News, Markets & Analysis for the Nonwovens Industry Subscribe



Tools

How Green Can Nonwovens Be?



By Mark Snider - Smith, Johnson & Associates




Click here to read the full article.
The “Green Movement” has gained popularity in both consumer and business sectors and is here to stay. Benefits to the environment and government incentives add to the conceptof greener and more efficient lifestyles and business systems. An initial tendency when first considering green initiatives is to get caught up in a “purists” perspective, concentrating on 100% green applications. The fact is, in the initial stages of changing alifestyle, the lifestyle itself is the most important change, not the level of benefit. Additional benefits will come as greener lifestyles are realized. The point here is to get started and see where it takes you. One thing is for certain—greener lifestyles and businesspractices will benefit the environment in positive ways no matter what level is employed.

Here are a few examples that can really make a difference: In 2005, per Wal-Mart and Ingeo statistics, Wal-Mart’s conversion of 114 million PET containers in its grocery retail area alone saved 30,150 kwhof energy or an equivalent of 800,000 gallons of gasoline (see INDA WOW 2008 papers). Imagine that—one simple change added millions of dollars to the bottom line and also provided a benefit to the environment. This does not even take into account the marketing benefits derived from taking steps toward green. If every nonwoven producing company dedicated just 10% to more efficient business practices such as recycling or using some form of renewable power source, we would reduce millions of tons of greenhouse gases and save considerabledollars on energy.

Care should be taken to honestly approach green practices; it is easy to get caught up in assumptions that aren’t necessarily green or beneficial. For example, in most cases there are significant amounts of fossil energy required to grow agricultural products and this energy is often overlooked when calculating environmental im­pact. If the U.S. sends all of its manufacturing off shore, the products are still consumed. In most cases, products aremanufactured offshore without employing even the most basic standards forenvironmental impact. Simply put, just because the products are not made here in this country does not mean that we are doing something good for the environment. We must approach this issue by scrutinizing our actions from a global perspective. Here in the U.S., we employ forestry practices that need to be examined. For example, we claim environmental responsibility by pretending that cutting down native hardwood forests and re-planting them with pine is “a good thing.” However, it takes a hardwood forest 10-plus times to develop and grow compared to a pine forest and the ecosystem for these two forest systems is completely different and supports completely different animal systems, not to mention the aesthetic differences. Is this practice better than clear cutting? Maybe. The fact is, this forest can be re-cut 10-plus times sooner than a hardwood forest could. “Trees grow jobs” is the slogan for “we are re-planting to grow jobs not to benefit the environment.” Is this practice better than not re-planting with pine at all? Maybe. Maybe we should consider different rules that modify our way of thinking and acting.

Considerable work is required to honestly gauge the benefit or harm from a life-cycle analysis perspective and this perspective requires the utmost in diligence and thorough research. We must start somewhere. How about changing our way of thinking?

Through education, our lifestyles will change and positive actions will come next. Doesour small contribution matter?