Paint Waste: The Real Green Monster - The Referendum on Paint - Part 3

By: Tony Margani of EVOpaint™

Waste is the original pollution.

In the outfield at Fenway Park in Boston, there’s a large thirty seven foot wall that baseball calls ‘The Green Monster’. It is ominous, it is intimidating and it is surprisingly easy to hit over only being about 315 feet from home base, making it a popular and famous target. Hitting homeruns anywhere else just doesn’t generate the same kind of excitement for the fans and players. And getting over the wall in exchange for bonus highlight reel footage and enhanced status is a goal that has become exceedingly valued. It’s kind of like a fully mature, totally accepted, understood and mastered incentive model. Completely sustainable and where all parties involved benefit from the process.

By a show of hands how many of you homeowners and paint users know what voc stands for? It’s ok I’ll give you a moment… that’s what I thought. Now, how many of you are familiar with the term: WASTE?! How about: INNOVATION?! It may not seem like it but these two words need each other, more so than ever before.

To help us get a handle on the fundamentals for this week let’s re-visit back to Part 1 of this series with the popular environmental adage of our youth ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’. The origins of this campaign were meant to prohibit waste generation but its catchy rhyme (there’s even a Jack Johnson song on youtube by the same name for a more contemporary take) and good intention hasn’t achieved much, at least in the world of paint.

We can’t escape it because we need it. I want you to lather, rinse and repeat this phrase.

It’s of no coincidence that the first ‘R’ is reduce and the last is recycle. I mean it’s obvious, if you don’t buy it, you don’t use it and if you don’t use it then you can’t waste it. But the truth is we like to buy and we habitually waste. That said I can’t unconditionally blame the consumer, homeowner or builder because in particular cases we need to consume an exact amount of some materials and products (like shampoo and conditioner) in order to get the job done. This is also the case for paint and the waste it creates.

We can’t escape it because we need it. One more time.

North Americans purchased approximately 8.3 billion litres of decorative paint and coatings in 2010-2012. Of what can be accurately surveyed, it is estimated that the waste yield ranged from 10%-16% equivalent to upwards of 1.3 billion litres of brand new product excluding containers. By definition, an effectively operating recovery model relies on access to and control over the accountability of waste. But diverting the flow of consumer paint waste has proven to be costly, complex and tenuous using the reuse, recycle and safe disposal program. Because this system is reactionary and functions within the rule of waste creation and consistent recovery to be successful, it cannot stem habitual waste at the source. This leaves unresolved the challenge of how to avoid waste while maintaining our required consumption. Coupled with the compounded effect of raw material extraction, container usage and production energy wastes, the need arises for an evolution, a practical solution bringing a new conversation in paint to the people.

We can’t escape it because we need it.

Earlier I asked what voc stands for: Volatile Organic Compound. For those of you who got it right let me ask you now: do you know what it means? In the last twenty years, North American governments have outlined an average limit for interior architectural paints in the amount of 100grams per litre. So for every litre of paint produced the chemicals that contribute to voc’s must be restricted to this limit. Researchers have concluded that voc’s (a very prolonged evaporating vapour) are not acutely toxic and as such are therefore considered to maybe pose long term symptoms but because the concentrations in paints are so low and these levels easily dissipate into the outdoor air over time, experts are unable to trace and record the development of this theory. That bit of technical data has taken over fifteen years for a full industry and very partial consumer digest and who can be surprised? People aren’t hip to invisible vapour that may or may not send them into a coughing fit fifty years from now. We are an impulsive bunch that needs of and disposes of as easily as it is for me to type the word ‘waste’.

We CAN escape it! We WILL escape it because we don’t need it.

I draw the distinction between waste and voc not because I find fault with the control of these chemicals (I agree we must limit as per government regulation) but because waste is more important. It is an ever increasing problem and nobody is talking about it. When you actually find somebody writing in the mainstream about paint from a sustainability point of view it’s usually a brief vague mention of voc’s in a ‘green’ article. These mentions are benign of real purpose and substance compared to more exciting technologies in construction. But there is something very exciting happening today in paint for homeowners and through incentive will resolve the challenge of how to avoid waste while maintaining our required consumption. We find it using the model I re-insert here from Part 1:

A true, sustainable and quantifiable, one-coat paint that never requires a primer or second coat but a single application to achieve a finished result over any surface. This delivers material and labour cost savings of 66% to the builder and consumer and prevents 66% raw material extraction, energy, transport, production and post-consumer wastes, rewarding users beyond their money and time savings with an effortless, tangible, built in eco-incentive.

This commitment defines an exclusive ability to manipulate the use of paint to benefit a balance with nature and introduces a quantifiable green position and not just a marketing buzz phrase. This is the only sustainably designed system because it prevents waste before it begins and before it gets dumped into our water table.

While this is new for paint users the idea and sense of duty in being responsible for the wastes generated before and during its production isn’t. The government has what it calls the Extended Producers Responsibility System (EPRS). But it’s only a recommendation and is not followed strictly by big paint manufacturers. They are more concerned with trying to manage the wastes that arise from their paint after it’s purchased by leveraging each and every transaction across North America; you might not know it but you are subsidizing the creation of paint waste!

Big paint manufacturers have quietly established a consumer financed initiative and strategy with a built-in pricing structure that accommodates the costs of running the recapture and recycling systems that attempt to reclaim the wastes generated by their sales. What’s more, this is not including any taxes or fees that are becoming the trend when having to still drive your waste to the dump. I know those are a lot of ‘R’s’ but unfortunately they’re missing the only one that counts: REDUCE!

Market surveys across the continent (sponsored by rational thinking) consistently show that consumers don’t want to pay more for eco-friendly products but prefer the manufacturer to absorb this cost. I couldn’t agree more with that approach because sustainable technology must be positioned as functional and practical, favouring the consumer.

Waste is the new frontier in the environmental conversation for paint because it’s tangible, visual, abundant and out of control. Innovation is the tactic that tames this leading edge because with so many inconsistent and questionable efficacies in the systems we operate, using this paint model thankfully can now reduce waste generation by 66% while saving 66% of time and material costs. We must take back control of how we consume paint and question builders and retailers towards this model that I consider to be the last standard in waste prevention. I’m hoping that people will do well with it because with the right incentive the green monster is not that high and not too far to get over.