Last night I attended the MIT Club of Northern California's event on Careers in Cleantech/Greentech. I met someone who worked at Cisco in supply chain management finding and evalutating new manufacturing partners. Cicso outsources manufacturing 100%. I asked if he used any sustainability criteria - no. Didn't seem to know anything about it.
I checked Cisco's web page - they do have a section on sustainability. It lists 4 actions they have done - all of which were basic efficiency and cost cutting and really didn't target sustainability. They mention following the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) guidelines and adding some of their own. This seems to be the standard answer for Silicon Valley companies - I need to read this and see what it really covers.
Finally the website mentions starting to address GHG emissions in 2009. Since we are 4 months into 2010, it will be interesting to see if they report something soon about 2009.
So it must not be a corporate mandate and my gut tells me this is common in Si Valley.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Solar Power's Dirty Secrets
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has done a great job on the "greening of the green", applying a sustainability score card to the solar industry. A lot more metrics than my paper/power point presentation on the top 9.
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/03/30/solar-powers-dirty-secrets
Solar Power's Dirty Secrets
By Marc Gunther
Published March 30, 2010
* Read
* Comments (4)
Email | Print |
Tags: Manufacturing, Renewable Energy, More... Manufacturing, Renewable Energy, Waste
Solar Power's Dirty Secrets
192diggsdigg
Maybe we should banish the term "clean energy." Growing corn for ethanol requires fertilizers and pesticides. Producing and shipping small-scale wind turbines for urban areas generates more CO2 than they save. Production of polysilicon for solar panels leaves a trail of toxic waste in China, as The Washington Post reported back in 2008.
Now a survey and scorecard that ranks solar energy firms points to potential environmental, health and safety issues associated with the production and disposal of solar photovoltaic panels -- as well as the reluctance of some well-known industry players even to talk about their practices.
The survey comes from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an activist group that has produced similar scorecards of the computer and TV industries, designed the shame the laggards into reform. (In the argot of environmental activists, this tactic is known as "rank 'em and spank 'em.") SVTC is calling for mandatory takeback and responsible recycling by solar companies as a step toward reducing the solar industry's environmental footprint.
Related News & Blogs
Walmart Celebrates Earth Day by Selling Upcycled Trash Design
Waitrose Dumps Bagged Milk, Another U.K. Retailer Embraces It Design
UPS Rolls Out 200 More Hybrid Electric Trucks
S.F. to Hold the Meat on Mondays Climate
Plastic Bag Bans Show that Change Is Possible -- and Easy
Maybe the most striking thing about the survey was how many solar companies felt free to ignore it. Only 14 companies replied, representing about 25 percent of the industry's module production in 2008, according to the SVTC. Well-known companies that did not respond include California-based Solyndra–which has been offered a $535-million loan guarantee by the U.S. Department of Energy–and venture-backed startups Miasole, Nanosolar and Konarka. Other companies that did not respond to the SVTC include Silicon Valley-based SunPower; Suntech, the Chinese solar giant that plans to open a plant in Arizona; and Japanese electronics firm Sharp.
Sheila Davis, the executive director of the activist group, told me she wasn't surprised at the lack of response.
"We've done scorecards in the past, and in the first round, we typically get a low response rate," she said. "Our experience is after a couple of years, companies are knocking on your door to participate because it becomes a competitive issue."
The top three scores in the SVTC survey were earned by German manufacturers Calyxo, SolarWorld and Sovello, scoring 90, 88 and 73 respectively. The two U.S.-based respondents scored in the mid range: First Solar in Arizona received a score of 67 and Colorado-based Abound received a 63.
Other key findings:
• 57 percent of respondents would support mandatory takeback and recycling programs in the markets where they sell solar panels.
• 42.8 percent of companies are setting aside money to finance the collection and disposal of end-of-life panels and 50 percent said that they provide recycling services free of charge.
• 50 percent have undertaken analysis of their supply chain to document the social and environmental impacts associated with different production phases.
The reason why take-back and recycling programs are so important in solar, as they are in other industries, is that when companies understand that they will be responsible for the end-of-life of a product, they have an incentive to rethink their design and materials. "There are hazardous materials and rare metals in solar panels that don't belong in landfills," Davis said. "Anytime you have a product that you can't recycle, that's waste, and it's a pollution problem."
How big a problem? SVTC estimates that announced utility-scale solar panel projects in the state of California alone will generate about 1.5 billion pounds of panel waste.
The good news? Because panels last 20 to 25 years, companies and their customers have time to get a recycling infrastructure together.
GreenBiz.com Senior Writer Marc Gunther is a longtime journalist and speaker whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc maintains a blog at MarcGunther.com. You can follow him on Twitter @marcGunther.
DuPont: Beyond Petroleum
« Prev Post | All Posts | Next Post »
Water's Trickle-Down Business Model
Sponsored Links
GreenBiz.com would like to thank IBM, SAP, and Tandberg for sponsoring the State of Green Business Forum 2010. To download the State of Green Business Report, click here.
Learn more about our commitment to being a responsible global citizen and read our corporate responsibility report.
Join IBM and GreenBiz.com April 21, 2010 to hear the results of a groundbreaking global event on energy, the environment and corporate sustainability.
Are your supply chain and manufacturing operations in compliance with the new EPA hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant recordkeeping and reporting rules? Click here to learn more.
Learn how to reduce your environmental footprint, efficiently monitor greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, limit costly workplace injuries and mitigate business disruption from unplanned incidents. Click here to learn more.
Environmental Management Software – Track and report on all of your key environmental data from a single management platform. Request free trial access today.
Suppose your CIO calls tomorrow and asks, “What are we doing about power consumption?” What will you say? Click here now for more.
Join business leaders and investors as we chart out the roadmap to a sustainable future at the Ceres Conference 2010, May 5-6 in Boston. Register today. Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here
Related Content
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/03/30/solar-powers-dirty-secrets
Solar Power's Dirty Secrets
By Marc Gunther
Published March 30, 2010
* Read
* Comments (4)
Email | Print |
Tags: Manufacturing, Renewable Energy, More... Manufacturing, Renewable Energy, Waste
Solar Power's Dirty Secrets
192diggsdigg
Maybe we should banish the term "clean energy." Growing corn for ethanol requires fertilizers and pesticides. Producing and shipping small-scale wind turbines for urban areas generates more CO2 than they save. Production of polysilicon for solar panels leaves a trail of toxic waste in China, as The Washington Post reported back in 2008.
Now a survey and scorecard that ranks solar energy firms points to potential environmental, health and safety issues associated with the production and disposal of solar photovoltaic panels -- as well as the reluctance of some well-known industry players even to talk about their practices.
The survey comes from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an activist group that has produced similar scorecards of the computer and TV industries, designed the shame the laggards into reform. (In the argot of environmental activists, this tactic is known as "rank 'em and spank 'em.") SVTC is calling for mandatory takeback and responsible recycling by solar companies as a step toward reducing the solar industry's environmental footprint.
Related News & Blogs
Walmart Celebrates Earth Day by Selling Upcycled Trash Design
Waitrose Dumps Bagged Milk, Another U.K. Retailer Embraces It Design
UPS Rolls Out 200 More Hybrid Electric Trucks
S.F. to Hold the Meat on Mondays Climate
Plastic Bag Bans Show that Change Is Possible -- and Easy
Maybe the most striking thing about the survey was how many solar companies felt free to ignore it. Only 14 companies replied, representing about 25 percent of the industry's module production in 2008, according to the SVTC. Well-known companies that did not respond include California-based Solyndra–which has been offered a $535-million loan guarantee by the U.S. Department of Energy–and venture-backed startups Miasole, Nanosolar and Konarka. Other companies that did not respond to the SVTC include Silicon Valley-based SunPower; Suntech, the Chinese solar giant that plans to open a plant in Arizona; and Japanese electronics firm Sharp.
Sheila Davis, the executive director of the activist group, told me she wasn't surprised at the lack of response.
"We've done scorecards in the past, and in the first round, we typically get a low response rate," she said. "Our experience is after a couple of years, companies are knocking on your door to participate because it becomes a competitive issue."
The top three scores in the SVTC survey were earned by German manufacturers Calyxo, SolarWorld and Sovello, scoring 90, 88 and 73 respectively. The two U.S.-based respondents scored in the mid range: First Solar in Arizona received a score of 67 and Colorado-based Abound received a 63.
Other key findings:
• 57 percent of respondents would support mandatory takeback and recycling programs in the markets where they sell solar panels.
• 42.8 percent of companies are setting aside money to finance the collection and disposal of end-of-life panels and 50 percent said that they provide recycling services free of charge.
• 50 percent have undertaken analysis of their supply chain to document the social and environmental impacts associated with different production phases.
The reason why take-back and recycling programs are so important in solar, as they are in other industries, is that when companies understand that they will be responsible for the end-of-life of a product, they have an incentive to rethink their design and materials. "There are hazardous materials and rare metals in solar panels that don't belong in landfills," Davis said. "Anytime you have a product that you can't recycle, that's waste, and it's a pollution problem."
How big a problem? SVTC estimates that announced utility-scale solar panel projects in the state of California alone will generate about 1.5 billion pounds of panel waste.
The good news? Because panels last 20 to 25 years, companies and their customers have time to get a recycling infrastructure together.
GreenBiz.com Senior Writer Marc Gunther is a longtime journalist and speaker whose focus is business and sustainability. Marc maintains a blog at MarcGunther.com. You can follow him on Twitter @marcGunther.
DuPont: Beyond Petroleum
« Prev Post | All Posts | Next Post »
Water's Trickle-Down Business Model
Sponsored Links
GreenBiz.com would like to thank IBM, SAP, and Tandberg for sponsoring the State of Green Business Forum 2010. To download the State of Green Business Report, click here.
Learn more about our commitment to being a responsible global citizen and read our corporate responsibility report.
Join IBM and GreenBiz.com April 21, 2010 to hear the results of a groundbreaking global event on energy, the environment and corporate sustainability.
Are your supply chain and manufacturing operations in compliance with the new EPA hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant recordkeeping and reporting rules? Click here to learn more.
Learn how to reduce your environmental footprint, efficiently monitor greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, limit costly workplace injuries and mitigate business disruption from unplanned incidents. Click here to learn more.
Environmental Management Software – Track and report on all of your key environmental data from a single management platform. Request free trial access today.
Suppose your CIO calls tomorrow and asks, “What are we doing about power consumption?” What will you say? Click here now for more.
Join business leaders and investors as we chart out the roadmap to a sustainable future at the Ceres Conference 2010, May 5-6 in Boston. Register today. Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here
Related Content
Friday, March 26, 2010
Energy Star worse than you could ever imagine!
Audit Finds Vulnerability of EnergyStar Program
BY MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 25, 2010
NYT
WASHINGTON — Does a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” qualify for the EnergyStar label, the government stamp of approval for an energy-saving product?
Like more than a dozen other bogus products submitted for approval since last June by Congressional auditors posing as companies, it easily secured the label, according to a Congressional report to be issued Friday. So did an “air purifier” that was essentially an electric space heater with a feather duster pasted on top, the Government Accountability Office said.
In a nine-month study, four fictitious companies invented by the accountability office also sought EnergyStar status for some conventional devices like dehumidifiers and heat pump models that existed only on paper. The fake companies submitted data indicating that the models consumed 20 percent less energy than even the most efficient ones on the market. Yet those applications were mostly approved without a challenge or even questions, the report said.
Auditors concluded that the EnergyStar program was highly vulnerable to fraud.
Maria Vargas, an official with the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the program with the Energy Department, said the approvals did not pose a problem for consumers because the products never existed. There was “no fraud,” Ms. Vargas emphasized. She said she doubted that many of the 40,000 genuine products with EnergyStar status had been mislabeled.
But in anticipation of the report’s release, the Energy Department has issued two statements in recent days pledging to strengthen the program.
Yet auditors found problems beyond the approval of nonexistent products. They determined that once a company registered as an EnergyStar partner, it could download the logo from the government’s Web site and paste it on products for which it had not even requested approval.
The report is only the latest in a series involving the 18-year-old EnergyStar program, which was set up to guide the public on energy-efficient choices that could both save people money and help reduce the nation’s runaway energy consumption.
Watchdogs within the Environment Protection Agency and the Department of Energy have reported in the past that Energy Star has taken some claims of energy efficiency on faith. Yet the new study suggests that it often does so on remote control.
Congressional auditors said they were told by EnergyStar officials that some of the approvals, including the one for the gasoline alarm clock, had been issued by an automated system and that the details had probably never been reviewed by a human being.
Ms. Vargas added that the automated system that green-lighted the clock was only a preliminary “screen” to evaluate energy figures submitted by manufacturers and to cut out products that did not qualify. Every product that is certified is reviewed by a human being, she said.
But Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who requested the accountability office study, said in an interview, “I don’t think I’d admit that.”
If a government employee or contractor examined the comical picture submitted of the space heater with a feather duster, or read the description of the gas-powered clock — with dimensions suggesting it was the size of an electric generator — “and red flags didn’t get raised, that’s a really troubling commentary,” Ms. Collins said.
She said the ease with which the auditors had fooled the program suggested that consumers and agencies that rely on the logo were paying extra for products that might not actually save energy. “This program is extraordinarily easy to defraud,” she said.
Ms. Collins also noted that the economic stimulus bill included hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for people who buy EnergyStar products and that many government agencies were required to choose EnergyStar products if they were available.
In effect, people “are ripped off twice,” as consumers and as taxpayers, she said.
Previous reports have suggested that the EnergyStar label is not always a complete or useful guide to the best consumer choices. Last October, for example, the inspector general of the E.P.A. said that 100 percent of the computer monitors that carried the EnergyStar logo had indeed met requirements. But so did 80 percent of the monitors that did not have the logo; the manufacturers had apparently not sought approval. For computer printers, 95 percent of the ones with the logo qualified, but so did 60 percent of the ones that did not have the logo.
And some consumer products lacking EnergyStar approval consumed less energy than those that had it, the audit found.
And the inspector general of the Energy Department reported the same month that EnergyStar claims were not “accurate or verifiable” for many products. The program requires manufacturers of windows and fluorescent lights to get their products certified by independent laboratories. But companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, in which efficiency is far more critical because they gobble more energy, need only check a box on a form to be certified.
The Energy Department has promised to set up a system of independent verification for all products. Last week, it said it would begin testing refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners. In October 2008, Consumer Reports magazine reported it had tested refrigerators built by LG of South Korea and found that they were not nearly as efficient as the maker claimed. LG eventually agreed to modify the machines already sold to reduce electricity consumption and to reimburse customers. Last week, the Energy Department said it had found a Samsung refrigerator that did not comply.
The Energy Department does spot check some items with the EnergyStar logo, but mostly the ones that do not use much power in the first place. The department recently announced that several models of compact fluorescent lamps would have to remove the EnergyStar logo because they were not durable enough. It has conducted spot checks on regulated appliances that do not carry the logo and determined that some cannot be legally sold because they do not meet minimum efficiency standards.
The audit to be released Friday did not set out to test any products but focused solely on testing the certification process by submitting bogus products.
Gene Rodrigues, the director of customer energy efficiency at Southern California Edison, suggested that the EnergyStar label suffered from its appeal to manufacturers. “It may be that their ability to properly manage the brand suffered at the fringes,” he said of the program’s overseers.
He argues that a strong federal certification program is vital. “What we in the program industry are looking for is for this to be a wake-up call to whip them into shape,” he said.
In another sign that Energy Star is not dotting its i’s, program officials told the auditors that they sought to assure honesty by warning corporate applicants on some of its paperwork that intentionally submitting false information is a crime, under Title 18 of the United States Code.
But it is a crime under Title 19, not 18, and the warning does not appear on all of the relevant forms, the report said.
BY MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 25, 2010
NYT
WASHINGTON — Does a “gasoline-powered alarm clock” qualify for the EnergyStar label, the government stamp of approval for an energy-saving product?
Like more than a dozen other bogus products submitted for approval since last June by Congressional auditors posing as companies, it easily secured the label, according to a Congressional report to be issued Friday. So did an “air purifier” that was essentially an electric space heater with a feather duster pasted on top, the Government Accountability Office said.
In a nine-month study, four fictitious companies invented by the accountability office also sought EnergyStar status for some conventional devices like dehumidifiers and heat pump models that existed only on paper. The fake companies submitted data indicating that the models consumed 20 percent less energy than even the most efficient ones on the market. Yet those applications were mostly approved without a challenge or even questions, the report said.
Auditors concluded that the EnergyStar program was highly vulnerable to fraud.
Maria Vargas, an official with the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the program with the Energy Department, said the approvals did not pose a problem for consumers because the products never existed. There was “no fraud,” Ms. Vargas emphasized. She said she doubted that many of the 40,000 genuine products with EnergyStar status had been mislabeled.
But in anticipation of the report’s release, the Energy Department has issued two statements in recent days pledging to strengthen the program.
Yet auditors found problems beyond the approval of nonexistent products. They determined that once a company registered as an EnergyStar partner, it could download the logo from the government’s Web site and paste it on products for which it had not even requested approval.
The report is only the latest in a series involving the 18-year-old EnergyStar program, which was set up to guide the public on energy-efficient choices that could both save people money and help reduce the nation’s runaway energy consumption.
Watchdogs within the Environment Protection Agency and the Department of Energy have reported in the past that Energy Star has taken some claims of energy efficiency on faith. Yet the new study suggests that it often does so on remote control.
Congressional auditors said they were told by EnergyStar officials that some of the approvals, including the one for the gasoline alarm clock, had been issued by an automated system and that the details had probably never been reviewed by a human being.
Ms. Vargas added that the automated system that green-lighted the clock was only a preliminary “screen” to evaluate energy figures submitted by manufacturers and to cut out products that did not qualify. Every product that is certified is reviewed by a human being, she said.
But Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who requested the accountability office study, said in an interview, “I don’t think I’d admit that.”
If a government employee or contractor examined the comical picture submitted of the space heater with a feather duster, or read the description of the gas-powered clock — with dimensions suggesting it was the size of an electric generator — “and red flags didn’t get raised, that’s a really troubling commentary,” Ms. Collins said.
She said the ease with which the auditors had fooled the program suggested that consumers and agencies that rely on the logo were paying extra for products that might not actually save energy. “This program is extraordinarily easy to defraud,” she said.
Ms. Collins also noted that the economic stimulus bill included hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for people who buy EnergyStar products and that many government agencies were required to choose EnergyStar products if they were available.
In effect, people “are ripped off twice,” as consumers and as taxpayers, she said.
Previous reports have suggested that the EnergyStar label is not always a complete or useful guide to the best consumer choices. Last October, for example, the inspector general of the E.P.A. said that 100 percent of the computer monitors that carried the EnergyStar logo had indeed met requirements. But so did 80 percent of the monitors that did not have the logo; the manufacturers had apparently not sought approval. For computer printers, 95 percent of the ones with the logo qualified, but so did 60 percent of the ones that did not have the logo.
And some consumer products lacking EnergyStar approval consumed less energy than those that had it, the audit found.
And the inspector general of the Energy Department reported the same month that EnergyStar claims were not “accurate or verifiable” for many products. The program requires manufacturers of windows and fluorescent lights to get their products certified by independent laboratories. But companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, in which efficiency is far more critical because they gobble more energy, need only check a box on a form to be certified.
The Energy Department has promised to set up a system of independent verification for all products. Last week, it said it would begin testing refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners. In October 2008, Consumer Reports magazine reported it had tested refrigerators built by LG of South Korea and found that they were not nearly as efficient as the maker claimed. LG eventually agreed to modify the machines already sold to reduce electricity consumption and to reimburse customers. Last week, the Energy Department said it had found a Samsung refrigerator that did not comply.
The Energy Department does spot check some items with the EnergyStar logo, but mostly the ones that do not use much power in the first place. The department recently announced that several models of compact fluorescent lamps would have to remove the EnergyStar logo because they were not durable enough. It has conducted spot checks on regulated appliances that do not carry the logo and determined that some cannot be legally sold because they do not meet minimum efficiency standards.
The audit to be released Friday did not set out to test any products but focused solely on testing the certification process by submitting bogus products.
Gene Rodrigues, the director of customer energy efficiency at Southern California Edison, suggested that the EnergyStar label suffered from its appeal to manufacturers. “It may be that their ability to properly manage the brand suffered at the fringes,” he said of the program’s overseers.
He argues that a strong federal certification program is vital. “What we in the program industry are looking for is for this to be a wake-up call to whip them into shape,” he said.
In another sign that Energy Star is not dotting its i’s, program officials told the auditors that they sought to assure honesty by warning corporate applicants on some of its paperwork that intentionally submitting false information is a crime, under Title 18 of the United States Code.
But it is a crime under Title 19, not 18, and the warning does not appear on all of the relevant forms, the report said.
Friday, March 12, 2010
How to go after a greenwasher
Michelle Gabriel attended, "Clean, Green, & Candid: Environmental Issues Every General Counsel (GC) Should Know" at Morrison and Foerster. Excellent info. Greenwashing was discussed in detail. What I learned:
1. The FTC is putting out new guidelines on Greenwashing.
2. If companies see it in their competitors they complain to the NAD. At the talk they described this as the National Advertising Division. I have looked this up and it is a devision of the Better Business Bureau. http://www.nadreview.org/. It's a very interesting page - you can see their press releases of their latest reviews of advertising claims that are being challenged.
3. Corporate counsel sees this as a large risk area for the company and in some companies are with the product development team and working with marketing early on to avoid issues. Most often they are gate keepers - saying no to products just about to go out. But now they are becoming more proactive and fixing it early on rather than spend a lot of money later.
4. Class action suits have been few but there will be more. I wish I learned more about this - as I am not a lawyer this was the really good stuff. But it was a short panel discussion. The only case mentioned was one where a company created it's own certification and a label for it's products, which was misleading.
5. I asked about companies using a logo to show a certification that they did not earn. The lawyer I spoke to had not heard of any cases of that.
So in general, the government can't regulate and enforce, so industry is doing it themselves. As with the Walmart initiative. If successful, that will do more for sustainablity than the government will ever do.
Doing some after the talk research:
Here is an interesting article about how ineffective the FTC has been and also how many types of greenwashing are not covered by the FTC guidelines.
http://green.wikia.com/wiki/FTC_Regulation_of_Greenwashing
I see references about the Green Guides being updated in 2009 but I can't find any new guides.
Also in 2009 it looks like the FTC did go after a serious case, charging some big companies:
http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/2009/06/articles/environmental/
ftc-files-greenwashing-charges-against-three-companies-based-on-
ecofriendly-advertising-claims/
1. The FTC is putting out new guidelines on Greenwashing.
2. If companies see it in their competitors they complain to the NAD. At the talk they described this as the National Advertising Division. I have looked this up and it is a devision of the Better Business Bureau. http://www.nadreview.org/. It's a very interesting page - you can see their press releases of their latest reviews of advertising claims that are being challenged.
3. Corporate counsel sees this as a large risk area for the company and in some companies are with the product development team and working with marketing early on to avoid issues. Most often they are gate keepers - saying no to products just about to go out. But now they are becoming more proactive and fixing it early on rather than spend a lot of money later.
4. Class action suits have been few but there will be more. I wish I learned more about this - as I am not a lawyer this was the really good stuff. But it was a short panel discussion. The only case mentioned was one where a company created it's own certification and a label for it's products, which was misleading.
5. I asked about companies using a logo to show a certification that they did not earn. The lawyer I spoke to had not heard of any cases of that.
So in general, the government can't regulate and enforce, so industry is doing it themselves. As with the Walmart initiative. If successful, that will do more for sustainablity than the government will ever do.
Doing some after the talk research:
Here is an interesting article about how ineffective the FTC has been and also how many types of greenwashing are not covered by the FTC guidelines.
http://green.wikia.com/wiki/FTC_Regulation_of_Greenwashing
I see references about the Green Guides being updated in 2009 but I can't find any new guides.
Also in 2009 it looks like the FTC did go after a serious case, charging some big companies:
http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/2009/06/articles/environmental/
ftc-files-greenwashing-charges-against-three-companies-based-on-
ecofriendly-advertising-claims/
Energy Star - only as good as the user
Just because a product is labelled Energy Star doesn't mean you will see the savings unless you use the product correctly. I recently went to a symposium at BERC - Berkeley Energy Research Center. The super academic panel was discussing the energy efficiency at one of the engineering buildings. One of the professors went in at night and saw that all of the monitors were on, with the message - Cable unplugged - floating all over the screen. Using a simple kilowatt meter it became quickly apparent that they were not in hibernate mode. It appears that the students turned off their computers, expecting the monitors to go off, but they went into a mode showing there was a problem and were running at full power. But, one of the profs commented, we bought Energy Star!!!
After the talk I went to a poster session at Soda Hall. The conference room has a wall of windows - good day lighting. All the lights along the windows were on. There was a bank of 5 controls for lighting by the door, each labelled with what zone they controlled. The person running the event wasn't aware there was an issue or a way to control it.
This is a problem seen over and over again at talks that I go to.
First, a product is purchased and installed or used with no check that it is actually performing the energy savings it was bought for. Automated systems and commissioning are supposed to stop this problem in large buildings. What about the rest of us? Sustainable Spaces/Recurve is working in what I would call the commissioning of residential HVAC - examples - you get insulation in your attic and get a tax credit. But was it properly installed and is it really doing anything? Most likely, either no or not all it could do.
Second, the user does not know or is even aware of the proper use of the product to realize the energy savings. Just in a few hours I saw/heard 2 examples! I find this one to be a much tougher issue. It's training, organizational knowledge of a very transient population.
After the talk I went to a poster session at Soda Hall. The conference room has a wall of windows - good day lighting. All the lights along the windows were on. There was a bank of 5 controls for lighting by the door, each labelled with what zone they controlled. The person running the event wasn't aware there was an issue or a way to control it.
This is a problem seen over and over again at talks that I go to.
First, a product is purchased and installed or used with no check that it is actually performing the energy savings it was bought for. Automated systems and commissioning are supposed to stop this problem in large buildings. What about the rest of us? Sustainable Spaces/Recurve is working in what I would call the commissioning of residential HVAC - examples - you get insulation in your attic and get a tax credit. But was it properly installed and is it really doing anything? Most likely, either no or not all it could do.
Second, the user does not know or is even aware of the proper use of the product to realize the energy savings. Just in a few hours I saw/heard 2 examples! I find this one to be a much tougher issue. It's training, organizational knowledge of a very transient population.
Energy Star - can be greenwashing
From the talks I have been going to in the last 2 months, I learned that Energy Star has no 3rd party certification and their labs don't check appliances!!! Companies self declare! Energy Star itself doesn't even check them. Looks like things are going to change - not soon enough.
Here is an article on it from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/business/energy-environment/19star.html
WASHINGTON — The Energy Department has concluded in an internal audit that it does not properly track whether manufacturers that give their appliances an Energy Star label have met the required specifications for energy efficiency.
Skip to next paragraph
Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
An agency audit also criticized the number of compact fluorescent lights approved.
green inc.
Green Inc.
A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Go to Blog »
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
* Read All Comments (27) »
Some manufacturers could therefore be putting the stickers on unqualified products, according to the audit, by the Energy Department’s inspector general, Gregory H. Friedman.
The Energy Star program, jointly managed by the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, has benefited from a renewed emphasis by the Obama administration, as a mechanism for reducing the waste of energy and curbing resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Under the federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products.
Some consumers choose energy-efficient appliances for the same reason they might choose a car with good fuel economy: to save money or reduce the environmental impact.
Teams from the Energy Department and the E.P.A. oversee different categories of products. Last December, the environmental agency’s inspector general said the Energy Star ratings for products it oversees, like computers and television sets, were “not accurate or verifiable” because of weak oversight by the agency.
The Energy Department vowed then to scrutinize its performance in evaluating the products that it oversees, like windows, dishwashers, washing machines and refrigerators.
The new audit, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, indicates that the Energy Department has also fallen far short. Those shortcomings “could reduce consumer confidence in the integrity of the Energy Star label,” according to the department’s inspector general. The audit is to be submitted to Energy Secretary Steven Chu this week. While the Energy Department requires manufacturers of windows and L.E.D. and fluorescent lighting to have independent laboratories evaluate their products, the report said, companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves.
One refrigerator manufacturer tipped off the Energy Department that some models from a competitor that carried the Energy Star label did not meet the criteria, the audit said. That problem was also described by Consumer Reports magazine in October 2008 about tests it had conducted. In a settlement last year, the manufacturer, LG of South Korea, agreed to modify circuit boards in the machines already sold, to reduce their consumption and to compensate consumers for the extra power consumed.
The report also noted that while the government said in 2007 that it would conduct “retail assessments” to ensure that all the products carrying the Energy Star logo deserved them, it is still not doing so for windows, doors, skylights, water heaters and solid-state lighting. And the department is not following through to ensure that when inappropriately labeled products are identified, the labels are actually taken off, the audit said.
In one category, compact fluorescent lights, the government has certified nearly all existing products, the audit said. “When 90 percent of the products qualify, the consumer cannot easily judge the relative efficiencies of C.F.L. products,” the report said.
Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, cited the recent agreement with the E.P.A., and said, “The Obama administration is strongly committed to ensuring that all Energy Star products provide American consumers with significant energy and cost savings, and has moved forward with steps to streamline and enhance the program.”
An outside expert, Lane Burt, the manager of building energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said some of the criticisms were justified.
“It’s been a tremendously successful program,” Mr. Burt said. “It’s grown by leaps and bounds, and any time you have that kind of growth, you’re going to have growing pains.”
Nonetheless, he said, “it’s crucial to make sure consumers are actually saving money and energy when buying an Energy Star appliance.” On Sept. 30, the Energy Department and the E.P.A. signed a memorandum of understanding that seeks to address some of the shortcomings detailed in the report.
Mr. Burt said the memorandum committed both agencies to having all of their products evaluated by certified independent laboratories, and to expand the Energy Star program to cover products that were not in common use when it began in 1996. No target date was set.
The memorandum called for a “super star” program within Energy Star to identify the top-performing 5 percent of products, ranked by efficiency, he said.
Here is an article on it from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/business/energy-environment/19star.html
WASHINGTON — The Energy Department has concluded in an internal audit that it does not properly track whether manufacturers that give their appliances an Energy Star label have met the required specifications for energy efficiency.
Skip to next paragraph
Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
An agency audit also criticized the number of compact fluorescent lights approved.
green inc.
Green Inc.
A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Go to Blog »
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
* Read All Comments (27) »
Some manufacturers could therefore be putting the stickers on unqualified products, according to the audit, by the Energy Department’s inspector general, Gregory H. Friedman.
The Energy Star program, jointly managed by the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, has benefited from a renewed emphasis by the Obama administration, as a mechanism for reducing the waste of energy and curbing resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Under the federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products.
Some consumers choose energy-efficient appliances for the same reason they might choose a car with good fuel economy: to save money or reduce the environmental impact.
Teams from the Energy Department and the E.P.A. oversee different categories of products. Last December, the environmental agency’s inspector general said the Energy Star ratings for products it oversees, like computers and television sets, were “not accurate or verifiable” because of weak oversight by the agency.
The Energy Department vowed then to scrutinize its performance in evaluating the products that it oversees, like windows, dishwashers, washing machines and refrigerators.
The new audit, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, indicates that the Energy Department has also fallen far short. Those shortcomings “could reduce consumer confidence in the integrity of the Energy Star label,” according to the department’s inspector general. The audit is to be submitted to Energy Secretary Steven Chu this week. While the Energy Department requires manufacturers of windows and L.E.D. and fluorescent lighting to have independent laboratories evaluate their products, the report said, companies that make refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and room air-conditioners, which consume far more energy, can certify those appliances themselves.
One refrigerator manufacturer tipped off the Energy Department that some models from a competitor that carried the Energy Star label did not meet the criteria, the audit said. That problem was also described by Consumer Reports magazine in October 2008 about tests it had conducted. In a settlement last year, the manufacturer, LG of South Korea, agreed to modify circuit boards in the machines already sold, to reduce their consumption and to compensate consumers for the extra power consumed.
The report also noted that while the government said in 2007 that it would conduct “retail assessments” to ensure that all the products carrying the Energy Star logo deserved them, it is still not doing so for windows, doors, skylights, water heaters and solid-state lighting. And the department is not following through to ensure that when inappropriately labeled products are identified, the labels are actually taken off, the audit said.
In one category, compact fluorescent lights, the government has certified nearly all existing products, the audit said. “When 90 percent of the products qualify, the consumer cannot easily judge the relative efficiencies of C.F.L. products,” the report said.
Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, cited the recent agreement with the E.P.A., and said, “The Obama administration is strongly committed to ensuring that all Energy Star products provide American consumers with significant energy and cost savings, and has moved forward with steps to streamline and enhance the program.”
An outside expert, Lane Burt, the manager of building energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said some of the criticisms were justified.
“It’s been a tremendously successful program,” Mr. Burt said. “It’s grown by leaps and bounds, and any time you have that kind of growth, you’re going to have growing pains.”
Nonetheless, he said, “it’s crucial to make sure consumers are actually saving money and energy when buying an Energy Star appliance.” On Sept. 30, the Energy Department and the E.P.A. signed a memorandum of understanding that seeks to address some of the shortcomings detailed in the report.
Mr. Burt said the memorandum committed both agencies to having all of their products evaluated by certified independent laboratories, and to expand the Energy Star program to cover products that were not in common use when it began in 1996. No target date was set.
The memorandum called for a “super star” program within Energy Star to identify the top-performing 5 percent of products, ranked by efficiency, he said.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Why trees aren't good carbon offsets/carbon credits
1. If there is a forest fire, it releases a lot of CO2. Credits for these trees could still be circulating.
2. The amount per tree is still a big guess.
3. Planted trees may not survive.
4. Lumber companies could both set aside trees and get credits while doing unsustainable activities such as clear cutting.
Who can you trust on what's good for carbon offset?
Climate Action Reserve.
2. The amount per tree is still a big guess.
3. Planted trees may not survive.
4. Lumber companies could both set aside trees and get credits while doing unsustainable activities such as clear cutting.
Who can you trust on what's good for carbon offset?
Climate Action Reserve.
Localwashing, a new form of Greenwashing
http://csrwiretalkback.tumblr.com/post/365987629/localwashing-is-the-new-greenwashing
CSRwire is the leading source of corporate social responsibility and sustainability press releases, reports and information.
* Monday, Feb 01st, 10
Localwashing Is The New Greenwashing
How Local Is “Local”?
By Jeffrey Hollender
There’s no bandwagon corporate goliaths won’t jump on with an enthusiasm geared to make us think it was their idea all along. Start a trend, found a movement, make a wave, and you’ll soon find companies of all kinds working overtime to hijack it all the way to the bank.
When environmentalism got hot and consumers wanted to devote their dollars to more sustainable goods and services, the marketplace turned green almost overnight. Suddenly every product had an environmental benefit. Yet the vast majority were simply deceptively marketed poseurs. Such products (and they’re out there in droves) are said to be “greenwashing,” and now they’ve got some competition: products and companies that claim to be “local” when they’re anything but.
This “localwashing” is a predictable response to the new localvore movement, which emphasizes the environmental and economic importance of goods and services produced by members of one’s own community and those nearby. And it’s fast becoming the new greenwashing as the world’s largest corporations attempt to co-opt consumers’ growing desire keep their money closer to home where it can boost the fortunes of the local economy and the neighbors whose ventures fuel it.
That boost is a highly effective way for us to reverse all kinds of unfortunate trends, from too-big-to-fail corporate consolidation to unsustainable industrial-scale production techniques. A study by Civic Economics found that forty five cents of every dollar spent at a locally-owned business stays in the community. At a chain store, only thirteen cents remains behind. The rest ends up in distant pockets.
With that kind of economic power now understood by growing numbers of shoppers, it’s no wonder big companies are tripping all over each other in a rush to position themselves as “local.” HSBC, for example, the fifth largest bank on Earth, now sells itself as “the world’s local bank.” International consumer products giant Unilever is running ads for its Hellmann’s brand mayonnaise with the theme “eat real, eat local.” The International Council of Shopping Centers urges us to “shop local” at our nearest chain store-filled mall. And no less a corporate behemoth than Wal-Mart, the planet’s most un-local enterprise, is exploiting the fact that it occasionally stocks a token amount of regional produce (think blueberries in Maine) to establish localvore credibility.
Our own reaction to localwashing should be to scrutinize all claims of “localness.” We must shop with our eyes wide open and make sure that we aren’t being misled into patronizing companies and buying products with no legitimate community connection. (I’d suggest boycotting companies that make these claims, writing them letters of complaint and reporting them to the Better Business Bureau as well as the Attorney General.)
To avoid this localwashing we need only a little common sense. If a product looks like it comes from a far off factory, it probably does. If it doesn’t explicitly say it’s made nearby, it probably isn’t. If a food looks out of place, it’s probably from out-of-state. If a store is so big you need a cell phone to call across it or has outlets you can count on more than one hand, the only thing local about it is probably its parking lot. Logic like this will keep our localvore efforts authentic. And that’s something we should all buy into.
About Jeffrey Hollender
Jeffrey Hollender is co-founder and Executive Chairperson of Seventh Generation, a leading natural home products company. He’s the the author of several books, including What Matters Most and Naturally Clean. He is a member and former Director of the Social Venture Network, a group of socially-conscious business executives. Hollender served as President of The Rainforest Foundation USA from 1992 to 1996, an organization created to protect the rainforest and the human rights of its indigenous peoples. He also served as a Board member and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility.
CSRwire is the leading source of corporate social responsibility and sustainability press releases, reports and information.
* Monday, Feb 01st, 10
Localwashing Is The New Greenwashing
How Local Is “Local”?
By Jeffrey Hollender
There’s no bandwagon corporate goliaths won’t jump on with an enthusiasm geared to make us think it was their idea all along. Start a trend, found a movement, make a wave, and you’ll soon find companies of all kinds working overtime to hijack it all the way to the bank.
When environmentalism got hot and consumers wanted to devote their dollars to more sustainable goods and services, the marketplace turned green almost overnight. Suddenly every product had an environmental benefit. Yet the vast majority were simply deceptively marketed poseurs. Such products (and they’re out there in droves) are said to be “greenwashing,” and now they’ve got some competition: products and companies that claim to be “local” when they’re anything but.
This “localwashing” is a predictable response to the new localvore movement, which emphasizes the environmental and economic importance of goods and services produced by members of one’s own community and those nearby. And it’s fast becoming the new greenwashing as the world’s largest corporations attempt to co-opt consumers’ growing desire keep their money closer to home where it can boost the fortunes of the local economy and the neighbors whose ventures fuel it.
That boost is a highly effective way for us to reverse all kinds of unfortunate trends, from too-big-to-fail corporate consolidation to unsustainable industrial-scale production techniques. A study by Civic Economics found that forty five cents of every dollar spent at a locally-owned business stays in the community. At a chain store, only thirteen cents remains behind. The rest ends up in distant pockets.
With that kind of economic power now understood by growing numbers of shoppers, it’s no wonder big companies are tripping all over each other in a rush to position themselves as “local.” HSBC, for example, the fifth largest bank on Earth, now sells itself as “the world’s local bank.” International consumer products giant Unilever is running ads for its Hellmann’s brand mayonnaise with the theme “eat real, eat local.” The International Council of Shopping Centers urges us to “shop local” at our nearest chain store-filled mall. And no less a corporate behemoth than Wal-Mart, the planet’s most un-local enterprise, is exploiting the fact that it occasionally stocks a token amount of regional produce (think blueberries in Maine) to establish localvore credibility.
Our own reaction to localwashing should be to scrutinize all claims of “localness.” We must shop with our eyes wide open and make sure that we aren’t being misled into patronizing companies and buying products with no legitimate community connection. (I’d suggest boycotting companies that make these claims, writing them letters of complaint and reporting them to the Better Business Bureau as well as the Attorney General.)
To avoid this localwashing we need only a little common sense. If a product looks like it comes from a far off factory, it probably does. If it doesn’t explicitly say it’s made nearby, it probably isn’t. If a food looks out of place, it’s probably from out-of-state. If a store is so big you need a cell phone to call across it or has outlets you can count on more than one hand, the only thing local about it is probably its parking lot. Logic like this will keep our localvore efforts authentic. And that’s something we should all buy into.
About Jeffrey Hollender
Jeffrey Hollender is co-founder and Executive Chairperson of Seventh Generation, a leading natural home products company. He’s the the author of several books, including What Matters Most and Naturally Clean. He is a member and former Director of the Social Venture Network, a group of socially-conscious business executives. Hollender served as President of The Rainforest Foundation USA from 1992 to 1996, an organization created to protect the rainforest and the human rights of its indigenous peoples. He also served as a Board member and Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
