By LX Group on 12 September 2011

Sustainable Future: How The Green Trend Has Affected Product Design

It’s difficult to determine when the green trend started – whether it was back in the 90s when we all decided to save the whales and ban aerosol sprays or whether it was much recently when Al Gore won an Oscar and Nobel Prize for his travelling PowerPoint-documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” But, no matter when it began, there’s no denying that people these days have become more environmentally conscious, and the green trend is here to stay. Product designers have realized that everyone is going eco-crazy, whether that means going on green vacations, using green electronic products, and even having green weddings. And today, when designing any product, whether it’s a computer, a couch or the latest smart phone, being environmentally-friendly is almost a requirement. Of course, this goes without saying that green product demand has also increased and environmentally friendly products not only save money, but get profits flowing in.

Let’s look at the ways that this green trend has influenced product design.

‘Green’ Product Design Criteria
To design a truly green product, it must meet some or all of these criteria:
• Be non-toxic so as not to harm the environment, people and pets; In electronics products for example, must contain lead-free pcb boards.
• It can be recycled or recyclable, to reduce the amount of trash in the landfills;
• It must use energy responsibly, whether that means that products use only renewable energy sources such as wind, solar or geothermal power or will reduce energy use, such as electronic products that go into ‘sleep mode’ to conserve energy.
• To a certain extent, it must support environmental responsibility, such as eco-friendly practices, creating more green or local jobs, and even use fair and truthful marketing when selling their products

‘Green’ Materials
Understanding the materials used for any process is essential for any project and one of the first things many designers must master is the use of materials. Unlike 20 years ago, eco-friendly materials are now more available than ever. Eco-friendly plastics for example, which can be recycled or biodegradable, are now more widely available, but are also as tough and durable as their regular counterparts. Take the ubiquitous plastic water bottle, for example – simple to design but the material takes hundreds of years to decompose, and is quite toxic to the environment. Arizona-based Enso Bottles has developed a truly biodegradable plastic, by using an additive that helps the bottle degrade in as little as 250 days, without releasing any harmful gasses. Electronic manufacturers also use green materials for their own products. For example, LCD TVs which use carbon neutral biopaint, smart phones with bioplastic enclosures and electronic products which feature lead-free electronics pcb boards.

Product Manufacture
It’s not enough that your materials are eco-friendly, but the way you create your product should be as well. Consumers truly care about how a product is made, and so the construction of a product must also fit within green standards. For example, Kyocera, a Japanese firm, creates their own energy from solar power generating systems for their manufacturing plants and offices around the world. One of the problems of any manufacturing plant is not just the energy they use, but the amount of waste produced. Canada-based OKI Printing solutions, which produces printers and printing accessories, have reduced the wastes and harmful materials from their process, including the total removal of hexavalent chromium from their screws and implementing a waste segregation policy which has reduced their waste by 70%.

Electronic waste or e-waste is another prevalent problem, this time on the side of electronic product designers. In many cases, such as in with the CEH (Center for Environmental Health) in the United States, electronic design houses are encouraged to, design products that are eco-friendly and safe for the environment, whether that means creating non-toxic programs, or creating products which can easily be recycled.

Product Disposal
Aside from just waste disposal, the end-of-life disposal is just as important – what happens when a product is no longer useful and must be replaced? Previously, manufacturers just let their old products linger in the landfills, but for today’s environmentally-conscious consumer, that simply won’t do. Many manufacturers recycle their products, or donate their waste to other companies or organizations who can reuse their old materials. Electronics designers and manufacturers should, from the very beginning of the design process, should create “Take-back” campaigns wherein consumers are encouraged to bring their used electronics back to the manufacturer for proper disposal or better yet, recycling. Apple Computers in 2009, for example, figured out that they were emitting 9.6 million metric tons of greenhouses gases every year. So, within the next year, they re-evaluated their entire process – from designing, to manufacturing, transportation, product use, recycling and even how they their facilities (office, stores etc.) and made numerous changes that drastically reduced their carbon emissions. Their biggest expenditure when it came to carbon emissions was the manufacturing process itself (45%) and so they drastically reduced this by redesigning their products to be smaller, thinner and lighter, thus dramatically lowering their over-all carbon footprint.

The green trend, it seems, is here to stay. Electronic product designers and manufacturers must comply or be left behind. By keeping their products and processes eco-friendly, everyone – the designers, manufacturers and even the retailers are not just protecting their bottom-line, but the environment as well, ensuring that we all preserve the planet one product at a time.

image http://moralcoral.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/sustainability-for-dummies/

Share this:

Reusable bags are being greatly pushed against the single use plastic bag and people seem to be latching on to the concept. It sounds like a good enough idea, and with all the design options you can really expressive yourself, but is the reusable bag really risk free? Just like many new products there may be some drawbacks that weren’t discovered before becomingso popular and “savior-esque.” The Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona and the School of Public Health at Loma Linda University conducted a study called the Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags. Now I am going to brief you on the results of this study!

So what is “Cross contamination” ?

Cross contamination occurs when disease-causing microorganisms are transferred from one food to another.

The assessment was divided into 3 Phases

1. Determine the occurrence of bacteria and bacteria of health concern in reusable shopping bags
2. Determine the potential for microbial cross-contamination in reusable shopping bags
3. Evaluate and recommend the washing/bleaching procedures necessary to decontaminate reusable shopping bags

They started off by collecting bags from consumers entering grocery stores in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles and Tucson, Arizona. 84 bags total were collected, 25 from LA, 25 from San Francisco and 34 from Tucson. All but 4 of these bags were woven polypropylene (a little softer than polyester which is what a typical plastic bottle is made out of.) Each bag owner was interviewed on bag usage, storage, and cleaning procedures. (4 unused reusable bags were also purchased and tested)

And the Results are in…

Large numbers of bacteria were found in all but 1 bag & coliform bacteria in half.

E-Coli was identified in 12% of the bags & a wide range of enteric bacteria & pathogens.

After meat juices were added to bags & stored in car s for 2 hours, bacteria increased 10-fold.

How to Clean your bags?

Hand or machine washing was found to reduce the bacteria in bags by >99.9%. So if you clean your bag after every separate use, you should be good! (Don’t forget to think of the water and energy that adds up over time)

What were the bag owners habits?

Cleaned bag at home?
97% No
3% Yes

Days bags were used in a Week?
49% 1 day
22% 2 days
18% 3 days
3% 4 days
2% 5 days
3% 6 days
3% 7 days

Bag used Soley for Groceries?
70% Yes
30% No

Other uses of Bag?
57% Other Shopping
19% Clothes
10% Books
9% Snacks
5% Biking Supplies

Separate Bags for Meats & Vegetables?
75% No
25% Yes

Transport in Car?
55% Trunk
45% Backseat

Stored at home?
55% Yes
45% No

As you are learning these bags get pretty filthy and are brought back into stores, which is proven to be not at all sanitary. So if reusable bag users do not make the continuous effort to keep their bags clean maybe this isn’t  the cleanest solution to the single-use plastic bag problem, why not explore another option like using Earth friendly  biodegradable and recyclable plastic instead, Like ENSO?

Take a few min to read the rest of the assessment it’s definitely worth your time!
http://uanews.org/pdfs/GerbaWilliamsSinclair_BagContamination.pdf

Share this:

Photo by J Bloom

In light of recent news that SunChips is pulling their compostable bag off supermarket shelves, and the release of the new green marketing standards, now’s a good time to get down to the nitty-gritty of labeling. Are labels like “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable”, “compostable”, and “recyclable” a good idea, or do they just muddy the waters? Is there really any way for consumers to know what they’re buying?

The SunChips bag was pulled because it is supposedly too noisy, interfering with the consumer experience. Online chitter-chatter over the decision suggests that people didn’t really mind the extra bag noise, and the ones who did might be willing to make some sacrifices because they felt the bag’s environmental benefits outweighed any inconvenience…or do they?

Here’s where some critics have, shall we say, made noise over the issue. The bag is marketed as being fully compostable—and like all PLA (Poly-Lactic Acid, derived from starch from corn or potatoes) plastics it technically is—in a commercial-grade composting facility, where temperatures are high enough and conditions are perfect enough to break it down. The fine print, if there were any, could read that unless the packaging is disposed of in such a facility, it isn’t going to break down in a timely manner. Since the majority of consumers don’t have access to these mega-composting facilities, are the bags—or any PLA plastics—a sustainable solution to the packaging, and subsequent waste, conundrum?

Photo Courtesy of Bookshelf Boyfriend

Not really, it seems. If thrown in the landfill or the home compost pile, these products aren’t going anywhere fast; if recycled, they can contaminate whole batches of otherwise recyclable waste. So what about customer perception? Most people who buy these products think they are making a sustainable choice, and are casting a vote for the planet with their consumer dollar, when it can be argued that in fact, these products aren’t much better for the environment than conventional plastic. Indeed, they may even create new problems. Mass production of PLA materials requires farmland to grow the corn to make the plastics, instead of for food production, which could lead to rainforest destruction and increased use of petrochemicals, among others. Finally, these plastics are compostable* (*read the fine print), but not necessarily biodegradable, which may cause confusion for the consumer, and such claims could be misleading.

What it really comes down to is semantics, and these labels have been the subject of debate for months on the federal level, with greenwashing being the primary motivation for the FTC to take a look at how products are being marketed. Revisions to the Green Guides were released this week, with the proposed updates aiming to help businesses “better align their product claims with consumer expectations”.

Photo courtesy of voteprime.

The updates specifically define what “compostable”, “(bio)degradable” and “recyclable” mean, and do a good job of laying it out in a two-page summary of the nearly 200-page document. If a product is to be marketed as “compostable”, then it should, according to the proposed standards, break down into usable compost in the same amount of time as other materials in the pile. The meaning of “degradable” is also clarified, saying that in order to be labeled as such, the product must completely decompose in a “reasonably short period of time”, or no more than one year.

So what does this all mean for companies developing and marketing green products, and the consumers spending hard earned dollars to buy them? The heart of the matter lies in transparency. If a company advertises any kind of environmental certification or label, they must be very clear about how the product delivers, and be able to substantiate such claims. Period. Will this require more work on the back end? Of course. Will it make a difference in the quality of sustainable products available on the market? We can only hope so.

If nothing else, these revisions will help reduce instances of greenwashing, and hopefully hold those companies making green claims to higher standards. Clarifying the definitions of eco-labels will also make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions—which at the end of the day, helps keep the process on track and moving forward.

Share this:

There is a better design for a landfill which is called a “Bioreactor landfill.” Bioreactor landfills are designed to enhance biodegradation and create biogases (Also called landfill gases). LFG’s are being used to produce clean energy. Additionally, Bioreactor landfills have a longer life then the traditional dry tomb site and that means we need less land for garbage disposal.

If we are going to help our environment and leave our planet a healthier place for future generations we’re going to have to start thinking “Cradle to Cradle” with every product that is produced. We as consumers need to demand that manufacturers take stewardship for the products they make. They should be willing to take back packaging which by some accounts is more than 25 percent of all garbage. They should be willing to take back products for recycling or disposal once a product is no longer serviceable. Manufacturers who take stewardship for their products will be more inclined to design products which are better for our environment.

Fixing our environmental problems isn’t going to be easy, but I believe we humans have the capacity to do the right thing. Being environmentally friendly doesn’t mean we have to do without. Being environmentally friendly can mean we start thinking about the products we use and their impact on our planet.

Max

Share this:

Interestingly, it seems most consumers (even ones without disposable income) share my thoughts; a recent study by Miller Zell, a retail and strategy design firm, finds that lower income shoppers are driving the sustainable product marketplace, not the higher income, lifestyle consumers many think of as supporting sustainability.

Overall, the survey found 50% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product they consider to be green. The largest benefit comes to grocery stores, where 79% of shoppers will pay the premium and to mass retailers, where the number is 70%.

The research also suggests that retailers and manufacturers may be missing a great brand building opportunity with a younger, lower income consumer.

In addition, consumers seem to impulse buy green items, about 62 percent of shoppers say that the availability of green product options can impact unplanned purchases, according to a new report from Miller Zell.

Nearly three-quarters of women respond to green products as impulse buys, income and age were less determining factors, according to the report.

Perhaps the saying should be “Everyone wants to go green, and we are willing to pay for it – as long as it is reasonable!”

Share this:

There is a lot of concern about the growing plastic pollution problem, and rightly so.  Did you know?

* Plastic bottles take hundred or thousands of years to begin biodegrading
* 150 billion plastic beverage bottles are produced each year
* 70-80% of plastic bottles are not recycled
* 100 billion plastic bottles end up in landfills, roadsides, streams or oceans
* The average American consumes 167 bottles of water a year
* Bottled water is the second most popular beverage in the United States
* A majority of containers today are made from plastic

It seems that a lot of interest is being placed on bottled water, but take a look at the shelves where you shop; almost everything is packaged in plastic.  Bottled water has become an easy target; many of us think that because our tap water is safe, it must be safe everywhere else.  I wish that were true, most places in the world don’t have safe drinking water.  We should be focusing on the pollution caused by all plastics and insist that plastics be designed to be sustainable.  Sustainable plastics regardless of what it is made from, petroleum or plants should be biodegradable and designed to meet“Cradle to Cradle,” design criteria.  A cradle to cradle product is made from something, used, reused, recycled and when its useful life is over, it returns to the earth as a harmless substance.

The problem is that we consumers are confused we don’t understand what is biodegradable, what is compostable, what is the carbon foot print, etc?  Market experts know we’re confused and have designed their campaigns to keep us that way.  Here’s an example, Polylactic acid or polylactide (PLA)is a plastic made primarily from corn but can be made from other plants, is marketed as biodegradable and compostable.  Making plastics from corn may sound like the perfect utopian answer for solving all our plastic pollution problems, but everything in PLA land isn’t what it seems to be.  PLA made from corn increases use of pesticides, is made from genetically altered corn, reduces food crops, raises food prices, and does not biodegrade any quicker than standard plastic in a landfill.  A huge problem with PLA is that it isn’t easily recycled and for proper disposal, it must be processed in a commercial composting site.  There aren’t many commercial composting sites here in the U.S. and some that do exist won’t accept PLA that is made from genetically altered corn. The bottom line is that PLA can’t be composted in your backyard compost pile and with the limited number of commercial sites here in the U.S., most PLA will end up in the garbage dump where it will languish for thousands of years, right along with other plastics.

Beware spin masters, consumers are getting smarter and we want products that don’t harm us or our future generations.

Max

http://www.ensobottles.com

Share this:

Sonoma, CA, September 25, 2007 – PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles have garnered a great deal of media attention recently, some of it raising questions about PET safety. According to the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), the trade group for PET packaging, it’s time to clear up any fallacies and set the record straight: Consumers can continue to rely on the safety of PET bottles.

If you drink a single-serve water or carbonated beverage from a plastic bottle, chances are you’re drinking it from PET, identified with a small number “1” or “PETE” on the container side or bottom. The PET bottle is a well-accepted package all over the world and is completely safe to drink from as well as lightweight, unbreakable, and recyclable.

But, can you safely freeze a PET bottle? Yes. There is no danger in the freezing of PET bottles, and no truth to the rumors that dioxins leach from frozen PET bottles. There is no dioxin in PET plastic. Dioxins are formed by combustion in incinerators at temperatures above 1700 degrees F. — and by volcanoes. Furthermore, freezing does not affect PET bottles.

Leave a PET bottle in your hot car? Yes. The idea that PET bottles “leach” chemicals when heated in hot cars is not based on any science, and is unsubstantiated by any credible evidence. This allegation has been perpetuated by emails until it has become an urban legend, but it just isn’t so.

Reuse a PET bottle? Yes. Just wash it first, as you would any other food or beverage container after use.

Do PET bottles contain “bis-phenol A” which some claim can cause birth defects? No. Bis-phenol A is not used to make PET, nor is it used to make any of the component materials used to make PET.

What about the chemicals called “phthalates? They are not in PET. In spite of the similarity of part of PET’s chemical name, PET is not the kind of “phthalate” that is being talked about. The type of “phthalate” about which concern has been raised is used to make various plastics more flexible, and in that role is called a “plasticizer.” PET does not contain plasticizers or the type of “phthalate” that is used in plasticizers.

What about Antimony? Antimony oxide is often used in extremely tiny amounts as a “catalyst” in the production of PET plastic. Its very low toxicity combined with very low extraction rate from PET translates to very, very low risk. Its use in PET does not endanger workers, consumers, or the environment.

NAPCOR Contacts: Dennis Sabourin (707) 996-4207, X13 or Kate Eagles, x16

Share this:

With the domestic and world markets looking into alternative energy, it is not surprising that the use of biogas created by our landfills are emerging as an easy answer to clean energy (see bioreactor landfill). What is surprising is that this seemingly untapped resource has been available for decades, and is only now being taken serious as a mainstream source for clean energy.

With countries like England adopting a massive effort to capture and utilize methane from waste off gassing from landfills, it is another exciting development towards a green and responsible stewardship of our planet for future generations to come. Here in the US, we are looking to forge ahead in the ambitious challenge to change the way we are consuming our products and resources, and in turn how we dispose of them. There are the “old school” influences that are entrenched in “status quo”, but do not be fooled, change is here, and the scale is tipping towards a healthier way we treat our planet. We are changing mainstream things that could set a new course our children will look back and thank us for. Look at the city of San Jose, CA were this city’s vision has a goal of using 100% of the city’s electrical power from clean renewable sources.

These are exciting times where innovations like our biodegradable bottles are springing up, and alternative sources for clean power are emerging. We are excited about our involvement in this transformational process that is taking place because we can help rid a pollution problem both from a litter perspective, as well as an emission perspective. Our biodegradable plastic bottles will biodegrade to reduce plastic trash in the environment, and in the process create clean energy from the methane off gassing produced by the degrading process in a landfill. We are first and foremost an advocate of recycling; recycling should and must be the goals of everyone within the voice of our message-please choose to recycle! But with the rates of recycling as low as they have historically been in the US, we take solace in that we can still achieve a positive effect by providing clean power through our plastic PET bottle technology made with Eco-Pure.

Share this:

Nestlé expecting sustainability-savvy suppliers

By Mike Verespej

CHICAGO (Nov. 21, 4:15 p.m. ET) — There are a lot of things companies can do that create an appearance of being green and sustainable. But Kim Jeffery wants to do things that actually enhance sustainability and the environment.

“Are you trying to look good, or are you trying to do good?” asked the president and chief executive officer of Nestlé Waters North America, in a Nov. 6 interview during Sustain ’08 in Chicago.

“If going for energy credits is all you are going to do and you are not going to work on your supply chain, it doesn’t pass the sniff test,” he said.

“I want to be known as a company that does good. We are going to hold ourselves to be self-accountable in a very transparent way” with goals and milestones, many of which were outlined in the company’s corporate citizenship report in October.

A company must first get its own house in order and develop ways to “use less of something” to save money, resources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its carbon footprint, said Jeffery. But he added that a company then must “go outside its own four walls.”

For its part, Nestlé Waters reduced the size of its half-liter PET water bottle 15 percent this year, and will reduce it another 20 percent in 2009, cutting its weight to 9.8 grams. Using less material results in energy savings and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Nestlé Waters is working with its suppliers to achieve additional sustainability gains.“We are just getting to the point where people will have to have their house in order to do business with us,” said Jeffery. “We are going to be pushing more on our suppliers to figure some of this stuff out. By 2013, we plan to reduce carbon intensity by 20 percent across our full value chain — from the production of plastic resin to delivery of products to our customers.”

Jeffery also wants to ensure Nestlé makes the right sustainability and environmental decisions on the use of recycled content in its bottles and the use of bioplastics as a feedstock.

Nestlé has set a goal of producing a bottle with up to 25 percent recycled PET by 2013, and developing and producing a “next-generation bot- tle” manufactured entirely from recycled materials or renewable materials by 2020, Jeffery said.

But Jeffery has some concerns about both of those concepts. “It sounds good to have recycled content,” said Jeffery. “But it takes more energy to use recycled PET and it may be more expensive than using virgin resin because of processing costs. So it is not particularly attractive” from an economic standpoint.

Jeffery contends that right now it makes more sense, economically, to use recycled PET for carpets and strapping. “We should operate on a hierarchical approach and use [recycled PET] in the most efficient uses first,” he said. “So unless you have used recycled PET for other products first, using [it] for bottles may not be the best use of that material.”

Similarly, he said, while polylactic acid is being used to make water bottles, at this point, “it uses a lot more material and it is used once” because of the paucity of industrial composting facilities in the U.S. In addition, Jeffery said PLA “can’t be commingled with other plastics that are recycled [because] it will disrupt the float-sink process to sort plastics and because it looks identical to PET containers.”

“Is using bioplastics the best solution?” questioned Jeffery. “The better solution may be getting better at PET recycling, but that is also the harder solution.” The Sustain ’08 conference was organized by Plastics News and the Washington-based Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.

************************************************************

Here’s a great source for plastics/going geen/ information.

Max

http://www.plasticsnews.com.

Share this: