The Truth About Green Zia

Shortly after the debate posted below, a judge and examiner for the Green Zia Award weighed in:

"I have been an examiner for Green Zia since its inception, and Intel was the most controversial award, as they had very little physical proof of P2 (pollution prevention). Their application was written very well. I have examined LANL, General Electric, McKinley Paper, and many other applications, but Intel was the most controversial of all because they had few physical examples of excellent P2 efforts."

"Green Zia was supposed to be about assisting companies in becoming more sustainable, and instead the types of corporations which apply do it to clean up their reputations rather than seriously commit to green changes. The Excellence level should be reserved only to obvious green companies who are providing absolute sustainable ways to conduct business. It was a mistake to grant Excellence to Intel. It takes away from the worthy Excellence award of the Durango-McKinley Paper Company. I believe most people in NM were disgusted when the NM Environment Department gave Intel an Excellence."

Green Zia Debate

A sharp debate has arisen between two activist scientists regarding the Green Zia Award. John Bartlit, retired chemical engineer who nominated Intel for the award states that his aim is "to build support for its principles." He writes:

"The NM Green Zia Program for environmental improvement is patterned after the Baldridge National Quality Program for business improvement. The heart of the program, the core value, is continuous improvement. Good enough is never good enough. Merely meeting rules is never the end goal."

"Companies in the Green Zia Program pursue continuous environmental improvement. Progress is measured in lower emissions and lower use of natural resources. Needless to say, I am a strong believer in these goals."

"Intel is a successful participant in the Green Zia Awards Program. The awards given at all levels require a corporate commitment to continuous improvement. The awards also require continuing evidence of improving."

"I support Green Zia and its principles. The ideas are vital additions to regulation alone. I look for the principles to yield further improvements at Intel and elsewhere in the state."

Fred Marsh, retired chemist and member of Corrales Residents for Clean Air and Water, responds:

"Mr. Bartlit recently attempted to defend his support of Green Zia Awards for Intel at a time when a large majority of the 600 respondents to the Corrales Health Survey were reporting pollution-related illnesses."

"Mr. Bartlit wrote, "progress is measured in lower emissions." These words justify why Intel should be disqualified from even being considered for such an award."

"Intel's claims of lower emissions are calculated, not measured. And on the rare occasions when actual measurements are made, such as the 4th quarter of 2003, the release of carbon tetrachloride was measured to 1.4 tons. Yet, Intel reported their calculated value of zero for the carcinogenic compound."

"When actual measurements were made on Intel property by TRC during an unusually low-production month, many toxic chemicals were found at levels as high as hundreds of times above safe level."

"Even the NM Environment Department, who gave Intel the "bust-proof" permit they demanded, cited Intel for ten violations due to Intel's systematic exclusion of RTO downtimes when actual measurements were made. (This is important because emissions are at least 20 times higher during RTO downtimes.)"

"Unlike Mr. Bartlit, I'm unwilling to accept Intel's unsupported, fictitious calculations.
Just as the IRS was unwilling to accept Intel's $600 million underpayment of its income tax. Just as Standard and Poor's exposed Intel's four-fold overstatement of its earnings in an attempt to inflate the stock price..."

"Mr. Bartlit also wrote, "The Green Zia awards given at all levels require a corporate commitment to continuous improvement." Unfortunately, Intel's commitment has been to misleading the public with phony calculations while it continues to release hazardous amounts of toxic chemicals."

"When two Intel employees tried to implement "continuous improvement" by advocating needed repairs to abatement equipment, they lost their jobs for doing so."

"Intel might qualify for a Liar's Club award for its Enron-style calculations; however, giving Intel an award for "environmental excellence: is an unusually blatant example of a political payoff."