Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (66 page)

One of the most important of these properties is vinyl’s fire resistance. While it is possible to burn vinyl, it will not burn on its own; if the source of a fire is removed then vinyl is self-extinguishing. This is why nearly all insulation on electrical wiring and most electrical conduit is made of vinyl. This is required by building codes in most jurisdictions. In other words, vinyl is a material of choice in case of fire around electrical equipment.

Most vinyl is used to make rigid pipes for water, sewer, and drainage applications. It is far superior to concrete or steel pipes as it seldom breaks and does not corrode. Vinyl pipe that has been buried for 50 years shows no sign of corrosion or decay. It is likely it could remain in service for 500 years or more as long as it is protected from sunlight. The second major use for vinyl is in construction, for siding, roofing, flooring, wall coverings, decks, and railings. Vinyl can be impregnated with UV inhibitors that give it a 50-year-plus lifetime in direct sunlight in the desert. It is also very easy to add pigments to vinyl to create a complete range of colors. Unlike polyethylene and polypropylene, vinyl can be glued with solvents, making it very convenient to work with on job sites.

Whereas pure vinyl is rigid and somewhat brittle, it can be made to nearly any degree of softness by adding plasticizers, the most important of which are called phthalates (pronounced “thalates”). Soft vinyl is used to make a wide range of products, including toys, fabric for furniture, flooring, carpet backing, packaging, car interiors, kitchen utensils to name a few.

When Greenpeace first adopted the campaign to call PVC “the poison plastic” it focused on the creation of dioxins in the manufacture of the vinyl monomer that is the building block for the plastic polymer. While it is true that a very small amount of dioxin is produced in vinyl plants, less than one-half of 1 percent produced by human activity, the levels emitted are not considered harmful by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In fact all the charges that PVC is “toxic” come from activist groups rather than environmental regulators. The activists’ response to the EPA’s evaluation is that it is “in the pocket of industry,” a blatantly false assertion, but a last resort for people who have no real evidence of harm.

Most of the dioxin produced by humans comes from incineration, wood combustion, diesel trucks, oil-fired power plants, coal-fired industry, and cement kilns. The entire chemical industry does not even rate in the top 10.
[4]

PVC itself is about as nontoxic as a substance can be. Exposure to PVC does not cause any harm. It is not possible to eat enough PVC to cause toxicity as it would pass through one’s body undigested (I do not recommend you try this, however. PVC contains zero nutrition!). Faced with the fact that calling PVC “poison” was an outright lie, the anti-PVC movement eventually changed tactics. Instead of attacking vinyl itself, its crusaders turned to the many substances that are added to PVC to give it desirable characteristics. For years metals such as lead, cadmium, and tin were added to PVC as stabilizers. This is changing as zero-tolerance policies for elements like lead have come into force. Again, this change has not been imposed by regulatory agencies but rather by politicians playing into activist agendas.

There is no evidence that lead added to PVC causes harmful exposure to lead, even though lead is toxic at relatively low levels. Nevertheless, the vinyl industry is moving away from lead and working to find suitable substitutes.

More recently PVC has been attacked because of the plasticizers used to make it soft. The little rubber ducky our kids use as a bath toy has become the symbol of “toxic PVC.” Every statement by Greenpeace on the subject refers to PVC as “toxic PVC.” There is a book titled
Slow Death
by Rubber Duck
.
[5]
This is a classic case of a campaign based on misinformation (toxic PVC), promoted through the use of sensationalism (“one of the most toxic substances saturating our planet and its inhabitants”)
[6]
and fear (“linked to cancer and kidney damage”.
[7]
There’s that word
linked
again.)

Our credit cards and bankcards and drivers’ licenses are made of vinyl. We carry them around with us and handle them regularly. Are credit cards “linked” to cancer? How about that old collection of vinyl records? In truth there is no evidence vinyl is harming anyone. It’s as trumped up as the killer sea lice story, but it seems to sell papers and attract funding, so why give up on a good thing?

For some years now activists have focused on children’s toys, packaging, and the green building movement as arenas to push for a ban on vinyl. Preying on parents’ concern for their children’s welfare, a number of groups have claimed that phthalates in children’s toys are a hazard. A number of key science and regulatory bodies have rejected this charge. In Europe the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment concluded that DINP, one of the most common phthalates, “poses no risk to either human health or the environment from any current use.”
[8]
Yet the political arm of the European Union chose to ban phthalates for “precautionary” reasons. The EPA determined exposure to phthalates was so low that it posed no danger to anyone, including infants. This did not stop politicians, former president George W. Bush among them, from banning phthalates in children’s toys. It is so compelling for politicians to be seen to care about babies that they will ignore the best scientific advice and “do the right thing.”

The campaign against vinyl as a packaging material has focused on big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and Staples. These big brands are very sensitive about their reputations and are therefore easy targets for what I call “blackmail in the boardroom.”

It’s a simply formula. Activists threaten to besmirch the good name of the corporation if it doesn’t cooperate. The management knows its job is to protect the company from public criticism. It is often possible to extract statements from the companies that indicate they are on the activists’ side.

When pressed in this manner about its use of PVC for packaging, Wal-Mart announced it would phase out PVC packaging for its own brand-name products. This put wind into the sails of the anti-PVC movement who then used Wal-Mart’s promise to pressure other retailers to do the same or more. Note Wal-Mart did not promise to eliminate PVC altogether from its stores. Surely Wal-Mart would want to get rid of all PVC if it were toxic and a poison. But as I told a Wal-Mart executive later, “Wal-Mart stores would look like mausoleums if you took all the vinyl products out.” Not only are many of the items on sale made from PVC but the plumbing, wiring, and flooring all contain vinyl.

Just search the Internet for “Wal-Mart PVC” and you will see there is a mixture of articles reporting Wal-Mart has “banned PVC” on the one hand and on the other hand lots of other websites where Wal-Mart advertises bargain prices on merchandise made with PVC. But its token gesture to ban the use of PVC in certain packages gives the impression there is something wrong with vinyl and that the activists’ cause is valid.

In its 2009 Global Sustainability Report Wal-Mart stated:

“in 2007, we missed meeting our goal to eliminate PVC from our private-brand packaging. We made progress toward this goal by converting PVC clamshells to PET [Polyethylene-terephthalate] and either completely removing PVC windows in packaging or replacing the PVC windows with PET. While we continue to look for alternatives to PVC, we have been unable to find suitable replacements for PVC used in over-the-counter, tamper-evident bands, metal can sealants and meat wrapping, among others. Until we identify another material of equal performance, we will not eliminate PVC from certain items to ensure the safety of our customers.”

So PVC is important for the safety of its customers but Wal-Mart continues to seek ways to eliminate it, not because there is anything wrong with vinyl but because the chain has been blackmailed into adopting a stupid policy. Hopefully Wal-Mart will eventually see the error of its ways.

The anti-vinyl lobby has worked very hard to give PVC a bad name in the green building movement. For years activists have tried to get the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to adopt their anti-PVC agenda. At first they asked the Council to adopt a negative point for buildings that used PVC in construction. As it would have been the only negative point in the entire rating system the Council eventually decided instead to award a point for “deselecting” vinyl. The USGBC is responsible for the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental and Design) rating system for green buildings. LEED has many good attributes, but it also acts as a kind of Trojan horse to deliver key activist agendas into the green building movement. In particular it discriminates against wood and hydroelectric energy, the two most important sources of renewable materials and energy, respectively, and nuclear energy. The USGBC was founded by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a prominent Washington, D.C.-based organization composed largely of environmentalist lawyers, with the support of Greenpeace, WWF,
etc.
The LEED standard does not discriminate against steel or concrete, even though they require far more energy to produce, resulting in more air pollution than either wood or PVC.

Some manufacturers of vinyl have used the negative publicity generated by the smear campaign against vinyl as a marketing advantage. Some seem genuinely convinced there is something wrong with vinyl while others readily admit that they are playing off the anti-vinyl campaign. It’s pretty cynical but it works with people who buy into the activists’ misinformation and are therefore keen to avoid using vinyl, except of course for their credit cards. I attended the 2009 Green Building conference put on by the U.S. Homebuilders Association. Some manufacturers of vinyl flooring were also offering “PVC-free” flooring that looks a lot like vinyl flooring. It is obviously made with a different plastic or mix of plastics and it costs more than vinyl. It struck me as odd that the marketing strategy for this flooring product was all about what it
wasn’t
made from. There was no indication of what it
was
made from, only that it was “PVC-free.” Such are the distortions caused by fanatics who claim vinyl is killing us.

Under pressure to adopt an anti-PVC standard, the USGBC struck an expert panel in 2002 called the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee (TSAC). In late 2004, after it had received hundreds of submissions and considered all the available evidence the committee’s draft report concluded, “the available evidence does not support a conclusion that PVC is consistently worse than alternative materials on an environmental lifecycle and health basis.”
[9]
In other words it is as good as the other materials. The committee added that, “such a simple credit could steer designers to use materials which performed worse over their life cycles.” In other words a credit for deselecting vinyl might result in the choice of an alternative material that causes more damage to consumers’ health or the environment. Examples would include using steel pipe rather than PVC pipe, using tar and gravel roofing rather than PVC roofing, and using linoleum instead of PVC for flooring in health care facilities.

As a result of the TSAC recommendation, a splinter group called the Healthy Building Network (HBN) broke off from the USGBC to campaign against PVC in buildings. Obviously no amount of scientific study is good enough for zealots who don’t want to give up a good fundraising campaign. Led by former Greenpeace activist Bill Walsh, the HBN works tirelessly to convince architects, builders, and the public that PVC is poisoning them and their clients. Of all the great ironies the HBC has placed a strong emphasis on health care facilities, claiming that the vinyl products used in building and operating hospitals and care facilities harm patients. The campaign has since broadened to include all of the halogens, which include fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine and anything containing them.

The reason this is ironic is because fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine are so important for public health and medicine. As mentioned earlier, chlorine is the most important disinfectant we have. Bleach is made with chlorine and chlorine is added to our drinking water to kill the bacteria that can kill us. Chlorine is the basis for many important medicines. Bromine is also used to make medicines and to make brominated pucks that prevent our swimming pools and spas from turning into cesspools. Fluorine is added to drinking water, or taken in the form of pills or drops to prevent tooth decay in children. I did not receive fluorine as a child and consequently had more than 30 cavities by the time I was 20. My two sons had fluoride drops and neither one had a single cavity before age 20. Iodine was once the most important antiseptic and it is an essential nutrient. That’s why it is added to table salt in the same way vitamin C is added to apple juice. Iodine is essential for thyroid function and an iodine deficiency can result in slowed mental and physical development. So removing all halogens from health care would be a bit like removing most of the food from a restaurant.