Does only half the story get told too much? Readers respond to post on green products
Readers, you liked the post that directly preceded this one, about how Anne Whitacre, a specifier for Gehry Partners in Los Angeles questioned the claims of green products. In fact, you liked it so much that the long version of it (after you click 'more') directly shot up to the most popular post I've ever written.
People read it from Lansing, Mich., from Salt Lake City, from Washington, D.C., from Atlanta, and all throughout Washington and Oregon.
We got interesting comments in our mailbox after running the full editorial too. One reader named Jason wrote, "BINGO! I think Anne nailed it. The second Green design became more about paper work and check lists, is the second green design failed."
Another said, "Finally, bang on, thanks for posting that."
A third said, "People need to use intellect and reason to evaluate the results or benefits of these ideas in relation to short term and long term costs. Further 'sustainable' does not always mean better and certainly does not mean more efficient. These concepts are meant to make us 'feel good' and provide comfort for some imagined guilt for having a successful culture."
Here's what I have to say: thank you for responding! My job (and the job of any credible journalist) is to report both sides to the best of my ability, though often (in non-DJC publications of course) I see that only one side of the story gets told. Your thoughts help me see the whole story, so thank you for your input in either direction.
READERS: I am more than happy to investigate these topics and sound them out, but I need to know what you care about. If you like (or don't like) what we're doing, comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. If you like (or don't like) parts of green design, green buildings, green products etc., comment or e-mail me at katiez@djc.com. I promise that I read all my comments and all my e-mails, and want to hear what you have to say, both good and bad.
We have been up and running for just over a month now. Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments. Keep 'em coming!

April 30th, 2008 - 13:11
Green washing is indeed an epidemic and proof that “critical thinking” is still required when reading a manufacturers label. I personally feel that Anne Whiticare went on a rant about an issue that occurred even prior to the green washing movement. New products, whether Green or not, have been known to fail. The bottom line is that we need to continue to develop as an industry by selecting building materials that don’t impact our health and well being while still maintaining high performance standards. I think her examples were short sighted and didn’t tell the whole story. Just because one manufacturer had a bad batch of paint doesn’t mean they haven’t already corrected the issue or that there isn’t another manufacturer with a better product or that in the end low VOC paint shouldn’t be specified. Or would an architecture firm rather be responsible for a user’s exposure to high VOC’s known to cause cancer and other health defects? I worked on a project where the 0 VOC paint was peeling off some door jambs but after investigating the issue it turned out the specified paint was only designed for drywall and not for hollow metal jambs. We were able to find a 30 g/L VOC paint that was designed for metal and it performed as expected. I understand her frustration about the BS marketing going on out there but my point is that it’s not any different than it has ever been with industry advertising, you are still required to read between the “green” lines.