Tag: EarthTalk

Eco-Labels vs. Greenwashing, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

There are so many eco-labels out there these days. How can I tell which ones are valid and not just “greenwashing”? 
– Penny Rasmussen, Calumet, MN                            

With countless products now available labeled as “eco-friendly,” “safe for the environment” or “organic,” it’s hard to know which ones are actually good for the planet. Many are legitimate, but lots of others feature deceptive or unsubstantiated claims. And even the legitimate labels vary a lot in meaning. Truly valid ecolabels are awarded by independent third parties, not the companies who sell products on which they’re featured. These days many companies are placing misleading claims and nonsense labels on their products to create the illusion of environmental friendliness, a practice known as “greenwashing.”

Third parties, on the other hand, require that products meet certain specific criteria before granting the right to display their eco-label. When we know they are trustworthy, eco-labels can serve as a potent means for altering consumer behavior in a way that benefits the environment.

There are some common eco-labels that we can vouch for given decades of trustworthy certifications. The U.S. government’s ENERGY STAR label identifies products, devices, and appliances that meet stringent energy efficiency standards. If you buy an ENERGY STAR certified dishwasher, you know you’re saving energy (and money) versus other models that don’t qualify.

Another trustworthy eco-label seen often on coffee, fruits, tea, paper or furniture is “Rainforest Alliance Certified,” a designation for foods and building materials sustainably sourced from tropical rainforests. The non-profit Rainforest Alliance runs this program in part by vetting producers throughout the tropics.

These Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee plants are grown under natural shade created by native tree species on this Guatemalan coffee farm. Credit: Charlie Watson, FlickrCC.
These Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee plants are grown under natural shade created by native tree species on this Guatemalan coffee farm. Credit: Charlie Watson, FlickrCC.

If you like to know the products you buy are sourced sustainably by workers who were not exploited and were paid a living wage, look for the “Fair Trade Certified” label. Almost a million workers across 45 different countries currently benefit from the sourcing or production of Fair Trade items.

Meanwhile, the “Certified Organic” label signifies that food contains at least 95 percent organic ingredients. Plant-based foods bearing this label have not been treated with petroleum-based fertilizers or conventional pesticides, and have not been genetically modified. You can rest assured that any “Certified Organic” animal products you consume have not been treated with antibiotics or growth hormones and were fed organic feed and allowed access to the outdoors. And any products labeled “Made with Organic Ingredients” contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

Some other trustworthy labels include LEED, GreenSeal, FSC-Certified, Salmon-Safe, WaterSense and Non-GMO Project Verified. If the label in question isn’t mentioned above, it might be worth investigating. Sharing what you know about eco-labels, whether by word-of-mouth or via social networks, is a fantastic way of helping the environment. As awareness grows, those you have enlightened will be able to exert an ever-greater positive force upon the market.

CONTACTS: ENERGY STAR; Rainforest Alliance; Fair Trade Certified; USDA Certified Organic; LEED; Green Seal; Forest Stewardship Council; Salmon-Safe; WaterSense; Non-GMO Project Verified.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

Perovskite-Based Solar, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

What is perovskite-based solar all about, and how does it differ from silicon-based solar?                                             
–Mary W., Baltimore, MD

No doubt, solar power has been growing rapidly, with a 28-fold increase since 2009. This expansion has been driven mainly by a massive reduction in the cost per kilowatt of solar-generated electricity. In many regions, it’s more economical to set up solar arrays than it is to create new coal or natural gas plant. But how much further can we really take solar given that we’re already maxing out the efficiency of our panels and many regions of the world are still too dark to take advantage of them accordingly?

Perovskites: Researchers at the University of Oxford in the UK are experimenting with perovskites as the semiconductor in these small tin solar cells that could someday be on your rooftop supplying your home with free electricity. Credit: University of Oxford Press Office FlickrCC.
Researchers at the University of Oxford in the UK are experimenting with perovskites as the semiconductor in these small tin solar cells that could someday be on your rooftop supplying your home with free electricity. Credit: University of Oxford Press Office FlickrCC.

One answer might be perovskites. This calcium titanium oxide crystal found in the Earth’s mantle can be used instead of silicon as a semiconductor driving the capture and transmission of energy from solar rays to electricity. There are many different types of perovskites, but they all share the same general molecular structure. Recently, materials scientists have been working on ways to harness their unique electrical and photovoltaic properties to boost the efficiency of solar collection. They see this as an imperative, given that our current crop of silicon-based panels top out at only 20 percent efficiency in ideal conditions, and that’s after decades of research and development to optimize them.

In 2009 when research in perovskite-based solar was just beginning, panels made with the crystal showed efficiencies of around four percent. By 2018, researchers boosted this number to 24 percent. No other type of solar technology has seen an efficiency jump of this magnitude in such a short amount of time.

Several other properties add to the appeal of perovskite-based solar cells. They are relatively easy and cheap to produce and are suitable for use in applications that silicon-based panels aren’t. Perhaps most important, they can generate electricity using wavelengths of light that most of our current commercially available panels can’t harness. Researchers envision a future where perovskite panels are actually fused into a layer on top of traditional silicon panels. In this tandem application, perovskite panels would capture part of the incoming light while the rest shines through for the silicon panels below.

Despite the promise of perovskites, there are still many hurdles to overcome before they can become a viable large-scale option. One is lifespan: Silicon-based panels last between 25 and 30 years, while perovskite versions created in the lab only last a year at most. Another issue is scalability. The high efficiencies in perovskite cells that scientists have observed have only been achieved on very small (“postage stamp” sized) panels. On larger perovskite panels, the efficiencies have been much lower. The final big obstacle for perovskite researchers to overcome is toxicity. At the moment, high-efficiency perovskite cells can only be made using relatively toxic compounds, such as lead. While less toxic versions exist, they are also less efficient.

Daunting though these challenges may be, many bright minds are working to solve them. While solar power’s future is by no means certain, it is looking increasingly like this powerful little crystal will play a major role in bringing sun-derived energy into the mainstream market.

CONTACTS: Worldwide Renewable Energy Forecast 2019; Rise in Perovskite Research 2011-2015.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

Greenpeace Compares Grocery Chains On Plastics, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

How are American supermarket chains doing in regard to cutting back on single-use plastics?
–B. Weston, Jacksonville, FL

Not very well, if you ask Greenpeace. The activist group compares 20 U.S. grocery chains by their commitments and actions to reduce single-use plastics in its recently released “Shopping for Plastic 2019” report. Each and every chain—even those you would think are leading the charge on reducing plastic—gets a failing score.

Illinois-based ALDI, with 1,900 stores in 36 states, ranks highest on Greenpeace’s list, thanks to its efforts to set a specific plastic reduction target and establish a more comprehensive plastic reduction plan than any of its competitors. That said, ALDI sells mostly its own in-house versions of products so the company has more control over its entire supply chain than conventional grocery retailers that draw from thousands of different producers. But beyond the product line and its packaging, ALDI has also been more transparent on its plastic practices and Greenpeace gives bonus points for the company’s commitment to implement reuse and refill systems across the entire chain.

Does that corn really have to be wrapped in so much plastic? Credit: Anna Gregory, FlickrCC.
Does that corn really have to be wrapped in so much plastic? Credit: Anna Gregory, FlickrCC.

That’s about as nice as Greenpeace gets in the report. While second-place finisher Kroger Co. gets kudos for being the only U.S. retailer of its size to phase out single-use plastic checkout bags (by 2025) and for setting plastics recycling goals for its own branded products, Greenpeace chastises the grocery behemoth with more than 2,400 stores in 31 states for not already taking much bolder steps to scale way back on single-use plastic: “These goals might have been totally rad in the 1990s, but given its size and the scale of the plastic pollution crisis in 2019, Kroger must do far more to reduce its plastic footprint.”

Greenpeace didn’t have much nice to say about third-place finisher Albertsons, either, and is incensed that the company participates in Hefty’s EnergyBag Program whereby non-recyclable plastics are incinerated or turned back into fossil fuels. “Plastic incineration in any form threatens human health and the climate,” says Greenpeace. “Albertsons must immediately stop participating in this program.”

Whole Foods’ 11th place finish on the list begs the question of how the chain known for its green and healthy food selection could be so bad on plastics. Greenpeace says the chain has largely focused on recycling initiatives and using more lightweight plastics but needs to “up its game to reduce and ultimately end its reliance on single-use plastics.” Whole Foods’ past groundbreaking efforts in plastics reduction—it was the first large nationwide U.S. retailer to ban single-use checkout bags as well as plastic straws and then microbeads—aren’t lost on Greenpeace. But given the scale of the plastic pollution crisis, Greenpeace says Whole Foods “needs to do much more.”

While Greenpeace is working hard to pressure these corporations to go above and beyond minimal efforts to reduce single-use plastics, it’s up to individual consumers to really drive the point home by bringing their own reusable shopping bags to the grocery store, staying away from products swaddled in unnecessary amounts of throwaway plastic, and complaining to store managers about all the plastic wrap everywhere.

CONTACTS: Greenpeace’s “Shopping For Plastic 2019”; “Say NO To Dow’s Dirty EnergyBag.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.