Lutron Sustainability Week Presentation
54
April 23 2015 sustainable and green graphic design
-
Upload
cynthia-barber-gale -
Category
Documents
-
view
26 -
download
0
Transcript of Lutron Sustainability Week Presentation
why does it matter?April 23 2015
sustainable and green graphic design
If the world’s more than 7 billion people were to design, produce, consume, and dispose of paper and print as North Americans do, we would require FOUR times the resources available on our planet and would still not be able to achieve sustainable economic growth.
Print Design and Environmental Responsibility, page 7, AIGA
one hundred million toothpicks = trees cut annually in u.s. for junk mail
chrisjordan
30,000 reams of office paper = amount of paper used in the u.s. every 5 minutes
chrisjordan
9,960 mail order catalogs = avg number of junk mail that are printed, shipped, delivered, and disposed of in the u.s. every three seconds
chrisjordan
...new research with over 6,000 consumers across six countries provides evidence that a new marketplace is rising.
That attitudes and behaviors are shifting. And that a new cadre of enterprising brands is seizing the moment to innovate smarter, safer, cleaner and greener solutions.
CHAPTER OPENERConsumers and the Future of Sustainability
SUSTAINABILITYLOGOTYPE FOR PRINT ONLY
Key FINDINGSCONSUMING LESS, CONSUMING BETTER ...to improve the environment for future generationsSHIFTING PERCEPTIONS ...PRICE, PERFORMANCE, CREDIBILITY and a better understandingCOLLABORATION AND PARTICIPATION ...67% INTERESTED IN SHARING IDEAS and OPINIONS WITH COMPANIES
eco-messaging:the problem and the solutionlegitimate green standards help fight greenwashing
false eco-labeling is increasing
false labels are a dime a dozen
A report on environmentAl clAims mAde
in the north AmericAn consumer mArket
2010
The SinS of GreenwaShinG home and family ediTion
http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/index35c6.pdf
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. sin of the hidden trade-offi.e. suggesting a product is green based solely on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other important factorsExample: fsc + carbon neutral
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. sin of no proof
i.e. an environmental claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible information or by a reliable third-party certification Example: claiming a % of post consumer recycled content without providing any evidence
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. sin of vagueness
i.e. any claim that is so poorly defined or so broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood “100% or all natural” is a great example: arsenic, uranium, mercury and formaldehyde are all naturally occurring, and poisonous.
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. sin of irrelevance
i.e. any claim that may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers CFC-free is an example: it is a frequent claim despite the fact that cfcs are banned by law.
(The Montreal protocol in 1987)
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. sin of the lesser of two evils
i.e. any claim that may be truthful within its product category, when the entire category is a risk Organic cigarettes are an example
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. sin of fibbing
i.e. least frequent, any claim that is simply falsefor example, products claiming to be energy star certified but are not.
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7 SinS of GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. sin of worshipping false labels
i.e. any product that gives the impression of a third-party endorsement where no such endorse-ment even existsdownright fake labels
terrachoice | the sins of greenwashing | 2�
conSUmer elecTronicS
Consumer electronics are new to green, and it shows.
in some circles – policymakers and professional purchasers,
notably – attention to the environmental consequences of
electronic products has been growing for several decades.
(this is particularly true in relation to energy efficiency and end-
of-life management, but electronics have also been associated with
issues manufacturing, toxicity, resource extraction and depletion,
landfill contamination, and packaging waste.) For consumers,
however, “greener” electronics is a relatively new concept.
As interest and scrutiny spills over from B2B to B2c markets,
consumer electronics are poised for rapid “greening”.
We examined a total of 85 consumer electronic products,
which made a total of 204 “green” claims. All of these products
were found at general product retailers, rather than electronic
specialty retailers. their claims related to toxicity of components,
energy efficiency, packaging-related benefits such as recycled
content and biodegradability, as well as frequent use of very
vague environmental jargon.
100
50
0HIDDEN TRADE-OFF
VAGUENESS FIBBING
CONSUMER ELECTRONICSPERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTS COMMITTING EACH SIN.
WORSHIPINGFALSE LABELS
LESSER OFTWO EVILS
IRRELEVANCENO PROOF
key leSSonS foR GReAT GReen clAiMS on conSuMeR elecTRonicS
don’t heSitate. “Green” growth in consumer electronics was
relatively slow between 2009 and 2010, but - judging by the
experience of other sectors - business and institutional demand
will soon and suddenly spill over into consumer markets. Brands
that are first to build reputation as genuine “green” leaders will
win important first mover advantage in this category.
emphaSize proof. With such a high rate of greenwashing
(not a single “sin-free” product), and rampant false labeling,
this category will be well-served by consumer-facing claim
endorsements. multi-attribute standards such as ieee 1680,
and single-attribute verifications such as ul environment’s
environmental claim validation, will both be valuable to
serious green marketers in this category.
1.
2.
terrachoice | the sins of greenwashing | 2�
WHAT We found
Still relatively Slow green growth. Whereas the overall
number of “greener” products increased by 73% between 2009 and
2010, in consumer electronics we found an increase of only 13%.
high rate of greenwaShing. not a single “green” electronic
product was found to be free of greenwashing. (the only other
category in which this is true is toys, another relative newcomer
to “green”).
falSe labelS a partiCular problem. more than half (51.8%)
of the “green” products in this category committed the “sin of
Worshiping False labels”. in all product categories, the rate of false
labels was only 31%. Almost all of these “false labels” appeared to
be self-generated and intended to create the appearance of third-
party endorsement. most (34 of 45) were simply seal-like icons
with variations of “eco”, “environment”, “environmentally-friendly”,
and so on.
•
•
•
100
50
0HIDDEN TRADE-OFF
VAGUENESS FIBBING
CONSUMER ELECTRONICSPERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTS COMMITTING EACH SIN.
WORSHIPINGFALSE LABELS
LESSER OFTWO EVILS
IRRELEVANCENO PROOF
key leSSonS foR GReAT GReen clAiMS on conSuMeR elecTRonicS
don’t heSitate. “Green” growth in consumer electronics was
relatively slow between 2009 and 2010, but - judging by the
experience of other sectors - business and institutional demand
will soon and suddenly spill over into consumer markets. Brands
that are first to build reputation as genuine “green” leaders will
win important first mover advantage in this category.
emphaSize proof. With such a high rate of greenwashing
(not a single “sin-free” product), and rampant false labeling,
this category will be well-served by consumer-facing claim
endorsements. multi-attribute standards such as ieee 1680,
and single-attribute verifications such as ul environment’s
environmental claim validation, will both be valuable to
serious green marketers in this category.
1.
2.
terrachoice | the sins of greenwashing | 2�
WHAT We found
Still relatively Slow green growth. Whereas the overall
number of “greener” products increased by 73% between 2009 and
2010, in consumer electronics we found an increase of only 13%.
high rate of greenwaShing. not a single “green” electronic
product was found to be free of greenwashing. (the only other
category in which this is true is toys, another relative newcomer
to “green”).
falSe labelS a partiCular problem. more than half (51.8%)
of the “green” products in this category committed the “sin of
Worshiping False labels”. in all product categories, the rate of false
labels was only 31%. Almost all of these “false labels” appeared to
be self-generated and intended to create the appearance of third-
party endorsement. most (34 of 45) were simply seal-like icons
with variations of “eco”, “environment”, “environmentally-friendly”,
and so on.
•
•
•
http://www.livingprinciples.org/
Environment
Actions and issues that affect natural systems, including climate change, preservation, carbon footprint and restoration of natural resources.
People
Actions and issues that affect all aspects of society, including poverty, violence, injustice, education, healthcare, safe housing, labor and human rights.
Economy
Actions and issues that affect how people and organizations meet their basic needs, evolve and define economic success and growth.
Culture
Actions and issues that affect how communities manifest identity, preserve and cultivate traditions, and develop belief systems and commonly accepted values.
Four Streams of Integrated Sustainability ¹ 1 Definitions adapted from Adam Werbach, Strategy for Sustainability
The Living Principles for Design framework is a catalyst for driving positive cultural change. It distills the four streams of sustainability—environment, people, economy, and culture—into a roadmap that is understandable, integrated, and most importantly, actionable. Designers, business leaders, and educators can use The Living Principles to guide every decision, every day. These principles are truly living: our success is dependent on the active involvement of the creative community to drive the conversation, the industry, and the world toward a brighter future.
Join us at livingprinciples.org
business
planet
individuals
society
prosperity
Culture
People
Economy
Environment
designer
sustainabledesign
aspirationshabits
choices
1 Adapted from Adam Werbach, Strategy for SustainabilityDe
sig
ne
r’s
Ro
ad
ma
p
artifactsmessagesservices
See livingprinciples.org for the current list of involved partners & sponsors.
Originally conceived through AIGA, and presented by Mohawk Fine Papers,
The Living Principles are endorsed by many global organizations, including
Cumulus, Design Ignites Change, Design Management Institute (DMI),
GDC Ontario, GreenBlue, Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA),
o2 Global Network, Organic Exchange, The Society of Graphic Designers
of Canada, and Winterhouse Institute.
OCT 2010 | 8.5 x11
http://www.livingprinciples.org/framework/introduction/
http://livingprinciples.aiga.org/framework/roadmap/
the designers accord
code Of conduct
- do no harm
- communicate and collaborate
- keep learning, keep teaching
- instigate meaningful change
- make theory action
http://www.designdirectory.com/DesignersAccord/
the designers accord
guidelines for designer adopters- Initiate a dialogue about environmental and social impact and sustainable alternatives with each and every client. Provide strategic and material alternatives for sustainable design.
- Undertake a program to educate your teams about sustainability and sustainable design.
- Consider your ethical footprint. Understand any negative impact of your firm and firm’s work, and work to measure, manage, and reduce it on an annual basis.
- Advance the understanding of environmental and social issues from a design perspective by actively contributing to the communal knowledge base for sustainable design.
http://www.designdirectory.com/DesignersAccord/
Sustainable graphic design considers the environmental impacts of design solutions throughout a project’s life cycle:
• raw materials • transformation • manufacturing • transportation • use and disposal
consider these 11 questions:1) Do we need it? Can we live without it?
2) Is this project designed to minimize waste?
3) Can it be smaller, lighter, or made from fewer materials?
4) Is it designed to be durable or multi-functional?
5) Does it use renewable resources?
6) Is reuse practical and encouraged?
7) Are the products and packaging refillable, recyclable or repairable?
8) Is it made with the highest percentage of post-consumer recycled or reclaimed materials?
9) Are the materials available in a less toxic form?
10) Is it available from a socially and environmentally responsible company?
11) Is it made locally?
putting it into practice
http://www.mcdonough.com/speaking-writing/cradle-to-cradle/
this book is not a tree
synthetic paper
no wood pulp/no cotton fiber
yes plastic resins
yes waterproof
yes extremely durable
yes recyclable
yes prototype for the book as a technical nutrient
http://www.mohawkconnects.com/calculator/environmental
sustainable project calculator
give this project calculator a whirl to rethink and redesign a print project to reduce environmental impact, and save money by saving paper.
http://re-nourish.com/?l=tools _ projectcalculator
Specify Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) chain of custody paper stocks with the highest percentage of post-consumer waste and when possible.
ALso look for paper that is carbon neutral and made with green-e certified wind power.
https://us.fsc.org/
petroleum-based inks containing potentially hazardous metals
green graphic design, brian dougherty and celery design collaborative
inks containing potentially hazardous metals1 ,2
pms # Barium copper
123 18 2
137 25 2
1375 32 2
151 39 2
1585 60 2
165 67 2
1655 81 2
172 94 2
Warm red 122 1
1788 118 1
185 114 1
192 110 2
213 34 136
259 69 952
2735 11 1010
286 8 1104
293 8 2003
300 7 3128
3005 7 3462
process Blue 7 3800
313 20 3707
3135 28 3644
320 41 3550
327 7 3325
3272 24 3675
3275 67 3363
3278 7 3090
green 76 3300
340 8 2851
3405 72 3096
pms # Barium copper
347 8 2376
354 64 2680
361 10 1426
368 10 952
389 15 207
419 19 828
438 93 2063
445 88 2475
450 31 937
457 18 15
464 32 507
4625 44 3
471 53 15
492 100 712
499 105 1238
4975 73 519
506 100 712
513 22 961
5115 54 519
520 85 1239
5185 58 58
527 22 724
5255 8 736
534 81 2036
5463 5 2764
5535 57 2252
562 80 2990
569 79 3095
5747 20 603
The following spot color inks contain relatively high levels of metals.
Parts Per MillionParts Per Million
GREEN GRAPHIC DESIGN by B r i a n D o u g h e r T y a n d C e l e ry D es i g n C o l l a B o r aT i v e
1 Partners in Design. “EcoStrategies for Printed Communications: An Information and Strategy Guide.” 1996. <www.pidseattle.com/ECO/rescfaqs.html>
2 Telschow, Roger and U.S. EPA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. “Reducing Heavy Metal Content in Offset Printing Inks.” April 1994.
promote it!
sustainable and green ink selection
specify vegetable-based inks (over soy-based) which contain no crude oil and therefore reduce contaminants such as VOCs and hazardous waste, and are more biodegradable.
soy = deforestation
soy = gmo mono cropping
Soy Ink: Myth vs. Reality, triple pundit
Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs) emissions reduced
Petroleum-based inks emit approximately 25% to 40% of VOCs when they dry, while rates for soy and vegetable inks can be as low as 2% to 4%, with some brands of ink releasing none at all.
http://www.sustainablebusinesstoolkit.com/benefits-of-eco-solventinks/
designers of three layers
designer of positive change: effecting change at the core
designers of three layers
designer of positive change: effecting change at the core
designer of messages: meaty layer of brand/solutions
celery design collaborative
designers of three layers
designer of positive change: effecting change at the core
designer of messages: meaty layer of brand/solutions
designer of stuff: outer layer of design/paper/printing
320,000 light bulbs = number of kilowatt hours of electricity wasted in the U.s. every minute from inefficient residential electricity usage
chrisjordan
https://youtu.be/ts _ 4vOUDImE
small world machine
