tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3777757.post-75228369650743285852008-05-14T10:20:00.000-04:002008-05-14T10:20:47.537-04:00Not to say "I told you so," but I'm glad to see my local paper <a href="http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2008/05/14/not_as_green_as_they_claim_to_be/" target=_blank>discussing</a> issues of the new Green craze that have been concerning me for a while. <br /><br />When "green" became a positive catch phrase, products started tossing it around for the marketing benefits. But the term is meaningless; there are no guidelines or restrictions. This article includes many examples of "green" products that are no better, or even worse, than other products that don't wave that flag.<br /><br />Of course I'm all for environmental protection and awareness. I drive a Civic with amazing mileage; I recycle religiously (and more importantly, I reuse as much as possible first, as the recycling process uses up energy); I even bought a "green" house that's highly energy-efficient and contains no off-gassing synthetics.<br /><br />But I don't want the term to be cheapened, or an unaware public to be fooled. Take the Poland Spring bottle. Sure it uses 30% less plastic, which is great. But bottled water is a huge waste of transport energy on top of all the plastic. People should be drinking tap water and carrying it around in reusable containers.<br /><br />When cars were introduced, they were a solution to the existing problems of <b>that</b> time. But flash forward a few years, and they've created a whole new set of problems. Our environmental crisis is a complex issue. Simplistic solutions are only going to create new problems for us in the future. And simplistic promotion of anything that calls itself green feeds right into that.Maggiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04659316402556587812noreply@blogger.com