Testing the Validity of Eco-Claims | Newsweek International Edition

Posted By: Ed Dunn @ 08/15/2008 6:44:39 PM

Comment: I have had an issue with the US Green Building Council. They have created a checklist (LEED) for building "Green". I have seen many people use the list as a guideline to design and build with. Problem is, most people, including architects are just not understanding the concept of simplicity and the use of natural elements such as the sun, earth and water. LEED, gives points for using green methods or materials. Trouble is, some people try to incorporate too much just to so that they can score high. Many times, buildings that have scored high on the LEED perform poorly in reality. LEED does not include passive solar design at all. Passive solar is an incredible way to get free energy from the sun to both heat and cool a building. Very few architects or designers understand how it works. Many would prefer to avoid it altogether as LEED gives more points for using HVAC systems that are energy efficient.

I have built structures, here in Flagstaff, AZ that use very little energy over the year to heat and cool because it is using the sun for this! They are very simple, and the funny thing is, they score very low on the LEED! The LEED instrument was designed by people in the industry, and that may be the problem. HVAC people may have discounted solar because if properly designed there would be little or no need for HVAC systems. This, to me, would be a perfect example of greenwashing.

Ed Dunn
Solar Design & Construction
Flagstaff, AZ
solar.ed@gmail.com

Posted By: ralphmcm @ 07/14/2008 7:57:22 PM

Comment: I would like to know the guidelines for being labled GREEN. I would also would like to know if a company that makes a great energy efficent product in a less than perfect green factory in China that is imported in the USA and save energy over all competion, can it be labled green or is it origin a problem?

Is commercial laundry equipment capable of having a green label?

Posted By: accrew4 @ 07/11/2008 9:03:26 AM

Comment: The whole idea of carbon footprint is missleading and IMO was suspossed to be that way. Why not use the method that the commercial industry uses to justify a manufacturing process. "The total energy and material cost of producing a product and getting it to the consummer." If it cost more to produce than the customer is willing to pay, then do not produce it. A prime example is bio-diesel, it still cost more to produce then the oil based diesel, when you remove all the tax breaks. We are not even going to mention the hugh cost of corn based gasoline additives.

For years the oil companies burned natural gas at the wellhead. Because it was going to cost to much to get to the customer and at the time there was little demand for natural gas. The same as LNG is today, the transportation cost to markets is just too high. Plus the lack of sea ports to unload the ships transporting LNG, caused by the NIMBY people and the huge safety issues associated.

The whole concept of just in time deliveries of products to stores and manufactoring plants, worked great when the transportation cost to the stores was low. Now with rising cost of diesel and the damaged caused by using longer and heaver trucks on our road systems. Trains are looking better and better, especially the new ones that can run on 70% LNG and 30% diesel fuel. IMO long haul trucking is going to join the wagon trains of 19th century.

As the rising cost of transporting products filters down to the cosumer. You will see more and more local produce stands open. The best example I know of is setting in front of me now. A bottle of all natural Dole sliced peaches. The peaches were grown in the USA and they were packaged in Thailand for sale in the USA. Also I have a bag of fresh peaches that were grown 5 miles from my house, that I have just bought at a road side market one mile away. Ha Ha

Posted By: tigerfire @ 07/05/2008 8:37:39 AM

Comment: The section on How to Eat Green in an attempt to be clever, does bring up some interesting points, But the premise is you need that wine, you need those apples, and you need that meat, ie you want to maintain your lifestyle somehow or the other. the premise is fundamentally flawed. Do we NEED Californian cherries in a Melbourne supermarket in winter? Do we NEED Australian avocados in a Bangkok supermarket, sitting next to Thai avocados? Do we NEED Californian wine to be trucked over the Rockies, or indeed Bordeaux to be shipped from France? Generations upon generations of human beings have done just fine without all of this. Thinkers like Steve Rayner and Gwyn Prins have said cl;imate change is the result of a perticular development path and the globally interlaced systems in place to deliver it. We know how the system works but we are trapped in it, not knowing how (or not having the will) to dismantle it.

Posted By: endianoffset2 @ 06/30/2008 1:18:20 PM

Comment: interesting article! would like to have seen more on carbon offsets, that part was quite surprising.

Posted By: scarletsparrow @ 06/30/2008 12:54:35 PM

Comment: Thank you. Very informative article!

Posted By: Silentmajority @ 06/28/2008 10:53:51 PM

Comment: There is no such thing as global warming, so it isn't worth reading this propaganda disguised as an article. After all, has NEWEWEES ever published a decent artcle in the last two decades? Nooooo!!