"Green Rating": Baby or Bathwater?

Dr. Imago

Master Poster
D
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
2,620
I'm interested to hear what people think about the "Green Rating" tag that's placed on things. As a background, there has been a lot of stimulating discussions on APGW, and a lot of the discourse has opened my eyes to things I hadn't before considered in my opinion. For that (among other things), I'm grateful for this forum. However, I'd like this thread not to become another argument about APGW (for or against), but instead a discussion around labeling products as "green friendly".

For instance, I don't know much about the "standardization" regarding this system. What criteria are judged to come up with a rating? Admittedly, I was a bit miffed - in light of this bigger debate - after recently purchasing a new vehicle (of which I also happen to be quite fond) when someone with whom I work snidely commented that it has a "horrible" green rating and I should be ashamed that I purchased it.

Now, I'm not necessarily sure at this point that a high green rating should be paraded around as a badge of honor. Recent discussions have made me think a little deeper about what the true environmental impact is of something manufactured, such as a vehicle (or dishwasher or building... etc.), might be when giving consideration to the process that went into making that object. For example, nuclear power may be considered "green" if you look at it one way, but then there's the whole extracting the uranium from the earth and subsequently disposing the by-products (or producing plutonium) which may be considered decidedly "ungreen". I'm sure there's away that people who purportedly know a lot more about these things than I do balance all of this out... or I think I might be sure... :confused:

Essentially, I'm curious to know if people think this "green rating" stuff is worthwhile or general nonsense, what the rating system is, and whether or not I should simply ignore this person, tear him a new one with the sound logic and hard fact that many of you are capable of producing, or maybe actually buy a different vehicle.

So, have at it.

-Dr. Imago
 
I typically buy the long-term best value item but if the 'green rating' does anything, it makes me less likely to buy that brand.

But then again, I like clothes made in third world factories (preferably lined with baby seal fur). I also like irradiated GM food grown on factory farms, bars where I can light up a fine cigar if I want, greasy junk food, and gas guzzling SUV's...so maybe I'm not the best person to ask.

Oh yea, and nuclear waste should be dumped in Antarctica.
 
I'm certainly concerned with what happens after I wipe my butt, and if green is involved, I'll be still more concerned.
 
Dr. Imago said:
Essentially, I'm curious to know if people think this "green rating" stuff is worthwhile or general nonsense..........
Click to expand...

Its just like high school (or belly buttons). There are the INees and the OUTees. Everyone wants to be and INee and hang with the "cool" kids.
 
Dr. Imago said:
....after recently purchasing a new vehicle...

-Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

There is your problem. Who needs a new car? Who are you trying to impress? The strangers on the road during your commute? That is the only time you are seen in it. What a waste. Of your money, and our natural resources. You want green? Drive an old car. Save all the carbon it takes to make a new car.
 
casebro said:
There is your problem. Who needs a new car? Who are you trying to impress? The strangers on the road during your commute? That is the only time you are seen in it. What a waste. Of your money, and our natural resources. You want green? Drive an old car. Save all the carbon it takes to make a new car.
Click to expand...

Darn right! Especially if you can find one that was made before they started putting on those "catalytic converter" things. :D
 
frank462 said:
Its just like high school (or belly buttons). There are the INees and the OUTees. Everyone wants to be and INee and hang with the "cool" kids.
Click to expand...

But, does it mean anything substantive? Are we really "helping" the planet, as the proponents would argue?

I'm all for conserving resources. I'm all about putting less particulate matter in the atmosphere, which is what I think is the biggest potential impact of lower emission vehicles and energy sources. But, what is the real cost behind the movement? Does a good "green rating" really mean they've taken all factors into account?

There is an Energystar rating on most appliances, thanks to the EPA. Better efficiency has a direct impact on me because it means lower utility bills. If something can be made more effecient and, by default, means it uses less energy, I'm all for it. But, what are the "hidden" costs. So, that's not a bad thing. Similarly, I guess a more fuel efficient vehicle means lower costs at the pump. But, shouldn't that be my choice alone (as it currently is now)?

As an additional example, rechargeable batteries are a great idea. But, eventually they will cease to function properly and have to be disposed of. Cadmium is a very poisonous substance. Finding, excavating, and processing cadmium has its own inherent environmental impact, not to mention subsequently having to dispose it.

So, does something that utilizes cadimium as part of it's "reusable" energy source count as a "greener" technology? There has to be a balance somewhere. My big, safe, convenient new vehicle can be recycled. Sure, I'm probably burning more carbonaceous fuel to get my 95kg frame from point A to point B. But, what is the net savings as well as additional cost in producing such a technology to the environment? Does the marginal savings in gas mean that, over the economies of scale, I am doing better for the environment by buying such a vehicle? Or, is it really a wash?

I don't think there's an strong argument against better, more efficient technology. My question really stems from my impact at the consumer end. It seems to me that we could do a better job of finding renewable resources (biodiesel, gasahol, etc.) that would have a greater impact on a larger scale that wouldn't necessarily effect my choices at the end-consumer level.

Why is the onus to do better on me? Seems to me that you have to affect the process much higher up in the proverbial food chain to have any real impact. The "green rating" is just a way to provide consumers an additional variable to consider when making a purchase selection. It shouldn't be used as a way to guilt people into making a choice one way or another.

-Dr. Imago
 
Let's, for argument's sake, say the average life-expentency of a vehicle is 100,000 miles. Over that lifespan, one car, Car A, gets 35mpg, the other, Car B, gets 20mpg.

During that lifetime, Car A will burn about 2,857 gallons of gasoline. Car B will burn 5,000 gallons, or about 1,140 more gallons.

What I want to know is whether or not that 1,140 additional gallons adds-up to true additional savings, however you want to measure it, involved in manufacturing and production of the more efficient technology. At about $2.50 per gallon, we're talking - on an individual basis - $2,850 additional dollars of actual dollar cost. Another way to look at it is, if you drive 20K miles per year, $570 additional dollars per year owned for that vehicle.

Now, that's on a head-to-head comparison.

It just so happens that I live less than 5 miles from work. My last trade in was a 2000 model that had roughly 58,000 miles on it. I bought it new, so I average around 8,280 miles per year for all driving I did, including trips. The person who "called me out" happens to live about 20 miles from work. That's a forty-mile round trip each day, for 8,000 miles/year without factoring in any other driving.

It seems to me that, if this person was truly "green friendly", they'd move closer to work instead of bitching at me about my polluting car. At the very least, it should be a "wash" in my book, and I shouldn't have to be subjected to the rantings of an eco-terrorist.

-Dr. Imago
 
From the thread title, I expected this thread was going to make the glaringliy obvious , but widely ignored point that the best thing any of us can do to "save the planet" is not to have children.

That was a decision I made nearly forty years ago and have stuck to.

I'm interested to note that many environmentalists are horrified at the idea.
 
Soapy Sam said:
From the thread title, I expected this thread was going to make the glaringliy obvious , but widely ignored point that the best thing any of us can do to "save the planet" is not to have children.

That was a decision I made nearly forty years ago and have stuck to.

I'm interested to note that many environmentalists are horrified at the idea.
Click to expand...

Not to get all Aldous Huxley on you and whatnot, but that problem is not solved by stopping procreation or artificially capping lifespan. That particular problem is represented by the fact that only certain cohorts of the population are procreating... and doing so both disproportionately and prodigiously.

But, that's a different topic for a separate thread.

-Dr. Imago
 
I would hazard a guess that those products carrying a good green rating are produced by companies who donate generously to environmental groups.
 
Slimething said:
I would hazard a guess that those products carrying a good green rating are produced by companies who donate generously to environmental groups.
Click to expand...

Could be.

Certainly, the "green building" project, called the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), has had its challenges...

Others note that LEED doesn't guarantee energy efficiency, as certification can be gained without earning many or even any LEED points in the area. Some green-building advocates would like to see mandatory points for energy efficiency. A point system that weights a renewable-energy system about equal with a bike-storage room needs some refining, they argue.
Click to expand...

... and though they admit there are problems, they press on...

Even as debate roils about LEED's effectiveness and user-friendliness, the system is spreading rapidly. Federal departments and agencies and state and local governments are adopting LEED as a guideline or requirement for their own projects, and tax breaks and other LEED incentives are cropping up around the U.S. In many ways, LEED's success is raising the stakes and intensifying arguments over the program's flaws.
Click to expand...

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/10/26/leed/

Maybe, with LEED, we are creeping towards another NCCAM-type agency: an admirable and well-intentioned concept without any real proof of good-doing, while the dollar costs continue to add-up.

-Dr. Imago
 
casebro said:
There is your problem. Who needs a new car? Who are you trying to impress? The strangers on the road during your commute? That is the only time you are seen in it. What a waste. Of your money, and our natural resources. You want green? Drive an old car. Save all the carbon it takes to make a new car.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm certain my "old car" is, in some way, shape, or form, being recycled. Things break down. Things wear out. Sometimes we need new things, especially when there is still value in the old things to someone else. I figured it was time to get while there was still value in that old thing, and especially before I got to the point where more and more of my money was going into keeping the old thing running. You know, the whole "law of diminishing returns" idea.

Besides...

"Vanity is so secure in the heart of man that everyone wants to be admired: even I who write this, and you who read this." ~Blaise Pascal

-Dr. Imago
 
If you're talking about the US EPA's green rating, it takes into account only mileage, and pollutants from the tailpipe. If that's not what you're talking about, please specify.

Overall, an automobile is one of the un-greenest things on the planet to manufacture. You need a lot of metal, and a lot of plastic, and a lot of manufacturing, and all three of those things are very un-green. By the time you're done making the body and interior to DOT specifications, you've done about 80% of the harm already- so from that viewpoint, it doesn't really matter what you do after that, because you won't sell a car in the US that doesn't conform to DOT requirements.

On the other hand, it doesn't really take that much difference in each car to add up to a lot when a million people are buying one. And the two worst preventable pieces of harm a vehicle does, from an environmental perspective, are the gas it consumes and the pollutants it emits.

I'm relatively environmentalist- not rabidly against human society because it's damaging Our Mother, you understand, merely one who feels we should tread lightly where we can. To put it another way, I feel it's a prudent course of action, not a moral imperative. I contribute to some causes, and I try to act wisely. My idea, however, of wisely is sometimes rather different from other folks'. For example, I own an SUV; but I've had it ten years and it has less than 15,000 miles on it. From a fuel and pollution standpoint, I've made the greenest car out there, a Prius, look like a gross polluter if driven by someone going 100,000 miles a year; because I only go 1,500. I got it because I do two things that require me to have a vehicle that can go places an ordinary car can't, and carry a lot: wildlife photography and amateur astronomy. I got it specifically because of that, and because I knew I wouldn't be driving it much. I would have chosen very much differently had I intended to put 100,000 miles a year on it as a commuter vehicle, not least because I wouldn't expect it to last as long. I haven't bought a car in ten years, and I've driven only 1,500 miles a year for ten years; I've more than made up for not buying a "green" car. So there's more than one way to skin that cat.

Finally, there are practicalities: have you ever tried to take a car back? No? Good luck, and I do mean that facetiously. Unless you are amazingly persistent, you're not going to get it done. I might be wrong, and it might be easier than I expect, but the last time I had any reason to wonder, it was still extremely difficult. No matter how bad you feel, you're almost certainly stuck with it.

What's most important is that you not allow your attitude toward the environment to change as a result. Some people get made to feel bad about a decision like this, and they wind up rejecting environmental concerns in order not to keep feeling that way. You care; which is better than at least half of everyone. Keep caring, no matter what you wind up doing in this case.
 
Schneibster said:
Finally, there are practicalities: have you ever tried to take a car back? No? Good luck, and I do mean that facetiously. Unless you are amazingly persistent, you're not going to get it done. I might be wrong, and it might be easier than I expect, but the last time I had any reason to wonder, it was still extremely difficult. No matter how bad you feel, you're almost certainly stuck with it.

What's most important is that you not allow your attitude toward the environment to change as a result. Some people get made to feel bad about a decision like this, and they wind up rejecting environmental concerns in order not to keep feeling that way. You care; which is better than at least half of everyone. Keep caring, no matter what you wind up doing in this case.
Click to expand...

I think we got derailed somewhere...

The only thing I care about is proving that this "green rating" stuff is, essentially, eco-terrorism by a bunch of tree-hugging nutters who're convinced that everything man does is evil. Before I accept that as fact, I want proof - on many different levels - that what I, as an individual, does actually does amount to more than a fart in a windstorm.

I hear you about the economies of scale thing. I believe that to be true. But, then why are people trying to blame me, the end consumer, for a choice that I can freely make? And, why should I be chastised by someone for making that choice based on some eco-propaganda?

I've already raised the point that this person drives much further on a daily basis than I do, similar to your point. And, I agree it's as much about how you use something as what that something you use is. For example, I'm not going to be made to feel bad if I once in a while want a nice fire in the fireplace on a cold, wintry night. Now, if I went out and chopped down my neighbors trees and burned a day-long fire everyday, even when I wasn't home, maybe there'd be a point - and that is what this is akin to in my book.

Certain people relish pointing their finger. They use what little science there is to draw firm conclusions. They take seemingly good ideas, don't always think them all the way through, and start mandating that this is how others should act. Then all of the sudden, these "good ideas" become law before we know it. And, when all know how effective policy is at solving perceived social problems.

So, just so we're clear, I have no intentions of getting rid of the vehicle. I love the vehicle. It is one of my few joys in the morning when I'm getting out of bed at 4:45 AM to drive to the hospital to take care of sick people, most of whom got themselves that way with their own personal bad habits, and I relish those few short moments of bliss twisting around the carless backroads in the wee hours.

I just want to know why I should be made to feel guilty by someone with a holier-than-thou attitude based on a rating system I don't understand that I can't seem to find clearly defined anywhere on the Internet. Furthermore, I'm no longer convinced that what I do - as an individual - matters either way in this instance.

Someone show me these mythical "green ratings" so that I can see how my vehicle purportedly scored a 5.1 and what that means. Then show me why I should really care.

I agree with you, Schneibster. The damage was already done the day the car rolled off the factory line. And, I really have no say whatsoever in that. What was done was done. The die was cast. And, one could equally argue that if I don't buy that car, someone loses a job. So, who's right here? Do I care more about my fellow man, or some yet-to-be-directly-proven damage I'm doing to the environment with my one little vehicle? Why is the onus on me?

Hell, screw all the motorized vehicles out there. Mandate that everyone takes public transportation or a bike everywhere. I'm sure we'd lose a few billion pounds off of our waistlines.

Seriously, aren't there more important things to worry about in the world right now than some of this stuff that people dream up to distract us? I long ago gave up on the idea that I could make sweeping changes in this world. I just go into the hospital everyday and do the best I can in my small sphere of influence. And, based on what I see there on a daily basis, we have a lot bigger problems than some tree-huggers sweating us over "green ratings". So, why not just let me climb into my nice, new vehicle and let me have a little peace, comfort, and happiness on the short trip to and from my home without breaking my balls over it?

-Dr. Imago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom