Skip to Content

The Circle of Life Cycles

Ecological IntelligenceThe great John Muir once wrote that "when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." If there are truer words to describe the world's current environmental situation, I don't know them. Muir's is about as primal a thought as I've ever read. In it lies much of what we need to know, and putting this crucial message into practice sits at the center of a new book that may just be the most important work of 2009.

The book is called Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything and its author, Daniel Goleman, takes on the subject of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), which are the science and the soul of responsible consumerism.

LCAs tell the story of the environmental impacts of a product from the time its raw materials are created through its manufacture, sale, use, and ultimate disposal by the consumer. LCAs help us discern whether buying a particular product is a wise decision or a wrong choice where the environment is concerned.

Here at Seventh Generation, we wrestle with LCAs on a daily basis. An enormous amount of work goes on behind the scenes here to identify the various impacts each of our products creates in the world around us and then to figure out how to ameliorate each one to the greatest extent possible.

It's all-consuming, and in this work we aspire to something Goleman calls, "radical transparency," which he says (and I agree) is the key to genuinely meaningful green buying. Radical transparency simply means quantifying and communicating every single environmental impact created at every single step of a product's life so that when we consider it for purchase we can do so with a deep knowledge about what its use will really cost. That may sound easy enough, but it should come with a don't-try-this-at-home warning because real radical transparency is insanely difficult to achieve.

Making, using, and disposing of a single glass bottle, to cite just one instance in a world of hundreds of thousands of consumer products, involves 1,959 separate steps, each of which has dozens of impacts, including pollution created, energy consumed, and any health problems that are detected. Or take stainless steel drinking bottles for water. They're the ideal alternative to disposable plastic bottles, right? Maybe not. It depends on how much you'll use yours because when we add up and compare all the impacts of the two types of bottles, what we find is that you have to use the stainless steel bottle 500 times before it beats bottled water to become the cleaner, healthier choice.

Ecological Intelligence is, if you'll excuse the phrase, littered with entirely fascinating and extremely useful information. It's got a lot of vital things to tell us about the secret environmental consequences of the stuff of daily life and why many of the products we think are green are actually not. Its lessons go a long way toward teaching us how to be far more empowered and infinitely more effective green consumers. I guarantee you'll be surprised by what Goleman has to say in this must-read work. If you read it, please come back and tell us what you think.

Comments (5)

Posted by: dee s

stainless steel drinking bottles: a good quality that lasts

My granddaughter has been required to maintain a reusable drink bottle at her daycare center. I purchased stainless steel because it does not react with water, citrus juices, etc. The bottle has her name on the side and she will be attending daycare for at least 3 more years (50 weeks x 5 days x 3 years = 750 days). Aluminum reacts with citrus which can be toxic. 750 plastic bottles could cost $1500 ($2 per bottle). The stainless cost me $7.00. I also have a set of stainless steel mixing bowls and cooking pots that I have used for 45 years (made in USA). I prefer cooking pots without "coating" because they last longer and are easier to brighten with just a little stainless steel polish. If you take care of stainless steel, it is usable for a much longer period of time than other choices.

Posted by: Colin McCullough

stainless steel water bottles

Making stainless steel water bottles from recycled material rather than virgin materials would change the equation too. I'm interested to read 'Ecological Intelligence' to see how the book squares with the Cradle-To-Cradle concept via the book of William McDonough. The stainless steel water bottle companies that I am familiar with make their bottles in China and they are shipped here, with high ecological footprint. The main reason to use China is because the cost of materials is so much cheaper there, but if we used all-recycled steel from materials in this country we wouldn't need to send these manufacturing jobs overseas.
Colin McCullough
www.OurRenewableNation.org

Posted by: Leila Richardson

stainless steel bottles

I am interested in reading this book. I have a stainless water bottle - trying to be green and lessen my exposure to chemicals. 500 times sounds like a lot, and I guess it is - but, it may sound more difficult to achieve than it is. I bought my bottle just under a year ago and I am sure I'm getting close to that number. I use it in the car, the gym, and on all outings, including visits to friends and family. First, water drinkers are going to average more than one bottle per day, and when away from home there can also be bottle confusion. This is HUGE - the number of half full plastic bottles that I see get thrown away when I am at a family gathering, for example, is crazy, because there are so many people around and nobody remembers who's is who's, so they get abandoned and thrown out. With a stainless bottle, you generally know which is yours.

Posted by: the Inkslinger

@Joyce Shanks: Yes, you are correct, but...

This information comes from this article in the Huffington Post:

"Here's the lowdown on a very practical question: is it more ecologically correct to tote a stainless steel bottle you refill with water, or to use water in throwaway plastic bottles? As it turns out, it all depends.

"Off the bat, making stainless steel has a worse impact profile than knocking out plastic bottles. Food-grade stainless is an alloy of chromium, nickel, and pig iron. The chromium comes from mines in places like Kazakstan and India, where workers have a heightened risk of cancer from exposure to the raw ore. Melting the metals requires heating them to thousands of degrees. All these processes release hundreds of pollutants into air, water and soil -- including green house gases like methane and lung-clogging particulates. Then once you have your steel bottle, if you wash it in a dishwasher that uses a half-liter of electrically heated water, somewhere between 50 and a hundred washes result in the same amount of pollution caused by making the bottle in the first place.

"Putting aside the question of plastics ridden with BPA, the chemical suspected of being a carcinogen and endocrine disrupter, the overall ecological impacts of a stainless bottle, compared to plastic, are more worrisome pretty much across the board.

"So does it pay to use plastic bottles rather than stainless? Yes -- but.

"You've got to use the stainless bottle enough times to offset a great number of the plastic ones. At just five plastic bottles replaced by the stainless, the math starts to tip toward stainless; 25 uses brings you to the tipping point where most of the ecological negatives of the plastic bottles are outweighed by your using stainless steel. And at 500 replaced plastic bottles you pass the last marker -- freshwater eco-toxicity -- so you're benefiting the planet every time you sip from your stainless."

So we can see, based on this evidence, that while using the bottle 25 times almost gets you to the point where stainless steel is 100% better than glass, you have to ultimately use it 500 times before the freshwater degradation caused by the stainless steel is less than that caused by the plastic bottles you would otherwise have used, and stainless finally and completely becomes the material of choice. Keep in mind (and this is where it gets complicated) that Goleman's starting point in this discussion is the idea of radical transparency -- the quantification of absolutely every impact created by absolutely every factor that occurs during absolutely every stage of a product's entire life cycle from raw materials extraction to end-of-life disposal. So he's digging really deep here. But that's the point of his book and the perspective of my post. When we get down to the marrow like this, we find unexpected outcomes, and if you really want to be green, that's really the place you've got to go.

It's true that a product made of quality materials and designed for "lifetime" use will last a lot longer than a flimsy product made from cheap materials and designed for a single use. And our instinct tells us that it's better to use a single item over and over again than it is to buy and use a new one every time we need it. But Goleman's point is that this is a relatively simplistic calculation that doesn't necessarily serve our cause, at least not in the comprehensive way we think it does. We're neglecting to consider everything it took to make that lifetime product and all the impacts we'll create by caring for it (in the case of stainless steel bottles things like water and detergent use, energy consumption, recycling impacts, etc.) When we measure all these these things the picture usually becomes decidedly murkier. So Joyce Shanks is completely correct: using the stainless steel water bottle will reduce "overall consumption in the long run." Goleman's point is simply that when radical transparency is applied, "the long run" actually ends up being a lot longer than we thought.

Posted by: Joyce Shanks

Stainless Steel vs Plastic Bottles

I really enjoyed this commentary, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the following? "They're the ideal alternative to disposable plastic bottles, right? Maybe not. It depends on how much you'll use yours because when we add up and compare all the impacts of the two types of bottles, what we find is that you have to use the stainless steel bottle 500 times before it beats bottled water to become the cleaner, healthier choice."

I am very curious as to why the bottle must be reused 500 times to be a better alternative, AND just by using my "Ecological Intelligence", when I buy something of GREAT quality made of sustainable materials and produced soundly I expect it to last close to forever, hence reducing my overall consumption in the long run. In the event my stainless steel bottle gets rendered useless because oops I ran it over with my car and I only used it 200 times, it is still recyclable, AND it would have prevented me from using 200 single use plastic bottles made from petroleum based products and then recycling, (or worse throwing out) 200 individual plastic bottles. I would love to hear your comments on this. My company is designed and built to reduce consumerism, even though we have products to sell. We are educating,supporting, and promoting health for both the population and our planet.
Joyce Shanks
www.eCause.ca

Leave a Comment

You must be a member and signed in to post a comment.

Not a member?

Join Us Now

Already a member?

Connect via FaceBook