This post is Green!
*climbs up on soapbox* Ahem. Your attention please.
The claim of some products or system of products to be more environmentally friendly or "green" does not automatically make them a better choice for you or for the environment. (but almost certainly means they're better for the wallets of those who are selling them)
I am not trying to vilify those who are trying to be environmentally responsible either by creating or consuming such products. I'm just pointing out that some thought needs to be given before giving something the "better" stamp of approval.
Think reusable products are inherently superior to disposable? Maybe they are. But did they take more energy to manufacture in the first place? What resources are required to clean/sanitize said product for reuse? How long is the expected lifetime?
Everyone "knows" that biodegradable products are better. But how many people know the precise details behind the claim? Does this product break down in the environment, but only by breaking into tiny pieces that continue to litter the landscape? How long does it take? Will it perform the same buried in a landfill as it will sitting on a prairie? What is left behind when this product degrades - a mere cornstarch residue, or non-degrading plasticizers and other assorted persistent molecules?
Speaking of corn, we all know that corn is a renewable resource, therefore corn-based products are superior in every way to those made from petrochemicals. Except that in some cases more petrochemicals had to be used to refine and manufacture the corn-based product that its plastic cousin would require from start to finish.
All those completely natural superior non-chemical cleaners are still chemicals. Just because vinegar can be made from apples doesn't mean the active ingredient isn't acetic acid. Is acetic acid more benign than Triclosan? Maybe. But they're both chemicals. "All natural" does NOT mean "no chemicals."
Repeat after me: "Chemicals are not all inherently evil." (some of them just smell that way)
Being kind to the environment is a great ambition. It's just not always black and white.
I'm tired of hearing people compete to be greener than thou while spouting junk science made for the sole purpose of separating people from more of their money.
I'm Sarah Unreserved, and I approve this message.
*climbs down, puts soap box away, goes back to knitting a sock*
The claim of some products or system of products to be more environmentally friendly or "green" does not automatically make them a better choice for you or for the environment. (but almost certainly means they're better for the wallets of those who are selling them)
I am not trying to vilify those who are trying to be environmentally responsible either by creating or consuming such products. I'm just pointing out that some thought needs to be given before giving something the "better" stamp of approval.
Think reusable products are inherently superior to disposable? Maybe they are. But did they take more energy to manufacture in the first place? What resources are required to clean/sanitize said product for reuse? How long is the expected lifetime?
Everyone "knows" that biodegradable products are better. But how many people know the precise details behind the claim? Does this product break down in the environment, but only by breaking into tiny pieces that continue to litter the landscape? How long does it take? Will it perform the same buried in a landfill as it will sitting on a prairie? What is left behind when this product degrades - a mere cornstarch residue, or non-degrading plasticizers and other assorted persistent molecules?
Speaking of corn, we all know that corn is a renewable resource, therefore corn-based products are superior in every way to those made from petrochemicals. Except that in some cases more petrochemicals had to be used to refine and manufacture the corn-based product that its plastic cousin would require from start to finish.
All those completely natural superior non-chemical cleaners are still chemicals. Just because vinegar can be made from apples doesn't mean the active ingredient isn't acetic acid. Is acetic acid more benign than Triclosan? Maybe. But they're both chemicals. "All natural" does NOT mean "no chemicals."
Repeat after me: "Chemicals are not all inherently evil." (some of them just smell that way)
Being kind to the environment is a great ambition. It's just not always black and white.
I'm tired of hearing people compete to be greener than thou while spouting junk science made for the sole purpose of separating people from more of their money.
I'm Sarah Unreserved, and I approve this message.
*climbs down, puts soap box away, goes back to knitting a sock*
