I haven't tracked exactly what materials are going into everything called green, but what I'm seeing is that by and large we are using a lot of non-green stuff in recyclable form and calling it green.  I see some true green in sustainable forests but a lot of other products, but that's about it.  So, my question is, why is something Green if the recycled materials going into it would never have qualified for Green?  I'd say we should give a Source Green and Recycle Green split. 

I buy used cars.  Am I more green because of that?  Unless someone bought it new, I can't buy used.  In the same way, people are saying they are green for re-using environmentally unfriendly products.  Take away that source of enviro-unfriendly material and they'd have no green product.

What do you think about Source Green vs. Recycle Green split?  If we don't do this, at some point, it's smoke and mirrors for a lot of companies who are basically buying someone else's carbon footprint (previously made non-green products) and integrating them into new products.  If you recycle formaldehyde rich mdf sheets or cabinets from past projects, doesn't make the new place better simply by saying "No formaldehyde added", does it?

I mean, we would sell gallons of previously created formaldehyde with "No new formaldehyde" added, right?  Is that green?  Does recycling non-green make one green?  It's Backward Green, not Forward Green.  It's Recycle Green, not Source Green.  Quasi Green vs. True Green.

I even see green wood products but then with non-green big Haps/VOC finishes.  It's trendy to label anything you do green for any reason.  But is it green.  If we recycle the same failed political from years ago in politics, is that green?  See what I mean?  You need "New Green", not "Old Green". 

It's crazy.

Here's a sample code and sample breakout.

G64B (80=N70A)(20=R40D)

Sustainable Green 64% overall content, Human Hazard Rating of "B"

(Material 1:  80% content is New material that has 70% sustainable green content with a Human Hazard Rating of "A")

(Material 2:  20% content is Recycled material that has 40% sustainable green overall content with a Human Hazard Rating of "D"

("A" means excellent, "F" means flunked)

Now, that may be unrealistically long, but it is indelibly accurate.  Hate to do the math though.

Further, how does one define sustainable green?  I think in materials that grow it is easy:  you buy only from a place that is taking an existing plot of land and growing and selling that, not taking from new land that hasn't been harvested yet.  Then comes the question:  who decides when new land is needed that now becomes sustainable--though the action of dedicated it to sustainable use was itself an unsustainable action if continued with more and more subtractions from the otherwise untilled earth.  But regarding chemicals, what is green about metal except to recycle.  And what's green about using coal for your energy source to re-use the metal?

Got any clues how to do this?  Or does it never end and we just have to have people lump it all together and give it an overall green rating and rely on various groups to consolidate so we have a single standard--and then the standard makers who do the judging just crunch the numbers and give it an overall rating that is simple for customers, and various individual companies highlight the minutae?

What say you?