Being Ecology-Friendly from a Taxpayer’s Perspective

Being Ecology-Friendly from a Taxpayer’s Perspective

Being friendly to our earth is a simple process that has been convoluted into a large moneymaking scheme by self-proclaimed “save-our-earth” advocates.

An essay on eco-friendliness must start with the definitions of soil and cleaning: Soil is substance residing where it is not wanted. Cleaning is the art of moving 100% of the soil from where it is not wanted to where its presence is OK; down the drain into the earth to be recycled. Our earth is always in need of returned raw materials in order to be prepared for the needs of tomorrow’s generations. And, if a surface is 100% clean, it is sanitary and safe.

Cleaning requires two actions:

1. Mechanical – e.g. brush, scrub pad, etc.

2. Chemical – e.g. detergents

Mechanical action revolves around mankind’s engineering ingenuity. Chemical action revolves around mankind’s ingenuity with the mixing of nature’s raw materials. As with most anything ever invented, the transition from helpful to lethal is a short journey down one of three roads named “ignorance”, “wickedness”, or “greediness”.

Nature provides us with only 2 soils; acid and alkaline. Because grease, oil, and fat do not dissolve in water, they are neither acid nor alkaline. They bind soil together. Because binders float in cold water, the best cleaning is achieved when cold water is used for washing, mopping, carpet cleaning, etc. (Cold water also saves energy)

Today, government officials are plummeted with buzz words such as “green cleaning”, ecology-friendly, and so on. If you were to surf the web using the words “green”, “ecology”, “chemicals”, etc. you’d find an unlimited number of individuals with a plethora of degrees and titles after their names chastising our present earth-derived cleaning chemicals and promoting their version of “friendly” earth-derived cleaning chemicals. Probably, most of the self-proclaimed housekeeping chemical gurus never spent even one day as a janitor trying to get under-performing products to achieve sanitary results of which to be proud.

Our earth does not make “bad” raw materials – We make bad housekeeping chemicals by building them to perform at less than what is possible and/or by not effectively instructing product users.

Since chemicals come from and are returned to the earth, and since top-performing detergents make up only 4/10 of 1% of a cleaning solution and soil that usually is much more toxic than the detergent make up 99.6%, it is more important to focus on maximizing performance and training rather than employing the fear tactic of declaring that cleaning chemicals are destroying the earth. It is perfectly OK to return properly mixed cleaning chemicals to the earth for nature to recycle the captured soil and the diluted chemical using nature’s proven process. It is NOT OK to give our earth “ecological indigestion” because custodians feel that they must over-mix mediocre cleaning agents in an effort to do a good job. It is demonic that powerhouse brands are allowed to continue the practice of falling short on performance to ensure continued sales of “new & improved” and more profitable introductions. And, because the “big guys” use mediocrity as a profit scheme, the less creative in advertising and perhaps not as ambitious smaller manufacturers feel that they must fall in line.

If laws were to demand that cleaning chemicals work to the outer limits of existing technology, no one would feel that they had to over-mix to achieve needed results. Since there are only two soils to remove for a germ-free surface, a housekeeping products arsenal should consist of only small amounts of two detergents, one acid and the other alkaline. Under that scenario, no one would think of throwing a good product into the trash. Storage areas would no longer be cluttered with products tried and left behind in pursuit of “something that works” and eventually to be tossed into a landfill.

Full-strength chemicals from under kitchen sinks or factory storage racks that are on the road to being discarded are many millions of times more harmful to our earth than an equivalent number of properly mixed buckets of dirty “wash water” where the soil is more toxic than the quality detergent used to lift it.

Proactive facility managers using high-performance housekeeping chemicals have slashed their chemical consumption by as much as 70%. The proponents of “green legislation” conveniently leave out the fact that their plan will wipe out this 70% reduction and most likely return consumption back to higher levels.

Two legislative agendas:

1. Force all custodial chemical manufacturers to formally train on the usage of their products.

2. Apply that same rule to products used in our homes. Homeowners can now throw ecologically unfriendly chemicals in the trash compared to what non-homeowners are allowed to trash.

More and more “green chemical” legislation has our legislators traveling down slippery slopes. They may not truly understand that the executives behind the powerhouse brands must be effectively engaged and environmentalists must be challenged when they lobby for actions affecting industries outside their expertise. Rather than admonishing and/or challenging those seeking legislative action, our government leaders are placing blind faith in them. Both groups are using our government leaders’ request for help as an opening to slide in their single-focused agendas without fair consultation with those being affected by the outcome. The big guys are using their “political capital” to improve their ability to generate profits without having to improve their products’ performance, spend time or money effectively educating their customers, or adjusting their own companies to survive dramatically reduced chemical sales. And, don’t be mistaken for one minute, the “environmentalist” lobby groups are well-tied to the big custodial chemical manufacturers. In essence, our government leaders are allowing the hungriest fox to write new government chicken coup construction and security codes.

Schools, hospitals, factories, and many other facilities across America who are using high-performance products have reduced chemical consumption by up to 70%, slashed product costs in half, and doubled custodial productivity. Their facilities are bright, clean, sanitary, and free of odors. What are they doing wrong to have to face restrictions that will diminish the results and drive up operating costs?

Initially, the proponents for “green” legislation prod legislators to walk softly by suggesting that the new laws apply only to government facilities. But, their real goal is to target every facility in America. Homeowners will be lead by television, radio, and print advertising. The rest will fall in line or face government indictment. What a great way to fill powerhouse brand coffers as well as the fee-based coffers of the self-appointed “environmentalist” czars without a single accomplishment for eliminating the root cause of 2,000,000 yearly U.S. hospital-acquired infections and 90,000+ deaths from the infections mostly due to improperly washed surfaces. What about similar problems in schools, nursing homes, airliners, child care centers, etc.

In the end, who do you think will really pay the bills that the powerhouse brand companies will send? We will be paying the bills through higher taxes and fees (cost of implementing new “green” regulations. When we protest the higher taxes and higher fees, we will be told that the increased costs are needed to cover the higher cost of “green chemicals” in order to “save our earth”…

…And, because it’s the law! You can bet on it.

Once you become better informed, demand that your legislators become as informed as you have become. If you demand it, they will learn it correctly.

Thank you.

Click here to return to the master index of essays.

Please feel free to contact the Gabriel team if you have any comments or questions on this material by clicking here or call me at 800-873-2000