Don’t Confuse “Green” with “Clean”

June 13, 2008 09:00 AM EDT by Brian Sullivan

Don't Confuse "Green" with "Clean"
A guest today on the 10am show discusses the difference between being "green" and actually being "clean."

Woody Clark PhD of Clark Strategic Partners (and one of the Nobel Prize winning group of Al Gore) makes the point that while many companies are seizing the national mood and marketing themselves as environmentally sensitive "green" companies, not much has really changed in the impact to the planet. In fact, Woody's view is that many of the so-called "green" initiatves are actually worse for the environment.

Case in point those energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs that retailers like Wal-Mart are heavily marketing. Those bulbs do use far less energy than a regular incandescent light bulb. That's the positive - less energy use, less need for power generation and pollution. Just don't drop them. They contain a small amount of mercury, a scourge to you and the environment. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while noting the risk to your family is small, lists the following guidelines should you drop one:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes. If you have fans, place the fans in the windows and blow the air out of the room. Note: If the room has no windows, open all doors to the room and windows outside the room and use fans to move the air out of the room and to the open windows.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
  - Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
  - Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
  - Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
  - Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it, and then place in a second sealed plastic bag.
  - If no other disposal or recycling options are available, private residents may dispose of the CFL in residential garbage. Be sure to seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash.
  - Wash your hands after disposing of the bags.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
Leave the room? Use two plastic bags? (isn't it ironic that the EPA recommends using a plastic bag at a time when many retailers, recognizing the huge pile up of these bags in landfills, are eliminating their use or charging more for them?)   There have even been reports of people forced to call professional clean up crews to dispose of one broken CFL bulb, costing them thousands of dollars.

Next up, the Toyota Prius.   This hybrid car is beloved by those looking to reduce carbon emissions and save gas.   The problem: while the driver of the Prius is saving gas with its energy-efficient 55mpg, the total cost to the environment is much greater.   The reason? The massive amount of energy it takes to mine and transport the 30lbs of nickel that are found in the Prius' batteries.

From this month's Wired magazine:

Pound for pound, making a Prius contributes more carbon to the atmosphere than making a Hummer, largely due to the environmental cost of the 30 pounds of nickel in the hybrid's battery. Of course, the hybrid quickly erases that carbon deficit on the road, thanks to its vastly superior fuel economy. Still, the comparison suggests a more sensible question. If a new Prius were placed head-to-head with a used car, would the Prius win? Don't bet on it. Making a Prius consumes 113 million BTUs, according to sustainability engineer Pablo Päster. A single gallon of gas contains about 113,000 Btus, so Toyota's green wonder guzzles the equivalent of 1,000 gallons before it clocks its first mile. A used car, on the other hand, starts with a significant advantage: The first owner has already paid off its carbon debt. Buy a decade-old Toyota Tercel, which gets a respectable 35 mpg, and the Prius will have to drive 100,000 miles to catch up.

One study actually found that because of this, its actually nearly as 'green' to buy a Hummer than a Prius!

While that may be the extreme, the point is clear: if you want to be more environmentally conscious, make sure that "green" product you are buying really does have an overall benefit to the planet.   Doing your part is key, but if you are simply transferring the impact to another the net result is neutral.

8 Comments

David

Who is this guy kidding about clean energy. Does he have any idea how much energy goes into manufacturing, distributing and installing solar and wind generation. Not to include the routine maintenance of wind generation that is almost always on dirt roads serviced buy gas burning vehicles. It takes many years just to cover their own carbon footprint before they start reducing the one they are replacing. The reason gas, coal and natural gas are so widely used is that they are the most efficient and enviromentally friendly forms of power we have, when used correctly. Nuclear would be the best for electrical but the uninformed and Hollywood have killed that one. David Redding California

June 13, 2008 at 11:43 am

David W

"One study actually found that because of this, its actually nearly as ‘green’ to buy a Hummer than a Prius!" Yes. One study that has been thoroughly debunked. One assumption that study makes is that a Hummer will drive 3x farther than a Prius in its life and will therefore cost much less per mile driven to manufacture. Toyota built the Prius to go a long way in its life. In fact due to regenerative braking and CVT it is mechanically a lot less complex than a Hummer so will likely last a lot longer and cost a lot less in maintenance. Another failing of that study is the use in it of 30 year old emissions data from Sudbury's Nickel mine. Toyota didn't buy the Nickel 30 years ago. The emissions from the mine have been severely curtailed by today's environmental legislation. The authors of the study (CNW) are known to have big three affiliation so their objectivity is questionable. I'd expect better from Fox. I guess I'd be wrong there.

June 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Ken

Isn't it funny that no one was concerned about mercury in fluorescent lamps until the CFLs came out? Mercury is in ALL fluorescent lamps. The amount in the bulb is tiny, and the massive energy savings are well worth the tiny risk. Just like anything made of glass... it's best not to drop it in the first place. When they eventually do burn out, take them to your household hazerdous waste site along with your used batteries.

June 13, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Kerry

I'm sure the energy saved over the life of a CFL pays for the cost of production AND recycling of 2 plastic bags. Also, using a CFL bulb greatly reduces exposure to mercury. Incandescent lightbulbs use 4-5 times more energy than CFL bulbs. Where does that energy come from? Probably a coal plant. Coal has mercury in it, and when coal is burned, that mercury ends up in our air, soil, and water. By using a CFL bulb over it's lifetime, you're reducing coal output by 80%. That little drop of coal in your CFL doesn't compare to what an incandescent bulb puts out in the environment. Also, does this guy take into account the cost of shipping and refining oil? It's analogous to the CFL example. The Prius has about 3 to 4x the fuel economy of a Hummer. That means running a Prius over it's lifetime requires 25-35% of the fuel that a Hummer uses. That also means you only need to ship and refine 25-35% of the fuel to run a Prius compared to a Hummer. I'm not making any claims for this case, but the drastic reduction in fuel usage and the energy to drill and refine that fuel should offset the Prius's net energy costs a bit. Why is it that Americans are so scared of upfront costs? Just because CFLs cost more upfront doesn't mean it won't save you in the long run. Same with the Prius. I bet it would be the case for the total energy use. Maybe a Prius does cost more energy to produce. But when you actually drive the damn thing, you'll still be saving a ton of energy. I'm not sure if I agree with David. The costs of building an alternative energy infrastructure probably follows the aforementioned pattern. Yes, solar cells require energy to be produced, but when you use them, they are pretty much free (no mining, drilling, refining, shipping, burning). Nuclear plants can also be surprisingly inefficient. We must remember that nearly all energy used in nature comes from the sun. Even wind is caused by uneven heating of earth's surface, which is caused by...the sun! I'm thinking we should listen to nature and her magnificent designs. Solar and wind energy are the obvious answers. Biofuels, if made efficiently and doesn't use food crops (hopefully use more algae in the future) are a possibility as well. Yes, I understand fossil fuels come from the sun as well. But I don't see any other living creatures using coal for energy.. Kerry Plano, Driving-huge-gas-guzzling-SUVs-on-perfectly-flat-paved-roads-Texas

June 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm

dlf

What a silly article. It makes some good points but a Prius sitting in traffic has zero emissions and a hummer spews massive amounts of pollution that contribute to pre-mature respiratory deaths (40,000 per year) and climate changing. Beware of green-hype, but embrace great new products and technology that help us to move from our sinfully wasteful lifestyles. I'll carefully use CFLs until LEDs become a best option (soon) and my next car will certainly be a hybrid. I'll never buy another "conventional" auto again.

June 13, 2008 at 4:47 pm

6FTRABBIT

When it comes to energy, just like the bumper sticker says: "There are no free rides. Put out or get out."

June 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm

AME

Some car reviews websites have shown that diesel is as green and clean as electric precisely because of the enviromental toll mining for nickel, and the manufacturing a single battery creates.

June 16, 2008 at 10:03 am

Greg

Green is already the most overused word in the English language. It means nothing anymore. As far as cars go, I don't buy them to be Green, I will buy them to save money on fuel. With propane tripling in cost within the last few years I will be burning wood again this winter. It is the cost "stupid". Yeah, there is an old saying "waste not, want not". It is a good way to be, but it does not mean I think green. It just means I am not wasteful. I'll burn coal in a "New York Minute" if it will save me money.

June 17, 2008 at 3:14 am

about this blog

Brian Sullivan joined FOX Business Network (FBN) in April 2008 as an anchor. He co-anchors the 10am-12pm ET hours of the FOX Business block. Prior to joining FBN, Sullivan served as an anchor for Bloomberg Television where he hosted the programs Morning Call and In Focus.
- Contributor Profile

Don't Confuse "Green" with "Clean"