Are some ‘eco-friendly’ claims misleading?

There is “green” in making and buying things and there is “green” in how things work. These two are not always complimentary though one will trade off the other’s weakness. For major items, that will last the consumer some time, it is the efficiency of the product that matters, how much energy it consumes and its longevity and reliability. Thus, the electric car may contain elements of non-green manufacture and materials but will make up for it in environmental cleanliness and cheap running costs. The customer chooses on budget, suitability and expert review, not usually on what’s inside something or how it got there.
With regard to green household products, there is no point in being green if it doesn’t work. We buy cleaners and detergents to do the job efficiently. It is a difficult compromise to make if clothes remained stained and counter tops have to be scrubbed without results the first time over.
Clothing is also difficult to buy entirely for its “green” credentials. There is no help from the label to tell if it has been made in a sweat-shop and most clothing is labelled Pakistan, Korea, Taiwan, even in M&S. I am prepared to pay a little more for things that I believe were made well and with care, but who can really tell?
Life is hard just now, especially as we are going to have to get used to going backwards and doing less of the things we used to do and liked doing. Currently, I choose things I know will be useful and work well. My “green” investigations are limited to what the manufacturer tells me and what public opinion says is to be avoided for the public good. Change will be made when attitudes change, and that is done through education and acceptance of new ideas and norms. Sadly, most of this is on the “do without” and “restrict consumption” side of the balance and very little on the “go on then, treat yourself” side. We can no longer go along and do what’s best for us, it has to be best for others as well. Such is life.

On occasion it is necessary to go backwards in order to go forwards to evaluate a difficult situation and reassess where we are heading and make the necessary changes that will lead to a more sustainable and eco friendly existence.

The war on plastics is my number one priority. Plastic is now one of the planets largest pollutants and it is estimated there are close to 5 trillion
micro plastic particles floating about in earths oceans which are being consumed by all marine life species and eventually eaten by us. How long before these particles will be transported into the eco atmospheric system and rain down on us, polluting the mountain streams and rivers and the water we drink?

Combustible plastic was responsible for the many deaths at Grenfell, caused by inflammable plastic cladding on the exterior of the building, most probably started by a plastic backed fridge that caught fire and which spread too fast to contain the spread of the flames. Cheap plastic goods continue to flood global markets and purchased by consumers without any thought or consideration as to where they will end up when they have served their short term purpose.

If more durable safer and repairable goods are to be produced with guarantees that will stand the test of time, perhaps our educational system could focus more on, and include teaching children the practical rudiments of the necessary skills required to carry out simple repairs to household appliances, as it is they who are the potential future victims of the global plastic pollution crisis created by us.

Longer life repairable products are one way of being green even if they may not be lowest in energy efficiency. The resources saved may well offset that, and more. And, when we have the nirvana of totally renewable energy I could argue energy use become less of a green issue.

However we do not need green products only to help the planet. We can use the existing products we use more efficiently. Full load of washing. Dry clothes naturally and only use a tumble dryer when necessary. Use a fossil fuel (and less friendly) vehicle less by using other transport when appropriate – walk, bike, public transport, less leisure driving; halve your mileage and halve your emissions without scrapping a car and buying a new one that has used a substantial amount of resources to build. Cease holiday flights. Stop using air conditioning.

A major green advance though would be as Beryl says – substantially reduce the use of plastics. One of the places to start would be on packaging: immediately thrown away.

Vynor said in his last paragraph ” We can no longer go along and do what’s best for us, it has to be best for others as well. Such is life.”. Too often I suspect this becomes just “this is what is best for others, but I’ll carry on as usual”. We have to just relentlessly provide relevant information and educate people in a way that makes them see the sense in taking certain actions if they can and if the opportunities arise. Largely, I suspect, the incentive will be in real financial savings rather than altruism. This might be through actual savings or avoiding being subject to “penalties” like taxes. Persuading me to discard my effective tumble dryer and spend perhaps £600 on a heat pump one to save perhaps £30 a year doesn’t cut it for me. Maybe ban other forms of dryer to force my choice when it needs to be made, but check first whether the extra energy and resources used to make the more complex dryer are repaid by the energy savings.

Do I trust anyone to provide the truth about “green” and to take account of the whole lifecycle? Government or business? No. I see we are still ploughing ahead with the fabled carbon capture approach, small nuclear power stations, but ignoring tidal flow and storage as energy sources. Why?

Bit of a ramble; sorry.

@cparanha – Hi Cecilia – Apologies for being off-topic but I strongly believe that the CMA should look at the anticompetitive action of major printer manufacturers using firmware updates to prevent consumers using third party ink cartridges. Here is a recent post in another Conversation:

“I just updated my Epson WF-4725 firmware and now it tells me I am not using Epson ink and my only on-screen option now is to “Change Ink” and must use Epson inks which currently are on sale in a certain large PC store for £74.90 – the printer only cost £65 so it’s going into the bin and I’ll find a company that allows third party software. I can’t copy or scan either let alone try to print via Word, Excel etc. BE WARNED, DON’T DO THE NOVEMBER 20 FIRMWARE UPDATE as once you do, the compatible cartridges will be no good unfortunately. So long Epson after 20 odd years of buying your printers.” https://conversation.which.co.uk/technology/printer-software-update-third-party-printer-ink/#comment-1612172

There are 15 pages of discussion in this Conversation including plenty of examples of how manufacturers are forcing users to scrap their printers, which is obviously damaging to the environment, or use OEM ink.

When I first read the Intro to this Conversation I did wonder whether “eco-friendly” claims were the most important things for the CMA to be looking at among all the other priority consumer concerns including anti-competitive practices, collusive price fixing, monopolistic behaviour, denial of consumer rights, and so on.

The CMA has intervened on a number of serious issues, such as refunds for cancelled flights and insurance comparison websites, but the general reaction has been “too little, too late”.

I feel it would be better to leave the exploration of product labelling to Which? for which it is better suited and has an active community providing evidence and ideas, thus allowing the CMA to deal with things where greater authority and a statutory remit are required.