Categories
GreenBlue

Top Five Fun Facts: March

Eric DesRoberts continues his monthly series of facts and tidbits he’s uncovered during his research to better understand products and packaging. You can also check out his past Fun Facts here.
1. Meat content in fast food hamburgers ranges between 2-14% on average. The other 85-98% includes fillers like: blood vessels, nerves, cartilage, and chemicals like ammonia to control bacteria.
2. One glass of beer (250 ml) requires about 20 gallons of water. Most of the water is used to produce the barley. Approximately 203,576,450 barrels of beer were sold US in 2010. At roughly 31 gallons a barrel and 3.79 liters per gallon, this equates to roughly 2 trillion gallons of water used to produce the beer sold in the US. Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

3. The average American uses 40 pounds of toxic cleaning productseach year. Over 90% of all human poison exposure occurs in a patient’s own home. The substances most frequently involved include painkillers, cosmetics, and household cleaning products.
4. Cities are spending approximately $2,000 per trash can every year to collect waste. In the US, garbage trucks consume about 1.5 billion gallons of diesel fuel.

5. A recent report released by KPMG International Cooperative examines industry revenue (EBITA) with potential environmental costs. The study finds the highest environmental costs among food producers ($200 billion). Looking back to 2002 levels, this was the only sector observed where environmental cost growth rates exceeded revenue growth. Over the same time period, the automobile industry was the only sector with a reported negative growth rate for environmental cost. The report goes on to state that if industries were forced to internalize these costs, revenues could be cut by 40%.

Categories
GreenBlue

A Must Read: The Great Disruption

I read sustainability articles voraciously, in part to stay current since I work in the field, and in part because survival of the planet and its many species is near and dear to my heart and I want to know what’s going on. Of late, articles on “sustainable consumption” are in vogue and obviously reflect where the sustainability conversation is headed. While I couldn’t agree more that we need a new economic model—one that is not dependent on continuous growth based on selling more stuff to more consumers and one that changes the corporate sector focus from quarterly earnings to some longer time frame—I can’t help wondering if the pace at which we are moving is really fast enough. Are we headed for more than a climate change crises and towards a global economic or capitalism crisis?
Some thought leaders (although clearly not all) who spend far more time than I do thinking about these things are predicting the latter scenario, as Paul Gilding explains in his 2011 book, The Great Disruption. Subtitled, “Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring on the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World,” Gilding’s analysis and predictions are hard to argue with. As he demonstrates with rigorous analysis, we are already living as though we had 1.4 planet’s worth of resources. In other words, we have already surpassed the earth’s natural carrying capacity.
Short of a mid-course (or one might argue late-course) correction that is dramatic enough to reverse the consequences of where we are today, let alone where we are headed at the pace of change we’re currently making, we will be forced to make extraordinarily difficult changes abruptly. While he paints a picture that is anything but pretty, he also makes a logical, well-considered argument that when a critical number of us recognize we are in crisis, governments, corporations, NGOs, and even individuals will take action and mobilize fast. In other words, we will have no choice but to deal with the unintended consequences of a global economy based entirely on continuous growth. When push really comes to shove, we will unite as the intelligent species we actually are and implement aggressive solutions with resolve and precision.
To drive his point home, Gilding also references Joseph Schumpeter’s work. As many of you know, Schumpeter is the highly respected Austrian-Hungarian-American economist who popularized the concept of creative destruction, a theory upon which many successful companies have based their innovation strategies. I quote from the book:  “Schumpeter’s creative destruction means that many of our current companies simply won’t make it, though many will. It also means that a good proportion of the world’s top one hundred companies in twenty years’ time are names you haven’t heard of yet but exist today and are champing at the bit for the race to start and the opportunity to knock over some of the old players.  This is exactly what markets are good at. What the final shape of all this will be, with what technologies, what companies and which countries end up winners and losers, is full of uncertainty, but the outcome is not. When we act, we will eliminate net CO2e emissions from the economy in an amazingly fast transformation and then move on to the rest of sustainability.” And, he closes that passage with a refrain he uses throughout the book, to describe mankind and our response to the environmental warning signs: “Slow but not stupid.”
Although I read it on vacation and actually got excited and energized by it, most of you will probably not consider it great leisure time reading. But, I suggest it is a must read for serious sustainability practitioners.
 

Categories
Uncategorized

GreenBlue’s Product Sustainability Ideas and Trends for the Next Decade

GreenBlue is marking its first decade as a nonprofit sustainability-watchdog by looking ahead to its next. And it plans to mark the milestonewith a series of articles about the future of sustainability, products and business. Custom Home

Categories
Uncategorized

Shopping Bags, Take-out Containers Guided to Recycled Fiber

Guidelines for Recycled Content in Paper and Paperboard Packaging outlines opportunities to use recycled content in 20 common retail packaging applications, including shopping and take-out bags, cereal boxes, toothbrush blister packs, software boxes, and coffee canisters. Green Retail Decisions

Categories
GreenBlue

A Film Review: Cool It

Last week we held a screening of the documentary Cool It at the GreenBlue offices as part of our monthly environmental film screening. The film, based on the book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, is about the book’s author, Danish economist and political scientist Bjørn Lomborg, and his alternative (and sometimes controversial) approach to combatting climate change. The Los Angels Times notes, “If Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” left you feeling as if we’ve already lost the battle against global warming, “Cool It” is a tantalizing counterpoint that will make you wonder if maybe we’ve just been going about it the wrong way.” Below a couple GreenBlue staff members provide their insights on the film and some of Lomborg’s provocative ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3gsY98VU
Development and Communications Associate Ashley Holmes: In Cool It, Bjørn Lomborg, who is largely against most conventional thinking on global warming solutions, proposes a more creative allocation of global resources to solve the problem by focusing on more cost-effective solutions. He suggests that the $250 billion the European Union spends per year on carbon offsets could be spent more wisely to alleviate poverty, disease, and lack of education in developing countries while simultaneously reducing global warming. The bulk of this budget (about $100 billion) would be spent on energy R&D to reduce the costs of these new technologies. Another $50 billion should be spent on adaptation for the unavoidable risks of climate change, and $1 billion would go to geo-engineering research. The remaining $99 billion would be spent in the developing world on necessities like clean water, education, and healthcare. While Lomborg makes a compelling case, I am not entirely convinced that the solution to such a complex problem can be summed up into such a tidy budget. Regardless of the cost of the solution (whether it will be $250 billion or much more than that), the film leaves you wondering how we will be able to garner the political will across so many diverse countries to invest in solving climate change without an immediately visible payoff.
Project Associate Danielle Peacock: In Cool It, Bjørn Lomborg appears to correlate concern for the world’s largest problems with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. He argues that the poor, hungry, sick, and jobless of the world are focused on fulfilling their basic needs (and rightfully so), while climate change is a concern of rich, developed societies. To reach the point of focusing on climate change is to reach fulfillment of all other needs – equating to the top stages of Maslow’s pyramid. Essentially, it is an expensive “first world problem” that we inefficiently invest our money in. What stuck with me the most was Lomborg’s failure to properly address the interconnected nature of climate change and the environment to these basic needs of food, health, education and income. Sincere sustainability conversations must focus on the systematic interconnection of these issues. They feed upon each other, and cannot be analyzed as isolated issues. It is a complexity that we must remind ourselves of in our personal and professional lives.
Project Associate Eric DesRoberts: I think the film appeals to many by talking about the sustainability agenda within a valuation framework. This is something more tangible and relatable to most people and at the very least increases awareness of the dialogues happening around environmental and social injustices.
One concern that was validated in the film was the polarization of the research community. Many of the proposed ideas identified by the film’s protagonist appear to have short-term or more immediate results. Some of the naysayers seemingly have a more long-term scientific grit and grind approach, but I believe there is need for both and I don’t think they are exclusive of one another. The long-term approach requires constant adjustment, which leaves plenty of opportunities for many short-term projects.
Read other film reviews from GreenBlue’s monthly environmental film series.

Categories
Uncategorized

SPC Guidelines Help to Identify Best Uses for Recycled Paper Fibers

Optimizing the use of recycled content continues to rank among the key strategies by which brand owners and retailers strive to make their packaging more sustainable. This is true because, unlike some other strategies, the use of recycled content is something consumers relate to and generally understand. Packaging Digest

Categories
Uncategorized

SPC Report Gives Guidance on Use of Recycled Fiber in Packaging

Recognizing the growing interest in increasing recycled content in packaging as a sustainability strategy, GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition has released a report on the opportunities and challenges for using recycled fiber in packaging. Packaging World

Categories
GreenBlue

Make Tomorrow Come

Rock star astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on The Daily Show last week to plug his new book, Space Chronicles, which muses on the future of space travel while reflecting on lessons learned from the now half-century-old Space Race. (John Glenn’s historic orbital flight was fifty years ago last week.) Tyson reminds Jon Stewart that the Cold War motivated Americans to shoot for the Moon. In 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, built from a hollowed-out intercontinental ballistic missile, the image of war in space sent us in a panic, but it also spurred our imagination: “It galvanized us all to dream about tomorrow,” Tyson recalls. “To think about the homes of tomorrow; the cities of tomorrow; the food of tomorrow. Everything was Futureworld, Futureland. The World’s Fair—all this was focused on enabling people to make tomorrow come. That was a cultural mindset that the space program brought upon us, and we reap the benefits of economic growth because you had people wanting to become scientists and engineers—who are the people who enable tomorrow to exist today.”
As Tyson told the Huffington Post this week, “When a nation dreams big, its citizenry dreams big.”
Today, however, this ambition has all but died, because there’s no sense of urgency or competition. 2012 is the first year in three decades that NASA won’t launch a manned space vehicle. But if China decided to head for Mars, Tyson claims, America would be there in two years.
Tyson’s words apply just as well to the sustainability movement as they do to the Space Race. Today we desperately need an audacious call to arms if we hope to make significant progress. Zero waste by 2020! Zero emissions by 2030! If China decided to go 100% renewable in ten years, we’d be there in eight. We don’t lack the technology or in the intelligence to achieve these goals; we lack the motivation.
Shoot for Mars.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-27-2012/neil-degrasse-tyson?xrs=share_copy

Categories
Uncategorized

Recyclers Confront Plastic Bag Bans

Plastic bag manufacturers are battling a growing movement to ban or tax single-use bags, like those employed to carry groceries, by expanding recycling efforts for plastic films…The bans have reduced plastic bag litter in at least some cases, says Anne Bedarf, senior manager with GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a ­non-profit industry working group based in Charlottesville, Virginia. American Recycler

Categories
Uncategorized

Material Culture: How Much Do You Know About the Materials That You’re Using?

…James Ewell, who directs the chemicals program at GreenBlue, a nonprofit co-founded by William McDonough, FAIA, and chemist Michael Braungart, has been managing the organization’s CleanGredients database for preferable ingredients used in chemical-intensive products. He concludes that all of the available hazard-assessment resources available to specifiers are useful, but at the end of the day, environmental risk-and-benefit evaluations require weighing the results and are therefore judgment calls. Architect Magazine