Posts

Today, the state of our environment is a major concern to many people. The same people who worry about its condition often hope that there was something that they could do to contribute to the reconstruction of a healthy environment. Although there are a multitude of approaches to creating this type of environmentally friendly lifestyle, one question remains: is this lifestyle something that can be sustained? 

Living a lifestyle driven by sustainability is notorious for being quite expensive. One example of this would be that buying organic food is significantly more expensive than purchasing regular food. Buying organic food is not only beneficial for health reasons but also because buying organic animal products and organic produce may imply that the food is derived from more ethical processes than non-organic food. Consumer Reports says that although the price differences between, organic and non-organic food ranges widely, organic food is, on average, about 47% more expensive. 

Another example of this would be that buying reusable food storage containers and wraps, water bottles, straws, silverware, etc. can also get pretty pricey. Take the company Bee’s Wrap, for example, a company that sells reusable beeswax food wraps. One roll of Bee’s Wrap is $24.99 while a roll of regular plastic wrap costs about $5 on average.  

Although there are many expensive “sustainability-based” products on the market today, there are also some that either cost less than non-sustainable products or their extended lifetime of usage compensates for their higher costs. For example, one pack of wool dryer balls cost about $5.50 costs about $5.50 and lasts for around 1,000 loads of laundry whereas a 240-count box of dry sheets costs around $10 and only lasts 240 loads. Not only are the wool dryer balls a less expensive alternative but they will also last longer. 

A second cost-effective sustainable alternative is shampoo, conditioner, and body wash bars. A generic brand of shampoo, conditioner, and body wash bars can cost anywhere in the range of $5-$25, whereas a shampoo, conditioner, or body wash bar typically costs around $5-$15. These bars are a cheaper alternative as well as have a longer lifetime of usage. For me personally, a bottle of shampoo or body wash lasts anywhere from 1-2 months whereas soap bars are said to last anywhere from 4-6 months. 

What I am able to conclude from all of this is that a sustainable lifestyle is only sustainable for the people who can afford it and who have access to products like these. Although some of these products might be more affordable than their sustainable alternatives, it is unlikely that most people who are living in low-income communities have access to these products because they don’t have enough popularity to be the default. Mechanisms like refillable product stores that could save people money by buying in bulk and with reusable containers are also scarce, not only in low-income communities but also in general. In my opinion, sustainable products are marketed towards higher-income individuals specifically because people who have money view a higher price with a higher quality product, and a large portion of sustainable products fall within that higher-priced category.

Building a fully sustainable lifestyle would be nearly impossible for someone living in lower-income circumstances for a few reasons: sustainable products carry the reputation of being more expensive (even if some are not) and this likely deters people from seeking out these types of products to begin with, some products are just naturally more expensive than their conventional alternatives, and sustainable products are often less convenient and higher maintenance than regular products. People living in low-income often do not have the time or money to prioritize implementing sustainable products into their lifestyle. So, no, a sustainable lifestyle is not sustainable, and not only that, it is also highly impractical to expect everyone to convert to it because of its socioeconomic implications.

Sustainable development is often touted as the solution to our modern crises, balancing growth with environmental stewardship. However, the real-life saga of land occupations at Oregon’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge and North Dakota’s Standing Rock reservation depicted in Between Equal Rights: Rhetorical Discernment in the Era of Climate Conflict starkly illustrates the complexities and conflicts that lie beneath the surface of this term.

At Malheur in 2016, a group of armed militiamen occupied the wildlife refuge, demanding that federal lands be returned to private control. They argued that the government’s management threatened their livelihoods and way of life. This occupation starkly highlights one of the central tensions in discussions of sustainable development: the conflict between individual economic rights and collective environmental responsibilities. The militiamen’s view of sustainability was narrowly focused on economic and personal freedom, seemingly at the expense of ecological and broader public concerns.

In stark contrast, the Standing Rock Sioux’s protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the same time underscored a different aspect of sustainability. This indigenous community rallied to protect their water supply and sacred lands from potential oil spills, embodying a holistic view of sustainability that includes social justice, respect for indigenous rights, and environmental protection. Their slogan, “Water is Life,” resonates as a reminder that sustainable practices must prioritize the fundamental needs of all community members and the ecosystem.

These two cases illustrate the broader debate on sustainable development. On one hand, there is a push for deregulation and privatization under the guise of economic freedom and job creation, often supported by neoliberal policies. On the other, there is a movement towards a more inclusive approach that considers environmental sustainability and social equity integral to long-term prosperity.

I believe the path to true sustainability lies not in exploiting resources for immediate economic gain, but in recognizing and respecting the connection between humans and ecological health. The Standing Rock protests are a good example of how sustainable development can also be a form of resistance to exploitative practices that harm the environment and human rights.

However, accepting this broader definition of sustainable development poses significant challenges, particularly in the face of entrenched economic interests and political structures that prioritize short-term gains over long-term well-being. As I reflect on these events, I am struck by the need to incorporate ethical considerations into sustainability discussions. We must question who benefits from specific uses of land and resources and who bears the brunt of the costs. A sustainable future requires us to think critically about the rights of indigenous peoples, protecting land and ecologically sensitive sites, and equitable distribution of resources.

Furthermore, as articulated in the forgiveness ceremony at Standing Rock, the concept that “the land owns us” encapsulates a worldview in which humans are part of a larger ecosystem, rather than its owner. This perspective is crucial as we grapple with the challenges of sustainability in a world facing an unprecedented environmental crisis.
Overall, the juxtaposition of Malheur and Standing Rock is a poignant reminder of the complex dimensions involved in sustainable development. It forces us to consider a more inclusive approach that respects human and ecological rights. As we move forward, let us learn from these lessons and cultivate a sustainable ethos that truly embodies the health and well-being of all living systems on Earth.

Scott, A., & Welch, N. (2018). Between Equal Rights: Rhetorical Discernment in the Era of Climate Conflict. Works and Days, 19.

I am a very detail oriented person because I know details can affect results in many situations. This applies to environmental situations too – small details can have large effects on the environment. I remember during one of the lectures in this course (near the start of this semester for this course), the class was having a discussion about people being unsustainable. I remember that I raised my hand to talk about a specific situation. The situation is the following: Someone parked their car in front of a store to drop off someone else. The person who was dropped off went to the store, and the other person stayed in their car scrolling on their phone. Their car was left on – their reasoning for this might have been to have continued access to the air conditioner or heating in the car. However, this is how fuel from the car is wasted and carbon dioxide is released into the air. The person scrolling on their phone in comfort does not consider the negative effect that their action causes. They might think their action does not make a difference in climate change because they think it is only one car that is in the parking lot doing this – however, there are many people around the world doing this daily. The carbon dioxide that is released is added up and produces the huge effect of hurting the air quality on Earth. In fact, I am so concerned about the reduced air quality that sometimes I consider wearing goggles so that polluted air does not enter my eyes – I care about keeping my eyes safe. I also care about keeping my lungs safe. It is saddening that many people leave their cars on for a long amount of time because they want to scroll on their phones inside the car. 

Another situation is that many people do not speak up much even when they see that others are doing unsustainable things. To stop climate change, people have to be able to communicate. People have to try to spread the message that the environment needs to be saved. For example, a way to support sustainability is talking to people who have their cars on for no reason, and letting them know that leaving the car on contributes to releasing carbon dioxide. There has to be more awareness about climate change. Every detail has an effect. People have voices, and they should use their voice to speak up about how to help the environment thrive. Posting videos explaining how to be more sustainable can help spread the message to so many people on the internet. Since in the present time, most people are using online apps to communicate, it is a popular and effective way to let a lot of people know that climate change has to be stopped. 

There are so many ways to save the environment. Walking instead of driving, turning a car off when it is not being used, saving natural resources, etc. People think these actions are very small-scale actions – however, all of these actions are truly helpful in maintaining a healthy environment. Putting in effort is important. Changes can be made. Animals, plants, humans – they all want clean air. It is important to consider details regarding saving the environment. Details matter.

Near the start of this course, I thought sustainability was about being focused on products which maintain environmental safety. Then after researching for my two product reviews and the final research project, I realized that the way that products are manufactured also matters. Some products seem sustainable, yet they are manufactured using methods that can harm the environment. 

For example, my second product review was about bamboo fabric because it seemed to be sustainable. In the past, I’ve also heard about how soft bamboo fabric feels compared to other materials for clothes. So this made me interested in learning more about bamboo fabrics. I learned that people think bamboo fabric is sustainable because bamboo fabric is made from bamboo plants. Bamboo plants have many positive factors. They don’t even need much water to grow. Also, bamboo plants grow very quickly. These factors mean that even after people use bamboo to make bamboo fabric, the plant grows back. Then after doing more research on this topic, I realized that bamboo fabric is not fully sustainable. I learned that the manufacturing of bamboo rayon (which is a type of bamboo fabric), harms the environment. While researching for my 2nd product review, I learned that making bamboo rayon needs many toxic chemicals in the process. These toxic chemicals get released into water, resulting in animals that might drink the water or get the water in their eyes when swimming. This is the reason bamboo fabric has a scary side – the manufacturing of it is unsustainable. 

Another example: My first product review, as well as the final research project, were both on electric cars. Originally, I used to think that electric cars are truly sustainable products. They seem so eco-friendly because they don’t even release carbon dioxide. Electric cars use batteries for power. I noticed that the public has this image of electric cars as being the perfect solution to global warming. So many people compliment electric cars on their ability to reduce global warming and use less natural resources. After doing more research on electric cars, I realized that they actually have a negative side. Their batteries need lithium and cobalt, which people get through harmful ways of mining. To specify, the methods of mining are surface mining, brine mining, and underground mining. The negative effect that all of these methods have is releasing carbon dioxide because of the machines that dig the Earth for the metals. This contributes to global warming. This shocks people because electric cars have so much respect because their purpose is to reduce global warming. Yet, the manufacturing of the batteries is unsustainable. 

After doing research for the electric cars and bamboo fabrics, I learned that although there are many products that are made to save the environment from harm, there can also be manufacturing methods which harm the environment. This is why my definition of sustainability developed to include that products, as well as their manufacturing methods, factor into whether or not a product is truly sustainable.

References:

• Kellogg Kathryn. “Bamboo Fabric: Sustainable or Hype?” Going Zero Waste. 1 Feb 2022. https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/bamboo-fabric-sustainable-or-hype/
• “Bamboo.” CFDA. https://cfda.com/resources/materials/detail/bamboo#:~:text=Processing%20of%20bamboo%20rayon%20can%20have%20harmful,quantities%20of%20water%2C%20toxic%20dyes%2C%20and%20finishing
• Zheng, March. “The Environmental Impacts of Lithium and Cobalt Mining.” Earth.org, 31 March 2023. https://earth.org/lithium-and-cobalt-mining/#:~:text=Relative%20to%20fossil%20fuels%2C%20Cobalt,of%20CO2%20into%20the%20air.

Like millions across the United States, I gathered outside with all of my friends to watch the solar eclipse. We drove to an area that had ninety-nine totality and sat outside enjoying nature and the finally warm weather. We all had our solar eclipse glasses and got to enjoy the day listening to bad renditions of “Total Eclipse of the Heart” by Bonnie Tyler and joking about what people before science thought was happening whenever there was an eclipse. We wondered how many poor women had been accused of being a witch because of the eclipse. Throughout the day, the sky got dimmer and dimmer as if it were cloudy, but we could see the sun. The glasses allowed us to see the moon slowly covering the sun, but without them you would have no idea it was happening. When the total eclipse finally happened, we got to watch the sky darken as if it was 9 pm. We got to remove our glasses and admire the eclipse. The moon, dark with a halo of light behind it. Stars illuminated the sky. Eventually, the moon kept orbiting and the sky lit up as if nothing happened. We carried about our day leaving our solar eclipse glasses discarded in the trash, recycling, or if you are like me, still sitting in the cup holder in my car.



I saw so many news articles and reporters talking about the importance of getting the glasses so you did not damage your eyes, but I saw no one talk about what you should do with the glasses when you are done. Are they recyclable? Do you throw them away? Is there an organization that collects them? I did not know.



When I did research, I got mixed results. Some websites say that the glasses are recyclable. Some said they were not because the lenses are not recyclable. Some websites said if you removed the lenses, you could recycle them. However, there are a few organizations that you can donate your glasses to that will distribute the glasses to countries where they do not have access to the millions of glasses, we had here in the states the next time the eclipse happens. Astronomers Without Boarders collects these glasses by mail or at one of their local drop off spaces. They collected glasses from the 2017 solar eclipse and were able to distribute three hundred thousand of them across the world for the 2024 eclipse. If you still have your solar eclipse glasses, consider donating them to Astronomers Without Boarders. They are happy to cover the shipping cost if that is a concern for you. I wish there had been more media attention about this organization and a greater focus on what to-do after the solar eclipse and hope to see that in the future.



Astronomers Without Boarders Information:

Email: collectionnode@astronomerswithoutborders.org

Drop Off locations in Ohio:

Barberton Public Library

Greene County Public Library (7 locations)

Bowling Green City Schools

Washington-Centerville Public Library

Redeemer Christian School

Carnegie Public Library

**The City of Grandview Heights and Sustainable Grandview

Fairfield County Health Department in Lancaster

Kristina J Danielak, DDS

Napoleon Public Library

Athens-Hocking Solid Waste District

Firelands FFA – Firelands High School

Shores & Islands Ohio

Keep Toledo/Lucas County Beautiful

Miami County Solid Waste District

Twinsburg Public Library



**Closet to Campus

Link to the website with addresses: https://astronomerswithoutborders.org/programs/solar-glasses-distribution#collection_node



Sources:

Jarosik, Jamie, and Channing King. “Eclipse Glasses Can’t Be Recycled, but You Could Give Them a Future.” WDTN.Com, WDTN.com, 5 Apr. 2024, www.wdtn.com/eclipse-2024/eclipse-glasses-cant-be-recycled-but-you-could-give-them-a-future/.

Palmer, Kim. “What to Do with Your Eclipse Glasses Now That It’s All Over.” Crain’s Cleveland, 8 Apr. 2024, www.crainscleveland.com/eclipse/places-recycle-solar-eclipse-glasses.

Rick.Fienberg. “How to Recycle Leftover Eclipse Glasses.” Solar Eclipse Across America, 12 Apr. 2024, eclipse.aas.org/eye-safety/recycle-donate.

Shelton, Beatrice. “What to Do with Leftover Solar Eclipse Glasses.” American Academy of Ophthalmology, 8 Apr. 2024, www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/what-to-do-with-leftover-solar-eclipse-glasses.

Planting trillions of trees can lead to deforestation (Jones). This statement makes no sense, but yet it is true. The reason this oxymoron of a statement is true is human fallibility. Incentivizing planting trees also incentivizes farmers to clear out their trees so that they can plant more trees and receive awards. This situation proves a philosophical thought by Roger Scruton; homeostatic systems are the best method of dealing with the environment.

A homeostatic system corrects itself in response to change. Homeostatic systems exist in an end of themselves. They don’t have a goal other than surviving and thriving. An example of a homeostatic system would be the government. It exists simply to exist. It isn’t trying to accomplish a specific set of goals like an environmentalist non-government organization (NGO) would. An environmental NGO exists for the purpose of trying to help the environment. Scruton says, “NGOs often exist purely for the sake of their own goals,” (Scruton). Neither I nor Scruton are arguing that those existing for a noble goal like environmentalism have bad intentions. Rather, due to human infallibility, existing for a purpose leads to bad consequences because not all factors are taken into account. For example, Greenpeace, a well-intentioned organization, fought against Shell over their oil platform. Shell wanted to sink the platform into the sea. However, Greenpeace, to protect the environment boycotted Shell and pressured their shareholders to dismantle the platform. Shell gave in and spent an additional $50 million to dismantle the oil rig. We should praise Greenpeace for winning and protecting the environment. However, Greenpeace was wrong. Not only did it cost Shell an insane amount of money, but it was actually less environmentally friendly to dismantle because of the amount of energy that it took. Nowadays, environmentalists advocate that oil rigs be sunk into the ocean as a positive for the environment because it gives fish more habitat (Scruton). Even though Greenpeace had good intentions, they were utterly wrong. Human fallibility proves that being goal-oriented is useless because it attempting to accomplish the goal, you may do the opposite.

Since goal-oriented systems aren’t efficient at protecting the environment and supporting sustainability, homeostatic systems are responsible. Homeostatic systems take into account all aspects of a situation. This is very important when considering the climate change crisis. As mentioned in my previous blog post, many worldly issues are interconnected because people have the view that they need to dominate other things. They dominate the environment, other sexes, other races, other nations, etc. Homeostatic systems have the ability, unlike NGOs, to consider all aspects of an issue. If a systems-only goal was to only focus on sustainability, then they would be ignoring the issues that are connected to it. They would ask everyone to take responsibility for the environment instead of those most benefited. For example, minorities have historically been more affected by environmental hazards than white people (Cole et al.). To ignore this fact is to ignore the core problem, and if you ignore the core problem, you cannot find the correct solution.

In conclusion, I’m not arguing that NGOs should not exist. They bring well-needed attention to important problems. The environment is a perfect example. However, it is important to remember that no matter how certain you may think you are, you are fallible. You may be wrong. Instead of smearing others for their actions, like how Greenpeace smeared Shell, try to understand their perspective and try to cordially work with them. It was reported Greenpeace never tried to actually discuss the issue with Shell (Scruton). The first step to working with others is accepting the truth that you could be wrong.

Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. NYU Press, 2001. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qgj6v. Accessed 18 Apr. 2024.

Jones, Benji. “The Surprising Downsides to Planting Trillions of Trees.” Vox, 22 Sept. 2021, www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22679378/tree-planting-forest-restoration-climate-solutions. 

Scruton, Roger. How to Think Seriously about the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism. Oxford University Press, 2015.

In the fast-paced world of fashion, trends come and go, but one trend that’s here to stay is sustainability. As consumers become increasingly aware of the environmental and social impacts of their purchasing decisions, the demand for eco-friendly and ethical fashion is on the rise. From sustainable materials and ethical production practices to circular design and conscious consumption, the fashion industry is undergoing a transformation towards a more sustainable future.

Understanding Sustainable Fashion: A Paradigm Shift

Sustainable fashion, also known as eco-fashion or ethical fashion, encompasses a range of practices aimed at reducing the environmental and social footprint of the fashion industry. This includes everything from using organic and recycled materials to fair labor practices and transparent supply chains. At its core, sustainable fashion seeks to minimize harm to the planet and its inhabitants while maximizing positive social and economic impacts.

But the concept of sustainable fashion goes beyond just the products themselves; it’s also about challenging the traditional notions of consumption and redefining what it means to be stylish. Instead of chasing after fleeting trends and disposable clothing, sustainable fashion encourages us to embrace quality over quantity, timeless designs over fast fashion fads, and individual expression over conformity.

The Environmental Impact of Fashion: From Fibers to Landfills

The fashion industry is one of the largest polluters in the world, with a significant environmental footprint at every stage of the supply chain. From the cultivation of raw materials like cotton and polyester to the manufacturing and transportation of clothing, each step contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, deforestation, and waste.

One of the biggest culprits is synthetic fibers like polyester, which are derived from fossil fuels and take hundreds of years to decompose. Additionally, conventional cotton production relies heavily on pesticides and water-intensive irrigation methods, leading to soil degradation and water scarcity in many regions. And let’s not forget about the massive amounts of textile waste generated each year, much of which ends up in landfills or incinerators, further exacerbating environmental problems.

Solutions for a Sustainable Fashion Industry: From Farm to Closet

Fortunately, there is a growing movement towards more sustainable alternatives within the fashion industry. From organic cotton and hemp to recycled polyester and innovative plant-based materials like Tencel and Piñatex, designers and brands are exploring new ways to reduce their environmental impact and promote biodiversity.

But sustainable fashion is not just about materials; it’s also about how clothes are made. Fair labor practices, safe working conditions, and living wages are essential components of ethical production, ensuring that garment workers are treated with dignity and respect. Transparency and traceability are also crucial, allowing consumers to make informed choices about the products they buy and the companies they support.

The Role of Consumers in Driving Change: Making Conscious Choices

As consumers, we have the power to drive change through our purchasing decisions. By supporting brands that prioritize sustainability and transparency, we can send a powerful message to the fashion industry that ethical and eco-friendly practices are not just a trend but a requirement for long-term success.

But conscious consumption goes beyond just buying green; it’s also about extending the lifespan of our clothing through repair, reuse, and recycling. By embracing a circular approach to fashion, where garments are designed to be durable, repairable, and ultimately biodegradable or recyclable, we can minimize waste and maximize resource efficiency.

Conclusion: Fashioning a Sustainable Future

In conclusion, sustainable fashion represents a paradigm shift in the way we think about style and consumption. It’s about more than just looking good; it’s about feeling good knowing that our choices are making a positive impact on the planet and its people. By embracing sustainable materials, ethical production practices, and conscious consumption habits, we can fashion a brighter, greener future for generations to come. So let’s make every purchase count and together, we can shape a fashion industry that’s not only stylish but also sustainable.

With social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram becoming increasingly popular, trends are consistently going in and out of style. It is almost impossible to keep up with. This has led to an increase of traction to “fast fashion” shops like Zara, H&M, Forever 21, and Shein. CNN describes Fast Fashion as a business model that focuses on producing garments in bulk as quickly as possible to match current trends. When Zara first opened, it prided itself on having a design developed for consumer purchase in the store in just fifteen days.  

Currently, the fashion industry accounts for ten percent of carbon emissions. Since the year 2000, the number of garments being created has doubled. It is estimated that consumers buy sixty percent more clothing now and wear them for half as long. For companies to make money and sell clothes that fit these microtrends, they sell the clothes really cheap, and make them even cheaper. The primary fabric used in these clothing items is polyester which takes about 200 years to decompose and releases tons of microplastics back into the food chain. Additionally, fast fashion brands heavily rely on cheap labor to produce their clothes. According to Geore Washington University, of the seventy-five million factory workers in fast fashion factories, only two percent of those employees make a livable wage. These factory workers work long hours, in inhumane conditions, and still cannot afford to support themselves or their families. Child labor is also popular amongst fast fashion factories.  

Clearly, fast fashion is wrong. It is not sustainable for the environment and uses unethical means of staffing in order to create the clothes. So, how do we implement sustainable fashion? Sustainable fashion relies on consumers investing in clothing pieces that they can wear for a long time. Similarly, it means buying less products and supporting second-hand clothing stores as well as vintage clothing. Repurposing old clothing is also important with upcycling initiatives rising in popularity.  

How do we collectively implement sustainable fashion to the vast majority of the public? Well that starts with influencers and celebrities. Both influencers and celebrities determine what is trendy and what is in style. Whatever they choose to promote as a collective is the direction that fashion will take. All of these celebrities and influencers are payed by brands to promote different products. This includes the fashion that they choose to promote.  

As a society, we are far from implementing sustainable fashion. We are far too caught up in social media and matching the trends, that investing in wearable clothes for years is not happening. The fashion industry has a strong marketing campaign that focuseson making money through high sales, and sustainable clothing brands do not have the money to invest in that luxury. Sustainable clothing brands are more expensive than fast fashion brands, which means they are less likely to be chosen by the consumer, as they can buy more options for the same cost of one sustainable article of clothing. Real financial investment needs to be made in order to make sustainable fashion the norm amongst the general population. Until then, we will continue to see the rise of fast fashion brands.  

Sources: 

Aglet. “The Influence of Celebrities in Fashion Design: Fashion Design.” Villioti Fashion Institute, 12 May 2022, villiotifashioninstitute.co.za/the-influence-of-celebrities-in-fashion-design/#:~:text=The%20relationship%20between%20celebrities%20and,flock%20to%20emulate%20the%20look.  

Chan, Emily. “What Does Sustainable Fashion Actually Mean?” Vogue India, 12 Apr. 2021, www.vogue.in/fashion/content/vogues-ultimate-guide-to-sustainable-fashion.  

Maiti, Rashmila. “Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment.” Earth.Org, 4 Mar. 2024, earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20Dark%20Side%20of%20Fast%20Fashion&text=It%20dries%20up%20water%20sources,of%2050%20billion%20plastic%20bottles.  

McDonald, Amaya, and Taylor Nicioli. “What Is Fast Fashion, and Why Is It so Controversial?” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 Nov. 2023, www.cnn.com/style/what-is-fast-fashion-sustainable-fashion/index.html. 

Amongst large companies, it has become common to see them invest in carbon offsets. What this means is that for every pound of carbon emission they release into the air, they invest in a solution that reduces carbon emissions by X percent in order to create a neutral carbon footprint. This is fairly common amongst companies that rely on factories, airports, plane carriers, politicians, and celebrities. However, these solutions are not as productive as they may seem.

One of the most popular solutions companies invest in to offset their carbon emission is planting trees. Even the United States passed a bipartisan act called the Trillions of Trees Act where the US committed to planting trees in order to combat climate change. It seems like a great solution. Planting trees combats deforestation, absorbs carbon, provides oxygen, and can even prevent flooding. On the surface, planting thousands of trees seems great. But why is that not a sustainable solution for offsetting carbon?

Well, planting trees is a performative fact. When you look at the statistics and the actual impact planting trees has, it is far lower than you might expect. In November of 2019, volunteers planted 11 million trees. After three months, only ten percent of the saplings they planted were still alive. They were planted at the wrong time and were not taken care of properly, leading to most of them dying. Organizations love this initiative, but after doing the research, it is not a productive mode in countering carbon emissions.

A study was done in India, a country who has invested in planting trees for over 50 years, and results concluded that it had no evidence of having a substantial positive effect on the environment or combatting carbon emissions. Rather than investing in mass numbers of trees being planted, companies need to invest in organizations that focus on regrowing trees for the future and preserving developed forests and ecosystems that we already have. In order to do that, companies must evaluate the resources and supplies they are using. Rather than investing millions of dollars in planting new trees, invest in solutions that cut down the number of trees being used for paper products that the company uses.

Another aspect that is not talked about enough when it comes to planting trees is the effect on the ecosystem. By cutting down trees, you are destroying ecosystems and homes to thousands of organisms that rely on that environment for food and shelter. However, when you prepare to plant trees, you are also disrupting the ecosystems of organisms that already inhabited that land. Land must be cleared to make space for the millions of trees that these companies and organizations pay to be planted.

Planting trees, and similar solutions to offsetting a carbon food print is all misdirection. It is the “easy way out” of real environmental change. It is far cheaper for companies to throw money at a performative solution than to actually invest in products that do not use fossil fuels and are not eating up billions of trees for paper products. If a company wants to pride itself on investing in sustainable solutions or being an “environmentally friendly company” they need to show it. Performative Action is out, real change is in. Put your money where your mouth is and invest in real sustainable solutions.



Sources:

“Benefits of Planting Trees.” Benefits of Planting Trees – Bowling Green, Kentucky – Official Municipal Website, www.bgky.org/tree/benefits#:~:text=Trees%20give%20off%20oxygen%20that,for%20many%20birds%20and%20mammals. Accessed Apr. 2024.

Jones, Benji. “The Surprising Downsides to Planting Trillions of Trees.” Vox, 22 Sept. 2021, www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22679378/tree-planting-forest-restoration-climate-solutions.

Skene, Jennifer. “Planting Trees Isn’t a Climate Plan-It’s a Distraction.” Be a Force for the Future, 13 Feb. 2020, www.nrdc.org/bio/jennifer-skene/planting-trees-isnt-climate-plan-its-distraction-0.

“Understanding Carbon Offsetting.” WWF, www.wwf.org.uk/myfootprint/challenges/understanding-carbon-offsetting. Accessed Apr. 2024.

If you open TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, or the news and search for climate change, you will get similar answers: The World is Ending. Global warming is on the rise, the icebergs are melting, deforestation is ruining ecosystems, pollution is impacting more cities than ever, etc. Similarly, I see videos all the time that say the earth won’t be sustainable for my kids or future generations to see. In short: we are killing the Earth, and we are killing it fast. These news articles are written to incite a reaction: we need action, and we need it fast. However, headlines like these exaggerate the issues preventing real change from occurring. If the world is so doomed, nothing I do is going to stop it.

The world is not doomed. Granted, the world is not in the best shape, but it is far from doomed. Headlines that provoke fear and this “doomism” do not promote fear or action, rather they are promoting apathy. I would argue that the media has a huge responsibility in the current climate crisis facing the world today. Titles like, “Humanity has 20 years to shape up or face mass extinction” promote false information and numb the audience’s reaction. These “click-bate” titles the media push in order to get views have created an idea that there is little to nothing that can be done to save the Earth, so why bother taking any action? It will not solve the problem. Because of this idea, the average person is unlikely to change their daily behavior because they believe the climate crisis is much larger than it actually is.

So, who is to blame for the climate crisis we are facing? Big Corporations? City Pollution? Factories? Farmers? Humans? I would argue that the media has a huge responsibility in the climate change crisis we are facing. These “click-bate” and hyperbolized titles have undermined the research and work thousands of scientists have put into bettering various aspects of the Earth. Similarly, true crises are not being taken seriously as they are getting lost amongst these headlines. This attitude of apathy being created is dangerous. We are losing a huge part of the population who could be making a real change towards climate change, but don’t because they think the problem is far greater than the small changes in their daily life.

In short, the media plays a huge role in how information is consumed amongst the general public. Fear-mongering articles no longer provoke responses, but rather apathy so it is time for a change to be made. We need to shift our mode of communication into accurately displaying data and facts and provide real solutions for the public to prevent the climate crisis from growing. Stop pushing fear and doom, and post the hope and action required.

“It is important to communicate both the threat and the opportunity in the climate challenge. Those paying attention are worried, and should be, but there are also reasons for hope. There is still time to avoid the worst outcomes, if we act boldly now, not out of fear, but out of confidence that the future is largely in our hands.”


Sources:

Degroot, Dagomar. Opinion | Our Planet Is Not Doomed. That Means We Can, and Must, Act. – The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/07/our-planet-is-not-doomed-that-means-we-can-must-act/.

Nardi, Anne. “The Issue of Clickbait and Exaggeration in Environmental Journalism.” North Central Region Water Network, 6 Apr. 2021, northcentralwater.org/the-issue-of-clickbait-and-exaggeration-in-environmental-journalism/.