Connecting you with designers, engineers and business people who share a common interest in developing smarter, more sustainable products. Be part of the solution!

  • Green Seal’s revised paint standard works to get out the VOC

    by Linda Chipperfield on October 24, 2008
    081024_lc_1.jpg

    Because paint is one of the biggest contributors to indoor air pollution, Green Seal has recently updated its environmental standards in a new Green Seal Standard – GS-11.

    The revised standard works harder to protect indoor air quality by increasing the number of prohibited chemicals, reducing allowable VOC (volatile organic compounds, which have both short and long term health effects) levels, requiring more accurate VOC testing, and giving shoppers more information on how to reduce their impact through paint use, storage and recycling.

    <!--break-->

    The first edition of GS-11 prohibited 25 chemicals such as toluene, benzene and formaldehyde. But with the rapid growth of formulation technology, we wanted to expand this list to eliminate other chemicals that might be as harmful or worse than those in the existing standard. By including a more comprehensive list of prohibited chemicals the standard removes these loopholes and ensures safer paint formulas. Hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting compounds are prohibited, as are carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins.

    With greater awareness about indoor air pollutants, low- or zero-VOC paints have experienced increased sales. However, many shoppers are not aware that they increase VOC levels when they add colorants to the base paint. For most paints, the darker the tint, the higher the VOC of the final blend. By adjusting the levels of VOCs allowed in base paint and including criteria for colorants, the new standard ensures that even a heavily tinted paint will still contain minimum VOCs.

    Measurement of volatile organic compounds has historically been an imprecise process. The lower the VOC level, the more difficult it has been to get an accurate measurement. Green Seal has incorporated a more direct assessment method into the standard, which is estimated to be 10 times more effective and becomes even more accurate as the VOC levels approach zero.

    Considering the life cycle of a can of paint is vital to measuring VOC impact. Examining how the entire can is used and disposed of helps to “close the loop” on its toxicity. Under the new Green Seal standard, manufacturers are required to include instructions on the label for proper disposal or, preferably, reuse or recycling of leftover paint. Users must be advised concerning source reduction (buying just what is needed), proper use to reduce waste and proper ventilation. Pre-consumer waste and leftover paint should be collected and donated, as markets for recycled paint continue to grow. Any paint that is kept out of the waste stream helps protect the environment and reduces the raw materials required to make new paint.

    Green Seal is happy to offer this new standard to paint manufacturers as a way to identify themselves as leaders in the industry. As consumers continue to demand safer, more sustainable products, this new standard provides a guideline to meet that demand.

  • Insights from the Green Event

    by Grant Kristofek on October 24, 2008
    081024_gk_1.jpg

    The ‘Green Stamps‘ panel helps attendees learn about what is available in the market to support their green claims.

    I was recently on Broadway — not in the latest production of West Side Story — but at the Hudson Theatre for The Green Event. The two-day conference brought together textile industry stakeholders — suppliers, buyers, designers, and regulators — to share ideas for developing eco-conscious practices across the board.

    I had an opportunity to participate on the ’Creating Green‘ retail panel alongside Marks & Spencer’s veteran cotton expert, Graham Burden. I shared Continuum’s insights about the consumer perspective on sustainability, sparking a conversation about the need to consider the demand-side of the sustainability equation. My talk followed an excellent keynote by Andrew Winston, author of Green to Gold and founder of Winston Eco-Strategies. Mr. Winston spoke passionately about the business case for sustainability, citing numerous examples of companies that had achieved true competitive advantage by identifying upside opportunities or eliminating downside risks in this space.

    Ian Yolles, a co-founder of the novel sustainable clothier, Nau, was one of the most compelling voices at the event. He explained how he and a few friends (ex-execs from Nike and Patagonia)  got together in 2005 to create a new form of ’business activism‘ by founding a company on the ideals of sustainability and social responsibility. Their corporate bylaws turned the traditional clothing retail model on its head in a number of ways, including: mandating the use of more sustainable materials and processes (for example, recycled PET soda bottles become recyclable polyester garments), providing a 5% donation of sales to non-profit philanthropy (to be specified by customers at POP) and selling directly to customers through an assortment of low-impact retail outlets (both the internet and their novel store-meets-internet ’webfronts‘).

    In 2007, Nau’s aggressive strategy met an adverse twist of financial fortune, forcing the company to close its doors after just one year in business. However, Ian explained that the abiding support of their nascent customer base (via blogs, emails, letters, and phone calls) helped Nau quickly find a partner who recognized the intrinsic value of their brand. Nau officially re-opened for business on October 15, 2008.

    The event rounded out its message of pragmatic optimism with informative presentations and panel discussions featuring novel eco-friendly materials from suppliers such as Dupont, Lenzing,  and Unifi. Regulators and policymakers from the Federal Trade Commission, Carbon Trust, the Organic Exchange, Oeko-Tex, and others were also on hand to help attendees understand how to certify their products and make honest claims about them to their consumers.

    All in all, the conference was a great opportunity to share success stories and inspire industry-wide collaboration to further the sustainability effort.

    Image credit: Formula4Media

  • In the age of financial meltdown, does sustainability matter?

    by Scott Boutwell on October 17, 2008
    081017_sb_1.jpg

    I was in the UK at a CIO workshop last week and missed a lot of the ongoing maneuvering on the part of both political parties here in the US. It made me think about sustainability market drivers (again; yes, I need a life...), and whether we have turned the corner from sustainability as a 'vitamin' (nice to have), or an 'aspirin' (critical need).

    Right now, I would guess that most people (consumers) and many corporations are focusing on very tactical and survival-based activities, such as cost control and risk/exposure management. Where sustainability programs are already established, there is probably little impact from the financial crisis, in terms of potential termination, cancellation, etc.

    <!--break-->

    But where sustainability initiatives are being considered or reviewed, I would venture that many will be put on hold for the time being, as corporations sort through ongoing programs and rank and prioritize those that are truly 'mission critical' for short term goals.

    But there may be a silver lining.

    One could say that the current populism will engender more awareness of social impacts associated with current and projected modes of doing business. That could feed into more interest in sustainability as the template of conducting business: doing what is right (do no evil?), taking care of your employees and those who are affected / involved in your business, and developing strategy and initiatives for promoting long term viability.

    Another potential benefit: whoever becomes president, there is no doubt (in my mind) that we are entering a new age of regulatory oversight. I believe that the 'wave' of rule-making for the financial markets will spill over to other industries and sectors, and will include new environmental and social metrics.

    Some may see additional regulation as anathema to the overall concept of sustainability, but as I have posted before on crisis management, sustainability will not be adopted by the majority of corporations until such time that: they have to incorporate programs to be competitive; or, they have to comply with new regulations. Indeed, if you view the UK and Europe, sustainability adoption is due to stringent new rules in building design and construction, consumer product design, and waste recycling; all driving much more awareness (and acceptance) in the local populations.

    There. Anybody feel better about the current mess we are in?

  • Now and Zenn? Potential game changer for electric vehicles

    by Richard Kubin on October 17, 2008
    081017_rk_1.jpg

    I recently attended the 5th Annual Merriman Curhan Ford Investor Summit in San Francisco. While there were a broad spectrum of companies represented (I found the Smith & Wesson presentation interesting), the largest number fell under the ’clean-tech’ or ‘green-tech’ category. These were also quite diverse, ranging from energy storage and smart grid technologies to solar to ’clean’ coal to hybrid and electric vehicles to Brazilian bio-fuels – I could easily write a blog on each!

    Of the presentations I saw, the one that had perhaps the broadest potential impact (and a standing room only crowd) was from Ian Clifford, CEO of Toronto, Canada based Zenn Motor Co. Currently, they manufacture and sell the ZENN Low Speed Vehicle (LSV), also referred to as a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV). This is a ‘traditional’ small electric car that uses six lead-acid batteries for energy storage, has a 30-50 mile range, and is limited under FMVSS 500 regulations to 25 mph. While it’s an interesting design and quite useful for campus, fleet, gated community and even city use, it is not going to replace the family car.

    <!--break-->

    What everyone wanted to hear about was Zenn’s upcoming, highway-capable electric vehicle based on the new EEStor technology. In case you haven’t heard, EEStor is the real game changer in energy storage today. This secretive company (EEStor still doesn’t have a Web site up) based in Cedar Park, Texas, claims to have invented a new ultracapacitor energy storage system that can power an electric car for 300 miles and recharge in only three to five minutes. While there are many skeptics, Ian was very confident that the technology will work. So much so that Zenn acquired a 3.8% share of EEStor for $2.5 million and has the option to buy another 7.6% for $5 million, if certain developmental milestones are achieved. In exchange, Zenn has exclusive rights to sell these ‘batteries’ into the automobile and golf cart (4-wheeled vehicles) industry. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Lockheed Martin are also major investors in EEStor.

    Although details are still very sketchy, the EEstor batteries are reportedly based on multilayered, barium titanate ceramic capacitor technology. While there are multiple performance measures for energy storage, a key metric for vehicles and portable products is energy density, measured in mega-Joules per kilogram (MJ/kg) – basically, the amount of energy that can be stored per unit volume or mass.

    Lithium-ion batteries, the most prevalent for portable devices and even high-end electric vehicles (the Tesla roadster uses 6,831 laptop type Li-ion cells) provide 0.54–0.72 MJ/kg – production EEStor cells are expected to provide 2.5 MJ/kg – three to five times the energy density of Li-ion batteries – which should provide much smaller form factors for equivalent power. They also expect a discharge rate of only 0.02% over 30 days compared with a rate of 1% over 30 days for Li-ion. Another key factor is related to longevity and toxicity, which also factors into lifecycle environmental impact. EEStor claim that their batteries contain no toxic materials, which has been a concern with most other battery technologies. As to lifespan, most traditional battery technologies, Li-ion included, have limited recharge cycles and tend to degrade as cycled. While EEStor has not made any claims yet in this area, capacitors in general do not exhibit this same characteristic, which should mean greatly extended lifetimes.

    Latest reports are that EEStor is meeting all of its technical milestones according to independent laboratory validation, and Ian is planning for a fall 2009 release of the highway rated Zenn electric cars. If all goes according to plan, Zenn will then be in a position to license their entire drivetrain technology to other automakers… not bad for a little Canadian start-up (full disclosure: I am a proud fellow Canadian).

    Of course, the short charging rate would require specialized equipment to handle the current load, but that could be a viable market transition for gas stations. Zenn expects a two hour charge time from a 220V household outlet.

    This could be a real game changer within the next five years with the potential to reduce our dependence on all oil, foreign and domestic, while also driving new jobs. It’s definitely one to keep an eye on. If only McCain or Obama could take credit….

    image credit: zenncars.com

  • What’s the alternative? Fossil fuel health hazard highlight

    by Guest contributors on October 11, 2008
    081010_blog_jo_1.jpg

    This post was submitted by guest contributor James O'Shea,  from the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center.

    Designers today find themselves juggling the pros and cons of traditional energy and the value of more sustainable sources. Automobile and home designers are forced to choose between perhaps more expensive, yet more sustainable structures, and cheaper but less efficient structures. We know now the value of alternative energies from a planetary perspective, but did you know that a reliance on fossil fuels is actually endangering our health?

    <!--break-->

    There are essentially two tiers to the hazards posed by our continued burning of fossil fuels. The first are the direct hazards posed by polluting behaviors. For instance, cities and areas that are known to have high smog indices have among the highest asthma rates in the world. On an atmospheric level, in Australia and South Africa the ozone is more depleted than anywhere else in the world. It is no coincidence, then, that these countries have the world’s highest rates of skin cancer due to intensified ultraviolet rays breaking through the ozone layer.

    Then there are the more indirect health costs of these practices. The processing of fossil fuels itself is among the most hazardous jobs for industrial workers. Asbestos and benzene pervade these industries, leading to asbestos cancer, mesothelioma and benzene-related malignancies. Workers in these industries are often unaware of the materials they are handling or breathing and fail to wear proper protective equipment.

    A recent U.K. study showed that oil refinery workers have among the highest rates of pleural cancer (mesothelioma)  of any occupation. The only known cause for mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. Asbestos was used in this industry in the lining of piping and boilers, as well as in other insulated fixtures. Even though asbestos was banned in the late 1970’s in the United States, older fixtures still contain high levels of hazardous asbestos fibers.

    Benzene is also a hazard in this industry, particularly in the processing of gasoline fuel. Benzene is a known carcinogen and is strictly monitored by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In addition to cancers connected with benzene, including breast and lung malignancies, benzene exposure has been associated with human gene mutation and reproductive complications.

    So there are consequences on a number of levels. There are well-known planetary health ramifications, but there are also varying levels of hazards to human health that have not been as thoroughly documented. There are a number of factors to consider when choosing between efficiency and more traditional energies and product designers, lawmakers, and homeowners need to consider that the effects go beyond what we may have initially believed.

    For more information on this topic, visit the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center, the web's leading resource for relevant and up to date information regarding asbestos and its associated health complications.

  • Sticks, stones and words will break our bones…

    by Ken Hall on October 11, 2008

    Make no mistake – we are at war! Not the so-called ’war on terror,’ but rather active psychological warfare about the very contents of our minds! We see this warfare in words like ’free market,’ and ’tax relief.’

    Why does this matter to sustainable minds? Because we will never achieve sustainability without the political will to do so. And yet it is increasingly difficult to have a conversation with family members or neighbors about contested ideas in our society – much less a meaningful conversation at a national level. The current political debate can barely consider clean energy in the context of national security, much less global climate change or sustainability.

    Enter George Lakoff and his most recent book, “The Political Mind.” Lakoff is a professional linguist who studies how we think and explains “Why You Can’t Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.” In “The Political Mind” Lakoff integrates recent findings from cognitive and neural sciences with linguistics, and reveals what progressive (sustainable) minds must do if we are to take back the battleground of ideas about whom we are and where we should be going.

    For example, Lakoff writes, “Whatever the topic is, bring in the progressive moral vision and what the role of government is. America is about empathy and responsibility: people caring both for themselves and for one another, and acting responsibly on that sense of care. Government has two roles: protection and empowerment for all its citizens. Nobody makes it on his own… And then frame whatever the issue is in these terms.”

    The challenge for sustainable minds is to learn from Lakoff and frame the issue of sustainability in terms of empathy and responsibility. An empathy not just for our fellow citizens, but for all of life on Earth – a responsibility not just for today, but a responsibility to future generations unborn.

    My worry is that we don’t have decades to plant words framing sustainability issues in our fellow citizens. Lakoff contends that conservative think tanks have been doing just that with conservative issues for the last several decades.

    Lakoff also alerts us to the attempts to ’brainwash‘ the public in media and advertising. In discussions with our families, neighbors and colleagues about contested ideas in our society, Lakoff helps us develop skills at reframing the conversation. According to Lakoff, words are powerful _ they ’activate vast stretches of the brain‘, and ‘brain structure provide words with even greater power.’

    Perhaps the greatest lesson from Lakoff is that we are not the rational logical creatures that the Enlightenment thinkers of the 18th century thought we were. In the 21st century, we understand the degree to which our minds are embodied, and our emotions drive our thinking. Sustainable minds are 21st century minds prepared for active psychological warfare.

    Sustainable minds understand that words CAN HURT US – they also have the power to heal us and the world that sustains us.

     

    Image credit: amazon.com

  • If I was King I’d make the world out of Lego®.

    by Lorne Craig on October 4, 2008
    081003_bog_lc_1.jpg

    OK, this is going to rile a lot of young, over-imaginative product designers out there, but when elected Supreme Monarch of the World, (or when my Loyal Armies seize power in a dramatic yet bloodless coup) I’m putting the entire LEGO® staff in charge of the newly created Ministry of World Product Redesign.

    No other product is as modular, flexible or backward-compatible as LEGO®. My kid can take the newest, flashiest, most market-hyped construction set and mash it up with bricks that have been stepped on in our family since 1973.

    <!--break-->

    Picture this kind of retro-modularity in the real world. Got a torn office chair? No need to chuck the whole thing in the alley and buy a new one. Just pop the seat off and replace it. Want to mount your flat screen on the wall? Forget those clumsy mounting brackets and pathetic drywall screws. Just pick a spot and push it on. Heck, if a Russ Meyer marathon starts, pluck it off and remount it on the bedroom ceiling for the night.

    But that’s really just the beginning. Once my Grateful Subjects discover the efficiency of easy product upgrades and repairs, a world of innovation awaits. Just as my son will take parts of Harry Potter™’s LEGO® castle and jam them together with components from a Rescue Hovercraft to make a Magical Flying Zamboni Submarine, so will the denizens of my New World Order wake up to the possibility of designing their own products for life.

    Want to work on your laptop while paddling your canoe? Click. Want a briefcase hair dryer? Click. Want the ultimate outdoor concert viewing experience? Lawn chair, step ladder, beer cooler. Click, click, click.

    To be sure, perspective, designers and manufacturers have already embraced modularity, when it suits the individual corporate bottom line. But proprietary design and planned obsolescence still feather way too many nests. Will it take a ruthless but benevolent dictator to enforce a LEGO®-like standard that also enhances consumer choice and sustainability?

    Image credit: Lorne Craig

  • The Designer’s Field Guide to Sustainability

    by Travis Lee on October 4, 2008
    081003_bog_tlee_1.jpg

    A few years ago we here at LUNAR noticed something. Plenty of people were talking about sustainability, but very few were actually taking tangible steps toward sustainable design. So we started asking around. Apparently, there were thousands of designers and engineers who wanted to create more sustainable products, but didn’t know where to start. Life cycle analysis not only seemed a daunting (and expensive) task, it required a tangible design before it could be used. Designers found themselves looking to engineers to choose materials that made their designs more eco-friendly and engineers looked to designers to conceptualize more inherently sustainable designs, but this chicken and egg game was leading nowhere. This stalemate gave us an idea: let’s give designers and engineers a sustainability guide for everyday use that not only gave them topics to discuss, but provided the beginnings of a roadmap to sustainable design. And thus was born The Designer’s Field Guide to Sustainability.

    A quick note about the guide: None of these tips is a turn-key solution. They are very complex issues that often warrant added thought and discussion. Together, they provide a good start, and can help form a checklist of considerations to take along the design path to ensure that no sustainable opportunity has fallen through the cracks. Reviewed often, they can help us to make sustainability a fundamental part of our design and engineering processes.

    Feel free to post thoughts, examples, criticisms or advice right here, or at www.lunarelements.blogspot.com, All input will be collected and considered when LUNAR publishes version 2.0.

    Enjoy.