SIGG - Still Not Green and Here's Why

Perfectly clear morning, more color popping up.


It is time to update some facts and commentary with regard to the previous SIGG vs Klean Kanteen blog. There are 3 areas of "greenness" that I would like to update and clarify.

At the top of the list is the amount of energy required to make the product, its carbon footprint and pollution, typically the first and most important eco criteria of any "environmental" product.

First stainless steel. There is no doubt that producing stainless steel is energy intensive and grossly polluting, pumping out 2-8 tons of CO2 per ton of steel. Using recycled steel greatly reduces CO2 by as much as 60-75%. Luckily this has been common practice for so long that 66% of the steel is from recycled steel. A Klean Kanteen spokes person verified that their steel is 50% recycled content prior to the introduction of the alloys. In addition, there is no lead in either aluminum or stainless steel, the seams in the KK bottles are welded (melted) not soldered.

The manufacturing of virgin aluminum is more polluting than steel, releasing 18 tons of CO2 per ton of aluminum. One source says that manufacturing aluminum releases 10 times the CO2 vs steel, per ton. The manufacturing of aluminum is responsible for 1% of the CO2 released world wide with most of the energy needed in the initial smelting phase. Using recycled aluminum saves 95% of the energy, CO2 and pollution. Recycled aluminum offers the greatest opportunity of reducing CO2 compared to any other recyclable product while at the same time not losing any of its integrity.

In the perfect world we would have a water bottle made out of impervious non-breakable 100% recycled content glass. But our world isn't perfect and so we pick and choose what's next in line. With Carbon Footprint in mind, using part recycled stainless steel over virgin aluminum wins hands down. If all the soda cans can have a high recycled content, so can SIGG. I will maintain my position on this as I find it incomprehensible that SIGG washes itself environmental yet uses virgin aluminum, while recycled aluminum would only use 5% of the energy.

With regard to the potential of BPA in the SIGG lining, this is considered a product's chemical footprint. For review, SIGG's only one test for BPA did not show any BPA "detectable" above 2 parts per billion, PPB. They did not test below 2 PPB. Since my first blog about SIGG vs KK, more research has shown disturbing findings of hormonal disruption from gender bending chemicals - BPA, Phthalates and pesticides. In one study the serious affects of BPA showed at 1 PPB, with affects also down at 1 parts per trillion, PPT. The gold standard is to test using the calibration of PPT, parts per trillion, not PPB. SIGG claims 0% leaching but what they don't put in parenthesize is (above 2 PPB). Is this a big deal? My opinion is if genitalia are being deformed at PPT, then BPA seems to be a problem. BPA has traditionally been part of an epoxy mix and until proven innocent, I think it is fair to be cautious given that continued research shows that minute levels of gender benders do bend the genders. A quote from Environmental Defense of Canada, "Concentrations at much lower levels (parts per trillion) have been found to cause adverse health effects in animal studies." From a biological stand point, humans are part of the animal world.

The last area is labor issues. Most of us would prefer if products were made in our own back yard (unless it is polluting then its okay to have it made in China) (you know that is sarcasm, right?), employing our neighbors and feeding our own economy. I am not happy that KK is made in China, and as a reminder, the new SIGG stainless steel bottles are also made in China. So KK visits their factories 4-5 times per year and SIGG says they have full-time employees located there. I am not sure where "there" is - could be in the next city over - but I hope to find out. Either way, being made in China goes against the grain of many. However, the global economy is here to stay. China is where the steel is made. So either, you don't get steel, or you work with China to change and improve their labor issues. Both SIGG and KK have tried to be responsible in addressing this labor issue. Some small stainless steel water bottle makers have no idea where the factories are even located. So at least the 2 biggest manufacturers of water bottles are taking steps to insure good manufacturing practices. Not my preference by any means, but it is a start. As consumers, it is our job to hold companies accountable for their labor conditions - so go forth and question. China has been in hot water recently but it is also a huge country. Just like we would not want the world to assume that all of our banks are corrupt, (my local bank is fantastic) so we should not assume that all of China has bad working conditions. To do so is...uh...prejudice.

So let me recap:
1 - Klean Kanteen's partly recycled stainless steel produces 10 times less CO2 than SIGG's virgin aluminum..and the winner is...Klean Kanteen.

2 - Klean Kanteen's food grade stainless steel is not lined while SIGG's aluminum is lined with an undisclosed epoxy lining that has not been tested below 2 PPB, where levels show birth and genitalia abnormalities... and the winner is... Klean Kanteen.

3 - Klean Kanteen's factories are in China, supervised and visited 4-5 times per year. SIGG's aluminum bottles are made in Switzerland and the stainless steel bottles are made in China with full time employees. It is my opinion that you can not assume that a factory in a given country has a given working condition. Yes there are trends to be sure, but the subjectiveness of this comparison can not guarantee anything...and if there has to be a winner...SIGG.

So in summary, my personal eco criteria considers carbon footprint first, followed by chemical footprint, followed by social footprint. This is an environmental blog first, not a humanitarian blog, though it does not diminish my personal interest and commitment to social and labor issues. Therefore, I stand by my original assessment which is: SIGG aluminum water bottles are not green in and of themselves, only in that they are reusable, and that Klean Kanteen is the greenest choice for reusable water bottles.

Whew.

Really Green? Consider Triple Footprint

The low spots are filled with marshmallow fog with the peaks clear in the distance.


Triple Footprint - You heard it here first.

The production of "things" in our daily lives have a "cost". You've heard of carbon footprint, and maybe heard of chemical footprint but social footprint might be new to you. These are basically the amount of baggage a product carries with it or makes with regard to carbon required start to finish, chemicals used and contained during production and the human touch required. Considering the Triple Footprint will give you a better understanding of the what's behind the green choices you make.

Products can have a very varied history in terms of how much energy was used in its production and transportation. If something is complicated with lots of parts and metals, then you can see that considering even the energy in mining the materials adds up. A small carbon footprint would be made out of something sustainable and local. You can measure your own carbon impact by one of the many sites available.

Chemical footprint considers two things - the chemicals that are used for the entire production of a product and the final list of ingredients. Chemical footprint also includes the chemicals left behind. Most folks don't realize that paper and fabric production require huge amounts of chemicals. Reading the list of ingredients also gives you an idea of the product's chemical footprint. Remember less is more. Look for simple vegetable based ingredients in products when considering chemical footprint in personal care products.

Social footprint is getting more attention through organizations such as fair trade, but is only a small fraction of consumer products. Social footprint should be considered since the human touch is responsible for everything brought to market. So many faces and stories go behind the making of what we buy and use. It's easy to see the social footprint of some things, but other items, like a light bulb, get complicated. I think everyone would agree that all people deserve fair living wages and healthy, safe working conditions. In this global economy, equalizing working conditions and wages will bring about peaceful exchanges between people and countries for a more secure future.

The green industry has embraced the idea of the triple footprint and uses this to separate itself from green washing or businesses trying half heartedly to jump on the band wagon. Stonyfield Yogurt gets the gold star for working the Triple Footprint to the max. Considering the Triple Footprint is what will bring us towards a sustainable future. Considering the Triple Footprint will help you decide green from really green.

The Green Green Blog (My First)

It is way past the hour of sunset and I am about to press "post" to launch my first blog posting. (Hence the title) My view is dark but upon close inspection the stars are out and the night is awaiting dawn. The air is summer yet crisp, the frogs are chirping. What a way to launch!

There is so much to talk about in the world of green. Topics like pollution, carbon footprint, toxic chemicals, organic foods and...so many more. Most pressing, however, is reducing our CO2 ASAP. There are so many small and big things we can do, individually and as a community. It will take a multi-vitamin approach if we are going to succeed in minimizing the march of global warming and climate change.

Energy use is the biggest producer of CO2, our cars and households and what goes into their use and the production of everything associated with them. Whether its the light bulb burning, using the electricity produced from the coal burning power plant spewing CO2 or the cars we think we need to drive at 70 MPH to get some place. Those are big ticket items. But what about the card you sent to Grammie? Was it virgin paper from clear cut trees produced with chlorine using electricity from incineration? Or was it tree free paper without harmful chemicals made with wind power then transported using carbon offsets?

I don't know the exact difference in carbon footprint between the two, but you can imagine it is fairly significant. These are the choices out there right now to consumers. Imagine if we all choose the lesser impact in all our choices and multiply that by all the people in our country. We're talking big numbers here- a major impact. From little to large, reductions in CO2 add up for the better. It will take a multi vitamin approach. Let's hope we stay out of the intensive care unit.