We all collect “stuff”.  Some of us take this to extremes and become hoarders. If you think carefully about your various friends, I am sure that amongst the list, somewhere, there is at least one serial hoarder. That is often one of those people that uses that magic phrase, “I’ll keep it because you never know when it might come in handy…” In truth, it very rarely does, but we end up with more clutter and junk pressing hard on the limited storage space most of us have.

Some “stuff” ends up in our homes because of the pressurised formal and informal consumer marketing that batters us on a daily basis – newspapers and magazines, TV and radio adverts, social media,  peer pressure, invented new trends and fashions…it all ends up with us buying things that we don’t need or can’t use for long….and then it becomes “stuff” in the cupboard, on the shelf, or in the drawers.

What  is made worse is that a great deal of “stuff” that we buy has a limited usage life. Have you ever tried repairing a broken toaster? Don’t bother, most of them have a modular design which means that they cannot be repaired. The manufacturer wants you to buy a new one….regularly. I worked in Soweto in the 1980’s and there was a thriving small appliances repair sector. These were one man businesses that would ,and could, repair anything and everything at a fraction of the cost of a replacement and often the equipment worked better after repair than when it was new. This thriving little cottage industry is no more.

If we are honest with ourselves, a large proportion of the “stuff” we accumulate can be used by others. Instead of it sitting in a cupboard doing nothing, what about donating it to a charity shop like Hospice or the SPCA who could sell it for a good cause? Winter is upon us and there are many people who could benefit from the warmth or coverage of those extra clothes that are clogging up your wardrobe and let’s face it, we are NEVER going to fit into them again, are we?

There’s also the “stuff” we acquire to be up-to-date with the latest gadgets and gear. How many old cell phones and chargers do you have sitting in your drawers and cupboards? Two? Three? Five?  We have about four in various places. Think of all of the recyclable materials that are locked up in those items. Think also of the many toxic materials that, if we don’t dispose of them responsibly or recycle them, could end up in the environment that we depend upon for our clean food, water, and air.

Don’t take my word for it or be mildly stimulated by my rather weak examples. Check the story of stuff out on the best place to experience real examples explained powerfully and simply. Watch the 20 minute movie,
“The Story of Stuff” on YouTube ( http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-stuff/ ) and be inspired to re-examine your perspective on “stuff”.  This “cartoon about trash” put together by Annie Leonard and her friends has been viewed over 400 million times worldwide since it was produced 8 years ago. The movie may intrigue you into looking at the other movies in the series – “The Story of Bottled Water”, “The Story of Cosmetics” and “The Story of Electronics”. That might even take you onto to the second level of “stuff” covered in the subsequent movies, “The Story of Citizens United v. FEC”, “The Story of Broke” and “The Story of Change”.

It is tough to change and we all want to hang on to our “stuff” but give some thought to parting with some of that “stuff” for  reuse, recirculation (there’s a new term…) and  recycling. If we all do just a little, it will help our communities, our dwindling natural resources  and our diminishing cupboard and drawer space

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

As an environmental auditor, I have been privileged over the years to see both sides of the proverbial environmental coin: that is, what the industrialists perceive as environmentally friendly products and what the consumer expects as “eco-friendly/environmentally friendly” products. As you might imagine, the two perceptions are often poles apart and at times, incomparable. As an environmental practitioner, I am still after 30 years grappling with what I understand as “environmentally friendly” but I’ll leave that discussion for another column…

The subject of this pondering is something quite close to my heart: greenwashing. For those of you not familiar with the term, it is defined as. “..the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the benefits of a product or service…”

An American marketing company specialising in “green” marketing called Terrachoice first took up the cudgels of greenwash back in 2007 and produced “the Six Sins of Greenwash” for free distribution. (There are now seven sins….must be something to do with inflation…) The booklet initially evoked quite a response with industrialists claiming that they were being maligned and green consumers crying, “we told you so!”

One can go into much detail about the “whys and wherefore’s” but, in essence, the message coming from the whole exercise is simple: don’t believe “environmental friendly claims” blindly and be prepared to ask direct and persistent questions of those who would have you believe they are, “environmental friendly”.

The seven sins of greenwashing are as follows:-

1. The Sin of Hidden tradeoffs

This is where a product is put forward as “green” , based upon a narrow set of attributes which leave out other important environmental factors. For example, although paper may be produced from a sustainably harvested forest, there are still other environmental issues such as energy, greenhouse gas emissions and water and air pollution that need to be considered.

2. Sin of No Proof

This is where an environmental claim is made but it is difficult to obtain evidence to substantiate the specific claim. For example, claiming various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without supporting this with third party certification or accessible evidence to support the claim.

3. Sin of Vagueness

This occurs where the claim made is so vague that it defies sensible understanding by even the most intelligent of green consumers. For example, uranium, mercury and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring but that does not necessarily make them “green” products.

4. Sin of Irrelevance

This occurs when making an environmental claim that maybe truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful in the wider picture. An example here might be claiming a product as “CFC-free” when that particular CFC is banned by law.

5. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils

This would be where the claims may be true within the product category but not from the greater environmental perspective, for example, an organic cigarette or a fuel efficient sport utility vehicle.

6. Sin of Fibbing

This is straight forward. An environmental claim is made by a manufacturer or service provider that is false and untrue.

7. Sin of Worshipping False Labels

This is the case where a product, through images or words, gives the impression of some form of certification or third party endorsement where this does not exist.

“The Sins of Greenwash : Home and Family Edition – 2010” can be freely downloaded from the  Terrachoice site at www.terrachoice.com  where you can find our more detail and more examples.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

“Environment”, “conservation”, and “development” can be touchy subjects, usually because in any group of individuals, one can get a diverse, wide and emotionally sensitive range of views, opinions, beliefs and doctrines emerging which can be quite polarised. As humans, we are, by nature, diverse and competitive and often struggle to agree or achieve consensus. It is no wonder that preferences can, for example, range from natural grasslands, to a lawn, or an area of green painted concrete.

Human beings are modifiers of the environment. They have developed the abilities, skills and means to change an environment to suit their needs and wants. This is further complicated by the fact that as a species, human beings have multiplied to such a degree that their survival requirements have put the planet under some not inconsiderable strain. We modify land to produce greater quantities of food through mechanisation and monoculture; we cover the earth with concrete to move pesky rainwater away “somewhere else” as quickly as possible; we build massive coal-fired power stations consuming vast quantities of coal so that we can have access to convenient sources of electricity; we build thousands of kilometres of roads cutting swathes through the land so that we can drive quickly from one part of the country to another.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not taking a position on the rights and wrongs of these initiatives. I am merely pointing out that these actions come with both benefits and disadvantages. Everything in life is about balancing benefits with disadvantages. Decisions have to be made which impact people and the environment today, and have consequences for people in the future.

Perhaps we should try and recognise that we cannot achieve perfection in the restoration of some environments to their former (pristine and untouched) status and that we need to acknowledge a modified environment that contains differing elements of natural beauty, form and functionality. It is academic whether this is described as “environmentally responsible development” or “urban development”, or ‘Green Buildings”, or “indigenous”. It is fundamental modification of “natural” environments in such a way that they provide pleasure, joy, relaxation, peace, calm, (add your particular preference) to human beings in their daily lives.

There is always a place for the preservation of undisturbed, naturally changing environments (sometimes described as “Wilderness Areas” or “Conservation Areas”). After all, they may well contain small pieces of DNA which may one day provide the means to save us from disease and pestilence we have yet to experience. The big questions are “How much?”, “Where” and “How much do we need to protect to maintain an ecologically viable area, that will survive in a form that has a future and can be protected from the encroachment of human beings?”

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the earth cannot exist without us. Life in one form or another has existed on earth for some 3.6 billion years. Human beings (“modern” homo sapiens) have only been on earth for about 200,000 years. Geological succession suggests that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Natural and ecological succession has steered the evolution and development of ecosystems and organisms long before the arrival of human beings and will probably continue long after human beings have gone.

The final thought is with regard to human beings themselves. Human population growth continues at a significant rate. People need food, water, shelter and quality of life. Will human beings learn to control their growth as a species within a finite environment or will they continue growing and consuming until the natural forces of the environment find/develop/evolve a mechanism, organism or means to “naturally” control their growth?

 Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2014.

 “Why should I care about the environment?”

How many times has that question been asked?, I wonder. It comes up frequently at talks and discussions that I am involved in and it is not an easy question to answer. (Try googling the question and see the range of answers that come up…).

Asking the question at a dinner party is one of the quickest ways to create a bunch of angry, polarised guests, particularly if the mix of guests includes any combination of conservationists, animal lovers, bunny huggers, eco-terrorists, climate denialists, fundamental Christians, conservative capitalists, and Free Market proponents.

In my view, the reason for this variability (and animosity) is because people have different views and perspectives on what the environment is and how human beings, affect or are affected by it, causing them to argue at different levels. The other point of argument relates to the extent, boundary or scope of the environment we are talking about. Is it your immediate environment around you (say, the air that you breath), your property, your suburb, your town or city, your Province, your country or the earth in totality? We have varying abilities to affect and be affected by the environment, depending upon the scope.

There are some obvious reasons which relate to immediate environment. For example, a dirty environment around you (land, air and water), can have a detrimental effect on your personal health. Fouling the space that you rely on to exist, generate your food, and provide the air to breath is not a good idea……although that principle may not be as obvious as one might think, considering some of the pollution episodes one reads about in South Africa and other countries like China.

We also have varying abilities to affect our environment. Whilst it is easy to clean up and tidy up your own property, it is very difficult to personally change the air that your breath (other than extremes such as, for example, not burning all of your rubbish in your back garden daily), or clean up the local landfill site.

Practicing care about one’s immediate environment can also save money. Applying “environmentally friendly” practices such as installing a solar geyser, or solar panels to power your security lights, will save money directly by reducing your electricity bill. Whilst separating and recycling household waste may not have a direct financial benefit, it may delay the need for a municipal new landfill site which over the medium and long term will reduce the increases in municipal rates and taxes.

Some of the other reasons often quoted include emotive perspectives such as “It’s my moral obligation”, “It’s the right thing to do”, “for future generations”, “to protect biodiversity” (yes, even that one can be debated at length), “rhinos and polar bears are cute”, and “unnatural stuff causes cancer”.

I am sure that already I have raised the hackles of a number of readers but before you organise the lynching party, stop and think. Maybe we are not understanding the differing perspectives or are making assumptions about others’ perspectives….?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2014.

Over the Festive Season, there are always many lists being generated in various printed and broadcast media, urging folk to follow 10 Green Resolutions, or 5 Recycling Tips or 10 Green Christmas Hints or some similar set of suggested behaviour changes. Most people tend to be a little irritated by them because they are ready-made tips which do not necessarily relate or connect with individuals’ circumstances, capabilities and impacts.

What we really should be doing is taking a step backwards from these end use suggestions and thinking about what we can do before we purchase the items which cause the waste. That can be difficult because many will argue that it is difficult to know where to start and what to consider.

Here are a 3 simple thought triggers to get you started on the journey of materials efficiency and energy and water optimisation (perhaps a fancy way of saying “how to be more environmentally friendly”):-

1. Think about all the materials and substances you use during a day. Ask yourself “Where do they come from and what will happen when these items reach the end of their life?” then ask yourself, “How will these items or their waste remnants be disposed of?”
2. Once you have done this, ask yourself a second question. “Are there alternatives that are easier/cleaner/cheaper/less polluting/smaller quantities/ less toxic?
3. If you cannot find the answers, don’t be afraid to ask your friends, read books, search Google and other Internet sources, contact teachers or colleagues or any other source of information that you can think of.

These actions are the start of a journey. This journey will change your life and will change, as YOU change, over time. As we move through the various stages of our lives, our abilities to do things and influence the wider good within our community, changes. By understanding where we are on our individual journeys, we can continue the journey within our capacities, capabilities and understanding. This is the way in which each and every one of us can contribute to the good of our Communities, the space and environment we depend upon and live in, and improve our Society in general. (Oh and by the way, this often also saves money which is an added benefit and motivation!)

If the tasks seem overwhelming and it appears that there is just too much to do, prioritise your tasks, start small and tackle simple tasks and easy actions. Remember the answer to the legendary question, “How do you eat an elephant?….answer – One bite at a time.

The tasks discussed above are not easy. You may not have all the information that you need to answer the questions and make the judgements. You thus need to find out, explore, research and understand. Understanding is the key to sustainability of materials and sustainability of actions. If we do not understand why actions and alternative courses of action are necessary, we will never do them. To lump everyone together into a “one size fits all” solution is unlikely to work. If everyone tackles their own tasks within their own capabilities, there is a greater chance that they will continue to undertake the tasks regularly and as a part of their everyday lives.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2013.