As an active participant in the environmental movement I feel like I should have a firm handle on my "green" vocabulary, but I often find myself struggling to use the right words when talking about various environmentally-focused topics. When should I use environmentally-friendly vs. sustainable vs. ecological vs. green vs. any other term? I get the feeling that others struggle with this as well, especially when trying to put a complex topic in simpler terms.

Can anybody provide some clarification?

Thanks!

oooh. fun topic is fun. and a good one to bring up - a lot of environmentalists toss all of these around without seeming to appreciate the nuances of them.

In my experience, it almost never makes sense to call something sustainable - with the rare exception of some serious cradle-to-cradle products, nothing that we as a civilization have built really is. The term 'more sustainable' is excellent, though - particularly when the impacts are not just environmental, but also social or economic. Environmentally-friendly or 'green' or 'greener' (the relative vs. absolute term again) are... generic but effective, and there hasn't been too much backlash against them (as with socialism) though many people have declared, in light of 'green' concrete and other such greenwashed products, that the term is meaningless.

I avoid using the absolute terms, and generally say that products or processes are 'more sustainable', 'more environmentally friendly', or have a 'lower [environmental] footprint' (which is one you don't have in your list)- always with the relative terms. When I find some products that are more deserving of a more absolute label, I'll use it.

Ecological is one I don't use that much, because it has a very nicely defined space, and very little of what we do even approaches ecology. I think that the best place to use that would be in the context of systems, particularly where wastes from one process of our society becomes the input for another - the idea behind the field of industrial ecology.

Other thoughts on when to use these?

Hmm this is a sticky subject. Great topic to bring up, Seth. Semantics are really important to conveying our ideas in an articulate, intelligent manner that people will take seriously. To be honest, I find myself misusing and abusing terms related to environmentalism quite frequently. Here are my thoughts on a few terms/words I hear often:

"Good for the environment" Someone used this phrase to describe Dining Services' biodegradable disposables at the Blue Gold Green Fair, but I would totally disagree. Producing products intended for one-time-use, introducing more products into the waste stream, is not my idea of being good for the earth. Such products may be relatively better than say Styrofoam or petroleum based plastics, but I doubt they are directly benefiting the earth in any way. I think this term should be used very cautiously and very sparingly.

"Green" I personally hate using the term "green" (although, I do often find myself throwing it around...specifically when talking to people who may not be as environmentally minded). Green to me seems too gimmicky and insincere. When a company or individual says they are "going green" I tend to immediately take on the role of skeptic. "Going green" is such a loose term, and I think it is often abused in a self-aggrandizing and self-promotional manner. I would be wary of throwing around this term.

I've been writing a lot of material for various sustainability reports lately, and as a result have been trying out a bunch of different terms. It's really difficult to figure out which words make the most sense in the right context. I realized that I have been using the term "environmentally responsible" or "more environmentally responsible" a lot. I'd agree with Alex's sentiments about not using absolute terms...words should be used carefully and also relatively. Deeming something concretely sustainable, for instance, is kind of arrogant, I guess. What is and is not sustainable is in nearly every circumstance debatable.

So long story short...use words with caution? Use words with sincerity and honesty. Don't use throw-away, empty terms just because they have become mainstream.

Any other thoughts on this? I really love this topic.

I do find absolutes very annoying. Green, environmental, sustainable. Ick. I prefer to use relatives: greener, more environmentally sound, more sustainable, but relatives aren't sexy and take longer to say. But of these, the ones I hate the most are green and greener--what the hell does "green" mean anyway? But again, "green" is sexy right now, so it's the one that most use. "Green" doesn't do a good job describing specifics, but it gets the jist of the idea across.

I also find myself moving away from "environmental" and more towards using "sustainable" but that's a bit harder to use. What am I? A sustainabili-tist? For that I tend to go with "borderline hippie engineer."

Chris, that's a problem i've run across as well - the self-labelling problem. I generally go with 'sustainability synthesist' but that's also a mouthful.

I often use the term "green", but really that term tends to be one that has been blown out of proportion by some. So if you say you are green, then people might think you are insanely liberal and in my case that's not true at all! So "green" is just very vauge now. It lost a lot of it's meaning.

Really, it's how people interpret the terms. I do use "ecological" but that's because my "environmentalness" is mainly driven by my love and interest in ecosystems. I dunno, that's just my two cents

I've been getting really annoyed with "green" lately, and the fact that I have to use that word to make sustainability relatable to lay people pisses me off even more. The way it normally works is I say "sustainable" and they don't know what it mean. Then I say, "environmental" and they get a better idea. Then I say "green" and it clicks.

I liked in the University of New South Wales where their sustainability center was called the "Red Building."

The benefit, though, Chris, is that 'sustainable' hasn't been as watered down if people don't recognize it as much - it still has meaning.

Did the Red Building at UNSW have any green building features? ('green building' being one term, not two, in my mind)