So NextLife has been working closely with local community partner and member of the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), Florida Atlantic University (FAU), to assist in the education of its students with respect to sustainability.

Now, we’re taking it a step further - with the help of our environmental sciences partner, Ciba Expert Services, NextLife is donating the time, resources and specialization to offer the FAU faculty, staff and student body a quantifiable assessment of their collective environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. Under the guiding hand of NextLife and Ciba Expert Services, FAU faculty and students will work with staff from various FAU departments, such as maintenance, housing, engineering and physical plant, to collect data on water and energy consumption, waste management and greenhouse gas emissions. The findings will then be summarized in the NextLife “Environmental Impact Report,” that will help FAU identify and make the necessary changes to help reduce the campus’ overall eco-footprint. NextLife will then provide FAU with its own Environmental Index to clearly and visably show faculty, staff, the ACUPCC, students and prospective students its commitment to the environment. Talk about getting an education!

Both NextLife and FAU are hopeful that other colleges and members of ACUPCC will look at this “partnership for the planet” as a true lesson in sustainability.

Click here to read more about this exciting initiative.

This unique product showcases the depth and breadth of NextLife’s sustainability solutions and expertise in the green marketplace, including the debut of our proprietary “Environmental Facts” label (soon to be as ubiquitous as the FDA’s “Nutrition Facts” and “Drug Facts” labels). And the results speak for themselves - NextLife Ink cartridges, on average, have a 30% lower carbon footprint than newly manufactured cartridges and a higher percentage of recycled content than competitors: 43% - 62% is reclaimed materials…far and away the highest such reuse in the industry. The NextLife Ink packaging is comprised of 50% post-consumer waste and is 100% recyclable.

By using NextLife Ink by Dell, consumers will get more and pay less; up to 20% more pages per cartridge and a savings of up to 20% compared to branded ink cartridges. NextLife Ink by Dell printer cartridges will be available for about 70% of the most popular inkjet printers in use today through Dell.com immediately and several major retail outlets starting in Spring 2010.

Together, NextLife and Dell are committed to reducing the estimated 350 million ink cartridges that end up in our nation’s landfills every year.

Go here to read Dell’s official blog / announcement regarding NextLife Ink.

See the NextLife Ink by Dell case study to learn more about NextLife’s contribution to this program.

View the full press release here.

“The NextLife RainStore is designed as a more decorative and effective rainwater collection and reuse system. Equipped with a self-watering planter on top, the unit’s body is made from a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled resin, and it can hold up to 50 gallons of water.”

Read the official announcement here or download a PDF copy here.

Did you know that the average American produces approximately 4.5 pounds of waste every single day, or 1,642 pounds each year. Considering there are 300 Million people in the U.S. that means we produce 675,000 tons of trash every single day. Much of the stuff that fills our landfills is packaging, especially in the form of containers, but office paper, disposable diapers, Styrofoam inserts, and plastic bags also contribute to the total waste production of our country. Paper waste still makes up about 35%, and plastic makes up 13% of the total material filling up our landfills and considering that most of these items can be recycled; this ever increasing waste problem is easily avoidable.

When typical household trash is picked up by a collection truck, it is taken either to a landfill or a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) incinerator. Waste-to-Energy is the process of creating energy in the form of electricity or heat from the incineration of a waste source. Most WtE processes produce electricity directly through combustion, or produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or other synthetic fuels. Currently, in the United States, about 26% of the waste generated is recycled or composted, 8% is burned at incinerators, and the remaining 66% is disposed of in landfills.

Based on the latest EPA data there are currently about 1,700 landfills in the United States which is a drop from the nearly 8,000 landfills in the U.S. in 1988. While the number of landfills has significantly decreased, the actual average landfill size has significantly increased as well. Some of the biggest landfills receive as much as 4 Million tons of waste every single year, that’s 8 Billion pounds a year. If the average landfill is open for 35 or 40 years, that means that it would collect 320,000,000,000 Billion pounds over its lifetime. It’s no wonder that the highest land mass here in South Florida is our local landfill.

Think about it, one of the easiest ways to reduce the amount of waste that makes its way to our nation’s landfills is to just ask yourself what happens to all the stuff you throw away. After researching the information on your own you’ll be amazed at all the trash and junk that is carelessly thrown out and contributing to the pollution of our planet. So remember, the next time you reach for the garbage can to throw something away, think about the landfill problem and just maybe you’ll toss that container into the blue recycling bin instead.

Take the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for example; this is an area of floating garbage located in the central North Pacific ocean which is made up of marine litter and estimated to be a region of garbage twice the size of the State of Texas (If that isn’t staggering, I’m not sure what qualifies). The patch contains high concentrations of plastic and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific. It is estimated that the area contains over 100 Million tons of debris that range in size from small pellets used in abrasive cleaners, to abandoned fishing nets.  I think both political parties can agree this is not necessarily a good thing.

As recently reported in the media, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to hold a public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change in an attempt to stop potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations. In essence, they want to put the science of Global Warming on trial. If the EPA denies the request (which is expected), the Chamber plans to take the fight to federal court.

This has all come about as the result of the EPA’s plan to formally declare in the coming weeks that the heat-trapping gases which scientists blame for climate change will have the following devastating results; Endangerment to human health, increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves, increased wildfires, degradation of air quality, increased rain and flooding in some areas and increased drought in others, greater sea level rise, severe storms, harm to water resources, harm to agriculture and finally harm to wildlife and ecosystems. The net result is that the EPA will make CO2 subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act which is a cornerstone of the current administration’s plan to set strict new emissions standards on cars and trucks.

But, even if you only believe ¼ of what the EPA says is correct in reference to the findings, isn’t it still worth it to ensure that future generations have the opportunity for cleaner air, less garbage in landfills and cleaner drinking water? Legislation is just the first step. The real power lies in encouraging entrepreneurial businesses across the country to seize this opportunity to transform our wasteful society into a more productive resource conscious economy. By letting businesses take the lead, we should be able to invent technology to help move us from a 20mpg vehicle into a 200mpg vehicle which will be better for everyone in spite of political affiliation. Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or not, we should all believe that less pollution and less waste is a good thing for business as well as the planet. If we can’t all agree on that, the only party we end up belonging to, is the losing party.

Over the past 5 years, I have worked extensively in the retail sector with regards to energy conservation and on many occasions would visit not only my own company’s stores but would also routinely visit the competition’s stores as well. One of the first things I noticed was the use of electricity within the retail environment, specifically the lighting levels and the areas lit (or not lit that should be) as well as the store temperature throughout the building envelope. One of my biggest annoyances was the common practice of voluntary “load shedding”. Load shedding as defined by the dictionary is “the process of cutting off the electric current on certain lines when the demand becomes greater than the supply”. From a voluntary standpoint (and in layman’s terms) it was the intentional reduction of lighting and air conditioning throughout the store during off peak business hours in an effort to save money and energy.

Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe in load shedding for some businesses but I’m not a big fan of it for retailers. I believe that there are many other ways to reduce consumption without sacrificing the shopping experience all retailers want to give their customers. For example, one of the things I had the opportunity to work on was the implementation of a proprietary, custom designed reflector for the overhead lights that enabled the stores to reduce their lighting loads by almost a third with virtually no noticeable difference in lighting levels.

I was a bit skeptical at first and had seen many other reflector technologies that would cause temporary blindness if you looked directly at them; however this type of lighting conservation technology made practical business sense. For one thing, it allowed the stores to maintain a bright, consistent lighting level without dark areas which is critical for any retail business. Second, since the amount of light bulbs was reduced by about a third, the store was not as hot and the secondary benefit was a cooler operating store. The amount of energy saved by implementing this type of technology far exceeds that which may be saved using a load shedding program and it won’t interfere with the sales process by creating a dark uninviting shopping experience.  This is just one of many types of new energy conservation technologies available today that “Green” professionals can recommend that make good business sense to enhance the overall quality of the retail experience. If you’re in retail, the next time you’re considering drastic measures to reduce energy demand, call an expert and let us help guide you on the light path.

In another “eco-example”, earlier this year Motorola announced a new Phone, the W233 or “Renew”. The Renew is made entirely out of recycled water bottles (at least the plastic parts) and it comes in packaging made from recycled materials. In addition to its complete recyclability, it is also the world’s first phone to be certified Carbon Neutral. With an estimated talk time of nine hours, it also uses less energy than other phones that need to recharge every few hours. Overall, I’d say that makes it a fairly environmentally friendly phone; however the problem in my opinion lies not in its environmental qualities, but in its lack of function and style. The phone is as plain as they come. It’s a standard candy bar phone with poor screen resolution, basic call and text functionality and virtually nothing else.

I’ve noticed this on a number of other occasions when I went looking for an environmentally responsible alternative to basic products, that the eco-conscious alternative did not live up to my standards for what a good “green” product should be. One of the problems that some companies have is coming up with ways to design style and function into a good environmentally conscious product. I believe that this is partly due to a (wrong) mindset that people who care about green products will settle for less as long as the product has environmental attributes. People who care about green should never have to settle for less quality, less function, or higher prices than other non-green products. 

In an “all things being equal” scenario, it is up to the product manufacturer to ensure that the eco-conscious product is the same or better in every way to its non-eco alternative. Innovative companies are working with leading designers and engineers and figuring out how to make the existing products they have more environmentally friendly. Instead of designing an entirely new product line from the ground up, it would make more sense for companies to focus on taking their products that are already hugely successful in the marketplace and work on making them “greener”. This way, consumers won’t have to settle for anything less than they have come to expect from any product whether green or not. No matter the product, the green industry deserves great performance, price, and quality from manufacturers touting eco-claims. To have it any other way negates the progress of the industry and works against the needs of the green consumer. After all, “Eco” doesn’t have to mean ugly.

Since 1992, the FTC’s “Green Guides” have advised marketers that unqualified biodegradable claims are acceptable only if they have scientific evidence that their product will completely decompose within a reasonably short period of time under customary methods of disposal. Since none of the companies charged in the complaint had any scientific evidence to support their claims they were charged with “Greenwashing” the public. Had they taken the time to have a third party verify their claims, the charges could have been avoided.

In its newest set of charges, the FTC has gone after four clothing manufacturers who sold rayon clothing that claimed to be made out of “100% Bamboo” that used an “environmentally friendly process”, “retained natural antimicrobial properties of bamboo”, and was “biodegradable”. The FTC says that while rayon can be made from bamboo and fibers from other plants, the clothing is processed with a harsh chemical that releases hazardous air pollutants.The companies named in the recent complaint are ecoKashmere, Pure Bamboo, Bamboo Comfort, and BambooBaby.

If you think that the FTC doesn’t do their homework think again, because the FTC noted in the complaint that even if the rayon used in the companies’ clothing was manufactured from bamboo, rayon does not retain any natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant. In addition, because the manufacturing process also involves harsh chemicals the products are not made using an environmentally friendly process. A few months ago I had the opportunity to listen to a seminar given by James Kohm, Director for the Enforcement Division of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. His advice to businesses that want to promote “green” in their advertising was basically summarized in 2 easy steps.

Step 1. Tell the Truth
Step 2. Prove what you say by using established scientific methodologies

It seems so simple yet for some reason so many businesses don’t think that they need to substantiate their environmental marketing claims. When it comes to consumer protection, this is an area that the FTC takes very seriously and rightfully so. Let’s not misuse the public trust by slapping “Grey” green claims all over products that are not environmentally responsible. Doing so squanders public confidence and harms the environment by making it more difficult for true environmentally conscious companies to innovate and advertise true environmental benefits. Let’s just hope more companies start watching their FTC’s.

So what exactly is Eco-Marketing? Eco-Marketing is the art of being able to communicate your companies “green” successes in a responsible manner that is Accurate, Credible, and Transparent or ACT for short. Believe it or not, green marketing is an art form, and while most companies have internal marketing that is capable of performing a wide range of marketing services, green marketing is very different and many businesses are not equipped to handle these types of programs due to the serious consequences for making overstatements or accidentally “Greenwashing” your companies environmental contributions.

Because Greenwashing has the potential to misuse the public trust, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has issued a “Green Guide” which discusses the responsible marketing of Green claims in business in an effort to ensure that companies accurately convey the eco-benefits of their product or service. Here are some examples of what the FTC considers Greenwashing.

Example 1: A package is labeled, “50% more recycled content than before.” The manufacturer increased the recycled content of its package from 2% recycled material to 3% recycled material. Although the claim is technically true, it is likely to convey the false impression that the advertiser has increased significantly the use of recycled material. 

In addition, environmental marketing claims that include a comparative statement must be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. The advertiser should be able to substantiate the comparison through verifiable scientific methodologies preferably by a third party certifying organization such as NextLife and Ciba Expert Services. Another example is:

Example 2:  An advertiser notes that its shampoo bottle contains “20% more recycled content.” The claim in its context is ambiguous. Depending on contextual factors, it could be a comparison either to the advertiser’s immediately preceding product or to a competitor’s product. The advertiser should clarify the claim to make the basis for comparison clear, for example, by saying “20% more recycled content than our previous package.” Otherwise, the advertiser should be prepared to substantiate whatever comparison is conveyed to reasonable consumers.

I’m sure companies that “Greenwash” mean well (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt here) but due to their lack of expertise in the area of Eco-Marketing they easily fall into gray areas that are considered unreliable with respect to consumer advertising and should be avoided at all costs. Save yourself a lot of time and aggravation and look for a company that has experience and resources that specialize in the “Green Marketing” arena. You’ll be glad you did and so will your customers.