I like to think that I am pretty knowledgeable about “green” – at least as it relates to the graphic communications business. But once in a while I read something that leaves me thinking I am as dumb as a post...I just don't get it. So in the interest of broadening my horizons, I’m offering this list of supposedly green stuff that, for one reason or another, I just can’t wrap my head around. As Ricky Ricardo is quoted as saying on I Love Lucy, “Splain it to me.” In no particular order:
- Tri-certification. Yeah, yeah. I know its all about FSC/SFI/PEFC chain-of-custody type certification. But is a tri-certified printer or paper manufacturer three times more environmentally responsible (or any better at all) than an operation that only has one certification? If not, why mention it, unless you're proud to have spent the money on three CoC certification audits?
- The Ecolabel Index. This new website claims to be “the authoritative dataset for global ecolabel information.” But I find this aggregation of 327 ecolabel blurbs from 204 countries confusing and incomplete. Why is there no mention of FSC under the category “Forest Products/Paper”? And why is the Totally Chlorine Free label listed under “Waste Management & Recycling”? TCF only applies to virgin fiber. PCF (process chlorine free) applies to recycled. Who sorted this stuff?
- The “if it isn’t made from trees, it must be green” crowd. You know who you are. Sure, there are problems with the way we humans use forests, but passing off plastics, stone, agricultural fiber and other materials as environmentally preferable simply because they aren’t tree-based just doesn’t make it in my book.
- The “we like electronic communication because it saves trees” crowd. No you don’t. You like electronic communication (such as electronic medical records, online bill-pay, etc.) because IT SAVES YOU MONEY. Being green shouldn't mean being disingenuous.
- The “we plant six trees for every one we harvest” guys. Hey, that sounds great. But do the math. Big tree cut. Little tree planted. What's that? They grow? OK. Figure in some natural mortality, fire, pestilence (gotta love that), and some silviculturally appropriate thinning, and I am betting that the net volume at maturity on an industry working-forest, sustainable-yield scale is pretty close to break-even, not the 6-to-1 the claim infers. And while we're at it, if it is true that there is more standing forest in the US than at any time in the past 100 years, why did a recent study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science this April) cite a 6% loss in forest cover in the US during the period 2000-2005 - a higher rate of loss than is occurring in Brazil?
- Carbon offsets based on tree planting. If these offsets came with a crystal ball, or a personal psychic, I might think differently about them. Little tiny trees sequester very little carbon. Sure they grow, but there are no real iron-clad guarantees that the seedlings planted today on your carbon-offset dime will be standing 20, 30, 50, or100 years from now. They might be cut down for industry, development, agriculture, or even fuel wood...there might be a fire...and let's not forget pestilence! From where I sit, if an offset isn’t sequestering carbon now, it isn’t really an offset.
