Why Being 'Environmentally Friendly' Is A Scam
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มี.ค. 2022
- Those eco-friendly products may not be as great as you think
The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/asapscience03220
Join our science mailing list: bit.ly/34fWU27
FOLLOW US!
Instagram: / asapscience
Facebook: / asapscience
Twitter: / asapscience
TikTok: @AsapSCIENCE
Written by: Tharsan Kana & Mitchell Moffit
Edited by: Luka Šarlija
Further Reading + Sources:
link.springer.com/article/10....
www.ul.com/insights/sins-gree...
www.greenpeace.org/internatio...
www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/env...
www.theguardian.com/environme...
www.nps.gov/articles/lnt.htm
www.centerforecotechnology.or....
news.climate.columbia.edu/202...
www.greentechmedia.com/articl...
canadianfoodfocus.org/health/...
www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
www.rapidtransition.org/stori....
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sour...
www.bbc.com/news/business-343...
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsustainability.usask.ca%2Fdocuments%2FSix_Sins_of_Greenwashing_nov2007.pdf&clen=1425261&chunk=true
www.barrons.com/articles/two-...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
www.nationalgeographic.com/sc...
www.nationalgeographic.com/en...
oceanconservancy.org/wp-conte...
www.slideshare.net/EdelmanBer...
pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs....
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.75[1/2] ชวนแร็ปเปอร์เที่ยวประแสแบบไม่ต้องตามกระแส](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J5ds2AxDp24/mqdefault.jpg)
Remember that of the slogan "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" that reduce is _the_ most important part. Our society is incredibly materialistic, so buying less overall (and making for sure that the things we buy aren't as bad) is better then the other two R's.
biggest eye opener for me tho is that recycling isn't really all that green friendly either with all the co2 emissions coming from transporting and processing those damn materials in the first place. just another PR tactic.
@@tomyourfriendlyhagcollector not really.
If not recycling, we still have to transport garbage to ever distancing landfills - and processing virgin materials usually pollute more than recycling.
But yeah, the focus shouldn't be recycling only, the other 2 R come first.
Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Redistribute, Ride (a Real bicycle), Replant, Reconsider, Recycle, Rejoice....
Edit : Regulate (antipollution laws...), Refuse !!!
@@tomyourfriendlyhagcollector try the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex...
+
Apple does this a lot. They highlight the “environmentally friendly” stuff that they do. but ignore the fact that they make it harder for you to fix your phone forcing you to buy a new phone that’s being worse for the environment. Their new thing is that they recycle the used phones. But they wouldn’t have as many used phones that they would need to recycle if they would allow people to fix their phones that want to.
Don’t forget how they stopped providing charging adapters from the iPhone 12 onwards in the name of ‘environmental responsibility’.
Except now you have to buy a separately packaged adapter should you need one, and many do since the old chargers most people have charge much slower.
You could also point out how they refuse to switch from their proprietary lightning cable to the new standard of USB-C, meaning more cables being produced for no reason.
@@mutantfaith508 Apple sucks. I still have an iPhone and I’m mad about it but I’m going to switch at some point. Not sure if other brands are any better though sadly.
@@mikemikemikemikemikemeup There is an option - look up Fairphone 4.
And make try to make them last longer, but no. That doesn't get them nearly enough money.
Worse they inspire other manufactures to do the same. Samsung mocking it but eventually follow for $$$
I remember buying one time of those pre made salads. It came wrapped in plastic, with a plastic lid in a plastic container, with sauce on a plastic bag, BUT IT CANE WITH A WOODEN FORK.
Ha !!
😂😂
Like the paper straws in plastic wrap 😂
Plastic is actually keep your food protected, but yes, the irony.
we are working on it. We believe that if food is produced and recycled in a decentralized way, a lot of transportation, packaging and organic waste can be reduced and organic food can be produced without using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The whole thing works by using black soldier fly larvae to recycle food waste and feeding them to fish. The dirt produced by the maggots and fish is filled by plants. A perfect recirculation system that extracts water from the waste and saves water in the production of fish and plants.
"ask for forgiveness and not permission" is the best summary of what these evil companies do
we are working on it. We believe that if food is produced and recycled in a decentralized way, a lot of transportation, packaging and organic waste can be reduced and organic food can be produced without using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The whole thing works by using black soldier fly larvae to recycle food waste and feeding them to fish. The dirt produced by the maggots and fish is filled by plants. A perfect recirculation system that extracts water from the waste and saves water in the production of fish and plants.
lol, it really is hilarious seeing all you environmentalists going nuts over plastic and companys being what a surprise more concerned about profits, ive just stopped caring and my life is much happier now that im not concerned with trying to make everyone live think and act the same
@@sword_racer185 sorry you think that those who are concerned over the environment just want to force everyone to live and think and act the same because that would be the furthest thing i would think of when i would try to consider what an environmental activist would be advocating for?? that's a very strange and delusional conclusion for someone to come to especially if they were at one time genuinely concerned with the state of the environment right!? it's very difficult for me to imagine how someone could be happy let alone happier by stopping caring about the environment and other humans and only caring about themselves seeing how the reality of the situation is we all HAVE to live on this planet together no one is completely isolated from everyone else therefore what 1 human does, obviously not only affects that 1 human but the rest of humans too and the habitability of the earth for that human as well as the rest AND the rest of life on earth too. sure people might not WANT to know or understand or realize it's all connected but not sure how you could have any counter argument there? even down to a cellular and atomic level NOTHING is in complete isolation?!...so much cause and effect there's no way ANYthing happens in isolation...anywho i'd be completely ashamed even if i thought it was best or thought i might be happier ONLY caring about what i wanted and not being considerate of anything or anyone else! not only could i never do that, even if somehow i was doing that i sure would never be able to outright admit that?! i guess there's some kind of...well at least we all can see you're being honest!!...personally i would think we would need MORE diverse ideas/inventions/ways of living/etc to help combat the destruction we've accumulated so far...not less?? there is zero way we are going to "fix" any of our mess with one single solution/idea/etc...seems most of the solutions would be based more on geography/total amounts of resources/human needs vs wants/the amount of knowledge(aka we should all be advocating for unlimited free lifelong education because surely the world is not going to be a better place if we are not learning to the best of our abilities, your world is not going to be one single bit better with stupider humans roaming around you and neither is mine and neither is bill gates! if a human doesn't know something then the world instantly becomes less safe/more of a dangerous place) we need many solutions to fix our problems which will require diversity in all aspects of our lives NOT LESS???
@@Meloniraelewis I think I read about a 3rd before I started losing brain cells, but on the note of we have to share a planet yes we do thank you captain obvious that does not mean i have to care tho, all the solutions I've seen are everyone has to go vegan, drive electric cars or walk, vote democrat, recycle, and these other loops and hoops of going about things, I'm just sick of it all and other people so the less if em the better in fact climate change will do me a huge favor by getting rid of people
@@tutacat so is climate change
It's almost impressive how everything is just a legal scam. This world is so greedy.
Capitalism does that
and yet if ppl steal from walmart n other big stores u get arrested. How is that illegal but these scams are?
@@ADCFproductions no it should count as stealing because wouldn't it be a fraudulent claim??
That’s capitalism, a legal scam
"Friendship, Love eventually ends. Greed is Eternal!"
Reduce all that is possible, reuse what's left, dispose correctly of the rest. I feel that being environmentally friendly as a singular person is more a state of mind and clean consciousness than believing I'm actually doing any change.
Yup but unfortunately not enough people want to help the environment or much less care because it's not effecting them now in their daily life
@@semekiizuio that's very true. Now its better than it was before so i can only hope the amount of people being environmentally friendly keeps growing
@@lanamello7445 yeah I'm glad it has come to the surface and raised awareness compared to the last decade, its progress
@@lanamello7445 Yesterday, I was out taking a walk. I picked up garbage as I went. I've got your back, if you got mine. And, that's two backs doing the same. We got this!
The rain starts with a single drop. I find the "I'm not making a change anyway so why bother" attitude very problematic. It's just a lazy excuse honestly.
It is always worth reminding yourself that the most eco-friendly choice you can make when choosing which product to buy, is to not buy it at all. There is a reason reduce comes before reuse and recycle in the "three Rs".
we are working on it. We believe that if food is produced and recycled in a decentralized way, a lot of transportation, packaging and organic waste can be reduced and organic food can be produced without using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The whole thing works by using black soldier fly larvae to recycle food waste and feeding them to fish. The dirt produced by the maggots and fish is filled by plants. A perfect recirculation system that extracts water from the waste and saves water in the production of fish and plants.
If you dont buy it it will eventually end up in a landfill
@@blitzkrieg706 and they will produce less product because of that, if more people buy it would create demand
@N_H if you font buy it it doesnt mean that someone else wont buy it. But sometimes their product wont be buyed because of whatever shit about the company or a new guys in town.
@@blitzkrieg706 companies won't produce the item if it doesn't sell. So while in the immediate future more items might end up in landfills, in the long-run they will have to cut back production to avoid wastage. No company wants to invest in making large amounts of products they have no hope of profiting off of.
Yes, this does also mean it must be a larger societal shift to reducing consumption, but you only have control over your own purchasing, and just because someone else will do it, doesn't mean you should too. I saw this exact mentality play out when I worked a customer service job. We were only open to take calls on Christmas and other big holidays because people still called in, and people called in because "they're open, I might as well do this now" whereas if no one called in on Christmas, it would be too much of a loss and they would have just closed down their support for the day.
I read the title as “why being mentally stable is a scam” while extremely tired and I was like, “hey there’s one scam I managed to avoid!!”
what
😂😂😂 is u ok buddy
😂😂😂😂
😂😂
Yeeesssss someone finally said it! I’ve been saying it for years. YEARS! Whenever a product says environmentally friendly, They think they can up the price by four dollars… I love you guys
how dare you
Great job!
*whenever
you should've said YASSSS! instead of YESSSSS!
@@PlayMoGame there
To me, at least, being sold a drink in a plastic cup with a plastic lid with a disgusting paper straw is the very definition of absurdity.
Edit: I will no longer be replying to people, kindly informing me that reusable straws exist. If you feel a burning need to do so, I advise you to read my comment again... slowly.
Just use a plastic straw and wash it when your done....
I just don’t use straws, I drink from the cup lol
"To me, at least, (...) the very definition of absurdity."
It gets worse. I've seen a photograph of a bunch of paper drinking straws individually wrapped in plastic!
@@knrdvmmlbkkn I wish I could claim to be surprised
Plastic straws are a super small amount of plastic waste, but because there was one video of a turtle with one stuck up its nose everyone thinks cutting straws is the perfect end solution for some reason
Great video - I think that "Why buying 'environmentally friendly'..." might have been a more appropriate title. 'Being' environmentally friendly ISN'T a scam - it's essential to our survival!
we are working on it. We believe that if food is produced and recycled in a decentralized way, a lot of transportation, packaging and organic waste can be reduced and organic food can be produced without using pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The whole thing works by using black soldier fly larvae to recycle food waste and feeding them to fish. The dirt produced by the maggots and fish is filled by plants. A perfect recirculation system that extracts water from the waste and saves water in the production of fish and plants.
I thinks they made it sound a little clickbaity to get mote attention which in a case such important as environment conciussness is okay for them to do so
@@unimother1
I saw someone doing the black fly larva thing but it was so they could have a good source of protein for their chickens!
@@artsyscrub3226 that’s a possibility aswell
Can we also talk about how California's almond milk industry uses a metric f%$k ton more drinkable water than dairy consumes and also kills billions of commercial bees each year
One of my biggest problems is still companies entirely putting all responsibility and therefore blame on the consumer. Most pollution isn't packaging for consumer products, and it's literally just a way for companies to shift the blame away from themselves, production processes, and other sources of pollution. We need to focus on the areas where the most pollution is created and keep the pressure on them to create less waste, rather than allowing them to keep shifting it back to us
Goodluck, you can say all of that but where all those packagings and items are mostly produced??
It's absurd what brands do when they ship PR packages to influencers. There's influencers calling out brands, other influencers ''such a cute packaging''. Some brands got the message and are changing and some of them still send cute PR packages but with a tote bag or a wood box for them to use to organize stuff, although the weight and size of that wood box could make the delivery vehicles spend more fuel.
Yeah they are so malicious. They only tell half the truth. Because of that they shift the blame to the consumer saying it's their fault for not knowing. In order to prevent that you have to put effort in searching the ingredients.
@@todieiwan1948 what?
Exactlyyyy!
Recycling is a scam in of itself. Most "recyclables" aren't actually recycled due to blue bin impurities, low recycling profits, and lack of infrastructure like what was mentioned in the video. Or they are recycled into non-recyclable materials. Or only part of them is recycled. Yet this remains the magic word that makes something suddenly good for the planet.
Also the process of recycling still emits pollution, and has drawbacks like what's listed above. Reusing should be prioritized, with recycling as a last resort. That's why it's "reduce *reuse* recycle", not "recycle and you're all good".
suck’s so much is single use just for our convenience ☹️ I try to clean & recycle everything I can from fruit containers, reusable bags at drop offs, aluminum cans etc. I was sad to see tetra paks are super hard to recycle (and they claim to recycle as much as they can but they’re not in charge of the consumer who buys it) and is turned into concrete! I will not buy any more it, stressed me out so much.
Agree except for being recyclable only once. Once is still better than zero which is what happens to most trash.
I thought Reduce was the biggie.
Or like products that say that they're recyclable but apparently they can't be recycled in public recycling but can only be recycled if taken to "your local [insert name of shop where product came from]" (I'm looking at you Publix, with your plastic shopping bags that can only be recycled by "your local Publix" and can't be recycled by the public system. Nobody has the time to be heading over to Publix JUST to throw away your bags)
@@Egerit100 Plastic shopping bags don't need to be brought back to the same location or chain, you could drop them off at any store that has bag recycling. You don't need to go specifically to drop off the bags either, you can just stuff them in another bag and bring it in the next time you remember as you go shopping.
They can also be handled by most recycling plants that take plastic, but need to be pre-sorted so they don't get mixed in with the paper during sorting and cause blockages. Try catching whoever handles the recyclables in your area and asking if they can take pre-sorted plastic film, if they do you can just stuff all your shopping bags into one bag and hand it off.
We actually hold on to some to use as packing filler, cleaner and more eco-friendly than packing peanuts, and keeps things safer and more secure than old newspaper at a fraction the weight.
I’m so mad about the removal of plastic bags at grocery stores. Now we end up with an excess of reusable bags that also end up on the trash. At least the plastic bags were reusable as trash bags.
"I’m so mad about the removal of plastic bags at grocery stores. Now we end up with an excess of reusable bags that also end up on the trash." You are supposed to use them over and over again, we have great bags we have used hundreds of times over 5+ years.
The worst thing is that people are getting better and more aware and the companies are not afraid of straight up lying to the customers.
I’m so glad someone’s finally taking about greenwashing. I hate seeing so many people buying something that’s “eco-friendly” that really is doing the exact opposite thing. I did a research project about this a while ago, so it’s nice to see a more popular video addressing these concerns
It's been the right wing talking point for years. Crazy huh?
@@Sal3600 no. These are facts.
@@janelliot5643 no shit. My point was the left shat on them for stating so.
You have to distinguish: There are companies that are truly "eco-frindly", others (most) are not: Instead of demanding that each consumer should find out on its own, the government and investigative journalism should do that job. In Europe, we have some trustworthy independent certificates for bio-food, fair trade, plus unbiased testing as Stiftung Warentest.
Finally, the voters decide. But in the US & UK etc. with its oligopoly-type two-party systems (at least when it comes to establish countermeasures against greenwashing) there is no chance to make a green party participate in the government. Change that.
Cool! Is there a place where we can read about your research? :)
This reminds me of one specific product I saw that relied on the ignorance of the consumer. There was water that was advertised as "organic." Does that mean they inject carbon compounds into the water? It just seemed like the weirdest food product to be labeled as organic
Or "Non-GMO water"... What the heck is that??
omg, yes! I saw water one time that was labeled "gluten free" as if gluten had any business being anywhere near water lmao
It counts on people having no brains to sell it.
ah yes organic water.
Humid church air that condenses on the cold organ and thus when a container of collected organic water is opened you can smell the the choir and the sweet baby jesus.
its obviously good for the planet, it is a gift from the lord.
It is also known as or is essentially the same as holy water, which you could make at home to save plastic by boiling the hell out of any dirty unholy water.
Hah!! I've seen 'gluten-free' Carrots.
I really appreciate how you put articles backing up what you’re talking about in your description.
If a company says that they are green, and I don't see remote work opportunities offered for their office staff, I know they lied to us.
There is no greener transportation than not using fuel at all.
(Sorry about my English, I'm not a native speaker)
Your English was perfect friend 😁
Isolating ppl online has it's own problems we can see very clearly today.
5 - The Sin of Lesser Than Two Evils. You dont spend fuel with transportation, but you use way more energy at home. (lights, tv, computer, making extra meals, AC and so on)
The corporation is green amd virtue signaling until it hits their bottom line.
@@TheMuchoBlast As if you don't use any where you're going
I work at a retail store and when we have a product that's discontinued or damaged we flat out throw it away (even if it were blankets or hygiene products, in general things that would help people in need). And even if the employees were to take the products we would be fired for theft 😐 it hurts seeing things like that, a lot of the time in perfect condition, being tossed in the dumpster and wasted
this is so upsetting, they could give it to literally anyone, refugees could use those blankets!
This is why dumpster diving is so much fun! :)
dude, text ppl who do dumpster diving and we'll be right there during the night collecting. Just put it in like a clean bag or sum so that it doesn't get dirty and you won't even get fired.
That is really disheartening. Maybe you could contact a local homeless shelter or something to let them know you have items being tossed so they can come get them?
So say something,! Say it loudly to those who could use it, and say it to the retailer. They could make a good image for themselves by donating the things instead of trashing them. It could be a win for marketing as well as a win for the recipients. It is all very concerning but we need to move from shaking our heads and writing comments here, into speaking tot hose who are doing the things, and helping them to see that different actions would be better both for themselves and for others. (Yes I know, I am writing too, right now!, I am also procrastinating the preparation of the next presentation I am doing for an 8 week sustainable living course. This session is about growing change: Reducing waste, and gardening for food.)
For the first Sin, there's a reason why Reduce is mentioned before Reuse, and why Reuse comes before Recycle.
and reducing consume couldn't go more against big corporation's goals
@@enzomatos2307 Exactly. It's literally the last thing they will ever do.
I’ve never thought of it like that
YES. Reducing comes first. Once you can no longer reduce, reuse it if you can. If you can no longer reuse, that's when you recycle. Creating more and more products and validating that because it's "recyclable" doesn't help.
@@absolutelynot524 The crazy thing is how many products go completly unused directly into the trash ....
I did an experiment myself. My grocery store BANNED plastic bags. But sell laundry detergent in huge plastic jugs. The large bottle of tide when empty of product, weighs more than 500 bags. Test this yourself.
You should see the spike in plastic garbage bag sales, you'll notice the section is 3x as big as it used to be as well...
'Environmentally Friendly' product is a product that can last for years, can be fixed when broken, and after you finish with it, can be sold or fully recycled.
"the sin of irrelevance" IMMEDIATELY made me think of companies putting "silicone free" on shampoo and "sulfate free" on conditioner, with both ingredients being used in the opposite order
Can we talk about the movement of “organic” hair color 🥴🥴🥴
@@AmericanShiba no
@@Paonporteur i think for the most part they have a really negative effect on curly or textured hair. like for straight thin hair, silicone can make it appear smoother, but for other hair types it can cause frizziness or ruin curls. and to my knowledge sulfates just make cleaning products sudsy. i think some people say it strips the hair too much or something.
Or "GMO free" on products that couldn't possibly be GMO (not to mention the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with GMOs or GM foods)
@@adrianpip2000 if you think you could get your product into the carts of more people by putting a true (albeit irrelevant) statement on your packaging, why not?
Chemical free is an always hilarious one. EVERYTHING IS CHEMICALS! They could say no bad chemicals but even that is wrong. Everything 'natural' is made out of chemicals!
Most people think of synethics or synethically created chemicals when they say that. Which is probably not a good thing because it leads to being easily decieved. In my opinion its syntheics that cause the bigger issues. Which they are only really created for convinence and to fill greedy hands as it makes stuff "cheaper".
I know! There's no such thing as something with "no chemicals"
@@christconscious1784 To be fair, something being "synthetic" or "artificial" is not necessarily worse (or even any different) than something "natural." A chemical compound is the same, regardless of whether it was created in nature or by humans. Either way, the same, identical thing will not be more or less harmful to consume, for example.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are instances when using a synthetic alternative is more environmentally friendly than a natural one. You have to collect/mine/harvest the natural ingredients from nature, after all, which obviously could lead to harming or exploiting that natural deposit. That wouldn't necessarily be the case if the product is made synthetically instead, assuming that obtaining the raw materials to synthesize that product can be done in a more environmentally friendly manner. I will note, however, that this is just my assumption. I don't know this for certain, so please don't quote me on it.
@@TheLordoftheRavens Im only willing to entertain that idea if there is something to back it up. Ive never heard of anything that is better, only easier for us. Never the environment. The main things coming to mind are plastics and polyester materials. I dont know much about synthesised medicines harm on the envirnoment but i dont believe they would be needed in the future if we start avoiding artifical flavors, presavatives and processed foods, sugars etc. Which are all known to be harmful. Also, to assume they are 100 percent the same usually isnt completely true nor do we know at what levels it could be different. When these subjects are studied it reveals how much is speculation/theory and/or based on short term studies and only assumed to not be harmful on the long term. Regardless, youve sparked me to search for envirnomentally beneifical synethics and see if anything changes my mind.
@@christconscious1784 Do you not understand that a molecule is a molecule whether it was made in a lab or obtained naturally? Their composition is literally identical, no matter the origin of the molecule.
This makes me wonder how green Sweden and Norway truly are. There was an article a few years ago about Sweden having to buy trash from other countries since we burn trash for heat. But importing trash doesn't seem that eco friendly :P
Many of us recycle, but I do wonder if that actually does anything for the planet. Plus the media tries to make us feel guilty for not doing more to save the planet, when in truth we're a small country and most changes here just bring discomfort and less eco friendly solutions, despite being told it's for the enviroment.
Before we used to buy plastic bags made here in Sweden to buy our food in for 1 sek that we then threw our trash in that then got burnt for heat. Now a plastic bag costs 10-15 sek (1 usd today is 10 sek, so basically 1 dollar each bag), so we use tote bags, but now we don't get bags to throw our trash in, so we have to buy rolls of plastic bags that are made in Asia. How is that better for the environment? The only one that won in this case is the food stores, because they earn more for each sold bag and can sell their own tote bags "for eco reasons".
The truth is that while we're being told we're being told we're poluting the planet with our plastic straws, the truth is that the true poluters are big companies who just dump their trash wherever they feel like it. Media should shift focus from us to the companies instead imho.
They just logged 300 acres next to my property to make paper bags due to plastic bag bans. DUH!
Unfortunately most if not all policies pushed through riksdagen the past decade's been for feeling smug and good about yourself rather than actual practical environmental good. Our green party's just a disguise for globalism and economical redistribution. It's been a disaster for actual green policies.
That whole garbage business is ran by Mafias under the name "corporate" since the government is no longer in control of garbage. Capitalists found a loophole of their own and now exploit every penny from anyone with trash in the city.🤦🤦
That's exactly what I ask, Anette! I buy a plastic bag from the store then use it for kitchen garbage or other things. Now I have cloth bags but no plastic bag for garbage etc so I buy rolls of bags. What the heck!? Second, banning plastic straws but getting a drink in plastic cups lol Thirdly, most (I'm talking 95%) of our recycling bin stuff is not recycled because we don't have enough recycling plants nor are there uses for recycled end products. I'm in Ontario Canada
I live in Sweden and looked into this, its all bullshit, Swedes consume A LOT. A LOT. fast fashion etc are very popular, yet the same people recycle trash to feel morally superior as if theyre helping the nature.
Among the Greenwashing examples i really like are Plant Based plastics that cant be recycled, plant based milks like almond milk that require excessive irrigation & contribute massively to water loss & drying rivers. And the amazing green future of lab grown meat that to be commercially viable as a general meat alternative will require an almost exponential production of Bioreactor components, pipes & gages etc. An almost exponential use of energy to run the pharmaceutical grade labs the cultured slurry has to be made in to avoid contamination, & an enormous use of anti-biotics to account for the cell culture not having an immune system to avoid infection of cultured cells. And all that's before the production facilities to run the cultured slurry into "meat products". Also not to mention the huge amount of soy & corn needed to feed the cells the sugar they need on top the proteins & amino acids they need to grow.. All in all an impossible endeavor to ever be done at scale. Eg to produce even 0.0002% of current meat demand, would require one third of the entire global pharmaceutical bioreactor capacity. Just think of all the resources needed to produce all the bioreactors needed to produce at scale. And all the energy required to run the pharmaceutical grade 100% clean labs that are needed to avoid the cell culture dying before it's ready to be processed.. Ohh so incredibly green..
We need to shout this everywhere. Emphasize this line above all else: “These companies aren’t willingly going to sacrifice their profits for the betterment of humanity so we need to make them.” Because it is a fact that many humans will do whatever it takes to get rich.
and along with that there's a second truth: people only care as long as it doesn't reduce convenience. Most Americans drive to the store or these days have stuff delivered, even if the store is literally 2 blocks down the street - but walking would be a major inconvenience.
Which is why the state should support the companies.
@@deoczidGONI nah, the state should regulate those mf’s and make waaay stricter laws. like i don’t understand why when it’s found out some food products have undisclosed and even toxic substances in them the companu is not immeriately shut down, fck those pieces of sht
The way to force companies to adhere to more environmentally conscious behavior is to vote with our dollars. That is how capitalism works. Regulation is not the answer, because as you see the manufacturers get around regulations by sometimes as easily as rewording, or renaming something. If we as consumers would become more aware and conscious of what we are buying and demand truth from manufacturers with our dollars the the manufacturers would have no choice. Either they manufacturer what people want or they go out of business.
@@sunayakong8537 I agree. Problem is, when I look around on this planet most people simply don't care. Most people don't even read labels, much less bother to educate themselves what certain ingredients are.
I think humanity will eventually drown in convenience.
In Australia we banned single use plastic bags. This included biodegradable bags certain shops used to sell, including my own local IGA's compostable bags- you had to pay for them and treat them like multi-use. I think it was a step in the right direction, but now instead shops sell 15c bags that are massive and just plastic monsters, which defeats the purpose of the single use bag ban in the first place. I would prefer if we had paper bags or something to use, or if people used baskets or something instead, but as a Coles worker I think I sell almost or even more than 100 'single use' bags an hour. We restock them by the stack every night. It's horrific and money-grabbing for the big corporations.
Similar situation here in Scotland. Single use plastic bags are now sold for around 5p, and some companies even charge you for their single use paper bags. That might have helped to reduce the amount of single use plastic bags being thrown out, but we are now also seeing a lot of people buying and throwing out plastic bags that are meant to be multi-use. And from the research I've done into them, are much harder to recycle than single use bags. Some still with tags attached, very sturdy and often in near perfect condition. Used maybe a couple of times. For comparison, I had mine for over 4 years now and they still look fine. I think it's obvious that a lot of people don't mind paying a little for something they are planning to throw away, so taxing it is not going to work all that well. We need a mind shift, not a surcharge. I don't know if my neighbours are just worse than the rest of the country, or what, but I am beyond shocked about how little some people care about our planet. Some of my neighbours would literally rather throw away their kitchen bin once it gets nasty, than clean it. Not even just one household, I see several bins each month, among other perfectly reusable items. My own kitchen bin was a rescue that was destined for the landfill simply because someone couldn't be bothered to give it a rinse and a wipe.
Exactly! Now people are just paying for a bag that won't break on the walk home and then dump it in their bin when they get home.
How did you miss the point that much? The point of those bags is to REUSE THEM FOREVER. They last so many years. My mom has been using the same grocery bags since I was a little kid 20 years ago.
paper bags also will just cause a lot of deforestation. There really is no winning. We all just need to re use as much as possible and stop chucking things away and buying more.
yeah i grow up in a world where everything's gone to shit haha. Wonder how the straw ban does anything in Australia, i remmebr being in tasmania 2017 and they already had no single use plastics before it became a thing in melb, but paper bags are also bad I've heard, the reuseable plastic bags are still bad no? and who knows which is better lol
It's probably not something considered
much anymore, but the success
of bottled water in the US is amazing.
People pay money at stores to get
something that was free before at a water
fountain at the same place (often chilled as
opposed to warm), or available at home and at
school or work, and no different at all except
perhaps flouride. It is an advertising marvel, what else compares?
It's not that simple. The water from the tap contains the chemicals used to control microbial growth in the water. Tap water tastes terrible. Bottled water is filtered to remove those microbicides. Other sources of water, such as streams or rivers, are not safe to drink because of dangerous microorganisms. Because of real problems with water, bottled water has been around since the late 1800s. I once read a guide on traveling by ship written in 1909: it recommended taking sufficient bottled water to last the whole voyage and to avoid drinking the ship's water.
Yeah, water fountains and wells of old were great, until the whole village/city got typhus or some other disease. I am not saying that bottled water is good solution (I myself drink basically only tap water), but I like to drink water I know is free of bacteria and other not-so-friendly things. And I know that the cleaning process is going to cost something, so I expect to pay even for my tap water.
But I agree that bottled water is ridiculous. I mean, we have pretty good water-cleaning stations, so there is no reason why we could not drink water that gets delivered into our home by pipes. We use it for bathing and even cooking with no problems, so why should we not drink it? It´s definitely cheaper and I would guess the quality is about the same as of the bottled one.
recycling and waste management has been an absolute sham for ever, we need to create technology to tackle this issue asap.
Or maybe we just hold the companies doing it responsible so they stop.
It's strange to see how these "sins" are mostly valid for other issues like "healthy" or "diet" food labels.
Also a reminder that how important it is to practice scienttific skepticism especially when it comes to claims made by corporations.
Thanks :)
Also a reminder that how important it is to practice scientific skepticism especially when it comes to claims made by corporations and governments
Yes question EVERY thing that seems too good to be true 🙄😂
@General Pershing yes it does, and doing so shows that they are safe and effective
@@firstname405 good comment 😊 almost thought you were going to be an anti-vaxxer
Labelling a product as "healthy" is really dumb. It depends on how much of it you eat in the context of your diet. Even water can kill if you drink too much of it!
It's become a personal hobby of mine to avoid greenwashed products and try and find the real gems :)
The real gem is reduce. There are no products that doesn’t consume the environment.
@@rewer We can find sustainable alternatives too though! For things that we can’t avoid buying, I think that’s what they meant.
I started using solid soap and shampoos to reduce plastic usage. It's a real gem!
Please share said gems!
Wow! Start a blog or something to share said info! ✌🏻💚
"if a company isn't explaining exactly how they're more environmentally friendly or what they're comparing it to, they're likely just using words to sell you a product."
There is also the "sin of SUBJECTIVITY"
When companies claim that their cows are "happy", that's a lie. But we can't prove that, because everyone has their own definition of happiness
I think influencer culture had a big impact on this. "Environmentally friendly" influencers just love praising themselves for that, and then they push hella expensive "environmentally friendly" products onto their followers.
Mr beast, for example, said that he cares about the environment yet he makes team seas NFTs which are bad for the environment and bitcoin.
i think if you need to buy something in order to be environmentally friendly, you’re not being environmentally friendly
@@Blue-Apple-fc9eo How are nfts bad for the environment?
@@AravaxElvor Because as the market grows, the concern for the environment grows. Most NFTs trade on the Ethereum network. This means that each transaction uses a mining process to confirm the trade and transaction. The energy used in mining concerns many who feel that it can add to carbon emissions if non-clean energy sources are used.
@@AravaxElvor It uses too much electricity which can cost a lot of money.
I was a marketing major for a year in college. I had to get out of it because I couldn't do something that misleading for a career. Every class was about how to exploit consumers.
You can use marketing for good, too, though! If the "bad guys" use marketing (which works very well), the "good guys" have to, too!
My boyfriend has a marketing degree and this is so true! He tells me all the time how bad he felt at his old job. Thank the gods I switched to civil engineering 💪🏼
Marketing is the art of telling someone what they want to hear. As long as the person hears more of what they want to hear from you than from your competition than you win and gain a customer thus money.
Marketing only works because we are conditioned to follow the leader that promises us victory and riches beyond our believes, we only buy this brand because it promises to give us the best figure and the most beautiful skin of all. And so on... a lot of people buy products because they think they want them without even wondering why they would want them (usually because they are being told that they should want them).
Marketing is not so much deceptive as it is telling people what they want to hear when they are considering to buy a product or use a service.
oh really - ? great news
It only works on stupid people though. I never cease to be amazed the marketing is an effective field, but then again the majority of people are stupid, and women especially fall for simple marketing tricks
As an engineer and an environmentalist enthusiast, I know these points since at least 2005. Since we cannot control nor impact everything, I still believe in doing what I can within reasonable boundaries like switching to a hybrid car, community gardening, limiting ourchases to necessary ones only. Reusing, reusing, reusing. Anf of course, recycling what the city is willing to recycle.
I hated when politics decided to create anger and division by lying about this topic and companies using it for marketing. As an engineer with extensive science-related studies and understanding, I can tell you:
1. The world will not end
2. Climate change is a natural event that will happen regardless (and we have not reached our peak points historically, imagine that!)
3. Current technology for environment friendly needs such as car parts, solar panels, etc, requires alot of fossil fuels to be made
4. Natural sources of energy are not and will never be 100% reliable
The right thing is to focus on your immediate environment and for personal health, support your community to keep the air and areas clean. And let engineers continue to improve technology without idiocy from politicians and lame followers destroying such a beautiful field of study.
i totally agree with your point of view, out of your point nr 2: science is telling us that natural cycles have always been occurring on a scale of 100.000/1.000.000 years while now on decades. that said, the best way to solve the problem is exactly what you said
👏👏 absolutely, we don't need to politicize environmental issues to further their own morals. i think the worst thing that happened to the topic of climate change was it being made as an argument between "the left vs right". it doesn't just affect one side, it affects everyone.
Great info!
But I have an audio editing note that not everyone realizes. Use these steps to help with audio fx
1. Record audio
2. Duplicate track
3. Add fx to the duplicate
4. Play both tracks simultaneously.
This allows us to hear the original message clearly with fx layered on top.
I know you didn't ask. But here's the info for funsies.
Once again, love this content! Thank you for all your work!
I remember in school, our teachers would teach about how to be environmentally friendly and would lowkey shame students who maybe didnt always buy "environmentally friendly" products. But environmentally friendly products are more expensive, and families that are under a financial stress won't always be able to buy these environmentally friendly products. The reality is that plastic is one of the cheapest items for companies to use and families just trying their best to provide for themselves wont be able to buy items that are green.
Hear, hear! I've been saying this for years. If we want the human race to be environmentally friendly then we need to ensure that the majority - the common denominator - can afford to do it, otherwise it's just not going to happen. Most of the eco solutions cost more, so they become middle class virtue signalling. Poorer folks are already reducing and reusing (to save themselves money!) so the biggest thing to help at that level needs to be recycling, and that's really where it all falls down. Even here in the UK, where all plastic is technically recyclable, and we have government run kerbside recycling collection free of charge to the householder, they still refuse to take more than half the plastic waste generated by packaging.
It's a long road ahead to make those products cheaper. But it can be done. It just needs investment and subsidies from our government, because no other company is willing to do so.
I totally hear you. I was thinking the same thing about my family and other families that I know. And the most irritating thing is that these more expensive “eco friendly” products are no better than the cheaper ones
Thank God I grew up in the 90's when teacher's didn't do that.
Havin lived on the breadline myself, I was still pretty environmentally friendly, was practically a vegetarian at the time cos veggis was cheaper than meat, did not use much gas/electric, wasn't spending out on frivolous things that weren't environmentally friendly cos like hell was I affording that, not be many electrical goods were comin my an such...but I admit the packaging of what little I could afford wasn't special vegan approved environmentally friendly material, what a bastard I was 😂
Yeah, much as the blame gets shoved aside, it ain't necessarily all poor people damaging the environment, it's usually more middle class people and up who buy more than they need cos they can (not gonna say what's right or wrong because that isn't really relevant here) and as result naturally produce far more waste.
To me, being environmentally friendly can be supported by improvements to packaging and such, but cutting down on consumption is also gonna be necessary to help combat climate change, that wouldn't even really require much work on the part of manufacturing companies or retail outlets, supply and demand would dictate that less demand would call for less supply, obviously you can't cut down as much on essentials like food, clothing and hygiene products...ok food a lot of people these days could stand to maybe buy a little less of but that's neither here nor there, however there are plenty of other useless things people buy that are awful for the environment and largely unnecessary... not saying stop buying stuff altogether, just less of said stuff.
One fact that stuck with me is that every single piece of plastic I’ve used and thrown out is still around today, somewhere on earth. 🤯
I learned about greenwashing more in depth in an environmental economics course and it’s just so sad that if feels like you can’t trust anyone and every company only wants money. Of course not always true but true for the majority. Transparency is key!! I once saw disposable diapers marketed as green! Lol. At the end of the day, instead of switching or buying new ‘enviro friendly’ products, the better thing to do is use the ones you already have, even if they’re plastic.
Welcome to the real world
Well, of course companies only want money, after all, that’s how they stay alive or grow.
I did find some hope in a brand that makes compostable straws and cutlery. Having young kids, disposable straws and utensils are sometimes a life saver. I did do a bunch of research into the tech they use and looked at the outside sources that did their compostability testing before buying any though. The stuff has to be sent to a commercial composting facility (one that does hot compost) but they do break down at the same rate as grass clippings then, and I do mean actually break down. There is a difference between compostable and biodigradable.
Do you live in the US? The plastic you dispose in your waste bin has probably been burned to make electricity. Only if you live in some place where there is no waste management like remote rural areas in south america, Afrika, India, ... all of your plastic still exists.
well for me most would be burend as we burn our trash to save money
In Finland we give back plastic bottles for money - small half a litre costs 20 cents and big 1,5 litre to 3 litre is 50 cents. U consume product, and when u go to store u take them back and there are bottles automats
may have been late but omg i was sooo lucky that a good video was uploaded on my birthday. Thanks man
"We can't actually recycle everything" which is why I tend to make my own coffee at home and refill my own water bottles over and over. It doesn't matter if the cups dunkin uses are recyclable, I can re-use my own stuff. Oh, and it's cheaper.
I would recommend boiling your water to kill of bacteria from the tap
@@josephmarino310 That's fair. I've been trying to convince the hubby to get a filter but we can't find one at a decent price.
This sounds like a very American realization.
@@josephmarino310 Is this a thing in America? Aren't your taps just... ready to use as is?
@@GoodKingMort most places here yeah can drink from tap no need to boil first.
"These companies aren't willingly going to sacrifice their profits for the betterment of humanity, so we need to make them."
Hell yeah direct action!
I: Indeed!
These companies exist because of demand, aka you, the consumer. So if you dont support it, don't buy.
This idea only works if you can survive in your society without certain products. Like where I live if you don't have a car you literally are stuck with low wage jobs because you live in bumfuck nowhere. I would love to not need my car, but there are no other options currently.
However there are plans to make a train that runs between the two nearby large cities with a stop in the town I am in. This will basically eliminate my need for a car so at that point I can make the choice to not spend money on fuel/cars.
Basically vote with your wallet only works if society has alternative options to vote on.
@@Daniellasanche it's easy to put all the blame on consumers when consumers don't get an alternative
@@poppyseed7639 Exactly! It is like complaining about people buying plastic bottles for drinks, but I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a glass bottle that wasn't a beer bottle. Not to mention a lot of the reusable 'clean' options are actually worse (i.e. the entire thesis of the video we are commenting on) for the environment.
thank you for highlighting the point that I have to be environmentally friendly in all aspects when I am selling my products
Like the "Heart Smart" symbol on products that are healthy. Companies PAID for the symbol and it started appearing on just about anything regardless of how healthy the product actually is.
🙏🕊️❤️🙏
love how they removed all forks from salads and premade meals at the store next to my school to be "environmentaly friendly" but they kept all of the plastic packaging.
and then they sell single use forks in another part of the store.
corporations have managed to sell the same stuff, creating more garbage and inconveniencing customers, for a higher price :)
Disney uses paper straws. it's better then plastic. but still damaging, since it's paper. Starbucks replaced a lid with another plastic lid, to be more environmentally friendly, because the new plastic lid doesn't require a straw. it's a step in the right direction. but it's sad that the straws are the only thing some of these places seem to care about. 🤦♀️ I do think we shouldn't rely on companies though. being environmentally friendly, is focusing on what WE are doing. These companies should do their part too. but it's 50/50. we shop at places and get food from places that have lots of plastic. but we can also make better choices outside of that, and there are companies out there (thankfully!) that are being honest. I have a compostable phone case. it's lasted me maybe 4 years. and now it's starting to break down and come apart. still going to test it and see how long it fully breaks down. but I will gladly get another one, because it seems legit (it's the Pela case, btw). we can also buy canvas bags for shopping and groceries. that is something that companies do for marketing and it sucks that the cheap ones are made of plastic......but at least it keeps thousands of plastic bags from being thrown away. you can also bring reusable silverware with you when you eat out at places. if I get plastic ones, I try to reuse them again before I toss them.
Like a true Ferengi!
Well that's the double edge sword of people wanting "environmentally friendly" stuff. We have nothing to blame but consumers themselves.
@@mayganphynix8267 Paper is biodegradable? How is it damaging?
I first became aware of this issue on a global scale in a class last semester, and ever since then, as a Software Engineering student, I have dreamed of making an app that could somehow easily quantify and grade the ethics of a company, brand, or product (including environment/sustainability, but also child labor, conflict minerals, etc) so that people could just search a brand and get a quick result of "is this actually as moral and ethical as it claims to be or are they just trying to sell you something?", and then maybe with additional reading and sources for those who are interested in learning more. Perhaps they would be given a numerical/letter grade, or stickers for different areas of ethical production that they've qualified for, so that people could decide based on which issues are most important to them. I think it would be really cool, but I can't even imagine where to begin; it would be such a massive project. But I definitely think there needs to be an easier way for consumers to find this information *reliably* since so many of us *want* to be more ethical in our consumption.
If you actually end up finishing that app, you'd probably get blacklisted or some company will try to buy you out to protect their interests.
I think something similar to charity navigator (a website that gives a score for charities) would fit what you described except for companies
While I love the idea, there is an issue with that it could easily be bought out, faked or simply buried via a corporate sponsored slander/libel campaign. Then even further, if it does get bought out, companies can then use this product to devalue their opponents and destroy competition, leading towards further monopoly
I love it if you do create this app please don't get bought out!!!
it will most likely get corrupted
sounds similar to good on you, which rates companies based on some of the characteristics you mentioned!
the keystone pipeline was actually a good thing because all the oil it would have transported is now being shipped by truck and train that burn fossil fuels . also the land damage from building the pipeline would be null and void because the land that was dug up would have been reclaimed and placed back to bury the pipeline . and the area around pipelines like those generally tend to be planted with trees
Not to mention the trains and trucks leak. The only thing in favor of not having the pipeline is that costs rise so people consume less?
Don't forget the transport ships who go through unregulated international waters. They have many opportunities to burn the worst oils in these waters and produce huge amounts of pollution doing so. Another note is how much of the pipeline was dug and laid and now is just sitting there unused. Same with a transformer station we have right outside of our town. Someone built it expecting kickbacks for wind and solar and when they didn't come through they just left it there unused.
Omg thank you for saying this. Literally an example of lesser of two evils in his video. The world still depends on fossil fuels and until that changes, you have to choose the option that would be less costly overall. Pipeline is definitely better than trucks and ships. Plus it puts Canada at a huge disadvantage economically in the eyes of the world.
Also warren buffett has a majority share in the rail road that's transporting the oil. He a major donor to certain American politicians and they were the ones pushing to get the pipeline stopped.
Don’t forget that the oil from the keystone pipeline is produced with the worlds highest environmental standards. Without it, countries are buying oil from places with literally 0 standards that decimate the land.
Thank you so much for shining a light on this.
Sucks that we have to do so much research to do right. Everything gets more and more complicated, food as well. Heartbreaking.
In that case you would like this fun fact, cardboard packages produce something like 10x more carbon then plastic.
What's heartbreaking is we fought tooth and nail to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built, in the name of saving the environment, but in doing so we cause more damage to the environment with the added carbon emissions using to truck the oil instead.
The irony is saddening.
What do you mean, if people stopped listening to media and social media and had some critical thinking it would be fine.
But since everyone thinks they are better than everyone else they will just keep on trucking along in ignorance making it so companies can get away with this.
These people are doing like 3rd grade logic to justify that they are fighting the right cause.
Just look at the keystone pipeline, is transporting all that oil via road actually better? Your spending hydro carbon to move hydrocarbon. If you look at it as a zero sum game the pipeline is more efficient and alternatives even more costly to the environment. It's not like that oil is going to stay in Canada forever.
People need to think things through, I bet most the people who protested keystone would like a new iPhone every year. But protesting apple for making a consumer trend to replace their phone every year doesn't get them brownie points on social media like protesting against bad oil company
@@PaendaTube What I’m saying is, having to do our own research, meaning not what mainstream media/ads want us to do. All I’m saying…
@@PaendaTube I don't know anything about keystone pipeline but won't the oil be used regardless if its in truck or pipes, So it isn't going different to the emissions, But will slow down the operation of the company and give more jobs. So i would say its a win, Everything i know is form this comment section.
I appreciate you highlighting these issues in "sustainable" products, I just hope this title and video doesn't serve as an excuse for people to give up and do nothing. The most sustainable way to live is to: 1. Stop shopping so damn much (its not necessary but you've been brain washed by capitalism into a mindless consumer.) 2. Shop second hand as much as possible and 3. Shop from sustainable brands when the first 2 aren't an option. Yes there are actual sustainable brands you just need to do a little research. Of course there needs to be more restrictions in place for these green marketing terms but in the meantime, the best we can do is a little research first :)
Absolutely! I wish they had have chosen a different title, good vid though. I hate when people say “the corporations are the ones doing all the bad so we don’t have to do anything because there’s no point”. Imagine if all the ants said “there’s no point in building a nest because I’m just one ant”.
@@freya006 Exactly! So sick of that tired old cop-out. No movement in history has changed over night. It starts with one person and they spread the message and it grows. Unfortunately, people are always looking for a way to shift the blame so they don’t have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Of course corporations need to be held accountable but they’ll never change as long as we support their products. That’s the basis of supply and demand.
Thisssss, exactly what I was thinking + love your suggestions!
4 Having governments do their job and stop making it a personal responsability
Sooo, this means I can spin my dislike for shopping into a good thing instead of something weird, and be proud of my 20 year old shirts. I guess that means my propensity for doing strange things like cutting old t-shirts full of holes into strips and turning them into rugs is also good... I wonder if anyone would be willing to pay me for that.
You know when there's a banner under your video, you're on the right track!
Your amazing!!
Blessings from
ELA CA🙏💜
I love the "all natural" labels... there's bazillions of "all natural" things that are poisonous or deadly in many ways, all natural doesn't mean it's good for you XD
New! All Natural Arsenic Anthrax! Entirely natural.
Bears
And these same people use hundreds of non-natural inventions every day, _guaranteed._ Phones, computers, clocks, glasses, cars, clothes, houses, medicine, vaccines... If you love natural so much then go live like a caveman and get mauled by a lion or something when you're in your 30s, can't get more natural than that.
but in the end, and this, barely no one ever understands it : EVERYTHING is all natural... LITERALLY...
you just CAN'T snap your fingers for something random, a completely new material popping into existance from no where
sur MANY natural things are slightly or HEAVILY modified... BUT they came from something natural to begin with, it's just NOT possible otherwise
so literally saying something isn't "natural" is like saying "the sun doesn't exist" it makes no sens
@@TigerLoveHeart unless you’re using nuclear waste!
I think that while many of the things mentioned are a scam, being environmentally conscious is something societies need to rely on and be taught with care.
this.. it's honestly sad that people with good intends are being capitalized by corporations with bad intends
in a way, i feel personally attacked on my beliefs simply because of the fact that environmentally unfriendly corporations can market themselves as eco-friendly
this is PETA all over again
@@12DAMDO Absolutely right, I have been vegan for over 10 years now and have witness the unfortunate exploitative nature of markets making real and important messages diffuse for people.
unfortunately, carbon footprint on an individual level is a meme and negligible compared to commercial production and is only used to push the blame on consumers while companies continue to run their factories and to make 'good' PR by advocating for it.
@@tomyourfriendlyhagcollector ding ding ding! That's the crux of it
the point is that we need to change our mode of production from profit towards needs oriented, redistribute the means of production to the working class.
Thank you for bringing these facts to our attention.
The pipeline would ultimately be more eco friendly by reducing the number of tankers driving around and expelling diesel exhaust
I’d love to do my master thesis about the topic of consumer responsibility. I think it really isn’t fair to blame the consumer for consuming goods/services that damage the environment.
Why do you think that?
I agree to a point. In the event that there's no better choice. E.g. using electricity in your home when you know the power comes from a coal-burning plant. Should you go without a TV, a modern, a fridge? Of course not.
But there are many small ways we can make a collective difference, without affecting our lives more than a tiny bit. An example: If a billion people switched from single-use bottled water to a refillable bottle, that would help majorly.
"Blame" is probably too strong of a word though.
Yes, the responsibility should start with the business or corporation. ☝🏼
John Oliver did a really great piece about that.
yes, we don't always have a choice
Retailers should be required to take back the packaging and the end product when its at the end of its lifecycle of anything it sells. Since they are the SOURCE of products that currently end up in the trash or recycling, they should be responsible for the end. Municipalities simply do not have the resources to deal with the myriad of materials to dispose of or recycle. If you force companies to take back their products and packaging, the disposal problem will be solved faster than you can blink.
People who do e-commerce will have a fit because they can no longer drop ship random products
Retailers? I think the product manufacturer should be the drop off point of no longer needed items and waste packaging in your story. Retailers are the middleman between consumer and manufacturer. Best they could do is pack it up for return shipment.
I wish every supermarket had a place to recycle plastic shopping bags, because my municipal recycling center does not accept them and there are only so many ways I can reuse them.
When my mum was a kid the was a soda company that would give a small amount of money if you returned the glass bottles they would then be washed and reused it's no longer open but I'd wonder why big companies like coke can not do this
@@christinesarkis4029 Or you could just buy a cotton cloth tote bag and reuse it forever, wash it when necessary
I love that he took the time to make this video!
Great video! One note, you said "the ozone" when I think you meant to refer to "the ozone layer". Ozone is a molecule, and its layer in the stratosphere is what can be damaged by CFCs use.
Volkswagen's response to the scandal was VERY German. They admitted they were wrong rather than claim incompetence. They didn't want anyone to think they were incompetent. That would have been far worse to them than evil.
Lol, no. At least not in Germany. Or rather the lower ranks claim that the higher ups and CEO definitely didn't know. Which is bullshit. The people they claim are responsible have not enough authority to do that. Someone must have comissioned the software. It must have been tested to make sure it works as intended. There's no way the CEO didn't know. And if he genuinely didn't know he shouldn't be CEO.
The thing is VW is partly owned by the state. Politicians are part of the board. Whether any of them knew is speculative, but they sure have an interest in blaming anyone but themselves or their chosen CEO buddy.
@@arleccio Thanks. Maybe some of the reporting here in the US wasn't accurate. Or maybe I remembered wrong.
@@Sam_on_TH-cam its never accurate in the american news
An individual tip:
If you're using tote bags, use them as efficiently as you can. Some people have massive amounts of tote bags and believes that that solves the problem. It makes it worse.
Reduction comes first before reusing and recycling. If you can no longer reduce something, that's when you reuse. If you can no longer reuse it, recycle.
They can also make a tote bag easily from old clothing. Re-using jeans or t-shirts for totes would defiantly help things. but alas no one wants to make things anymore.
Just to add on, 1 cotton tote bag produces the same amount of waste/pollution it takes to manufacture about 8000 single use plastic bags. It's one reason why I insist on using single use plastic bags instead of buying a brand new tote bag at checkout counters if I don't have mine on-hand. Assuming one goes shopping for groceries 2 times a week, it would take them *76 years just to offset the pollution/waste created by that 1 tote bag*.
I only have one tote bag I got second hand that I got years ago that I keep fixing up. If I’m going to get a tote bag I’m either going to get it second hand or make it myself and I also get my fabric and what supplies I can second hand
@@professionalpotato4764 Reusable plastic bags exist.
@@someonespotatohmm9513 Plastic bags in nature are reusable to a certain extent. Even those single use ones.
Pipelines are actually more environmentally friendly than traditional forms of fuel transportation. Not only are leak events less frequent, but they're also far more likely to occur at end points and checkpoints in the system itself, and are more easily put under control. They also move fuel more cheaply, because you aren't burning fuel to move fuel.
Regulations is also what makes moving companies decide if other companies can enter the market... great!
There should be a #8..."the sin of emphasizing individual actions over systemic change."
Here a company tries to make consumers feel good for consuming their product because it's "environmentally-friendly" while ultimately using their power and influence to ensure that their profits continue to rise even as their actions contribute to a global environmental crisis. This falls on governments too - laissez-faire capitalism doesn't really allow for companies to care about anything except their profits - but companies that do try to act in ways that are inconsistent with the awful consumerist culture in which we live by operating as collectives, sourcing their materials from sustainable places, paying suppliers in the developing world fairly, etc. are functionally indistinguishable from the companies willing to SAY they're doing all of that, but they're just lying (see "the sin of fibbing"). The old maxim "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind here. If a company isn't willing to be completely transparent and open to scrutiny, they aren't worth trusting.
This!!!
You mean the sin of people thinking they are better than you for being brainwashed into thinking that they are better than you for spending more money on the same product.
The companies don't emphasize it, the people do so they can feel more self righteous than others to give their life a modicum of purpose.
It's not the companies it's the media that trains this thought process that is validated by companies with all this green washing
@@PaendaTube honestly it’s everyone in some way. People are willfully ignorant and wanna be self righteous, companies are the largest environmental impacters, and media pushes this idea for one reason or another.
This is huge and even applies to charity as most of these things would've been fixable had the 1% and major companies not be able to skimp on their taxes and pay less then they should.
Everything would be improved if the major source of problems and skimping out was forced to play by the rules.
Fair taxes, fair legal consequence, fair everything.
Agree but I see people using this as a reason to not make any individual changes. Average & rich people in wealthy countries are causing global warming with over-consumption while poor nations are dying from it. We need systemic & individual change ASAP. & the onus of responsibility is predominately on people in rich countries
We have a store that is zero waste (you bring your container in & fill it yourself. No container = No sale). They make all their products by hand using truly natural ingredients. I love it & I wish there were more stores that do this.
whats the name of the store
@@strawberryrnilk Lufka Refillables Zero Waste Store
@@wouldntyouliketoknow12345 thank u :)
Just a note about CFCs - it's not linked to the greenhouse gas effect, the ozone layer is about protection from UV radiation, please don't mix the two. Also research is showing the Ozone Layer is recovering well since we switched away from CFCs so HFC's are doing their job well (in terms of ozone recovery, dunno if HFC's are causing other damage).
where as me a 17yo is doing so much research on products that can be environmentally friendly and sustainable research. they think of ways to scam customers
It's great you're bringing awareness to this, I'm so SICK of people saying "but it's recyclable" "but it's compostable" etc like that's a solution
better than nothing
Compostable is better then it going to landfill....
@@jorja7895 It still goes to a landfill. Compostable does not mean that it can go into your curbside compost. It's another scam.
Compostable is probably way better than recycling though because you can compost at your home unlike recycling. Obviously the best solution would be not to create waste in the first place, like you said
@@ckdraws410 Not entirely. People who live in apartments or do not have access to composting would (and do) through compostable materials with their trash. Until companies that pick up trash give every home a compost bin with their trash bin/can, compostable is not a solution in my opinion.
Sustainabilty Manager here! THANK YOU! Been working in this field for 2 decades and still baffles me the number of companies that get away with greenwashing 😑🙄
wow! you’re a sustainability manager? i’m tryna be like you 😏
Thank you very much for your effort educating and researching.. ,,and standing up for the truth. I will be more mindful how to shop from now on and hope i can influence others through my example
This video is a wonder. Kudos to you guys, binding regulation shines due to its absence, so meanwhile, we need to make informed consumption decisions.
Been told from childhood that I needed to recycle and bike, walk, or bus everywhere to save the planet. We've been set up to believe we individuals have real responsibility and power. We do to a point and it's important thay people try. We all need to do our part, but the big polluters aren't individuals. There's no sense shaming Jane down the street just trying to feed her family and not using "green" brands... or shaming yourself. What we need to call out are the big corporations, factories, large-scale commercial fishing operations, shipping companies, and the food culture that has buried so many edible crops and convinced us we can't eat local.
Please do your research and try to stay ethical. But please don't pass judgment on those of us who buy mainstream and are just trying to keep themselves or their family alive. The real change can occur when we press out legislators to get their corporate bedfellows in check and when we can address the lie that good food and other goods can't be affordability and relatively locally produced. Our ancestors abd indigenous people didn't settle where they did for shits and giggles.
Walking and biking is not just good for reducing carbon emissions and unhealthy to breath air pollution. It also is healthier for you. So you you consider your body at part of the environment you care about then using it to move around is a good idea.
I am in the camp of we need legislation, need to hold corporations to their actions BUT we also have to make changes in our lifestyles. People are where the rubber meets the road. The raindrop doesn't blame itself for the flood.
If we stop consuming the outputs of these companies where possible that can make a change if enough people do it. Look at vegans, they understand that the choices they make in food directly impacts what the companies supplying the goods are doing. That is where individual choice matters.
I don't drive, don't fly, vegan, don't use disposables where possible etc, . It may be a little thing but as they say - be the change you want to see in the world. Living by example can slowly show to others that there is another way.
@@Jabjabs "I don't drive" Oh my God we get it you're privileged
God people act like there's something immoral about driving then glorify living in the country or the suburbs
@@thepinkestpigglet7529 Bro wasn’t even talking to you and you somehow took it so personally. They were just saying what they do which they’re very entitled to do so. They never even said “if you drive you’re the problem” they just said “I dont drive”. Lmfao imagine being that much of a snowflake, damn. Work on your insecurities my guy, no one’s coming for you.
@@Jabjabs yeah look at vegans, they dont understand that most brands that produce their vegan products are owned by big meat brands and that even if they make a dent in meat profits, they will just get subsidized more by the state. feels so good to have a clear concious while still having zero control over where your money lands.
Ah yes, CFCs. Remember, when all the world came together and banned the usage of an environment-destroying compound? What happened to those times?
In America at least, the government is bought and paid for by companies via lobbying. Now laws don’t get passed to help the environment since companies lobby against the bills 🙃
@@AndreaLackeyLouise is lobbying a new thing?
@@BCConcerts It is worse since Citizens United.
Yeah because it was legit detrimental at reduced cost of eliminating the chemical with something a little less damaging.
@@BCConcerts No lobbying is not new, but the wealth distribution and power that companies hold has changed since the 80s, especially as @Cat Lily mentioned since the Citizens United case
Is there a short of the opening of this video? Cause I think we need it. Actually just several shorts from the video of different parts to share around.
The keystone pipeline, would have been net 0 emissions now we are shipping oil in by train and ship. ☹️ which are responsible for almost all oil spills.
I realized after a while that alot of these companies just lying. It's so ridiculous some of the things that they say are all natural and eco friendly they throw around the word vegan as well. It's so silly. Thanks for shedding light on this. I appreciate you.
What's even scarier is sometimes these lies are technically and legally not actually lies. The definition of words like vegan and eco friendly can be so loose that they can be slapped on almost any product without any consequences.
@@ShiitaKitsune64 true... people will find loopholes in anything and dig them open wide. Those people lack integrity.
"Vegan leather" just means plastic
The best product I've seen is a popular "Vegan" cleaning product and when you read the back it says harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects 🙃
hey at least they said that. imagine if they weren't legally required to.
LMAOO I'm sorry for laughing but it all seems like a tragic comedy at this point
@@edn2674 honestly that's all veganism is ngl
I mean, I don't see why something being vegan is automatically assumed environmentally friendly. I could be wrong but DDT was probably vegan. My synthetic loofah is probably vegan [unless it was tested on an animal].
Oh and something that always comes up in my mind when a vegan who claims to zealously care about the environment and yet is wearing faux fur or faux leather as if they aren't made of polymers.
If they never made a claim to be environmentally friendly and people just assumed it being vegan was suffice to assume it was than that's just as dumb as getting upset that a gluten-free product isn't also automatically vegan.
The Keystone pipeline example you gave is an exact example of the things you were talking about. The oil will still be moved... just by rail. Rail transport that is riskier than the pipeline and happens to increase the profits of Warren Buffet.
It feels like the pre written narrative is “let’s just be negative “about it and focus on that
I notice Irrelevance a lot in other things as well:
- Certified gluten-free spirits: spirits are always gluten free (yes, even if they are 100% grain based)
- "we are an equal-opportunity employer": yes, because that is the law
Introducing vegan tomatoes and asbestos free cereal
I think the gluten thing is just to reassure people with the allergy because not everyone knows that, someone might see "grain based" and think "gluten"
@@why_oh_elle No, it's for people who want to have a gluten free diet for no medical reason, and have no idea what gluten are.
Someone with celiac disease knows those things.
@@AdriLeemput it's kinda weird for someone to have a gluten free diet for no medical reason. I've always thought people had allergies or intolerence or even Celiac so they need that. Like i didnt know spirits were gluten free until i saw your comment, if i had an intolerence i wouldn't reach for that product if i wasnt sure it was gluten free. But i agree that with some products they love to slap "ireelevant ingredient"-free when it's obvious and a commonly known fact that the product doesnt have it
@@why_oh_elle There is a group of people who think gluten are unhealthy, so they try to avoid that.
That is really a stupid claim, because that would mean that Europeans would be very unhealthy people (gluten in bread, pasta, beer, pizza, ...)
In Dutch I always joke: "we moeten consuminderen, niet consumeren"
Which would translate to "we need to comsume less, not consume (more)." Sadly the joke itself doesn't really translate well, but the meaning remains.
So to explain it. "Consumeer/consumeren" means "to consume" and the word "meer" on its own means "more". The opposite of "meer" is "minder" (less). So combined with some grammatical changes the word "consumeren" becomes the opposite "consuminderen". even though the latter is not officially a word, I really like it, because it brings the point home so easily: consumerism is the ultimate culprit of the crisis we're in and we need to consume less.
This makes so much sense …less has “mind” on it…and that’s what we should we do…mind our consumption. “We need to consu(mind)eren, not consume(more)”. 🙂🙏
@@aartisubedi5838 oh wow. I didn't even think of ik like that yet. Thank you, now the word is even better!
+
Nice play on words... I hope you don't mind me borrowing the (Dutch) phrase and spreading it around.
@@magistergabriel spread the word!
Even the all praised Paper backs have a hidden trade off: They need way more energy and water to produce than a plastic bag and also can only used once (if the bag even withstands that first use) I just use my plastic bags 10 times and recycle them properly afterwards
One thing in particular about cars that the vast majority of people don't see is the focus on reducing emissions alone, not making cars durable. This is one big absurdity that allows people to think that they are green because they buy a new car with a better emission standard every year. Answer the question - What is more ecological: A car that lasts for 20/30 years with proper servicing or mass production of cars that are so fragile that they have to be replaced every 3 years.
In Australia they replaced free single use plastic bags with "reusable" plastic bags and charged 15c for each. Their profits sky rocketed but it turned out they are worse for the environment than the old bags which were biodegradable but the new ones are not. Even if the bags are reused each bag must be reused 52 times before it matches it creation footprint (and even that may be a huge understatement), which never happens and they break before that.
The old bags were used to put trash in, but the new ones are not good for that so the sales of garbage bags (which are even worse again) also sky rocketed.
Corporations make millions of dollars while making the environment worse while telling you they are saving it.
Hi here in México we started to use fabric bags ando stores are not allowed to give plastic bags, and yes is all the money in corporations so sad.
Same here in NY, USA. I think it's by county but it's every supermarket I've been to the past few years. Idiots making laws without thinking, and other idiots loudly calling for those laws ALSO without thinking. Reminds me of NY gun laws.
Same in Sweden. The old bags were perfect for trash. The trash were incinerated and used for cogeneration. In the end it was only a way for our government to get more tax money to spend on stupid things.
Same also in the UK. And some supermarkets are even doubling down by charging more, and one chain (Waitrose) went as far as to replacing the thick bags with even thicker bags with no lifetime guarantee, so what happens when they break? It probably gets thrown away. The whole anti-plastic bag movement is so dumb, they keep overlooking the fact that people do reuse them, and that they only make up a small percentage of overall waste!
The bags are thicker because it is designed to be reusable. The thin plastic bags that we used to get, break easily so the bags we now are suposed to be an alternative, albeit not a very good one.
The best things is to simply not get the bags.
Use a trolley to put loose items in, not everything needs a bag.
The tittle of this video really scared me, but I’m so glad this turned out to be about greenwashing. It honestly sucks that all the responsibility falls on consumers, but I do believe in the power of our actions and I am confident that we will eventually achieve a better future!
do you mean the title picture with a drink bottle and canvas bag?
me too!
by the end of the video, although i agree a lot with the contents, still somewhat angry about the click-bait-ish title :( felt that click bait should not have been expected from this channel:(
i agree with your comment, we could do it!
Things like recycling and reusable shopping bags are beneficial to the environment, but placing all of the blame on individual consumers instead of the globe-spanning corporations causing the actual problem won’t solve all that much. Holding those corporations accountable will do more in the long run.
I remember when I was young (a long time ago). My mom wouldn’t buy nestle. They’ve always been pretty shady apparently
I generally agree with the video, however it's probably worth to mention the complicated consequences. For example if we reduce consumption, yes we might be able to be enviromentally friendly more effectively. But in a large scale, a reduce in market consumption can lead to profit loss to the company, which result in job losses, which lead to reduced tax revenues for governments, potentially impacting their ability to fund essential services and public projects like the research of the green technology itself, which require large amount of early investment before it can be economically feasible to be adopted by companies.
Everyone seems to forget that the best environmentally friendly product options also depends on the city/state/country you live. Where does it go after you throw it in the trash or recycle bin? What waste management process does your city/country employ (waste to energy, landfill etc)? Do people litter often? Are you in close proximity to wildlife nature? Are the products made in your city/state/country/region? How much shipping/air freight could possibly be involved?
These changes the environmental equation and changes what the best options are from country to country/ state to state and sometimes even city to city
The CFC thing reminds me of how meat products can be labeled "antibiotic-free" when it has been illegal for antibiotics to be in meat since 2017.
Animals are definitely still fed antibiotics though, what do you mean?
@@Angelas.Eye_ Not in the EU
Not even close. What country do you live in where Antibiotics have been banned? Antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections in animals as well as humans. CAFO meat animals, cows in particular, will generally not perform well and have a fairly high morbidity if not treated with antibiotics.
@@kevinbarnard355 they aren't saying antibiotics have been banned, they're saying it's illegal for there to be antibiotics in the meat sold to people.
@@swedneck sooo you mean to say that by law, they are banned. Banned/illegal = not permitted. What's your point here?
Keystone xl is way more environmentally friendly than having the oil delivered by truck or train or ship.
GREAT video! Smoke and mirrors.. SO true and always has been. Believe no claims, consume only what I really need. Avoid bulky packaging (can't stand tiny products with loads of packing). Rely mainly on produce for food, re-using bags from home. If I cannot find a food option with decent packaging, I don't buy it and learn to make a similar recipe at home which is fun. Do without irresponsible products like bleached tissues. Shop close to home. Live a cleaner life and you'll have a cleaner conscience! 🙂
I just remember the car commercial, I forgot which brand, that was “certified Lorax approved” and “good for the truffula trees” or something like that. This commercial left a bad taste in my mouth years ago and went against the entire original point of the original Lorax
Wasnt it chevy?
I found it; it was Mazda: th-cam.com/video/DKKA3M-2sJc/w-d-xo.html
@@gavinford2277 Mazda is terrible for ads like this. They're running a very similar one again for a new car, been cursed with it many many times
I'm a huge environment buff and guess what, I *know* the pipeline cancelled was worse for the environment. All that oil that could have been piped is just being transported by diesel trucks and trains instead of using hydro power to run pipe pumps. And has cost the Canadian economy hugely.
Yes, that part of the video surprised me. I am interested to hear how the folks at asap science think oil and gas should be transported as an alternative to pipelines.
Would you mind giving the numbers since you know?
It would be nice to have some actual numbers then two people saying "I'm right." and "I'm right." both with contrary views.
Especially with costing the Canadian Economy as it seems odd this would hugely impact it.
You have to factor in pipe being maintained, building it, leaks, damaging, the transport from there... all compared to if the transport vehicles (Trucks and trains) are filling empty spaces with it potentially reducing the cost massively and remember those truck drivers need jobs so they'll go produce waste somewhere.
This also means you need to know routing ect and a few other details to blame it on it being the source of the problem and not a major issue with something else.
Something like this is incredibly deep and to be able to factor all these in and say for a fact either way is pretty difficult.
@@Buglin_Burger7878 I'm not a researcher nor communicator but I come across these topics in articles and TH-cam over the years. I don't have a reference. However the labour cost alone of truck drivers per km of oil transported, plus cost of fuel for those trucks... It's clear maintenance of pipes would cost less per km. I want to get off fossil fuel dependency too but gotta do low hanging fruit first like replacing all the coal power plants with natural gas or nuclear would be better $ than dealing with Canadian direct CO2 which is a rounding error compared to the rest of the world. We are like what is it 36M ppl? Out of almost 8B ppl. Canada's direct CO2 emissions is nothing. Our *consumption* of goods buys so much that is produced over seas so our indirect CO2 is insane. Bigger fish to fry than our own stuff
@@Buglin_Burger7878 it is difficult to assess. Here are some decent attempts, though. They focus more on spills, emissions, and worker safety than financial costs.
Strogen et al 2016 (Applied Energy)
Green and Jackson 2015 (Fraser Institute)
Furchtgott-Roth and Green 2013 (Fraser institute)
Crosby et al. 2013 (NOAA)
Clay et al. 2017 (NBER)
@@TheSkystrider also to mention without that pipeline the US is now struggling to supply enough gas as the war with Russia and Ukraine continue. people are now forced to work from home again because they can't afford to drive to work. having the pipeline would have allowed us to rely solely on ourselves for an important product of everyday life instead of importing from another country. the pipeline would have created thousands if not millions of jobs and that not only benefits the economy but also would have helped stabilize us during the pandemic and now war. I'm all for looking toward the environment but the pipeline was a safer option. you are most likely to die getting in a car accident and car accidents happen daily. if a truck carrying oil crashes the cleanup will be costly and if it catches fire they can't put it out with water. the cleanup will have caused more of an impact on the environment and wildlife than if we used the pipeline.
Awesome video, thank you!
really good information thanks!