Op-Ed

Defending Vinyl

Defending Vinyl

I recently received a copy of the May/June issue of

Environmental Building News and wanted to respond to the article “Problems with PVC” that covered Greenpeace’s campaign to eliminate chlorine-based compounds, and vinyl in particular.

Although Greenpeace has alleged that vinyl presents a threat to human health and the environment, a close examination of the “evidence” reveals counterfeit science at its worst. Among the tactics Greenpeace uses to make its point:

— Using inappropriate or invalid analogies.

— Referencing out-of-date data or research when newer, contradictory work is widely known.

— Presenting hypotheses as proven theories.

— Assuming that anything hazardous in theory is automatically hazardous in fact.

— “Trimming” data, or dismissing those statistics or results that fall outside a desired range and, therefore, destroy a hypothesis.

— “Cooking” data, or selecting those results that only support a hypothesis.

— Fabricating, or making unsubstan­tiated claims.

— Using sophistry to draw incorrect conclusions (otherwise known as leaps in logic).

The reason for all this counterfeit science becomes a lot clearer when you understand the motive for the anti-PVC campaign. Greenpeace itself has stated that vinyl is simply a piece in the chess game it is orchestrating against the entire petrochemical industry.

What I think your readers should be most concerned with, however, is the possibility that Greenpeace might actually succeed. The implications for the building industry are almost unimaginable. Not only would that mean the end of all types of products that have clearly demonstrated how useful, durable, economical and popular they are, but their substitutes would impose enormous burdens on the economy, the environment and customers of the building industry. A few examples: Replacing vinyl siding with aluminum means an increase in smelting; replacing it with wood means more maintenance, decreased dura­bility and increased timbering. Replacing vinyl pipe with ductile iron or copper means exposing workers to a greater risk of injury, higher labor costs and decreased durability. Replacing vinyl sheathing and insulation on house wiring would increase building costs and likely increase the risk of fires.

Let me provide more specific information on the economic hardships such a move would create. In April 1993, the consulting firm of Charles River Associates (CRA), Boston, issued a study that examined the economic effect of replacing vinyl in fourteen major applications and markets, the majority of which are related to the building industry. In each application, CRA calculated the amount of material needed to maintain the same market share currently held by vinyl, estimated the cost to build or convert current operations to meet existing capacity, and considered any incremental or additional costs to install alternative materials. The study found that the cost to replace vinyl would require an additional investment of $974 million in new equipment and cost consumers $6.7 billion more per year to purchase substitute materials.

There are more examples, but I think my point is clear. The Greenpeace campaign against vinyl is not well thought out, not supported by good science, and clearly not in society’s interest.

As a final note, your readers may be interested in an article that appeared in the February issue of

Plastics in Building Construction that describes the support vinyl building materials are receiving in Germany from architects and builders. In replying to the question of vinyl’s ecological assessment, the article states: “…PVC products have been investigated better than almost all alternatives recommended by the Federal Environmental Office (of Germany). PVC in building applications has the following pluses: high stability allows the manufacture of long-lasting products; its mechanical properties and good processability permit processing with minimal waste; PVC products exposed to the weather need no protective coatings and almost no upkeep; and finally, PVC products incorporate fire-resistant elements.”

Robert H. Burnett

The Vinyl Institute

Wayne, NJ

Published September 1, 1993

(1993, September 1). Defending Vinyl. Retrieved from https://www.buildinggreen.com/op-ed/defending-vinyl

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a BuildingGreen Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.