"Recycled Aluminium" claims possibly greenwashing?

[YellowJersey]

So I'm watching Linus' review of the HP laptop that's supposed to be super user-repairable and I've noticed that whenever companies try to hype up their eco-friendliness, "recycled aluminium" is usually present.

 

 My question is: is this claim misleading to the point of greenwashing? (I don't know, I'm genuinely asking)

 The reason why I ask this question is that aluminium is really easy to recycle. I remember watching one of Joe Scott's videos and he said that of all the aluminium ever mined, about 70%(ish) is still in circulation, which suggests that most aluminium is recycled anyway. This got me wondering, "How much aluminium in, say, computer chassis is virgin vs recycled?" If (and that's a big "if") a significant portion of aluminium used in these products would have been recycled anyway, would that make marketing claims of "recycled aluminium" to boast sustainability greenwashing? I mean, it's not a lie, but is misleading? If it is misleading, how badly misleading is it?

 Thoughts? Or am I just overthinking this in my idle musings?

[Quackers101]

one could say it is greenwashing marketing, to the power needed to get the metal anyways, which could be green or not. still maybe not as bad like mixed metals and plastic pollution?

[mr moose]

I think you will find nearly all marketing that includes climate and social justice issues is mostly hogwash and just another angle to sucker in consumers.    The whole concept of "carbon neutral" for example, is about as beneficial to the environment as a greeny insulting motorists on the highway.

 

Chassis could easily be 100% recycled aluminium,  but so is 70% of aluminium products.  It's kinda like those chicken ads in Australia where they claim to not have any growth hormones (it's illegal to use any hormones in chicken farming in Australia so they are all hormone free).

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you will find nearly all marketing that includes climate and social justice issues is mostly hogwash and just another angle to sucker in consumers.    The whole concept of "carbon neutral" for example, is about as beneficial to the environment as a greeny insulting motorists on the highway.

 

Chassis could easily be 100% recycled aluminium,  but so is 70% of aluminium products.  It's kinda like those chicken ads in Australia where they claim to not have any growth hormones (it's illegal to use any hormones in chicken farming in Australia so they are all hormone free).

 

 

As usual you can’t stat. 

[Imbadatnames]

10 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

So I'm watching Linus' review of the HP laptop that's supposed to be super user-repairable and I've noticed that whenever companies try to hype up their eco-friendliness, "recycled aluminium" is usually present.

 

 My question is: is this claim misleading to the point of greenwashing? (I don't know, I'm genuinely asking)

 The reason why I ask this question is that aluminium is really easy to recycle. I remember watching one of Joe Scott's videos and he said that of all the aluminium ever mined, about 70%(ish) is still in circulation, which suggests that most aluminium is recycled anyway. This got me wondering, "How much aluminium in, say, computer chassis is virgin vs recycled?" If (and that's a big "if") a significant portion of aluminium used in these products would have been recycled anyway, would that make marketing claims of "recycled aluminium" to boast sustainability greenwashing? I mean, it's not a lie, but is misleading? If it is misleading, how badly misleading is it?

 Thoughts? Or am I just overthinking this in my idle musings?

No, recycled aluminium contributes 95% less carbon than primary. Even 10% primary and 90% recycled emits like 3x the carbon than 100% recycled. 

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

As usual you can’t stat. 

Care to enlighten us with your wisdom? Maybe you could explain to these guys why they are wrong:

 

https://aluminium.org.au/how-aluminium-is-made/recycling-aluminium-chart/

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Care to enlighten us with your wisdom? Maybe you could explain to these guys why they are wrong:

 

https://aluminium.org.au/how-aluminium-is-made/recycling-aluminium-chart/

 

 

You’re reading and regurgitating you’re not understanding. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

On 11/4/2022 at 8:41 PM, YellowJersey said:

So I'm watching Linus' review of the HP laptop that's supposed to be super user-repairable and I've noticed that whenever companies try to hype up their eco-friendliness, "recycled aluminium" is usually present.

 

 My question is: is this claim misleading to the point of greenwashing? (I don't know, I'm genuinely asking)

 The reason why I ask this question is that aluminium is really easy to recycle. I remember watching one of Joe Scott's videos and he said that of all the aluminium ever mined, about 70%(ish) is still in circulation, which suggests that most aluminium is recycled anyway. This got me wondering, "How much aluminium in, say, computer chassis is virgin vs recycled?" If (and that's a big "if") a significant portion of aluminium used in these products would have been recycled anyway, would that make marketing claims of "recycled aluminium" to boast sustainability greenwashing? I mean, it's not a lie, but is misleading? If it is misleading, how badly misleading is it?

 Thoughts? Or am I just overthinking this in my idle musings?

Are you sure it's not because you watched Louis Rossmann's video?

 

[YellowJersey]

3 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Are you sure it's not because you watched Louis Rossmann's video?

 

Believe it or not, I haven't actually watched that.

[ecopengi]

I would say that it is green-washing, like others have said. I believe that it should be natural for manufacturers to use "recycled" or "green" materials in their products without having to state as a fact. On top of that, if the entire aluminum supply is at least 70% recycled, then it certainly confirms that they just mentioned this to be seen as more "green" than anyone else.

I can appreciate the effort, but it may be misleading consumers to buy this product over others in an attempt to be more eco-friendly -- which this product isn't. Still love the idea of easily repairable laptops though.

[Lurking]

If you want to laugh (or cry) about large scale greenwashing, google LEED building certification. Most governments and large institutions like universities fall for that. So unlike that laptop, we are all required to pay for it.

[ecopengi]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

If you want to laugh (or cry) about large scale greenwashing, google LEED building certification. Most governments and large institutions like universities fall for that. So unlike that laptop, we are all required to pay for it.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the cost of getting the actual LEED certification -- essentially for the plaque on the wall of the building -- is the greenwashing?

If so, I agree with you. Although it's great that there is a system in place that architects & institutions can use to achieve more eco-friendly design in their buildings, it doesn't make sense for there to be a steep cost applied to it.

 

According to this article:

 

"The USGBC estimates these to be between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project and whether you are developing a new construction or renovating an existing building. But this can usually be recouped through increased rents and lower bills during the lifespan of the building. " https://www.rts.com/blog/leed-certification-cost/

 

They are essentially instigating a hike in rent in order to cover the sustainable design. So, in the end, who gets the benefit from this "sustainable" building design? Less the people, and more the ego/wallet of whatever institution or landlord bought into this.

 

I'm ALL FOR sustainable design, but to pay upwards of 60,000 for a plaque doesn't make sense. Those funds could go towards MORE sustainable design in the building that could directly benefit the people inhabiting it.

[mr moose]

20 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

You’re reading and regurgitating you’re not understanding. 

if you have nothing of value to add to this discussion kindly leave.

 

[Sauron]

Maybe it's in higher percentage recycled than usual, however it probably doesn't make much difference for climate change compared to just not buying a new laptop. I don't think the aluminium in the chassis is the most polluting part of a computer by a long shot.

[Imbadatnames]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

if you have nothing of value to add to this discussion kindly leave.

 

70% of all mined aluminium being in use currently doesn’t mean that 70% of it is recycled it just means it it’s in use currently or just sat somewhere in say an aviation boneyards, it’s just not been disposed of. It also doesn’t mean that 70% of aluminium products are recycled. An example of this is coke cans, pespsi and coke in the US only use at most 50% recycled aluminium. Aviation I cannot find a source for them even using recycled materials outside of “planning to in the future”. 

[Lurking]

8 hours ago, ecopengi said:

Just to clarify, are you saying that the cost of getting the actual LEED certification -- essentially for the plaque on the wall of the building -- is the greenwashing?

If so, I agree with you. Although it's great that there is a system in place that architects & institutions can use to achieve more eco-friendly design in their buildings, it doesn't make sense for there to be a steep cost applied to it.

 

According to this article:

 

"The USGBC estimates these to be between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project and whether you are developing a new construction or renovating an existing building. But this can usually be recouped through increased rents and lower bills during the lifespan of the building. " https://www.rts.com/blog/leed-certification-cost/

 

They are essentially instigating a hike in rent in order to cover the sustainable design. So, in the end, who gets the benefit from this "sustainable" building design? Less the people, and more the ego/wallet of whatever institution or landlord bought into this.

 

I'm ALL FOR sustainable design, but to pay upwards of 60,000 for a plaque doesn't make sense. Those funds could go towards MORE sustainable design in the building that could directly benefit the people inhabiting it.

USGBC is the organization that provides the plaque and gets the fees. So of course they say it is a good system

 

Just a few nuggets:

- all verification of the building features is done by the design team. There is no one from USBGC actually ever seeing the building. Obviously the design team use the certification in their portfolio for future work and want it to look good

- energy efficiency is measured by energy simulation how many % it is better than code (actually based on ASHRAE 90.1, which may or may not be code in that location. Sounds good to be 30% better than code requires, right? But the baseline is an outdated 2006 (or whatever they use now) guideline. So your 2022 building is so many percent better than it was required in 2006. the proper way would be to compare it to a modern code or guideline.  

- The energy consumption is simulated and compared to a base case. Base case based on the applicable 90.1. That is the "base case". A LOT is based on assumptions (infiltrations, thermal bridges etc.). So if you want 30% improvement, you just make the base case worse by changing some assumptions. 

- There are credits for items out of control of he owner, or ones that are required anyway. For example, you get credit for erosion control which is required by code anyway. Or you get credit because a bus stop is nearby (which isn't provided by the building). 

- I've personally know Platinum certified buildings that on paper had excellent efficient geothermal systems. The geothermal field was horizontal (close to the surface) and froze up in winter. They ended up installing gas boilers. The building still is platinum certified. Other geo-exchange buildings that were designed with a backup gas  boiler operate 95% of winter on gas. Of course, according to USGBC this is all carbon neutral now.

 

I'm sure there is a LEED building done right somewhere. But you also can build it well and save the $50K USGBC fees. 

 

It is the same with the sustainable fishing labels, and al other stuff. Just too much money and too much temptation. Maybe they start out with good intentions, but then everyone realizes they can double the prize when they add a nice picture of happy animals. 

[airborne spoon]

16 hours ago, Lurking said:

If you want to laugh (or cry) about large scale greenwashing, google LEED building certification. Most governments and large institutions like universities fall for that. So unlike that laptop, we are all required to pay for it.

 

14 hours ago, ecopengi said:

Just to clarify, are you saying that the cost of getting the actual LEED certification -- essentially for the plaque on the wall of the building -- is the greenwashing?

If so, I agree with you. Although it's great that there is a system in place that architects & institutions can use to achieve more eco-friendly design in their buildings, it doesn't make sense for there to be a steep cost applied to it.

 

According to this article:

 

"The USGBC estimates these to be between $20,000 to $60,000 depending on the size and complexity of the project and whether you are developing a new construction or renovating an existing building. But this can usually be recouped through increased rents and lower bills during the lifespan of the building. " https://www.rts.com/blog/leed-certification-cost/

 

They are essentially instigating a hike in rent in order to cover the sustainable design. So, in the end, who gets the benefit from this "sustainable" building design? Less the people, and more the ego/wallet of whatever institution or landlord bought into this.

 

I'm ALL FOR sustainable design, but to pay upwards of 60,000 for a plaque doesn't make sense. Those funds could go towards MORE sustainable design in the building that could directly benefit the people inhabiting it.

All new buildings around me are LEED Platinum and damn i hate those stupid things. its like walking into a giant faraday cage as soon as the door closes behind you your cell signal drops to might get a text out or no service. Its annoying as hell when you need to talk to people inside the building and they don't have desk phones. Ohhh it uses less power to cool all year but you have windows that dont or barely open and its always stuffy as hell inside those buildings. Its all a crock of shit

[Lurking]

14 minutes ago, airborne spoon said:

 

All new buildings around me are LEED Platinum and damn i hate those stupid things. its like walking into a giant faraday cage as soon as the door closes behind you your cell signal drops to might get a text out or no service. Its annoying as hell when you need to talk to people inside the building and they don't have desk phones. Ohhh it uses less power to cool all year but you have windows that dont or barely open and its always stuffy as hell inside those buildings. Its all a crock of shit

I don't see how LEED has anything to do with you not having a signal. The construction of the building is exactly the same as other buildings. Some buildings have more steel, which shields signals. but this is based on structural/fire protection requirements, not LEED. Some glass has metal coating. They have antennas to bring signals inside the building. and some phones/cell providers just suck. 

 

They should meet ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation requirements (which basically will be what most codes require anyway, or would be similar to most codes.... another thing where you get LEED credit for something you have to do anyway.). If they have bad air, something went wrong. But again, since there is no verification, anything is possible. 

[ecopengi]

7 hours ago, Lurking said:

USGBC is the organization that provides the plaque and gets the fees. So of course they say it is a good system

 

Just a few nuggets:

- all verification of the building features is done by the design team. There is no one from USBGC actually ever seeing the building. Obviously the design team use the certification in their portfolio for future work and want it to look good

- energy efficiency is measured by energy simulation how many % it is better than code (actually based on ASHRAE 90.1, which may or may not be code in that location. Sounds good to be 30% better than code requires, right? But the baseline is an outdated 2006 (or whatever they use now) guideline. So your 2022 building is so many percent better than it was required in 2006. the proper way would be to compare it to a modern code or guideline.  

- The energy consumption is simulated and compared to a base case. Base case based on the applicable 90.1. That is the "base case". A LOT is based on assumptions (infiltrations, thermal bridges etc.). So if you want 30% improvement, you just make the base case worse by changing some assumptions. 

- There are credits for items out of control of he owner, or ones that are required anyway. For example, you get credit for erosion control which is required by code anyway. Or you get credit because a bus stop is nearby (which isn't provided by the building). 

- I've personally know Platinum certified buildings that on paper had excellent efficient geothermal systems. The geothermal field was horizontal (close to the surface) and froze up in winter. They ended up installing gas boilers. The building still is platinum certified. Other geo-exchange buildings that were designed with a backup gas  boiler operate 95% of winter on gas. Of course, according to USGBC this is all carbon neutral now.

 

I'm sure there is a LEED building done right somewhere. But you also can build it well and save the $50K USGBC fees. 

 

It is the same with the sustainable fishing labels, and al other stuff. Just too much money and too much temptation. Maybe they start out with good intentions, but then everyone realizes they can double the prize when they add a nice picture of happy animals. 

 

1 hour ago, airborne spoon said:

 

All new buildings around me are LEED Platinum and damn i hate those stupid things. its like walking into a giant faraday cage as soon as the door closes behind you your cell signal drops to might get a text out or no service. Its annoying as hell when you need to talk to people inside the building and they don't have desk phones. Ohhh it uses less power to cool all year but you have windows that dont or barely open and its always stuffy as hell inside those buildings. Its all a crock of shit

 

A few years back when I was majoring in architecture for a minute, I had an environmental architecture class where the prof talked SO highly on the LEED certification process and it kinda threw me off even at the time.

 

Now it just feels kinda sad. It's like it had the good intentions of being a leading system on sustainable design, but then became like a posh country club.

[airborne spoon]

1 hour ago, Lurking said:

I don't see how LEED has anything to do with you not having a signal. The construction of the building is exactly the same as other buildings. Some buildings have more steel, which shields signals. but this is based on structural/fire protection requirements, not LEED. Some glass has metal coating. They have antennas to bring signals inside the building. and some phones/cell providers just suck. 

 

They should meet ASHRAE 62.1 ventilation requirements (which basically will be what most codes require anyway, or would be similar to most codes.... another thing where you get LEED credit for something you have to do anyway.). If they have bad air, something went wrong. But again, since there is no verification, anything is possible. 

there is no antennas to bring the signal inside, likely because it costs more than they want to spend. As to why there is no signal i was told by some of the engineers that they use insolation that has a lot of metal in it kinda like chicken wire to hold it all together, and they also use a lot of extra steel. I dono how true that is but it would make sense because no other building I've ever walked into makes every single person that goes in lose their cell signal. Maybe a few people with off brand phones or carriers but not every device on every carrier and when the cell tower is 1 mile away.

[IRMacGuyver]

If recycling aluminum is much like recycling other metals it's actually worse for the environment than mining new aluminum.  The cost of electricity to remelt it(plus the electricity is usually coal based) and the chemicals used to strip out impurities it makes metal recycling pretty bad most of the time despite the common sense logic that it should be better. 

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

70% of all mined aluminium being in use currently doesn’t mean that 70% of it is recycled it just means it it’s in use currently or just sat somewhere in say an aviation boneyards, it’s just not been disposed of. It also doesn’t mean that 70% of aluminium products are recycled. An example of this is coke cans, pespsi and coke in the US only use at most 50% recycled aluminium. Aviation I cannot find a source for them even using recycled materials outside of “planning to in the future”. 

No you are right, in the land I quoted we actually export 96% of our scrap aluminum for recycling rather than doing it ourselves.   Mostly to South Korea, Indonesia and India,  you know,  the people who turn it into computers and phones and then pontificate how they are saving the world.  The US has 57% of their production from recycled materials.  The drink can is the most recycled drink container in the world at 70% and 75% of aluminium is still in "productive use", not sitting in a junkyard:

https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/home/

 

EDIT: forgot to add this,  china (that place where all our shit is made) is the worlds largest producer of recycled aluminium for consumer goods at 1/3rd the worlds annual volume:

https://aluminium.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IAI-Recycling-Factsheet.pdf

 

 

7 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

If recycling aluminum is much like recycling other metals it's actually worse for the environment than mining new aluminum.  The cost of electricity to remelt it(plus the electricity is usually coal based) and the chemicals used to strip out impurities it makes metal recycling pretty bad most of the time despite the common sense logic that it should be better. 

https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/home/

 

 

Don't know about the chemicals,  likely they hardly use many given they don't recycle contaminated aluminium.  But generally speaking 95% less energy to recycle than produce new.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Imbadatnames]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No you are right, in the land I quoted we actually export 96% of our scrap aluminum for recycling rather than doing it ourselves.   Mostly to South Korea, Indonesia and India,  you know,  the people who turn it into computers and phones and then pontificate how they are saving the world.  The US has 57% of their production from recycled materials.  The drink can is the most recycled drink container in the world at 70% and 75% of aluminium is still in "productive use", not sitting in a junkyard:

https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/home/

 

EDIT: forgot to add this,  china (that place where all our shit is made) is the worlds largest producer of recycled aluminium for consumer goods at 1/3rd the worlds annual volume:

https://aluminium.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IAI-Recycling-Factsheet.pdf

 

 

https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/home/

 

 

Don't know about the chemicals,  likely they hardly use many given they don't recycle contaminated aluminium.  But generally speaking 95% less energy to recycle than produce new.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are literally not reading anything I’m saying. 
 

Again you don’t know how to do statistics. Reading numbers and regurgitating then isn’t how things work. 

[Arika]

32 minutes ago, Imbadatnames said:

You are literally not reading anything I’m saying. 
 

Again you don’t know how to do statistics. Reading numbers and regurgitating then isn’t how things work. 

instead of sitting back and saying "you're wrong" "you don't know how things work" "you don't know how to do stats"

 

How about YOU provide your "stats" as to why the links Moose has provided are wrong or why you think Moose is interpreting them wrong?

[Imbadatnames]

3 hours ago, Arika S said:

instead of sitting back and saying "you're wrong" "you don't know how things work" "you don't know how to do stats"

 

How about YOU provide your "stats" as to why the links Moose has provided are wrong or why you think Moose is interpreting them wrong?

I don’t need to because I didn’t make a positive claim? That’s how proof works. The stats they’re using for a start don’t have sources it’s literally just amounts to a poster with no indication of where the numbers are actually from. It also flits between areas every other sentence trying to make the numbers sound more impressive. One minute they’re using examples from Europe then it’s the US and now it’s worldwide, all for different points like every region is the same. Secondly it’s fairly obvious to anyone that just because x amount is still in use it doesn’t mean x amount is the amount that’s recycled.