The other thing I can't recycle in my rubbish

tetra pak
Originally uploaded by Lenny & Meriel.

Thanks to Herefordshire Nature trust webite...

"Frustrated that your recycling efforts are undermined by not being able to recycle Tetra Packs and other fruit juice, soup and milk cartons?

Drinks Cartons are made up of around 80% paper with polyethylene waterproofing and, sometimes, an aluminium lining to give extra product life. Most recycling schemes will not deal with them.

There is a solution! A recycling mill in Scotland is dealing with drinks cartons until local authority schemes are set up. They provide labels so that cartons can be sent to them for recycling (senders must pay postage).
Make sure cartons of milk, juice, soup and sauce are rinsed out, drained and flattened by pulling the ‘ears’ before being packed in a suitable cardboard box, which should be labelled with the mill’s label. The logo on the label acts as an identifier for the paper mill to ensure that the collected cartons go into the right pulper without opening the box! The cartons are pulped and reprocessed into other paper products.

For labels, telephone 020 8977 6116."

For more information see the consortium who actually do it - Drinkscartons.com
Not exactly easy - but nevertheless better than sticking in landfill (or is it?)

Household biodegradable plastics

plastics
Originally uploaded by Lenny & Meriel.

Whether or not it's hard work we have an avenue for disposing of most regular household waste without resorting to landfill...

• Glass - recycle
• Tins - recycle
• Cans - recycle
• PET 1,2 plastics - recycle
• Paper - recycle
• Card - recycle
• Vegetable matter - compost
• Waste food (apart from vegetable matter) - wormery or bokashi

Most of what's left in my bin (and most others I believe) is other sorts of plastics including a lot of polythene and plastic food trays. One solution is that we all avoid buying food and other goods packaged in this way - that would be quite a challenge! Manufacturers use it for good reason - it's strong, lightweight, cheap to produce, waterproof, mouldable and printable and it lasts forever. The latter is of course a large part of the problem: 90% of all the plastics ever produced still exist - they simply won't go away - and yet we keep making more and more which draws upon the diminishing supplies of petrochemicals.

We could start recycling it - but that's not generally accepted as being a worthwhile exercise once you factor in the envionmental costs associated with transportation and processing.

Technology does exist to replace all of this with degradable or biodegradable equivalents which would allow us to place the waste straight on the compost heap. All the different technologies seem to have ways to speed up or slow down the decaying process dependent on the context of use making it ideal for food packaging. It would in theory release nothing but water, CO2 and biomass. Trawling through the web (I'm no scientist) it appears there are 4 ways to make biodegradable and degradable plastics:

1. Biodegradable: Starches from cereal and tuber crops are harvested then broken down by microorganisms into monomers which are then chemically 'rebuilt' in a longer form of polymer which forms the basis forpolylactide (PLA). This is an expensive process for the production of a very low value material.
2. Biodegradable: Bacteria can also produce polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) directly by themselves in a culture which then simply needs to be harvested.
3. Biodegradable: Combining the last 2 principles, the same crops can be genetically modified by introducing the gene from bacteria into the plant to producePHA and PHB . Genetic modification does not have public support and there are doubts about the ability to stop modifications reaching crops grown for consumption.
4. Degradable: plastics such as d2w are made using a traditional plastics process with additives to break down the polymers over time - The manufacturing process is one which involves petrochemicals as now but the advantage of this technology is that the plastics do not require expoure to organisms to break down - they will break down in any environment including landfill and on the streets.

All are contraversial in their own ways involving one or more of the following issues:

• Continued reliance on petrochemicals for degradable plastics Nb. Even some biodegradable plastics have a petrochemical component to improve the quality of the plastics.
• Production process cost making them uncompetitive (2 to 10 times as much) when compared with traditional plastics. Nb. this is improving as petrochemical prices go up making traditional plastics cost more. This cost does not truly represent the lifetime costs because the end of life transportation and disposal is removed from the calculation. If business were exposed to this aspect, and did factor it back in, things might look more comparable.
• Genetic modification is not popular because of concerns regarding the effect on crops grown for consumption.
• Production lines are already set up to cope with current technologies and plastics. Any replacement must function on the same lines and therefore perform in a very similar way. nb. Some of the products available do claim to offer this.
• The current situation leads to excessive landfill which is not considered a high priority to resolve as attention is placed on items which release greenhouse gases when placed in landfill. If plastics become biodegradable a different consumer behaviour will be necessary to avoid making the problem even worse!

I believe that the technologists will find a way through this and arrive at a degradable plastic which has all the positive properties associated with traditional plastics at a competitive cost. Hopefully this will function as well on both the domestic compost heap as in landfill. This does offer up a whole world of potential for improving the consumer experience - here are a few thoughts.

CHALLENGES

• The plastics are often messy having been in direct contact with food - managing them and storing them is an unpleasant experience. The temptation is to 'get rid of them' by putting them into the bin.
• They are bulky by their nature - they are often moulded to retain structure. People need encouragement to store them alongside all the other recycling
• Domestic compost heaps function best when everything breaks down in approximately the same amount of time. The presence of larger items such as plastics might slow this down and make it harder to aerate / turn the heap.
• The change will not be sudden - as a consumer I'll need to be able to easily (yes I mean easily) identify which plastics can be composted.

SOLUTIONS (anything goes - this is brainstorming)

• Make them instantly recognisable and use this as a marketing benefit. E.g. The plastic is always green or always has a leaf (or seeds) embedded into it / printed onto it.
• Embed a tagging mechanism so that packaging can be electronically identified and processed accordingly (either within household through the use of intelligent bins or in a central facility). This could apply to all packaging (not just plastics).
• Use such a mechanism to monitor trends and to let people monitor their own habits - perhaps even incentivise them by giving credits against recycled goods to encourage that market place.
• Market cheap shredders which can handle paper and plastics (including messy polythene) for household use. This would enable householders to store it more effectively and then encourage faster and more 'turnable' composting.
• Provide similarly degradable bags which are airtight even when still being filled up to avoid odours from any food remains. These could be used for all compostable household waste.
• Integrate a datestamp mechanism into the plastic. As it will decay in a preset amount of time - perhaps this can also be a visual reference to the age of the goods and the stage of decomposition - e.g. a colour change, line clarity etc. This is a bit like colour indicator toothbrushes which let you know it's time to get a new one.
• Impregnate the container bag with Ems (Effective micro-organisms) to encourage faster decomposition once on a compost heap.
• Charge people for anything taken to landfill, make recycling free

Reuse - not recycle

recyclepvc
Originally uploaded by Lenny & Meriel.

Just came across this beautiful reused PVC pipe for sale on materious.com. No need to recycle in the traditional sense - no need for heating up and emitting nasty gases.

UCED

UCD process
Originally uploaded by Lenny & Meriel.

User Centered Environmental Design will henceforth be known as UCED until I think of a better name. My mission is to work out how the UCD process adapts to this purpose and what resources are required to make it work.

This image illustrates a standard UCD process. Research is at the heart of the design process. It inspires scope and concept, it informs prototype and specification and it keeps build on track. It is an iterative process where all design decisions are grounded in real user insight, and the insight is gathered through a multitude of research techniques honed to provide usable design information. This process is followed by a design team which includes commercial, content, branding, technology and design specialists. It enables the team to retain an common focus on the end users thereby minimising project risk.

How does this map to UCED?

I believe it does so absolutely directly - the only difference may be the nature of the team involved. It's clear that environmental issues are complex and therefore a team involved in this space needs a specialist representative in that space. The important thing is that everyone designs around the user - NOT primarily around the technology or the commercial objectives - those look after themselves as the process progresses.

If we are to design packaging for reuse or recycling mechanisms or alternatives to flying we need to understand the users goals in that space. E.g. What would they reuse the packaging for? How would they store it? Why would they bother? How often do people recycle? How do they organise their recycling? What do they dislike about it? What do they dislike about rubbish? Why do people take holidays? How do they choose a destination? How do they research the travelling alternatives... the list goes on... Bear in mind that much of this is found out through observation - not asking opinions. People often do something different than they believe they do.

So - If I'm right and we need a specialist representative on the team - who are those people? Do they exist? If not (in sufficient quantities) how can we substitute? Where can we gather the necessary information from?

What has it got to do with design?

Surely it's all about new technology - new clean energy sources, super efficient products, clean manufacturing processes, sticky tape to block up the holes in the ozone layer... if all that could happen then we could all carry on exactly as we are and let the technology take the load off us.

Much as I'm wholly in support of all the above initiatives they just aren't going to be the answers by themselves - and I don't believe that we should carry on exactly as we are because I believe that things could actually be better for us, both as individuals and collectively, if products and services were designed to support a change in behaviour.

All fields of design have undergone a change in attitude over the past 100 years. Solutions are now developed around the end user needs rather than dictated by the underlying structure. In architecture this translates to the development of buildings which truly respond to the way people want to move around and use the space. This in turn encourages productivity and happiness to those in the space whether it be a home, a school or an office. In product design it is manifested in products which are based on the identification of a human need and the development of an interface to connect the user with the facility to complete their task most effectively and with the least distraction.

The old attitude of basing the design around the materials or the technology is being removed through natural selection. It’s a simple economic truth that if you design effective products you will make more money. Consumers have come to expect this choice.

Therefore, in all fields of design, the design process is now one which involves a team of specialists working closely together to arrive at a shared vision of the solution. My company (www.flow-interactive.com”>Flow) is one of many which specialises in a process called User Centered Design (UCD). This is a process which maintains a team focus on the needs of the end users whilst allowing specialists to contribute their expertise to the development of a product or service. This manifests itself in a process in which research and design go hand in hand and end users are involved throughout from conception to acceptance testing. The outcome is a product or service which fulfils the needs / desires of its end users, is commercially viable and technically feasible – ie. A low risk initiative for the sponsor.

I believe the time is right for a user centered design process to become the linchpin in the creation of environmentally friendly goods and services. As it does in all other fields it can find the common ground between economic viability, environmental concern and end user desires & needs. This will result in the development of commercially viable products and services which make a genuine difference to the environment.

It's a world of contradictions

When striving to be green, it often seems that no matter what you do, there's always a counter argument which people are more than happy to pass your way. Here are some contradictions by way of examples...

What's better - new or old...?
It’s better to restore, reuse and recycle, rather than build new, because of the manufacturing and distribution impact of making new things and the disposal costs of the old things. However, technology often exists to make new more energy efficient. E.g. cars... old cars are nowhere near as fuel efficient as modern cars e.g. hybrids. However - is it really better to buy new?

Local or developing world?
We are all encouraged to buy locally produced goods to cut down transport costs. The term 'Food miles' is becoming widely known and judging by the output from the advertising industry they seem to believe that it is people are increasingly demanding locality. Fairtrade exists to support disadvantaged producers in the developing world. Inevitably this means there are high transportation costs for distribution. How do we, as consumers, align these two?
IDEA: Perhaps they are mutually exclusive product ranges or perhaps there's a natural order... 1. buy local 2. buy fairtrade 3. buy elsewhere.

Reuse vs. recycle?
We are conscientiously recycling and manufactureres are increasingly selling goods in recyclable packaging – but sometimes it’s better to simply reuse and remove the impact of the recycling process. This can be reuse for the consumer (E.g. reusing plastic carrier bags, ) or reuse for the manufacturer (E.g. milk bottles, oil bottles, shampoo bottles, beer and wine).
IDEA: Recycling companies might find there's a market for returning packaging to a set of regular manufacturers - perhaps after sterilisation or cleaning.

Personal vs. environmental agenda?
The marketing message surrounding many goods and services in this space are based around personal payback periods. These are usualy focused entirely on energy use and therefore do not indicate the total environmental payback because the manufacturing, distribution and disposal costs have to be factored in. In addition, those prepared to commit to ecologically friendly goods are often trail blazing - and that usually means they pay a premium.
IDEA: We need a currency or a non technical language in which to describe total environmental cost / impact so that we can comprehend impact beyond our own pockets.

Half the information is dangerous
Manufacturers will make and sell what the consumers demand - that's a simple economic truth. Therefore if you want to effect the way products / services are designed you need to change public attitudes. In the rush to change public attitudes it's easy to pass on incomplete information and unknowingly cause more problems. E.g. We are told that PVC is a bad material because of its inpact during manufacturing (toxic), use (offgassing) and disposal (not biodegradable and often not recyclable because it can't be isolated). This has caused houses with PVC windows to command lower prices than those with wooden windows... so homeowners are now ripping out PVC windows which then need to be disposed of. This causes a real environmental problem. It also puts people off buying recycled PVC goods - because they often don't realize the goods are recycled. This is turn impacts the market for recycling PVC and so on...

I'm worried that this whole space will become as faddy as food has, and people will lose confidence in the 'expert' opinion. Unlike food - the choices we make in this space are for the benefit of all which makes uninformed fads a dangerous thing.

Green renovating

Old houses are draughty inefficient places - and very costly (or impossible) to 'fix'. They do however tick the box of 'reuse' rather than 'buy new'. They also make us feel a bit more earthy and in touch with the planet. Let's face it most people simply have no option - they have an old house and no desire or capability to move.

New houses appear to offer the opportunity to get it all right. Perhaps you can even create a carbon neutral house and not only do (more than) your bit, but also save a bundle of money in the process. So the next step is find a plot of land, a pot of money and a friendly local authority. You'll either be worthy of a TV show, or more likely realize it's bloody difficult to achieve this dream.

For me, a new / old house was the answer. My husband (Lenny) and I are just completing the renovation of a 50's bungalow in Guernsey (British channel islands). Local planning restrictions decided this for us because we would have had to rebuild to match the old (very unexceptional) appearance of the house. That would have been extremely wasteful. I'm not going to recount the entire process - that's documented in another blog. I am however going to list some of the nods to environmental concern we are proud (and a little smug) to have built in:

1. Condensing boiler (reused existing)
2. Underfloor heating throughout (water based)
3. A mechanical heat recovery ventilation system
4. A small drying room which the ventilation system exhausts through to allow us to dry out clothing.
   
5. An unheated buffer zone at the front of a glazed SW facing gable to collect solar gain and either distribute around the house in winter or exhaust in summer
6. All energy efficient light bulbs in communal / living areas (mixture of CFL and LED)
7. Pilkington K glass and solar control glass throughout (except glazed gable to enable no 4 above)
8. Air shower systems which make a lower water pressure feel like a higher water pressure by mixing air in
9. Aluminium windows throughout (wood was no good here because we're so exposed to sea air)
10. All A / AAA rated appliances
11. An aluminium guttering system (not PVC) with water butt
    
12. A veg patch to partially supply our needs
13. Used reclaimed floorboards, reused our roof tiles
    

We also believe we've got a house which exactly fits our needs. We know our strange habits and have designed around them. We have found a good balance between our desires (modern comforts) and constraints (money and planning) and attention to the environment.

We tried really hard - but still got a few things wrong, simply couldn't change some and made a conscious decision to go against some recommendations. Here are some examples:

1. We really liked Indian Fossil stone and ordered it for our patio - and forgot to ask about the source and didn't consider the transortation required. We now have a beautiful patio which I feel a little guilty about each time I look at it.
2. We installed a water pump to improve the pressure - because its really bad on top of this cliff. Using more water is of course not very green. In truth it actually doesn't increase our presure to any noticeable degree. It will enable 2 people to have showers at once which doesn't use any more water than 2 people having showers in succession - so my guilt is eased here.
3. Lots of rubbish was generated on site - the hardcore etc was taken to be reclaimed and the extra roof tiles were reused on another house and any waste metal was recycled. Everything else went to landfill. Landfill is in short supply in Guernsey.
4. We used a quite a bit of mdf despite saying we wouldn't. It's cheap and easy to use (money was getting tight).
5. We'd love to have added a power or water heating system (ground source, wind or solar) - money simply didn't allow for ground source and local authorities weren't keen on any wind system being above ridge height - Duh! We might be able to revisit this one later.
   

It has been exactly like any other design project I've been involved in. Design is ALL about working within constraints. In my business they are usually commercial feasibility, technology and resource. The house has been constrained by our needs, desires, budget, local planning, accessible reliable information on environmental issues, and possibly our collective imaginations.

This got me thinking - hence this blog is born...

I want to like green... but it doesn't always suit me

Everyone is talking about it - we all have to look after the planet if our children and grandchildren are to experience the world as we do. Finally, decades of persuasion on the part of a dedicated bunch of environmentalists is paying off. Governments are starting to take notice and legislate, individuals are starting to consider their part, even businesses are starting to see that there are opportunities to be had, not just sacrifices to be made. The worry is that it's too little and too late. There's a school of thought which believes that people need to be bullied into submission through the introduction of tactics like green taxes.

I'm the founder and CEO of Flow. I'm proud to say that we are the UK's largest dedicated User Centred Design (UCD) consultancy. We ensure our clients achieve business success by delivering good customer experiences. We do this by delivering or enabling strategies and designs for the way people use products, systems and services. The core of our approach is the practice of UCD design. This is a research led approach to design which minimises the risk associated with change and new developments by ensuring that what is delivered is in line with end users needs, skills and expectations.

I'm starting this blog for several reasons:
1. I care - I really do. I've tried to change my life and become as green as I can. I've struggled in places because I think the green experience could be improved. More about where I've strggled and what I've done in later posts.
2. I strongly believe that the people centred approach which I follow in my work is directly applicable to the green challenge. It simply adds a further dimension (more on that in another post). We need to improve the experience of being green - that's a design challenge. Let me at it...

Please comment - I believe in dialogue...