At long last, the notion of green has entered into the forefront of everyone’s consciousness. My own first Earth Day experience was in 1970- it seems like yesterday- wherein a group of us, all in high school, collected roadside trash along a stretch of state highway in Fresno County. I felt good about this, as one did about so many things at age 15, but a seasoned eco-warrior of 17 reminded all of us that we needed to look at the trash we collected for recycling- that it took energy and pollutants to accomplish not just its manufacture but also its reuse. The better objective for all of us was to be Spartan in our habits and avoid consumption of anything that stimulated a persistent use of resources- or, worse, might sooner rather than later through wear or obsolescence end up in a landfill.
What brings all this to mind is reading, for about the hundredth time this week, yet another interview with someone in the design trade discussing how committed they are to green design, when, in fact, they offer up to clients what amounts to little more than inexpensive kack. The prime prerequisite for any of this material is the claim it is composed of elements derived from renewable resources. What astonishes me is how something that is of indifferent quality- in both manufacturing and aesthetics- can be considered green when it will require replacement in only a few years time. 
My temptation in the last phrase was to write ‘in a few months time’, and, actually, that’s a better assessment, given how information technology has increased the speed, and consequent obsolescence, of trends in all manner of design. All the more reason, then, if one is truly committed to the environment, to acquire furniture pieces of heirloom quality, those antique pieces that are established, and have been for centuries, in the aesthetic canon and avoid those whose near term legacy will be garage sale detritus, whose destiny, sooner rather than later will be to grace the local recycling station.