Rather than having a search engine - like MedLine - though it may be a valuable resource - we need a specific person (OBGYN in the case of pregnancy) who is willing to consult for a fee (CG, SS, LC agree).

CG: There should be a group of people who know what Green Home is about so that we don't have to re-educate them each time.

SS: But they have to be up on the chemicals…MM: If they are an OBGYN doctor group we want - they will be.

JG: It could be the local college, the local medical school...

LC: We'll have a greater advisory board of "go to" people in each of these areas...

MM: (In response to LB question) There is money for this in the line items of the financials of the business plan to pay for these experts. LC: It is part of how we are able to define what the total available market is (unlike our competitors).

SS: We should NOT try to figure out the experts for these issues (pregnancy, etc.) we should figure out the experts for the product categories. An OBGYN is not necessarily going to know if you should be using organic cotton clothing or not. (CG Agrees and recommends that we go through the list of products and categories)

CG: Everything will go back to these issues as we go over each of the product categories.(LC Agrees).

(LB begins a story about her recent involvement in a Stanford study of what technologies and user interface devices that make websites more persuasive, useful and user friendly. The group just went through an exercise profiling the type of person who might be interested in the environmental workplace analysis for instance.)

Large and Small Appliances

Energy Efficiency (Experts)

Water Efficiency (Experts)

Heating and Air Conditioning (Experts)

Washers (Issues)

Refrigerators (Issues)

list of all recycling associations...

manufacturers recyclability claims impacts of use are 85 - 90% of impacts

steel recycling institute...
bill's in town...

national recycling coalition
northern California recyling association

California resource recovery association...

Alex Wilson - Editor Environmental Building News Donald Aitken - Union of Concerned Scientists...

Air Filters (Experts)

LB: (regarding experts in general) Every environmental labeling system has had this same problem with putting together their environmental experts all of whom have their own opinions about what s the right thing to do - they all bring their own biases and ten different experts will make ten different recommendations. Experts can raise the issues and help to clarify what information is available. But you should still fall-back on a science-based process.

JG: In the first instance you fall back on your own best judgement.

SS: This is not exact science and a lot of products will fall into a gray area - we need to decide what the dividing line is for each product.

LB: This touches on the Green Home Mission (in her own words) to encourage people to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle to keep the long-term vision in mind as they make short-term decisions about products.

LC: We say that we are there for people who want to include environmental (home and larger environment) issues in their purchasing decision.

LB: As much as we wanted to - we (SCS) never could come up with green product criteria. Every time we came up with our best guesses and expert opinions - we came up with more gaps. We ended-up going through the ISO process and going through the development of a set of impact indicators representative of the major environmental issues. It helps to re-frame the discussion in terms of a confined vocabulary that there is general consensus upon as being core environmental issues - global warming, smog, acidification, hazardous emissions to water, hazardous air emissions, particulate emissions, resource depletion, ecosystem disruption, etc. 15 - 20 impact indicators.

Now, with a language, an alphabet, you can put any discussion into the context of those indicators. Perhaps Green Home products should be described in the context of those impacts so that there is some unified method for describing what is known and not known. A lot won't be known but you can still say "we know a lot about this one indicator" and "this is what we'd like to fill-in over time". People can then debate around these indicators…

LC: But we have begun the process... (Back to the product categories)

Air Filters (Issues)

JG: NOT ALL of these experts will be revealed to the consumer. The experts are for product decision making, not for marketing. We cannot say that the EPA says that this is a good product.

LC: But we need to bridge the gap between good environmentalism and good marketing of environmentalism and environmental information)

SS: Consumer Reports is a great system.

MM: We used to say we would be the Consumer Reports for green products.

SS: Then you have to have a rating system

Lamps (Will consider re-naming 'Lighting Fixtures') (Issues)

JG: The theory (of two-piece bulbs) is that the ballast should last longer than the light. The problem is that different manufacturers make the two pieces and the technology keeps changing.

Smoke Detectors (Experts)

Vacuum Cleaners (Experts)

LB: The problem with Energy Star is the way in which they sub-categorize products in a way that minimizes your ability (as a consumer) to make fair comparisons. Her front-loading washer was compared against other front-loaders instead of against washers in general.

LC: We need to look at what the Energy Star metric is and make sure that it is relevant.

Wind-Up Items

LC: These are human-powered appliances like radios and flashlights - you could even make wind-up computers - a possible move for developing nations. SS: Applied Innovative Technologies also has batteries that you shake.

(LC describes how to "light" a dill pickle. This leads to a light-hearted conversation wherein SS proposes selling The Green Home Pickle Lamp, etc. LC: "You can try other appliances, but if you really want to be green..." MM: "The pickle tastes really bad afterwards - FACT!" etc.)

(Issues)

LB: Another expert from the E.P.A. is Mary Ann Curran. Who is the E.P.A.'s delegate to the Lifecycle Assessment Sub-Committee in I.S.O. She is with the System Analysis Branch in Cincinnati of the E.P.A. Her job is to track all of this stuff for the E.P.A. (SS knows her).

Bath and Shower Filters
(Issues) - lumps into water filters

LMH: (Discussion about pools and the amount of energy needed to ozonate a pool as an alternative to chlorination. This kind of ozonation is not bad. LB's husband works in the wine industry and has helped develop ozonation equipment for sanitation in the wine industry. He carries an ozone meter which measures the levels of ozone which drops off as distance from the equipment increases. So it still may be an issue because there is a distance and time decay issue. MM: So he may be the expert).

Bath and Facial Tissue
LC: Does hydrogen peroxide work as paper bleach? Is it recommended and is it the preferred way?

JG: Yes. But there is no paper towels, bath or facial tissue that uses it anymore - it is all chlorine dioxide or sodium hypo-chloride (JG says is could be -chlorite).

LB: Virtually no one uses elemental chlorine anymore because of the cluster rule that was put into place last year by the EPA.

JG: Less is better and unbleached is best. The last unbleached toilet paper (that JG is aware of) is now gone. Envision is sodium hypochloride.

LB: Concerning recycled fiber - there is an issue of the aggregate amount of bleach from the original source and how much of that comes back through the process the second time around.

LB: This is something to look at - recycled is best in terms of resource and not a problem for toxicity.

JG: But not in terms of the toxicity in manufacture issue because that chlorine is already there - it has already been introduced. He has never heard anyone make the case that chlorine that is already IN paper has any toxicity.

LB: There is also the production of sludge in the manufacture of recycled products.

JG: But that is in the manufacture of the product. LB: But in the production of a product with recycled material there is increased sludge production - increased non-useable fiber where you've go the fiber that's been bleached becoming part of a sludge.

JG: The issue is the amount of chlorine that is introduced into the environment by the process as opposed to the amount of chlorine that is simply in the product. Post-consumer waste, by definition, having been produced, has chlorine in it - it is gogin to go somewhere. If the manufacturing process doesn't ADD to or augment the amount of chlorine there - it is better to recycle it then to not recycle it.

LB: Assuming that you're not increasing your energy consumption, which you frequently are when you recycle.

JG: Understands that you use around 1/3rd the energy when you produce a recycled product.

SS: (For Experts) There is a Chlorine Free Products Association

JG: Not very reputable, according to (JG, LB and LC agree) And they bribe mills to join the CFPA.

LB: In the study (SCS?) did in Germany there is much more vertical integration at a virgin paper mill. They are burning wastes from timber operations so they have an integrated process. They are not pulling energy off the grid so they are not contributing to the whole cycle of impacts related to grid energy brought in. When you compare the recycled mills to the virgin mills, the recycled mills look awful.

LC: So for our purposes the sludge that comes from recycling the chlorinated source material is not significant - it is low on the totem pole as far as what we're rating.

LB: Sludge is a landfill issue - it is lower than the product manufacture. The MOST important issue is that:

JG: If we are on bath or facial tissue:

We should not be getting fiber from anything bust waste

LB: Paper recycling is down-cycling (unlike some other products that can go around and around) because of the diminishment of fiber. If you are going to recycle, paper towels and tissue are the best candidates but if it is not 100% recycled, you still have a question about the virgin fiber portion. Or if you find that the electricity consumption is a significant impact and therefore you want to avoid greenhouse gasses from coal plants - then you might choose a virgin product but what to make sure that its source is a sustainably managed forest.

JG: (In this category) To his knowledge, there is no virgin product - many are 100%, Green Home should choose from among the 100% recycled, those that have the highest post-consumer waste (the highest available being 100% and the lowest GreenCo. has considered is 60%)

SS: If you are going to market yourself as a green superstore we have to have a lot of choices. Customers want choice.

JG: That may not be true in every product category.

LB: So Green Home may offer unbleached, 100% post-consumer, BLEACHED100% post-consumer and 50% post-consumer and 50% virgin from a well-managed forest (if there were such a thing).

SS: We don't need to decide what the very best product is but we need to know what is within the realm of what we are looking at.

JG: But how many is sufficient? He's got three - which means 15 SKUs of toilet paper, 20 SKUs of paper towels... how many do we want?

SS: As many as you can get.

LC: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. (heh). We have virtual shelf space - it does not cost anything to add you to our list.

JG: But where do you draw the line? If there are only two good (100% post-consumer) products available, do you offer a third (at 60%) just to offer variety?

LC: We do not allow our slotting allowance to dictate our product procurement policy.

JG/LB: But where is the "floor"?

LC: Unless they were really scratchy and your mom wouldn't buy it - we would go with the two 100% products.

MM: Is willing to go below 100%

LB: If we could place the discussion on an indicator-category basis:

JG: But is the indicator of energy efficiency REALLY an indicator?

LB: (In this area) it is not about how much energy is used but what was required to produce that energy.

JG: That means being plant-specific (LB agrees)

LC: So what John is saying is that if there is a 100% - you don't go looking for a lower percentage. JG: GreenCo. doesn't (and it doesn't cost more).

LB: 100% products might be a filter that you are using UNLESS you can prove that even so, it is not the best environmental choice. SCS used to work with Tree-Free "Stattler Tissue" - an EPA award recipient - because they ran the best operation.

Their 100% product was much better and different than Green Forrest 100% product because of the way they ran their plant. So we don't want to set-down a criteria that weeds out people or selects people JUST on the 100% criteria. They look the same to the consumer but they are much different. (This is based upon the lifecycle study SCS did of their product).

SS: In terms of what we are going to offer a consumer - the mainstream market - it may have to be in baby steps. They may have to start with as low as 25% then move up to 50%, etc. Consumers needs to raise their own floor. She would hate to lose a potential consumer (audience) by deciding for them how much recycled content it needs to have. .

JG: Why would the consumer in the absence of any other criteria (comfort, price, etc.) say they want to buy 25% post-consumer. SS: Psychological...

LB: People have a hygiene perception around toilet paper. SS: Agrees and knows someone who would never buy recycled toilet paper.

JG: So why offer the low PC content item? Why not just explain it as a "myth"?

LC: People want the soft, squishy Charmin and we need to sell something close to that.

SS: People have pre-conceived notions of environmental products. Someone who has used the bad 100% TP will probably not try it again - unless they do it in baby steps. If the 25 % is OK - they may move to 50% and so on. It is like the hybrid car - people wouldn't buy the electric car but maybe they'll go for the hybrid.

JG: But when we take the time to market these products (corner markets and other mainstream stores) - people will buy them. There has to be a criterion, a reason for people to come to green home. 25% post-consumer is Charmin. (SS relents on the 25% - it was just an extreme example).

LB: Without understanding the life-cycle from plant to plant, any criteria you establish will be subjective and subject to contradiction and create the potential for backlash backlash. These are not nominal differences. Green Home should state the manufacture claims only. They should NOT then say that therefore it is an environmentally preferable product.