People Centered Environmentalism

Working on two recent Op Ed pieces (below) reminded me that there isn’t a mountain-top guru of environmentalism.  And that’s a reassuring reminder because the work is too big, and far too important to be held by one person/group.

The exchange and critique of wording that went into the pieces is the same dialog that’s going on among and across the breadth of the issues.

I’ve come to appreciate this exchange and interplay of ideas as never before, and find it sharpening my thinking as I strive to ensure our approach is relevant to the work and up to the challenges of our time as it rolls into future generations.

In her June writing in the New York Times on the topic of “Products That Are Earth-and-Profit Friendly, Sindya Bhanoo ends with this question, “I have to ask, is this really just an example of green tokenism, or does it reflect deep thinking on a company’s part?”

What a great yardstick against which we should measure our work to help ensure we walk the talk.

Published in The Hill, 7/16/10:  Green buildings need safer chemicals policy reform

Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/27/10:  Disclosing toxic chemicals

In the broad scope and importance of Sustainability, one’s environmentalism can get lost in a myriad of terms, views and meanings.

Two of the filters I use in seeking clarity and understanding are that of context and relevance.  Why is it important and what is its affect on the whole?

“Environmental speak” can quickly obscure meanings and redirect into irrelevance.  Context and Relevance can be proof-tests by which we judge what we, and others, are doing and in the process learn what we may be missing.

The three links below are a few of the reference points by which we (C/S) judge our work to rid our products of PBTs and Chemicals of Concern.

Low Emitting Materials Technical Brief (GGHC)

Understanding Indoor Air Quality and Toxicity (Jan D. Stensland)

Business NGO Working Group

I was recently invited by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families to participate in a press event being hosted by the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDAA) to give a brief overview of our position on TSCA Reform.

It’s almost summer and the centerpiece of the event was a 25 ft. tall inflatable yellow duck.  Who could resist?

Although the day’s event didn’t unfold in the exact order originally anticipated, the press and Representative Murphy’s Field Director, Nate Nevala, were there to hear about our purpose, challenges and hoped-for reform.

And, if the day’s work had ended there and then it would have been a good day.

But, it didn’t end at that point; there was the matter of the 25 ft. tall yellow duck - it was time to put him back in the box.  Here’s a recap …

It was a hot, sunny day with a prevailing wind, not “breeze” - wind - giving ducky a ride while testing its tethers.

Deflation requires finding and opening the rear inflation portal, reversing the fan and drawing the air out said portal.  So, I placed the fan inside ducky and ducky, beginning to deflate, lulls you into thinking it’s going willingly.  Until the fan sucks the duck against its intake grill and the process comes to a halt.  Removing duck from intake grill requires that I enter the duck through the rear portal (not something on my Bucket List).  At this point, I’m very happy the news crews are gone.

The rear portal isn’t big enough so only 2/3 of me (folded at the waist) can fit in.  I then stand inside ducky, astride the fan and each foot holds ducky from getting sucked into the intake.  Again, hot … sunny … prevailing wind.  I’m in suit pants and long-sleeve white shirt. 

Soon, suit pants are inextricably sucked against the intakes.

Leaving my “hold the duck up so it doesn’t smother me” position, I reach for the cuff of my pants.  The wind blows ducky over me so now I’m IN and were it not for the tethers, I’d still be wandering around the streets of Hoboken.  (This event took place in Pittsburgh, by the way.)

Finally, Christine (a co-worker) and Maureen (with LDAA) wrestle the yellow beast to the ground and free me from my predicament.  But before they finish, they pause because Maureen, on knees in wet gress struggling with ducky, notices Christine’s shoes and gives an admiring comment, to which Christine dutifully joins the discussion about how much each likes shoes.

I was pleased to hear an admiring comment about Christine’s shoes and thought it a timely and friendly remark bespeaking of Maureen’s obviously outgoing nature, but really thought the last sounds I’d hear were angel voices as the duck smothered me and not the redeeming qualities of shoes in the life of a woman.

They soon came back on task and beat ducky away just as its rear portal was about to do unspeakable things to me.

Ducky is now 96% deflated, I’m free from the “portal” and working to vacate the remaining air. 

Then they abandoned me!

Maureen went “to get the car” and I still don’t know where Christine went, only that she did finally return.

Ducky is now dead but the wind is trying to resuscitate it and I’m on my knees on the duck trying to gather it up like a paratrooper on D-day.

I move back and put my knees on the ground, the wet ground, there having been days of rain preceding this sunny, windy day.  When I stood up my suit pants had “little boy knees” - big, round, wet spots.

As I’m now standing there, shirt askew and all little boy knees, Officer Smiley rides by on his bicycle.  I asked if he had any experience subduing 25 ft. tall yellow ducks and Officer Smiley smiles more broadly as he surveys the insanity of the picture before him.  I then ask him to shoot ducky and he, smilingly, says it doesn’t match the description of any known criminals and rides on having offered neither moral nor physical support.

Christine returns and we’re both wondering if Maureen is now home by the pool.

With ducky now in full submission, Maureen and her ducky transporter vehicle arrive with boxes that were once used by someone in the Carter administration.  (I’m wondering if the National Archives know she took their boxes.)

Three adults begin stuffing the duck, once a ritual reserved for Pilgrims in November, into a bag.  Once we finished solving the riddle of how much duck would you stuff if you stuffed a duck, we closed and boxed the bag, hefting everything into Maureen’s car and going to lunch.

May the next adventure of the 25 ft. tall yellow duck happen on a cool, calm day and may all the preparations, as well as de-preparations, go as smoothly as ours did in Pittsburgh.

In recent months, federal legislation has been proposed to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).  On March 9th a Senate hearing was held to get business’s perspective on TSCA reform.  We, Construction Specialties, had a story that Senator Lautenberg’s committee wanted to hear.  When their committee person interviewed me and got a sense of what we were doing, he said that the committee would want to hear about it.  I was honored to testify before the Senate of behalf of C/S.  You can view the hearing here.  I think that we bring a voice that is both pro business and pro TSCA reform.  If it’s not about people and people don’t benefit - then why do it?  And there cannot be a benefit to people if TSCA reform shuts down industry.  It won’t do that.  It will give industry the ability to innovate.  Without the proposed TSCA Reform, we’ll lose industry to Europe and/or Asia, but with effective TSCA Reform it’s a stronger America that will be exporting our expertise in safer products.

The current TSCA requires the EPA to prove a chemical is dangerous.  Chemical manufacturers and formulators are not required to prove that a new chemical is safe.  Some say there are 20,000 chemicals in industry, some say there are 80,000 - 100,000.  The EPA has not even been able to ban asbestos - they are powerless to do so.  The reform certainly adds complexity, but the hoped for legislation will require the first set of bad actor chemicals be reviewed for safety and each year there would be a minimum number of chemicals that would be reviewed.  New chemicals and substitutes would have to be shown to be safe and if there’s doubt, they won’t be used, but if there’s no doubt as to the safety, the chemical would be given a fast pass.  Ultimately, if TSCA is not reformed, we in the U.S. will lose our competitive edge.  Europe is already working on chemical policy reform.  What will happen is that European manufacturers will have safer materials than what U.S. manufacturers have.  We have consumers that want environmentally friendly products.  Imported products would have better features than ours and this will ultimately hurt American business.  We need to go further - we need safer choices and better alternatives or we will lose competitive edge against imported products; American industry will be vulnerable.

There are challenges in this for business, but we still support TSCA reform.  The benefits for human health are great and we believe that the work is worth it in the form of an ROI in terms of dollars as well as human health and a stronger America.

If you’d like more information on TSCA reform, visit the Safe Chemicals Healthy Families and Business NGO Working Group websites.  Please leave a comment and let me know your view of the proposed TSCA reform legislation.  Or ask me a question about it - I’d love to help you understand this important legislation.

The hazardous chemicals wake-up call happened for Construction Specialties (C/S) and me in the early 90’s after a hazardous waste incinerator was to be sited in a small, local community.  We wondered “why here?” and knew we didn’t want it in our backyard.  Thankfully the incinerator project was stopped by a strong grass-roots movement (O.U.E.).  Watching that story unfold made us wonder about where our hazardous waste was going (and why do we have hazardous waste anyway?) - something we hadn’t thought about before.  So we decided it was time to get to work.

Part of why C/S won the Pennsylvania Governor’s Award for Environmental Excellence in 2003 was because we eliminated chemicals of high concern from our manufacturing process.  Organizations like Healthcare Without Harm and the Healthy Building Network helped us get a better awareness of dangerous chemicals and their impacts.  With earnest, in 2003 I began reading to try to understand why all the concerns about chemicals and materials, PVC in particular.  The Healthy Building Network and Green Guide for Health Care websites were great resources for me.  I read “Greed to Green” by David Gottfried, “Cradle to Cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart and “Environmental Impacts of Polyvinyl Chloride Building Materials” by Joe Thorton, Ph.D.  Too many resources to list here so if you’d like to know what else I’ve read, let me know and I’d be happy to give you that information.

I tried to read on both sides of the issue.  One side says that these materials aren’t harmful.  If this side is wrong, the damage and impact continues and so many millions of people are injured - that’s unacceptable.  If the environmentalists are wrong - no one is injured (if dangerous materials are eliminated).  Some think that the environmentalists are anti-capitalists.  Through my association with the Business NGO Working Group for Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Materials, I’ve met several “activists” and learned this is not true.  They know that if there’s a business case for the work, the changes will accelerate.  They understand the market driven economy.

C/S has since established a chemicals policy, been certified ISO 14001 and has worked with MBDC to ensure safe chemicals are in place as we work our way back through our products (starting with Acrovyn 4000 and staying with it until we’re done).  We’ve established an environmental policy that has enabled us to save energy and reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere.  If you’d like to know more about what we’re doing to protect the environment and human health, visit www.c-sgroup.com.  What was your (or your company’s) wake up call?  I’d like to hear from you!

The greatest contribution we can make to sustainability is to try to frame the concept at its people-centered best, and to get that message out while the doors are yet swinging open.

And as we have designed our initiatives over the last 15 years, we sought to do things that directly relate to that theme, hoping to leave the abstract behind and working only on that which is immediately relevant and supportive of sustainability.

It is a time for businesses to be more purposefully public about our aspirations and our work.

Linking the intended outcomes to identified concerns such as toxic chemicals/removal of toxic chemicals, C02 reduction, deforestation/reforestation, etc. allow the initiatives to become active mitigators and teaching labs.

This blog will become my way of facilitating action and recording our journey.

Please comment.

Howard