“The Source and Fate of Things”

 Have you ever considered what would happen if you were made to take responsibility for the sourcing, content and fate of all the “things” that you acquire?  That means being held accountable for the impacts of mining raw materials, their transport, the manufacture of the goods and their distribution and finally, their disposal.

One can imagine that if this happened, the first thing that everyone would realise is that in the vast majority of cases, they do not know what “things” are made of and what goes into their manufacture. If you knew what went into many products, you might decide not to buy them. At the moment, you don’t have that choice because in many cases, you have no way of knowing what they are made of.

The most common example of this is food. Labelling laws in South Africa are very weak compared to most European countries. (If you want to check, look at the ingredients on the side of a local can or container of processed food and compare it with a similar container imported from Europe – the difference is startling.) We eat a considerable amount of processed food and many allergies are triggered by the multifarious additives, preservatives, colourants, flavourants, flavour enhancers, sweeteners, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, antioxidants, acidity regulators, curing agents, etc. that are included.

The same applies to many of the goods that we buy. You may recall the uproar that occurred, internationally, not so long ago regarding certain additives in plastics that were found in children’s toys, especially baby toys.

This is not just about what we eat (or put into our mouths…) and its impact upon our health. The same applies to what the waste material (when we throw it away) puts into our soil and water when it leaches out from landfill sites. It is probably fair to say that many fair-minded people would not purchase products that contained hazardous chemicals, if they knew that the chemicals were present and if they were given the choice of less hazardous alternatives.

As you might imagine, the rest of the world has given this problem some thought and come up with a way of better understanding the “ingredients” of their “things”.  They use what is known as Life Cycle Assessment or Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), sometimes also known as “cradle to grave” investigation.  LCA is a way to investigate, estimate, and evaluate the environmental burdens caused by a material, product, process, or service throughout its life span.  Environmental burdens include the materials and energy resources required to create the product, process, or service, as well as the wastes and emissions generated during the process (See side bar).

By examining the entire life cycle, one gets a more complete picture of the environmental and health impact created and the trade-offs in impact from one period of the life cycle to another.  Results of LCAs can be useful for identifying areas with high environmental or health impact, and for evaluating and improving product designs. In its advanced computerised form, the data from LCAs can be used to compare and contrast different products and services to help chose those with the least or most benign impacts upon health and the environment.

We still have a long way to go before LCAs become an important part of our choices for purchase and use of goods and services. However, the first step is to look carefully at labels, contents and ingredients lists and materials of manufacture. If these are not clear, or missing, search for information using the Internet. You could also see if you can find if any LCAs have been carried out on your product or service. There are a growing number of LCAs freely available. They may not necessarily give you all the answers that you require but they certainly will give you the means to ask focussed and pertinent questions of your suppliers.

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, 2018.

Mention the word “litter” in a conversation with a group of people and it is almost guaranteed that everyone present will have a horror story or example of the scourge of litter. Kloof Conservancy chairman, Paolo Candotti, will tell you about his distress at the quantities of litter seen during a weekend walk through the beautiful Krantzkloof Reserve. Local newspapers were full of appalling photographs of Durban harbour and the beaches, covered in layers and layers of littler flushed down the streams and rivers of KwaZulu-Natal after the recent heavy storms.

What is litter? It consists mostly of debris from the “throw-away society” that has characterised the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. It is mainly the cast offs of manufactured materials and goods such as plastic bottles and containers, cans, plastic and paper wrappings, newspapers, shopping bags, fast food packaging, cigarette packets and butts,  cardboard and rotten or left over food. On a larger scale, urban litter can also include dead animals, old clothing, oil filters, discarded tyres, planks, broken bricks, pieces of concrete, branches and leaves, old mattresses and broken furniture.

Just give a thought to all of this ending up in stormwater drains. It blocks the drains and results in flooding which causes significant damage and costs for repair and restoration. Seventeen years ago, the cost of keeping stormwater drains and waterways clean of this disgusting detritus was over R2 billion (R2,000 million) per year (at an annual inflation rate of 6%, that converts to R5.37 billion in today’s money).

What are the main causes of litter? The main cause is the anti-social behaviour of individuals dropping litter indiscriminately and dumping household wastes illegally. (It is a lazy myth to suggest that dropping litter creates jobs for people to pick it all up.) Inadequate disposal facilities, including insufficient litter and public disposal bins has been cited as another cause, linked to the failure of authorities to enforce effective penalties to act as a deterrent to offenders. It has also been suggested that the failure of street sweeping services to rid pavements and curb sides of litter and rubbish has also reinforced the “acceptability” of litter. Some municipalities have claimed that street sweeping was cut because it was an extravagant and unnecessary “beautification” cost, rather than an important, preventative function for keeping stormwater drains clear.

There is no simple or straightforward solution to littering. It requires a long term strategy which includes a widespread change in the social behaviour regarding the use and discarding of resources. (Let’s start by not using the word “waste”, but instead regarding it as a resource that we haven’t yet found a use for?) The “consumer society” must go back to a more practical and family based focus upon the resource hierarchy model of  use, reuse, repair, recycle and return.

Municipalities need to revisit their budgets on “waste management” and look at the preventative aspect, as well as the reactive component of waste disposal. In other words, spend money on community education, enhanced street sweeping to protect stormwater drains, strengthen the provision of disposal facilities such as litter bins and public skips, invest in recycling facilities even to the point of cross subsidising costs to make recycling more financially stable and sustainable, and build the brand of “sustainable use and management of resources” instead of the negative reactionary philosophy of “waste disposal”. From a corrective point of view, there needs be a stronger deterrent and penalty for littering and miscreants need to be made to understand their wrong doing. (How about 200 hours of community service picking up litter or cleaning fouled-up rivers?)

People must be proud of their community and environmental space and be committed to keeping it clean and attractive. There needs to be “buy-in” from all sectors of Society and an understanding by all of the financial and non-financial benefits of a clean and healthy environment. Section 24 of the South African Constitution  says that, “…everyone has a right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being… “ That won’t just happen, we have to make it happen. So, as a citizen committed to the Constitution,  what are you going to do to maintain that right?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 36 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, 2017.

Have you ever said things to yourself like, “It’ll never happen to me”, or “It won’t affect me”, “I can never do that”, or “It doesn’t apply to me”? Do these phrases sometimes come back and bite you?

In the environmental business, we get many issues that do just that. I am not just talking about “the public”. We professionals get caught out as well. It is often on matters where we are entrenched in the detailed knowledge of “the business”. We know it all, we’ve seen it all and we’ve even got the T-shirt…..

One of my more embarrassing experiences in this area was with zero waste. I had worked with many companies and managed to bring down their waste generation to single digits. I then read a book by Gunter Pauli called “Upsizing – The Road to Zero Emissions, More Jobs More Income and No Pollution”. Pauli observed that industry works to priorities such as fast returns on investments and maintaining a focus on the core activities of the company.  He postulated that core activities are not an end in itself, as believed by corporate strategists, but a beginning. There is a need for diversification and cooperation, for more from less, for Upsizing. He said that to operationalise Upsizing, we must stop expecting the earth to produce more but start doing more with what the earth produces. As an example, he quoted agro-forestry  where less than 5% of its output is effectively used and 95% is discarded. If the economic system were to use that 95%, it would be possible to satisfy 20 times more material needs without expecting the earth to produce more. Think about all the extra jobs, more productive industries and reduced waste streams.

This was enough for me to start thinking creatively about all the “lost opportunities” that so many industries were casting aside because, “..their Return On Investment was longer than two years..”  Through such creative thinking, we managed to turn a company around from facing a massive investment in a new multi-million rand water treatment plant, to a change in production sequencing which not only reduced the quantities of waste effluent produced, but also reduced the quantities of potable water utilised.

Some of you may have read my past comments on my own efforts in reducing my water consumption and generating electricity from solar panels. You may have said to yourselves, “…that doesn’t apply to me”, “other people can do that, I can’t.”  I read a number of articles and journals which may give you cause to re-think.

An article in a recent issue of the “Mail & Guardian” suggested that perhaps Eskom electricity was becoming too expensive for many to afford. It was suggested that the poor just stopped paying for electricity and the more affluent classes were beginning to cut back on electricity usage and switch to alternative energy sources such as photo voltaics, wind power and solar geysers.

It was reported that for the first time recently, the UK did not need to use coal to generate Grid electricity  for a full 24 hours, making use of alternate energy sources such as wind power, gas, and photovoltaics, instead. In the same article, it reported that the UK subsidiary of Unilever was sourcing 100% of its electricity requirements from Scottish wind farms.

So, have you done everything that you possibly can to reduce your reliance on grid electricity, cut your wasteful consumption of potable water and reduce the amount of recyclable materials that you put out in your black garbage bags every week?

Just a last word. Strategists are beginning to suggest that petrol and diesel combustion engine cars may stop being produced in Europe as soon as 2025. Can I refer you back to my first paragraph above?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with over 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, 2017.

How much do we appreciate water?  No, seriously, have you thought about how important clean, fresh water is to you and what it would be like without it? No, of course not, you are used to opening a tap and using as much as you want. It’s cheap, we are told it is one of our constitutional rights, so why should we worry about how much we use or where it comes from?

I am not saying that I am any better or any worse than anyone else but I think the concept of optimising water consumption only really “hit” me, practically (as opposed to academically), after I took the decision to manage my own water usage more effectively. That doesn’t mean I decided to go completely “off the grid” and resort to borehole water and water harvesting, but I looked at how I could use water more optimally. I first began to look at how much water we, as a household, were using.

The daily water readings I took, trying to relate usage to consumption were an initial eye opener. One begins very quickly to realise how much potable water[1] is used for non-potable purposes. The table below shows an interesting breakdown resulting from studies.

Water Use in Households

 Households with Gardens 

(Source: Water – How is it used at home, HE Jacobs, LC Geustyn and BF Loubser, 2005)

I decided to make better use of my rainwater tanks (I had two which were only used for watering gardens and the washing of cars) by connecting them to my toilet water cisterns via a pump (which was, incidentally, solar powered.) The current on-going drought prompted me to add a third tank at the back of the house and link it to the first tank. This meant that I had a total of 4,700 litres of water available for toilet flushing.

Yes, I did consider the option of moving away from a water borne sewage system but I decided it was a little too complex and could be better managed in a two stage change at some point later in time. Change is tough so it is best to tackle it in manageable, bite size chunks.

We introduced a more disciplined toilet flushing regime where we didn’t flush the toilet after every use  and started filling the toilet cisterns, not connected to the rainwater tank, with a bucket. There is nothing better to focus the mind on “cost” than to relate effort and inconvenience to reward. This is much more difficult for the urban dweller. We didn’t compromise on hygiene and cleanliness but realised that a flush was not required after every use.. The consequence of this was that one heavy rainstorm filled the main tank and that full tank lasted us for three months until the next set of rains arrived. (Remember that although our inland dams were not getting rainfall, we on the coast were getting more frequent rains which filled the rainwater tanks.)

So, what we didn’t do was to change the washing machine to a lower water usage model or make use of grey water. Grey water usage requires more thought and more adaption to our plumbing which I was also not ready to face at this time. When the washing machine needs replacing, guess what is going to be one of the top requirements after energy efficiency?

It was quite a surprise to realise that, with a little thought, self-discipline, modification (and, yes, some money), we managed to drop our monthly water usage from over 12 kilolitres[2] down to below 5 kilolitres. OK, so it has little impact upon the wider drought situation but if we all took this on as a community responsibility issue and if thousands of people dropped their water consumption, then we might be in a better position to “weather the drought”…

[1] Potable water is water that has been filtered, cleaned, or treated to meet the standards for drinking water.

[2] One kilolitre is 1,000 litres.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 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, 2016.

 “…There is no such thing as chance or accident; the words merely signify our ignorance of some real and immediate cause…”

Adam Clarke

Introduction

After incidents and accidents, most organisations go through some form of review or soul-searching to ask themselves if they could have done things better. The problem with this is that often company staff are too close to the systems to be honest (consciously and unconsciously) and often the phenomena of “industrial blindness” means that they are unable to objectively observe shortcomings or areas for improvement.

Any improvement, or reflection on improvement, needs to occur fairly soon after the incidents or accidents, whilst the memories of the events are still fresh. By bringing in an outside, “disinterested party”, it is possible to collect valuable evidence and intelligence which can be constructively used to make improvements and close any gaps in response and reactivity that may exist in the company’s systems, awareness, procedures, training and response mechanisms.

Process

There are many different processes and routes that can be taken to guide the activities for review. They depend very much upon how much the company is willing to spend and what information it would like to gather. Before costing the review exercise, it is important to have a meeting between the company and the external reviewer:- to establish an outline understanding of the event or occurrence; and define a scope of work and activity. This can then result in a cost effective and optimal proposal which can lead to a useful document for continuous improvement purposes within the company.

Topics to be reviewed

The following pointers are a sample of the topics that should be covered in the review:-

• Cause

Was the cause of the incident covered in the corporate risk assessment, risk policy and or aspects and impact register? Was it covered by the company’s ISO 9001, 14001, OHSAS 18001/ ISO 45001, ISO 31001, ISO 37101, etc. certified or aligned systems?

• Response

Was there a response plan based upon the scenarios developed in the planning of the emergency response plan/policy/procedure?

• Response Team

Was the response team adequately briefed and trained to deal with the incident? Is there an effective succession plan in place to cover temporary or permanent absences of key management and technical staff in the response plan?

• Communication

Was communication to identified and appropriate stakeholders on the incident spelled out in a communication strategy/procedure, including who to communicate with, what to say to them and how to maintain the dialogue? Was anyone tasked to track and file media coverage of the incident and feedback strategic content to the response team and or senior management?

• Decision-making

Was there a structure in place to ensure that any necessary high level decision could be taken, passed down to the response teams and communicated to stakeholders and the media timeously?

• Record keeping

Was there a mechanism is place to ensure that key information from the incident, as it unfolded, was fully recorded, documented and circulated to pre-identified key decision making individuals?

• Incident Investigation

Was there a multi-dimensional incident investigation process/procedure in place to commence investigating cause and effect as soon as possible?

• Training

Were staff sufficiently trained and empowered to deal quickly with the incident and minimise the damage/loss/cost? Could hesitation or delay be put down to lack of confidence due to inadequate training, exercising or sequential tasks steps?

• Procedures

Are there procedures in place to respond to the incident? If so, were they successful? If not, why not and what was used in their place?

• Recurrence

Is the incident isolated or could it occur again in the same, or similar, form elsewhere in the company?

Concluding Thoughts

The passing of time generally means that it is very difficult to completely “undo” the consequences of accidents and incidents. If it is possible, this may take a long time and may cost considerable resources.

It is crucial to look forward and learn from the experience, good or bad. Fobbing off the incident as “a freak chance” or “not likely to happen again” is not constructive. Minimising the possibility of recurrence requires careful deliberate investigation, root cause identification and modification and change of systems procedures, training and preparedness. It may even require the implementation of a change management process to test options and alternatives.

Arend Hoogervorst

EMS Auditor

Eagle Environmental

I still periodically encounter people who will tell me that “environment” has nothing to do with “real” life and is only in the minds of “bunny huggers” and eco-freaks.

Sadly, there are many people who judge environmental management and sustainability thinking as a luxury practiced only by, “…the rich, the feeble-minded and those with nothing better to do…”.  I use speech marks because this is an actual quote from someone I spoke to just a few months ago.

I use a simple and understandable example to explain the significance of “environment” to “real life”.  The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimated that out of some 100 crop species which provide 90% of food worldwide, 71 of these are bee-pollinated. In Europe alone, 84% of the 264 crop species are animal pollinated and 4 000 vegetable varieties exist, thanks to pollination by bees.  Imagine what would happen if those crops were not pollinated and the crops subsequently failed? Human food supply would be significantly affected, and we would be faced with a  serious hunger crisis.

Why should we worry about the environment on which bees and butterflies (who also help pollination) rely?  A new report from the United Nations shows that these pollinators are dying fast for four main reasons:

• man-induced land use changes reducing biodiversity and increasing monoculture;
• increased diseases and parasites brought on by human-induced changes to habitats,
• increased human use of broad scale chemical pesticides used to control other pests but which also wipe out pollinators; and
• climate change which is about rising global temperatures which shift and reduce the range of habitats where pollinators survive.

US researchers report that air pollution from vehicles and power stations has been shown to inhibit the ability of pollinators  such as bees and butterflies to find the fragrances of flowers. The pollutants bond quickly with the volatile scent molecules, masking them and causing the pollinators to have to travel longer distances, away from the pollutants, to find flowers providing them with nectar.  The flowers closer by receive inadequate pollination and do not reproduce and diversify as efficiently.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are suggesting that climate change is causing bees and butterflies to emerge at different times in the year when the appropriate flowering plants were not available.

So the next time you hear of a bee keeper bemoaning the numbers of his bees that have died due to disease and pesticides or a butterfly expert telling you that a butterfly habitat is being wiped out to make way for a massive new housing estate, think carefully on the implications of the loss of yet more populations of critical pollinators.

Are we looking after  the critical, diverse habitats that we depend upon for our food and shelter? Can we really directly and indirectly weaken the biodiversity of our environment without ultimately effecting human survival in the long run? Closer to home, Is there anything that you can do to encourage pollinators in your garden or property?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 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, 2016.

As a professional environmental advisor, I stopped using the opening line, “Can I help you to save the environment?” about 20 years ago.  Why? Mostly because very few people are altruistic enough or rich enough to magnanimously be able to “save the environment”. Even more people counter that request with the question, “What’s in it for me?”

That triggered my thinking to my current opening gambit which tends to be along the lines of, “Can I help you to save money and make more money?” Sadly, much of our life revolves around finding ways of ensuring that there are enough Rands in the bank account at the end of each month to pay the bills. Our life is driven by consumerism and a capitalist system which is driven by spending. Yes, some of us are able to be altruistic but at a cost.

Everyone loves to be told a story and if the story has some kind of practical message, it makes it even more useful. The Ngewana family live in an 5 bedroom suburban home and they were challenged to see what they could do to live more sustainably. Over a six month period, they moved from understanding their current resource usages, changing their behaviour and finally practising a more efficient and cheaper way of living. A report on their project has been produced and in these tough times, is an eye opener on what can relatively easily be achieved. The report on the project can be freely downloaded at http://mygreenhome.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/My-Green-Home-long-version-spreads.pdf  There are also other graphics and examples on the main website which will give you other thoughts and ideas. Having seen what the Ngewanas have achieved, you might want to “give it a go”. The thoughts and questions below may start you on the journey, if you haven’t already commenced it…..

Like most things in life, there is no magic formula for “being green”. Much of the success depends upon your existing lifestyle and what you are prepared to sacrifice.  Do you want to change your lifestyle? What have you got used to? Does it depend upon “stuff”? Change is an anathema to most people. Most will fight change vigorously and eventually, surrender to the new requirements. If we ponder on change, it becomes clear that it is a part of life and we are constantly subject to change. In most cases, it is a creeping, imperceptible change that we are not aware of. Sudden change comes in the form or new jobs, new houses, bereavements, retrenchments, weddings, divorces and emigration.

“Going green” is a change that requires some thinking about. Why do you want to do it?  What will you gain from it that will make you want to maintain it as a lifestyle and a philosophy? Are you prepared to invest your time and money in making the necessary physical and practical changes that will successfully make an active and noticeable difference? Can you afford to “go green”? (Yes, you will have to make an investment which will cost you and you have to commit to that investment.)

If you have reached this stage and are still positive, maybe start putting things down on paper. Take a sheet of blank paper and draw a line down the middle.  On the left side, head the column, “Positives”  and on the right column, “Negatives”. Write down all the positives and negatives of going green, based on my questions above and what you have seen from the Ngewana s’ examples.

Discussing the resulting  positives and negatives will give you an indication of the risks that you face in “going green”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that there are no risks. Facing the risks and overcoming them is part of managing change. Go forward, whatever you believe “forward” to be, and I wish you much luck and good fortune in the changes that you decide to make.

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, 2015.

 “Thought makes every thing fit for use” – Emerson (1844)

 “If a man sits down to think, he is immediately asked if he has a headache” Emerson (1833)

 Does anyone think these days? No, I mean really THINK about things…. When facing an important decision, do we still ponder on the options and the pros and cons of each option, toy with the possibilities, do “what ifs”, review short, medium and long term consequences, reflect on who might or might not be affected, consider how we feel about the options….?

Life is currently a blur of information pouring into our smart phones, email in-boxes, flooding in from our kids demanding answers “for school”,  spewing out of the TV from 24 hour news stations, overwhelming us in our newspapers (if we still read them), need I go on?

When did you last sit down with a cup of coffee or a glass of red wine and have a good think? I’ll wager it may be a long time ago, if you can still remember it….

Decision-making these days has become somewhat of an assembly line process with 3 page emails flowing in calling for answers and within 30 seconds of the email arriving, the writer is on the phone demanding to know if it’s been read yet. The pressure is on the make a quick decision, Now, now, NOW!

When was the last time you sat down on the veranda with a meaty book and immersed yourself in the imagery gushing from the pages and watched, as an outsider, as your favourite character had to deal with the problems, not you? Did you picture in your mind, the settings in the book, the faces of the people, the thought processes they were going through?

I believe that the “physical exercise” of thinking is imagination. In a child it is make-believe and that invisible, imaginary world of a child’s play and creation of scenes, sights, friends and places. In an adult, it is the imagery from the written word, the inspirations from memories and places. Like any muscle in the body, if the brain is not “exercised” by thought, imagination and stimulation of the senses, it dulls and declines.

Reading helps stimulate the use of words and increasing one’s vocabulary helps to encourage wider use of words which helps to put meaning and expression to thought. Reading encourages imagination, imagination results in thought. Thought can result in expression. Expression stimulates sharing exchange and debate. Debate encourages communication. Communication is necessary to maintain social cohesion and support cooperative activities for the good of all.

We need to exercise our thought processes by reading, not just reports, or feasibility studies or manuals, but also creative stories, essays, description, mysteries, puzzles and word pictures to remind us of the joy and stimulation of words and thought.

Read this piece again and decide if you agree or disagree. Does it evoke any reaction? Does it make you want to reconsider the way you address your decision making? Whatever else, it probably made you think……

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.