Category Archives: green blogging, sustainability and economy
The Landfill Issue: part one
A friend, Alfred Neiderman, and I have been looking into the amount of furniture that is thrown away into landfills each year. It was something I started researching a little over a year ago when I was gathering facts for an informational DVD on what is “sustainable furniture”. As I get more information I will post it here.
I live in a pretty green minded community yet I learned from a friend of mine, who ran the local 1-800-Got Junk franchise that 8 to 13 sofas went into our landfill each day it was open. That number really blew my mind. Wow! Then I started to mathematically expand the information to figure out what that meant in all of the U.S. The estimated number of sofas that get dumped into landfills in the U.S. each year is 3,927,271. Now if that is not horrible enough let me reiterate: This is only the number of sofas tossed. It does not count chairs, desks or cabinets.
I have mentioned before, in other blog entries, that there are a lot of chemicals that are showing up in our ground water. This number contributes to that problem. There are other facets to this. Why are so many sofas going to the dump? 1) There are many that are so poorly made that they can not be fixed. They are junk. 2) There are accidents, such as cats peeing on the furniture or floods/hurricanes, that make the piece unusable. 3) There are people that get tired of their stuff and simply toss it. Many reasons and I have only listed the highlights. I think number one and three are the most frequent. Basically this is not only wasteful but not really healthy for us or our environment.
There is more to this. We are continuing our research to nail down the statistics. The strange thing is that, as far as I know, we are basically the only people really looking at this in terms of the United States. England is looking into it and there are some isolated municipalities that are concerned with their own dumped furniture numbers. We need to ask ourselves: 1) How much money are we wasting by buying throw away goods? 2) How is it impacting our local and world environment? 3) How is it impacting our country’s economy by buying throw away goods and where are those items made?
If you have answers to any of these questions or comments, please jump into the conversation.
Where did your furniture come from?
When I set up this blog I promised you a discussion concerning the thread between sustainability and economics. Here we go.
A friend sent me an article by Tom Watson writing for Around the House Public Arts:
(http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/aroundthehouse/arts.artsmain?action=sectionIndex&sid=14)
He is in the right direction with his article but there are points where his facts are not accurate. He states that demands of imported furniture have soared by 78% from 2000-2006. It isn’t that the demand has increased but that the amount of furniture made off shore has increased. So when people buy furniture, it is 78% more likely that they are buying imported furniture. Mr. Watson’s dates are significant. Do you remember the WTO riots in Seattle in the fall of 1999? WTO went into effect and furniture as well as other goods started being made in foreign countries. It kept the cost down for consumers. Soon domestic companies couldn’t compete with products being made off shore and they moved their manufacturing also. Now we import most of the goods we buy. It is a trade imbalance.
Mr. Watson moves on to talk about being careful to buy furniture that is made of FSC lumber (Forest Stewardship Council certified). This is a good practice. You need to ask because the stamp, most likely, will not be present. Most manufactures, who build “green”, will tell you that the “chain of custody” paperwork is the proof. When they buy the lumber it may be stamped with the FSC tree/check logo but by the time the lumber is cut, shaped and sanded for finishing the logo is gone. We make custom furniture and our “chain of custody” lumber comes for Eden Saw in Port Townsend, WA who are FSC certified.
He brings up Ikea not wanting any stamp but theirs on the product. Please read this article from the Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101287.html) In 2007 Ikea was only 4% compliant and was being made in China with mostly illegal timber. Two years have passed and they’re working to improve their percentage but have stated that it would raise their costs to put enough personnel, on the ground, tracking the “chain of custody” on all of the timber.
Mr. Watson’s final point is that custom furniture and FSC wood can be more expensive. That is true. Not because it is “green” but because of labor costs. Most FSC certified furniture is made domestically. Labor costs include health care and at least minimum wage. We can’t compete with a less-than-a-dollar-a-day wage. That is why so many companies moved their operations to other countries.
Additional articles pertaining to knowing where materials come from: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/special-report-china-in-africa.html
Shades of Grey
Sustainability and the economy bump against each other at so many different levels. One of the stories that really reached me was a family that lived on the edge of the rainforest in Brazil. They were very poor and to make a living the man was contracted to provide charcoal for the steel foundries in the western world. His job was to cut down trees and bake them in large dome shaped ovens to reduce them to charcoal for which he was paid. That is how he and his family survived. To him there was not an ethical question or a concern about global warming. It was simply what he could do and get paid. One day the government sent their Environmental Police into the area to stop illegal logging. They took the chain saw and destroyed the kilns.
Were the Environmental Police correct in what they did. Yes, in one way. We need to protect the rainforest and our global climate and to do that destructive acts need to stop. But they also destroyed a family’s way to survive.
This is just one story. It could have been about the children “employed” in the sweat shops that make your household goods or your clothing. Do they need the jobs to survive. You bet they do! Are they being exploited so we can have something at a sale price? Yes.
The reason I am telling you this is to emphasize that things are not always black and white but are, in reality, many shades of grey. If that subsistence “farmer” was doing that out of greed and he really had enough money to live and put his children through college, that would be one thing. A lot of “crimes” against the environment happen by poverty being exploited.
What can we do? Be aware that there may be other parts to a story. If you wish, give to organizations like ”Heifer International” which give people the means to make a living to pull themselves out of poverty. Also please, and this will be a recurring theme, think about what you buy. Where did it come from? Who made it? I urge you to ask questions and to think. Buy whatever you decide but purchase it with awareness.
Introduction
Most people weigh all of their decisions against their wallet. This economy hasn’t done anything to change that and in fact it has strengthened the practice. So when I talk to customers about buying eco-friendly products, I had better have some monetary reasons in my discussion points. The argument; “It is the right thing to do” or “We need to save the rain forests and polar bears” may be a valid rationalization but it often will not wash when people are concerned about their “bottom line”.
The two strongest reasons to buy “green” that I talk about in my store are the health of the home environment and the sustainability aspect of “green” which saves the purchaser money over the long term.
There are consumers that are either chemically sensitive or are concerned about the amount of chemicals that are in our environment and being absorbed by our bodies. They have heard enough on the news to be fearful. It is my job to do research on the products I carry. It is my commitment to my customers and my responsibility.
The sustainability issue is a monetarily practical issue but it also touches a larger pollution concern. If you buy the bargain sofa for $500 it will be easy on your budget now. The down side is that it won’t last more that five years and will need to be replaced. So figure that in the minimum 20 years it takes to raise a family you will replace that sofa four times. With normal inflation those sofas will probably not all be $500 so the total replacement costs of having a sofa is likely to at least be $2700. The pollution factors in with what you do with those four sofas when you replace them. Can they be recycled to a charity or a person in need or are they thrown away into a landfill and are deteriorating into the ground water?
The thread of these blog pieces is to explore how intertwined our desires to go “eco” and our monetary concerns balance with each other at all different levels. Join the discussion.