Among the things environmental activists are most calling for to give up are clothing made from natural fur, plastic bags and animal foods. Environmentalists appeal to many of the available alternatives. But they are also dangerous for the environment, ecologist, general director and founder of the environmental service Save the Forest and member of the Skolkovo Foundation, Andrei Khoroshilov, told socialbites.ca.
According to the expert, the most popular and widely supported environmental trend is biodegradable bags, which are considered a safe alternative to plastic bags. However, in the natural environment, biobags do not decompose particularly quickly or completely. The maximum that can be counted on is that they will disintegrate, and this will take a significant amount of time: it will take between three and ten years for them to disintegrate into particles.
“Biobags can only be fully decomposed in special industrial facilities. In order for the decomposition process to occur independently, certain environmental conditions are required that are very difficult to recreate in everyday life. At the same time, even if conditions are as favorable as possible, biobags will still leave particles behind. So there is no difference between using a biobag or a normal bag. In addition, when bioplastic decomposes, it releases the dangerous greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere, and in the natural environment, for example, in landfills, some types of biodegradable bags completely turn into toxic microplastics – the same thing that everyone fears. in ordinary plastic bags,” said Khoroshilov.
The expert added that paper bags are not an alternative to plastic bags. But the issue is not their decomposition, but their production, which requires large amounts of water and is accompanied by the release of toxic waste. So it turns out that plastic is dangerous at the end of its life cycle, while at the beginning it is a paper bag.
“Another common myth, actively propagated by environmental activists, is the rejection of natural fur and the use of eco-substitutes instead. This is how eco-fur coats, eco-vests and everything else “eco” fur appeared. And yes, faux fur saved the lives of hundreds of animals, but its creation required a lot of water and electricity, resulting in a large carbon footprint. Microplastic particles contained in the polymer fibers from which eco-fur coats are made have penetrated into water, soil and air. And they penetrate when the “fur” flies away from the eco-fur coat. What can we say about the fact that in most countries they cannot be recycled and their lifespan is very short? “For this reason, socks are thrown into landfills after a few years, they do not decompose like plastic for hundreds of years and do not release toxic substances into the atmosphere,” he said. Founder of the environmental service “Save the Forest”.
He points out that neither fake nor animal fur is a clear leader in environmental friendliness. The materials cause similar harm to nature. And the loud slogans of eco-fur manufacturers are ordinary marketing.
Another harmful myth, according to Khoroshilov, is the misconception that completely avoiding meat will save the world from the consequences of climate change. As Khoroshilov points out, food production is actually responsible for almost a third of greenhouse gas emissions. The food industry is as much a driver of climate change as the energy sector. Livestock farming requires large amounts of water and land, leading to deforestation.
“But giving up animal meat is unlikely to help reduce your carbon footprint because harmful emissions from livestock farming are around 5% less than those from agriculture. It is important to note that a major problem in agriculture is fertilizer: Producing plant foods requires tilling the land, and traces of fertilizer use reach important waterways from underground sources. We grow food but poison the water. For example, more than a third of all pollution in the Volga is pollution from agriculture, that is, from fertilizers,” the ecologist concluded.
Ecologists before I learnedHe said they underestimated the ability of trees to absorb greenhouse gases.