Even the office supply industry is slowly changing their ways. Remember vinyl binders? Yeah, they still make them. How about shedding the vinyl all together and giving consumers products without the plastic coating. ReBinder makes some great binders with removable covers that can be recycled end of life. A closed loop system. The rings can even be used again with a replacement cover.

We need better design and products that take responsibility.

Thanks for your comment. Vinyl is not the only material I’m trying to remove from the buildings I design. I’m also looking to reduce or eliminate the use of expanded polystyrene, adhesives and coatings that emit volatile organic compounds, wood products with added formaldehyde, products coated with brominated fire retardants, polyethylene sheeting, wood harvested from old growth rain forests, and much more. I’m also working to reduce my use of materials that have high embodied water and/or energy. I focused on vinyl in this post because of all those other materials, the Vinyl Institute was the only one exhibiting at Greenbuild. I was pointing out the irony of the situation and the unintended message in their slogan. Had an asbestos advocacy group set up a booth claiming its product to be green because it prevents fires and provides insulation, I would have called that out also. I don’t think I’ve vilified vinyl. In the post and in follow up comments I’ve stated its positive attributes, which I completely agree it has.

I advocate that every designer have their own material selection criteria or vetting process to determine what products they deem acceptable for inclusion to their materials library. It’s an issue I’ve written about many times on this blog and one that I’m very passionate about. The system I’ve developed for my practice takes into account a multitude of factors including life cycle assessment. Given that I can find, in most cases, an alternative to polymer based products, I believe their up-side doesn’t match their down-side and therefore don’t pass my standard for selection. But that’s my system for my clients. Everyone has to develop their own. I respect anyone’s decision to use vinyl. It’s a material I’ve evaluated for my clients and decided to eliminate.

You are correct that there are few, if any, materials not toxic to an inhabitant during a fire. The principle difference between vinyl and others, however, is that it releases compounds that when mixed with water become sulfuric acid. Not only are the released fumes toxic, but they create a chemical dangerous to the very people and equipment trying to put the fire out. It is true that without light or air, most materials will not break down quickly in a landfill. But organic material at least has the potential to decompose and be filtered or processed by natural forces over time – vinyl cannot. No matter where it ends up, it will be there for many generations. I believe that’s a significant difference that cannot be overlooked. The best features of vinyl are its durability and longevity, but those are also the very same attributes that make it a disposal problem. In most cases, the life span of productive use is minuscule when compared to the lifetime it spends in a landfill.

While I agree that an integrated approach is best, I disagree that deliberate and careful selection of materials does any harm or thwarts real change. I think just the opposite is true. Designers deciding which materials are more favorable or less favorable than others sends a market signal to manufacturers. And the vinyl industry is starting to respond. There are VCT flooring options with recycled content and organic material as filler thereby reducing the amount of virgin vinyl made, new polymers are being formulated that will break down and biodegrade, as you mentioned improvements to production is safer for workers, and much more. Without frank conversations like these, none of that would happen. Thanks for engaging in the conversation.

BTW, I like your web site, we’re both in LA and should grab a coffee some time to continue this.