Needing certification:
Now let's look at the problem of pollution caused by paper mills. Nearly every paper mill listed on the stock exchange is on the EPA's list of water polluters. And the environment is threatened when the ink-removal or pulp-making processes for recycled paper are handled improperly.
Focusing on these phenomena, Jay Fang asserts that environmental organizations must diagnose the longevity of a product and not overlook pollution to the land when certifying a product as green, instead of only concerning themselves with profit for the manufacturer.
There has also been great debate abroad about the testing of green products. As reported in the American Magazine Advertising Age, Mobil Chemical in 1989 introduced a biodegradable plastic bag, which was greeted enthusiastically by consumers. But half a year later, the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund called a boycott of products promoted as "biodegradable." Because of the process of compression and blackening, wherein as much air as possible is removed from garbage, it is difficult even for hot dogs or paper to decompose, let alone plastic. As a result, seven states including California sued Mobil for misleading advertising, and a green sales campaign turned into a sales nightmare.
The support consumers give to green-labeled products has helped some products' sales. Yet whether or not green products really are of benefit to the environment requires scientific certification. Hence, reliable institutions are needed to handle long-term assessment of these products for consumers.
In 1990 the Green Cross Certification Co. of the United States was the first to begin to authorize the use of its green cross by qualified manufacturers on bleach containers, shopping bags, diapers, napkins and toilet paper, tissues and plastic bags made out of recycled materials. The head of Green Cross points out that they are just judging and certifying a company's environmental claims and not whether a product is really "green."
A focus on daily necessities:
At the same time, Earth Day has also developed its own green seal, but before carrying out inspections on tissues, toilet paper, light bulbs, paint and detergent--five products needed in everyone's daily lives--it is first asking the opinions of advertising companies, consumers and environmentalists about the standards.
Environmental organizations all hope that issuing these marks will help consumers judge if products are really environmentally friendly, but because different standards are applied, consumers don't know who to believe. According to the report in Advertising Age, although Green Cross and Earth Day often consult and exchange information, the heads of the two organizations are unwilling to talk about their own assessment methods.
Without a unified standard, American companies have been lethargic in doing much about their products. Procter & Gamble says that reducing consumer consciousness of the environment to looking out for green marks on labels will perhaps even make things worse.
The U.S. Congress has also instructed the U.S. EPA to make clear definitions of such green sales terms as "degradable," "biodegradable," "recyclable," and "environmentally friendly." Major U.S. manufacturers and unions have already asked the Federal Trade Commission to make a unified set of standards for green products.
Both winners or both losers?
Now that the winds of green consumerism have finally blown our way, we are taking our first steps relatively late. The EPA has commissioned the Industrial Technology Research Institute to handle certification of green products, but environmental action groups are worried that the Industrial Technology Research Institute will give priority to benefiting the manufacturers. Hence, these groups are also preparing to make environmentally conscious recommendations to consumers.
"Being pro-environment doesn't mean being anti-business," say environmentalists. The bickering between business and environmentalists will abate in the '90s, and more cooperative and resolution-oriented attitudes will be adopted so that we can use our fragile planet forever.
The problem of green consumerism, which involves the economy and the environment, isn't a question of right or wrong but rather a question of choice. Before a purchase, you can't be certain you've made the right choice from the color of a product's wrapping. What you can be certain of is that everyone hopes that consumer behavior won't be both a monetary and environmental loss.
[Picture Caption]
p.87
Are the spots of a leopard or another wild animal printed on clothes or accessories the mark of a green consumer?
p.88
Only by respecting the three R's--reducing consumption, recycling and reuse--will we create less garbage. (photo by Vincent Chang)
p.89
To be sanitary, products need wrappings, but excessive, duplicative packaging not only creates garbage--its wasted expense is passed onto the consumer. (photo by Pu Hua-chih)
p.90
Only a small number of people are willing to sacrifice their pleasures and do the utmost to reduce pollution--riding bicycles to work if the distance isn't great.
p.91
Consumers one and all, shouldn't we be willing to sacrifice a bit of convenience and actively seek to replenish resources after consumption?
p.91
Taiwan's rate of recycling paper is the world's highest. Recycled paper products are made from pulp that contains at least some proportion of used paper.
p.92
Helping the environment is as easy as lifting a finger--or a hand, anyway. Preserving an expanse of green land isn't an impossibility. (photo by Vincent Chang)
