The Arnold Palmer is an exceptional beverage. It takes two individual beverages, iced tea and lemonade, each very good in their own right, and creates an even better one. That’s how we feel about social media and green living i.e. sustainability.

There is nothing inherently green about social media. The Web 2.0 revolution is driven by code and the Internet as a platform. According to Wikipedia, it describes this as a trend in “technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and, most notably, collaboration among users.” This is largely a virtual world.

The move toward sustainability, on the other hand, is taking place entirely offline in the actual world. It is about balancing our impact and more wisely managing our natural resources. The United Nations describes it as commitment to “the provision of a secure environmental, social, and economic future.”

As different as they are, these two trends share one key quality: they’re changing the world for the better. They are changing politics, business, culture, and society. In the following we explore 10 ways that the trends of social media and sustainability intersect as well as align.

Special Note: Sustainablog and Max Gladwell are supporting Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C). By clicking this link and signing up for SocialVibe, once featured in our Ten Ways to Change the World Through Social Media, you’ll effectively donate $1 to the cause. We also encourage you to watch the live telecast on ABC, CBS, and NBC, September 5th, at 8:00pm ET/PT.

Read more of this story »

But there are a few potential environmental health problems with this scene. The play set, if bought before 2004, could be treated with chromated copper arsenate (CCA), which according to the Green Guide, “the basis of which is arsenic, a carcinogenic chemical that can leach out of CCA-treated wood onto children’s hands and into soil and groundwater. Although CCA has been banned in residential uses since 2004, millions of CCA-treated play sets still exist.”

Read more of this story »

This is no more a black and white issue than most other green building questions. This can depend on the particular situation and the specific needs of a particular project. I'm not going to give you a definitive answer, because I don't think that there is one, any more than I do for most green building topics (other than greener is better).

First, there is the issue of material content. On the one hand, the manufactured products often use some combination of wood fiber (which is often sawdust and other scrap that would otherwise go to waste) and plastic (sometimes incorporating post consumer recycled material). On the other hand, wood is a natural material. It is sustainable, in that wood can be grown and harvested. There are some deck materials that have natural rot-resistant properties, but these tend to be more expensive. There is also the question of whether or not they are sustainably harvested, as well as the issue of shipping these materials.

Maintenance is another consideration. Wood decks need to be stained and cared for on a regular basis. Even with regular maintenance, a wood deck will wear out over time, and pieces will need to be replaced eventually. Maintenance for the manufactured products is supposed to be lower. However, I have heard of more than one architect I know who put in Trex decks for their own homes and now have some problems with its performance. Other manufacturers are competing in this field now, as well, and there may be better products available.

End of life is another question to be addressed. Making a material like Trex is a downcycling use, and there isn't much that can be done with an old manufactured deck other than to landfill it. Wood decking, if it is untreated, can be allowed to decay naturally. But, if the decking has been treated, it is not going to break down readily. Decking treated with preservatives (whether it was the older CCA — chromated copper arsenate — which is now outlawed because it was leaching arsenic, or the newer ACQ — alkaline copper quaternary compounds — or one of the other current alternatives) is meant to not break down. In the long term, it will eventually decay, but it will be a much slower process. According to a Wikipedia article, "A report published in Wood and Fibre Science (Vol 36 pp 119-128, 2004) concluded that soil contamination due to the presence of CCA-treated wood after 45 years is minimal." In the interim, however, you probably don't want it in your compost.

Finally, the workability and durability of the material factor into the question. Contractors and installers like the manufactured products because they are easier to use. The boards are straight and regular. Warping, twisting, and cupping defects are not an issue. However, many of the manufactured deck boards have a noticably fake appearance, or do not look like real wood at all. I think a case can be made for either product, as long as one takes a careful look at the material sourcing, with FSC certification for real wood or high recycled content for a manufactured product.