The glass is half full…

From a design prospective, there is never just one way to solve a problem.  There are some ways that are better than others, but more times than not there are an infinite number of solutions.  Our imaginations are the only limiting factor.  As individuals we each process things uniquely to ourselves.  For instance, if I were to say, “picture your first bike” the image that comes to your mind is very different than what comes to mine.  In addition if I said, “picture a yellow bike with a bell and big tires” your mental image would still be very different than my own.  Which supports the idea that our mental modes are reliant on our experiences, assumptions, education and so forth.  In other words, there is not a single right way to develop a sustainable future, but rather there are many different ways.  We just need to all get one the same page or even the same book.  

Since each person is very individualistic, we each have our own perceptions.  Just within the United States my thoughts and actions in the south are very different from northerners.  These cultural identities are amplified in a global aspect.  We need to realize these differences shouldn’t be seen as negative, but rather they should be celebrated in grand collaboration.  According to Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science,  “A shared vision stands as the gateway to a community’s sustainable future”.  

The reading Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness discusses what it means to have high self-efficacy.  Which is performing in a certain manner to obtain certain goals.  I would like to expand on that and include the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy.  In self-fulfilling prophecy our predictions directly or indirectly cause the outcome to become true.  In other words, if we believe the future has no hope of sustainability then that will inevitably happen.  Let’s change our outcome.  Let’s fulfill our imaginative future as a hopeful one.

Now leap, not climb on board to my vision of the future.  I see a world where we use only materials that are 100% sustainable.  In other words, I envision a time where we can completely close the cycle loop for all of our materials!  We are no longer consuming all of our resources.  We are no longer abusing our planet.  People are not required to “give up” anything, but consumers are only required to participate in recycling everything. Think of how far we have come in “green” thinking in the last ten years, this future looks hopeful.  The glass is half full, now let’s fill it up.

what a load of puffery

Advertisements that make outrageous claims in their ad campaigns are not lying; they are just using “puffery”.  Generally speaking, puffery means to use flattering, or exaggerated claims in promotion.  Puffery isn’t considered false advertising if a person with common sense knows the advertisement isn’t real.  For example, the statement “red bull gives you wings”.  We know red bull won’t actually make you sprout a pair of wings, but companies use claims like this to gain the consumers attention. 

According to Forum for the Future, the term eco-promising is used to understand the practice of environmental claims and communication for a company’s products and services.  They also suggest ways companies should communicate with their end users through the following tactics: companies must be transparent in their claims in order to gain consumers trust, be diverse in their means of communication feeding the eager to be eco-conscious while not off-putting the less committed, and should keep credible to their claims.  However, this doesn’t always happen and consumers are then left feeling uncertain.

Forum for the Future states that eco-promises must be specific and believable in order to be persuasive.  With an overload of information and companies each having their own definition of environmental products it is easy for consumers to feel fatigue, confused, or down right manipulated.  Some companies are guilty of green washing or green marketing, which is deceptively spinning their products to seem environmentally friendly.  According to The Greenwash Guide, there are signs we can look for to determine if we are being “greenwashed”; watch for fluffy language, suggestive pictures, irrelevant claims, and claims that have no proof.  Lets take a look at some good and bad examples of advertisement:

^ Patagonia’s product production ^

^ Poetree: A Funeral Urn that lets you plant a tree from Ashes^

The three pictures above follow the guidelines previously suggested by Forum for the Future, by using transparency in their advertisement.  Patagonia’s website allows you to navigate the good, the bad, and the ugly by explaining how their garments are actually produced.  As a consumer, I appreciate seeing the “footprint” my purchases will make on the environment.  The next pictures are of “Poetree”, a funeral urn that allows your ashes to become interweaved into a biodegradable plant base and put into the earth without negative effects on the environment.

A furniture company out of California called Cisco brothers uses the next two pictures on their website.  After navigating the site their products appear to be environmentally friendly, but where is the proof? In the second picture, they are promoting their products being handmade in South Central LA, but this does not prove that their practices are actually sustainable.  What about their factory or use of transportation?

^Implied Claim by Cisco Brothers^

^Cisco Brothers^

Navigating the world of advertising can be difficult, and it’s hard to know which claims are honest and which are solely promoting products.  It’s important to remember that we can no longer take advertisement claims at face value.  At this point, most businesses are unique in their claims of eco-friendliness.  Thus, we need to dig deeper and see if what the company is claiming is true or puffery.

http://www.patagonia.com/us/footprint/index.jsp

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/poetree-a-funeral-urn-that-lets-you-plant-a-tree-from-ashes.html

http://www.ciscobrothers.com/

Would you rather…?

 Lets play a game; it’s pretty simple in concept and forces you to make a single decision.  Here we go!  Would you rather make quick cash in a short amount of time or earn cash slower and help the environment?  Next question, would you rather have water to drink or a cotton shirt on your back?  Last, would you rather ingest harmful chemicals in your lungs to maintain your crops easier or pour your blood, sweat, and tears into working harder?  Got your answers?  If so, then you’re a cut above the rest.  These issues plague about 20 million cotton farmers across the world and the answers aren’t always easy.

We can now look at some information that could help us navigate answers for these issues because the cultivation of cotton is far from being sustainable.  According to The Sustainability of Cotton article the biodiversity is negatively affected by the use of pesticides and chemicals.  However, due to their ease of use and effectiveness they are widely practiced.  It is estimated that in the 12 leading cotton-producing counties, 12-36% of the area under cotton cultivation is affected by soil salinization (nutrient deficiency).  Over time this can also lead to the farmland being abandoned due to its lack of soil nutrients.  This soil salinization is associated with causing soil erosion.  Adversely, Cotton, Inc. says that cotton growers are making great strides to reduce soil erosion by encouraging soil creation through conservation tillage. They also say it is common practice to rotate cotton with other crops to help production.  We know this is true in some instances, but for some farmers continued use of their land yields a higher profit. 

According to Cotton, Inc.’s video, “The Flexible Water Needs of Cotton” cotton requires little water and is a draught friendly crop.  At face value it would be easy for the general public to believe.  However, most methods of irrigation are inefficient in delivering water to the plants.  It has been estimated that cotton cultivation accounts for 1-6% of the world’s total freshwater withdrawal, which we know is decreasing due to population growth. On a global scale inefficient irrigation systems are only 40% efficient, leaving a whopping 60% of all water used never reaches the plant!

According to Sustainability of Cotton article cotton is produced in more than 100 countries with China as the main producer.  Why China?  As cotton production is blooming, there is a constant need for cost reduction and cheaper cultivation.  It’s a no brainer, cheap labor equals cheap cotton, but at what real cost? China has little to no regulation of its pesticide usage or application leading workers to be exposed to harmful chemicals.  This exposure leads to a minimum consequence of sickness, but can also result in death.  An estimated (global) 40,000 deaths occur each year.  This leaves us wondering if the organic farmers might be on the right track of not using these chemicals at all.

Now empowered by knowledge let me ask you again, would you rather…???

What a production!

The water cooler: natural vs. synthetic conundrum is one that I can see both both pros and cons.  However, in this scenario my coworker, Sally is being closed-minded and not considering the complexity of choosing appropriate sustainable materials.  According to the Materials Maze reading natural fibers are not necessarily more ecofriendly than synthetic fibers depending on the manufacturing process used. Cotton is one fiber we revisit for a key example.  Even though cotton is cellulose based, it can still fall victim of a harmful finishing process: dying, sizing, treating for stain and wrinkle resistance.   As interior designers there is a lot that can be said about the positive attributes of synthetic fabrics within our industry.

Take polyester for example, polyester is by nature a synthetic fiber (although some polyester is now being processed from corn).  According to Charline Ducas, a voice for the nonprofit organization, “Textile Exchange”, polyester is the most important fiber out there today.  Polyester is historically made from petroleum-based chemicals; in which crude oil is its raw material.  Thus, I can see where Sally might see the negative connotation attached to its stigma.  However, when it comes to polyester the news is not all bad.  In fact, polyester is the only fiber on the market today where you can completely close the cycle loop.  Meaning we can decompose pre and post consumer polyester into a new polyester raw material and this process is a continuously repeatable cycle!

For years synthetic fibers have been used in the carpet industry in both commercial and residential applications.  Traditionally Nylon has been used, but within the last few years flooring companies are seeing the benefits of polyester. Mohawk Flooring recently released a new carpet they call, “Polyester Fiber Triexta PTT”.  Triexta is one of the first new forms of carpet fiber that uses a chemical combination process to produce a polyester carpet.  Their carpet has characteristics of wear-resistance, built-in stain protection, and luxurious softness.  Although we are coming back to the use of chemicals, this is just the beginning.  If we can re-process the used polyester carpet into new carpet then we create a continuous cycle loop, and a carpet product that is sustainable.  Plus, if we are creating a product that last longer and performs better than other fibers then we are getting to the real problem, PRODUCTION.

Even with natural fibers there comes production.  Within natural fibers you have categories of protein based and cellulose based, and within those categories you have organic fibers, recycled fibers, etc.  What does that mean? It means we have options, which is great.  However, it also means production.  According to Charline Ducas we are missing this key issue.  Until we can simply take a fiber and create an end product without the rigorous means of production then we are not being sustainable.  Eco-effectiveness requires being completely sustainable, and for now our industry is not there. Thus, making sound choices is a process of understanding the environmental trade-offs associated with each alternative.