.
Another parallel idea is to try and develop products which are created and destroyed in such a manner that effectively no waste products are created. This may sound like a totally impossible idea but surprisingly enough it can actually work to a very high level; all it takes is some lateral out of the box thinking. The ways of achieving this goal are often very simple when laid out, and can include the following:
(1) Make sure that you sell as much of your waste materials to someone to be used to create another product. Not only does this mean you don’t have to pay to dispose of something, you actually get paid to get rid of something. A win-win solution in that it is both a good green principle as well as being very sound business practice.
(2) Ensure that your process is as efficient as current best practice methods can make it. That way you will make as little unnecessary waste as possible. Admittedly putting current best practice options into a process can be initially more expensive but it tends to pay off quite quickly in a number of other ways. If you have an air pollutant coming off your process and you put in state of the art air scrubbers, the regulating authorities (i.e. Dept of Environmental Affairs: Chief Air Pollution Control Officer - CAPCO) may be more lenient in terms of auditing requirements and may even allow you to expand your process. This all means money in the bank along with the potential for additional unexpected money generation. The easier you make it to comply with legal requirements from the start, the less likely you are to contravene your legal controls and thus less likely to be fined, pay a visit to court, or even end up in prison.
(3) If something is not used completely in your process (i.e. off-cuts) see if it can be sold back to your supplier to let them give it back to you again in the correct useable form. Plastic is a good example. Take all off-cuts and send back to be reheated and re-moulded into sheets for instance.
(4) Make sure that your suppliers follow good green principles in their own businesses and boycott those that don’t.
(5) Implement energy saving measures from low-energy lighting, to focussed security as opposed to flood lighting, architectural controls to minimise heat generation, build-up (cooling) and conversely the need for heating.
(6) Try set up your sales systems so that they are as paper-free as possible.
What this means to you as the consumer is to make sure that you ask the right questions of the producers.
To take it to the extreme you could do what Audi did. If you buy a more recent Audi model when it’s ready to go to their grave, call Audi and they’ll take it back. Audi have made sure that the amount of materials that are not reusable are at a bare minimum and they believe it is their duty to effectively dispose of the end result of their process, preferably with as much as possible going into another generation of Audi! All in all … very, very commendable! No doubt other companies will follow this trend over time (we hope).
What is presented as being green in South Africa that the average consumer will encounter?
The Electric Car
You are told that an electric or a hybrid car is much greener than a normal fuel car. Um, sorry, no, wrong! You are only being told that in the context of the car’s cradle-to-grave lifecycle. What about the energy burden? Let me see, that would be electricity. As all South Africans are aware electricity is in short supply and the cost of generation thereof is going to eat massive holes in our pockets over the years to come. And that is not just here, but worldwide. The contention that electricity is a better power source than fuel is already looking shaky.
Add to that the fact that air pollution from vehicles versus power stations is incomparable – especially given the nature of our power generation model (i.e. low grade coal, old power stations, high heat and carbon impacts). Then finally to dispose of either type car is much the same in terms of impact except for the issue of batteries. Sadly batteries can only be partially recycled – a lot of their bulk still has to be disposed of and given that it is highly toxic, it’s hazardous waste. A quick comparison of batteries in different car types, fuel : hybrid : electric = one : ten : fifty plus (approximately) batteries of equal size to dispose of. My conclusion – without massive improvements in battery technology, in terms of storage ability and hazard rating, I cannot agree that pure electrical cars are more green than a modern fuel driven car with a catalytic converter using unleaded fuel. My jury is still out about hybrid vehicles as they do minimise the number of batteries and are able to recharge themselves while the combustion engine is being used.
Eco-Estates
In terms of development, the number of so-called eco-estates is laughable. What makes them ‘eco’? … in most cases, just the name. In other cases they are merely highlighting what is just standard best practice. The end result is that these so-called eco-estates are exactly the same as all the others but because they are presented as green they can charge lots more. That is, you are being charged a wack for what is effectively an empty statement.
Solar Panels
Moving on to another example, considering alternate energy generation options is a mine-field. Take the classic example of a solar panel. Yes, a solar panel is a once off expense that will pay itself off over time. The problem starts when you consider photo voltaic solar panels. The components thereof are hazardous and are thus problematic to dispose of and cost per unit energy produced is not actually as low as you would expect when you consider all the knock-on costs.
Organic Farming
Organic farming is another hefty green issue. Firstly, most products noted as being organic are not. Strictly speaking less than ten farms in South Africa have been accredited as meeting the international requirements for being organic. Organic accreditation is carried out by judges from Europe. This is not to say that a lot of produce out there is not organic in all but name, rather it is a warning to say, ask what they mean by organic because they are not being held to any specific requirements that you can pin that label to.
I could continue with a whole lot of other examples, but I think the points above do help to prove the point.
Life-Style Changes
To flip the above argument on its head, consider that lifestyle changes are often the best way of making your whole life more green. Instead of trying to balance which car is the best way of getting to and from work, rather ask yourself how can you minimise your travel? Can you work from home at least part of the time? Can you shift your work hours so that you are not travelling during peak hours? Can you work from home all together, or move to somewhere closer to work? If you are the boss, can you move your workplace to a site that is closer to home and other suitable amenities, or maybe move both to a location that is better for both land-uses?
New forms of lifestyle communities are developing that take good town-planning principles into account, for instance, development of a ‘compact city’. The common factor with all of these developments is that work, home and play areas exist together. Importantly, a range of each land-use is available to provide a working community that fills all the niches within that community. In these communities you can walk to work, walk to the shops and community centre and at most, driving to schools is limited to a ten minute drive if that … hmmm, time to organise the door-school-door shuttle bus option!
Waste Generation
Another way to change to a more green lifestyle is to minimise waste generation. This can be done by shopping at organic markets such as Michael Mount, remembering to take along your own basket or bags, which immediately reduces the amount of waste paper and plastic by a monster factor.
Better yet, grow your own veggies and herbs. Firstly they taste a heck of a lot better, and secondly, no packaging is required. If you have more space you can consider getting a few chickens and having your own eggs.
If you don’t have the space to grow your own remember to at least buy local. This reduces the carbon footprint due to travel costs. Remember to buy seasonally available produce; it tends to be cheaper and tastier because it’s growing when its meant to be rather than being forced, frozen or irradiated (bad idea!), and it fits with the year cycle and naturally adds variety to your diet while putting you in touch with nature.
Wear Green
Remember, just because it is natural, doesn’t mean it is green. Take for example cotton. Yes, wearing cotton is much better than wearing something that is made from fossil fuels (e.g. nylon) but do you know the direct impact of cotton farming? The insecticides, the pesticides, the mono-culture, the long distance transport, the cotton mills, cheap sweat-shop labour, etc … In fact, all the reasons why the industrial revolution was the worst man-induced environmental disaster to date.
So what to do, hmm, wear go skyclad permanently? Sigh, society doesn’t tolerate that, so a simple option is consider hemp or bamboo. Don’t be a slave to fashion, clothes do actually last longer than one season. Only in the industrialised Western world do people buy more than one new set of clothes per year.
Spend Wisely
Even if the product is green it does not mean that you should pay a fortune for it. Consider that your money is another resource that should be sensibly husbanded. Balance the cost with the longevity of an item. This is a critical part of the concept of being a green product. If it’s green it should last and not need to be recycled soon. Certainly, buy a product that is as green as makes sense but it must be durable and thus need to be replaced less often as well as being good value for money.
In conclusion, all I suggest is that you investigate all the available options before you invest. My point is simple. Don’t just buy into something because it says it is green – always check its credentials and see if the manufacturers can actually back that label up with proof. Don’t let anyone bamboozle you with techno-babble and fast talking.
As a Pagan you have a responsibility to look after our Mother Earth. ‘Green’ issues are central to most Neo-Pagans belief systems in terms of looking after the environment in all its facets. This means that you need to get the facts or at least ask someone you trust who is in the know whether it really is a good idea … or not.
|
