Greenwashing - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: temperance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2025, 11:50:04 pm
content: I just stumbled upon this:It is an add for TE connectivity Connectivity BIOFUSE BISS & BICAP Heat Shrink Tubes & Caps.TE Connectivity's (TE) BIOFUSE Bio Innovation Splice Sealing (BISS) and Bio Innovation Cap (BICAP) Heat Shrink Tubes and Caps are designed as a bio-alternative way to reduce environmental impact while delivering the same functionalities and performance as similar TE products. The BISS and BICAP bio-based heat shrink products provide strain relief, electrical insulation, and excellent sealing capabilities by using a hot melt adhesive that flows in and around the wire and splice configurations. This process prevents moisture and fluids from entering the cap or tube during application, safeguarding against corrosion and mechanical damage. The robust strain relief design also resists hard impacts to the splice and wire configurations, especially those requiring high insulation and protection levels.TE BIOFUSE heat shrink tubes and caps are made from a halogenated, highly flame-retardant material with a 4:1 shrink ratio, enabling multiple wire coverage across the entire BISS and BICAP lineup. Both series are designed to prolong the life and performance of the sealed product and are ideal for automotive and commercial transportation applications.Anything halogenated= Fluorine, Chlorine,...

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 12:45:25 am
content: Quote from: temperance on July 07, 2025, 11:50:04 pmTrue. But still, maybe it's possible their product is less environmentally bad overall.Or not. In which case it would certainly qualify as "greenwashing".

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 08:44:25 am
content: What the hell is a bio-alternative? Sounds like bullshit to me as it is still a halogenated polymer of some kind. I would not want a bio-degradable heat shrink as it could be attacked by bugs present in the environment. Ok, no claims of biodegradability but I reckon it's only a matter of time before a biodegradability requirement on everything is demanded with consequent rocketing failure rates. Rant over.

author: aeg
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 09:59:39 am
content: "Primary Product Material : Bio-Based Irradiated Modified Polyolefin"I guess it's synthesized from ethanol rather than petroleum?

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 11:57:12 am
content: |I don't see any advantage in doing that. It is the burning of fossil fuels that is the problem, not their use in synthetic chemistry. Bio-ethanol vies with food crops for a limited quantity of arable land resources. This basic is greenwashing whereby one claims to have a product with environmental benefits without a full cost benefit analysis. Bio this, bio that, bio bull.

author: temperance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 04:19:15 pm
content: I never expected companies operating in these territories to revert to greenwashing tactics.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 06:29:50 pm
content: Quote from: paul cotter on July 08, 2025, 11:57:12 amReminds me of when I lived in the SF Bay Area, where in Bezerkeley there was a biofuel business (woman-owned, which in my view is a Good Thing). The fuel (gasoline and Ithinkdiesel as well) was made from spent cooking oil from restaurants and food processors.At first I though, kewl: better than pumping oil out of the ground (and certainly better than fracking).But upon a little more reflection, I wondered: what good does this do in the long run?The fuel still produces pollution when burned, though supposedly biofuels are better in this aspect (I've never seen any convincing proof of that, however).They still require probably the same amount of energy (and dangerous chemicals and catalysts) to refine.So what is their advantage, really?Making "environmentally conscious" drivers feel better is the only definite one I can think of.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 07:36:14 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 08, 2025, 06:29:50 pmNot using a resource destructively pumped out of the ground which cannot be replenished.

author: temperance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2025, 08:45:31 pm
content: Improving resource usage is difficult. Researching the impact of a new solution is even more difficult.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 08:01:17 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 08, 2025, 06:29:50 pmWhy? What difference does the sex of the owner make?QuoteThat's nothing new. I used to work at a hot food counter in a supermarket, back in 2000. All of the waste oil and fat was put in 200l drums and picked up by a lorry to be refined and used for fuel, industrial products and cosmetics. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was used to make polymers, but they would be chemically identical to those made from petroleum.This makes perfect sense. It's often much cheaper to recycle than farm/mine/extract raw materials.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 09:01:58 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 08, 2025, 06:29:50 pmSome diesel engines will happily run on filtered spent cooking oil, with no chemicals or catalysts required.The process to produce petrol/gasoline would surely be far more complex.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 09:04:33 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 08, 2025, 07:36:14 pmBack in the day, much of the concern was about "running out of oil", rather than other (environmental) things.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 02:06:49 pm
content: Biofuels from waste cooking oil, etc. are generally a good idea since the waste would often just go to compost whereas it can be used to power a vehicle instead. The benefit to emissions is the crops to make the oil were likely grown in the same year, so releasing the carbon is not so bad (since it was only captured last year). The problem with fossil fuels is that they add carbon to the atmosphere that was absorbed over millions of years.It will never be possible to replace all fossil fuel with biofuels, but it might be possible to replace fuel in the "difficult to electrify" applications, like aviation, with biofuels.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 03:24:42 pm
content: All I know is that few years ago biodegradable plastic was all the rage, every company jumping on the bandwagon. Now they say that there is microplastics in everything which is bad, and we have to ban plastic straws. Maybe there is a correlation?Meanwhile Europe's rivers are clear, while you can drive with a crane on the trash in some of the rivers in Africa and Asia. There is always something.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 05:12:01 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on July 09, 2025, 09:01:58 amI doubt that's the case with the oil where I worked. It consisted of mostly fat, which is solid at room temperature. It would have had to be processed in order to make shorter chain oils which are liquid at room temperature, to power a diesel engine.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 07:55:27 pm
content: Biofuels made from agriculture (necessarily intensive) are disastrous for the environment. It takes land otherwise used for producing food, or that was just left alone (so, destroying very wide areas), uses enormous amounts of water and pesticides.Ethanol is otherwise not as bad in terms of emissions when it burns than gasoline or worse, diesel fuel, but it still emits the oh-so-dreaded CO2.The fact it's "renewable" just gives us more chance not to run out of fuel, but in terms of environment, that's overall worse than using fossil fuels (which are just there to extract).Ditto for "bioplastics" and such. If we were to completely replace fossil fuels with renewable matter made from plants, we would again need to have agricultures even much worse than what we have now and the results would necessarily be worse in terms of environment. There's no free lunch.So, yeah. That we do this to avoid running out of raw material is one thing, but doing it allegedly for the environment, that unfortunately doesn't add up.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 08:07:02 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 09, 2025, 05:12:01 pmyou start the engine on regular diesel and use waste heat to heat the fuel, just like big ship do running on bunker oil

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2025, 11:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 09, 2025, 08:01:17 amJust to address this small side issue:It's a Good Thing because woman-owned businesses are still a definite minority. So in the interest of equity (and yes, I do think that's definitely a goal worth achieving), identifying those business that are woman-owned is helpful.If we ever reach parity here, where business ownership is more or less equally split between the sexes, then that distinction could and should go away. But we're a long way away from that.But of course you probably don't think it's important at all that women, or other groups traditionally excluded from ownership (or management) make any gains whatsoever. I think we're pretty much onto your worldview here.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 07:14:05 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 09, 2025, 08:07:02 pmYour car will need to be specially modified to do that. It's not possible to collect the oil from the shop and sell it directly to filling stations, where it needs to be pumped at low temperatures.Quote from: Analog Kid on July 09, 2025, 11:17:59 pmSo what?QuoteWhy do you want equity/parity?QuoteWhat makes you think that?EDIT:This thread will get locked, if discussions such as this one get out of control, so I'll state the facts and then leave it there.No one is excluded from ownership or management based on their sex, which is a good thing. Inequity in itself is not proof of exclusion.The fact is, it's impossible to have equal men and women and the same proportions of Jews, Muslim, blacks, whites etc. as is reflected in the demographics, in all areas of society whist maintaining fairness. Various forms of social engineering and positive discrimination (affirmative action) would be required to achieve this, which will come at the cost of passing more suitable candidates in favour of those who tick boxes, based on irreverent characteristics i.e. sex, race and religion.Inequality is not a bad thing. Without it, the economy will stagnate and some element of authoritarianism is required to achieve it. If working harder doesn't make you better off, then what's the point? When extreme wealth redistribution has been tried in the past, it's resulted in disaster: poverty for all and famine.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 07:44:41 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 10, 2025, 07:14:05 amNo one is so excluded based onde jurerules; they are, however, excluded based onde factoconditions. Something that most people accept, but you seem to have an incredible blind spot here.Just because there are laws declaring that discrimination is not to be practiced doesn't mean that it isn't. I think most junior-high school students understand that.QuoteFirst of all, nobody's demanding anything close to 100% equity here, because most people realize that's an unattainable goal.Second of all, the purpose of affirmative action is not to allow "those who tick boxes" to cut in line ahead of qualified candidates, but to act as a tie-breaker in the case that the "minority" candidate is equally qualified as a non-"minority" one. (At least in theory.)I don't get how you get the idea that an economy will "stagnate" if inequality is somehow eliminated. Perhaps you've been reading too much Ayn Rand. "Greed is good" and all that bullshit.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2025, 12:18:54 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 10, 2025, 07:44:41 amI've never heard of Ayn Rand.I could debunk what you've said, but I'm not going to continue to pollute this thread any further.There are other threads to discuss this topic. Please post in one of them, if you want to discuss this. Please refrain from derailing other threads, with your progressive preaching.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/350/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/gender-politics-has-now-infected-engineering-as-well/https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/sunshine-coast-university-women-only-engineering-professorship/