Penny wise and pound foolish VOC laws?

[plainpainter 217]

Just curious what everyones' thoughts were on the subject of VOC laws when it comes to coatings. The thought process is that if less fumes exhaust into the atomoshpere - the better it is for the environment, right?

Well what happens when we put on two consecutive coatings of 350ml/l VOC coating - that doesn't equal the performance of one pass of a 550ml/VOC coating? Double the time a Company truck was on the road servicing the deck, double the amount of caustics, surfactants, and acids that were applied to this deck, and double the amount of energy used up and pollutants at the factory end. And not to mention two consecutive coatings of 350 is really equivalent to one coating of 700ml/l. So what did the environment really gain? It looks like a loser to me.

[northwestern 14]

Seeing that the last year was one of the coldest years on record around the world, the VOC laws should be thrown out. Global warming(along with evolution) is a religion not science. So they should give us the old formulas back and make better respirators so we won't get brain damage.

[plainpainter 217]

Well I have to disagree with you on the whole global warming. For me on the east coast - global warming will melt the ice caps and destroy the 'Gulf' stream - which is what brings our temperate climate. If this Gulf stream disappears like many global predictions models suspect - than it will get much colder especially where I am living. Perhaps Global 'Warming' isn't a good term instead Global 'Change' would be better?

[James 625]

Everything we do or use in pressure cleaning industry effects the environment. Weather it's the air we breath or the way water drains. How much garbage do we create from 5 gallon buckets? With all the New Roof cleaners killing mold with Bleach is that good for the "O zone"? Maybe it's better than making new shingles ?I was thinking last year I produce allot of garbage and what to do about it.......

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

The environment is important to all of us. We have one planet to call home, our kids need to live here and their kids too. I may not like the way oils are performing these days, but I can certainly live with treating the earth better. Anyone who wants to argue that pollution doesn't effect us, well, there is too much data to the contrary.

Beth

[plainpainter 217]

I agree Jim - everything we do is bad for the environment. But I think there should be some way of evaluating the sum total of what we do as a society. Perhaps VOC's are bad - but how bad are plastic latex non-biodegradable resins in our dumps? These synthetic resins are derived from petroleum with lots of manufacturing before it finally comes to rest in a latex LOW-VOC can of paint or stain. But oil based stains can be totally natural, with little to no manufacturing i.e. linseed oil, turpentine - all resources that are naturally occuring.

[plainpainter 217]

Beth I don't argue about pollution harming our planet - I am just suggesting that looking at the VOC's on the side of a can lead to a 'myopic' opinion of what product is more 'pollutive' to our environment. I am just saying take a product from it's origins as a crude product all the way through manufacturing to it's final resting place on a store shelf - is a low VOC product truly better for the environment?

You yourself said these coatings don't perform as well. This implies that customer may have you on their properties twice as often - isn't already a larger biological footprint? Servicing a customer twice for the amount of time a better product only needed you once - requires above all else, twice the fuel to get your vehicles there, twice the amount of time pressure washers are eating gas, twice the manufacturing - because they are using twice as much product than previously. Just take a few steps back, and does a lower VOC product truly do the environment good?

Look at it another way. Say there are a million decks - and in 2 years time 5 million gallons of stain is sold to use on these decks. If you make a product worse by lessening the VOC's then potentially what took 5 million gallons of stain now takes double that 10 million gallons in the exact same time frame! Thus now instead of having 5 million gallons exhausting into the atmosphere - now you have 10 million gallons of the 'reduced' emissions stain - is this really better?

[plainpainter 217]

Another thing to think about - plastics, basically trash is making it into our oceans - and they are eroding. This plastic breaks apart, gets grinded down into smaller and smaller pieces. This one guy showed on the tv showed some plastic 'sand' - basically a conglomerate of plastic waste ground so fine that it looks like sand. And his worry is that in the next few decades - this grinding action will continue until these bits of plastic are at the molecular level - and now will get incorporated into the food chain - imagine fish swimming around the oceans with molecular bits of plastic dispersed within it's tissues - our food supply will become a hybrid of natural/plastic origins.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Tropospheric Ozone: Background Material

Summary of Papers and Research Recommendations of Working Group on Tropospheric Ozone, Health Effects Institute Environmental Epidemiology Planning Project

Introduction to working group on tropospheric ozone, Health Effects Institute environmental epidemiology planning project.

Tropospheric ozone

Have a good read.

Beth

[plainpainter 217]

Beth just got done reading the first article - I find it very interesting about the height of manufacture of ozone, which occurs most during hot summer days just after noon. And as you probably know the formation of this ground level smog is the combination of nitrous oxides emitted from car tailpipes and certain organic compounds like hydrocarbons - or what most people here know by the acronym V.O.C.

My personal problem with the whole 'reduction' of VOC's arguement - is that it will exactly 0,zip,zero, nada impact on the total manufacture of smog emissions. Why may you ask? Good question. Hardwood trees manufacture and emit a Volatile Organic compound called Isoprenes - and evergreen trees emit another Volatile Organic compound called Terpenes. Interestingly enough their manufacturing of these compounds occur exactly the same time that this article states that smog is produced. You can see these terpenes and isoprenes emitted from trees on distant hilltops, as a thin veil blue cast.

The amount of these VOC's that the sum total that all the trees in our forests and neighborhoods emit is far greater amounts than all the coatings industry bestows upon us. One person once claimed to me - trees are not polluting our eco-system! And this is quite true - the emissions of these hydrocarbon VOC's that trees exude is totally natural - what isn't natural is the presence of nitrous oxides emitted from car exhaust. As long as there is car exhaust - there will be ground level smog. There will always be an excess of isoprenes and terpenes hydrocarbon emissions being emitted from trees to combine with all the nitrous oxides car exhaust to form ground level smog. And reducing VOC emissions from coatings will at best reduce smog formation during winter - as trees emit very little emission during this time. But as evidenced by the above article - this smog manufacture is predominantly during the summertime - which would suggest to me, that coatings VOC's in themselves don't register as a serious contributor to smog. Because if they were - and we were to assume the use of coatings doesn't stop during the winter months, those months that trees don't emit hydrocarbons, then we should be seeing detectable amounts of smog during the winter months as well. The indication that this smog is greatest during summer months - is just a very strong indication this interaction of VOC's and nitrous oxides - is due mainly from VOC's from trees along with the interaction of nitrous oxides from tailpipe emissions.