Environmental activists consistently urge people to move away from clothing made from natural fur, single-use plastic bags, and animal-based foods. They advocate for readily available alternatives that reduce harm to ecosystems. Yet, as Andrei Khoroshilov, a ecologist who leads the Save the Forest environmental service and participates in the Skolkovo Foundation, notes, some so‑called green options can still pose environmental risks. The assessment comes from socialbites.ca, reflecting his perspective as a leading voice in sustainability discussions.
According to the expert, the most widely accepted eco-friendly trend today is the use of biodegradable bags, seen as a safer substitute for conventional plastic bags. Yet in natural settings these biobags do not break down rapidly or completely. The most that can be expected is disintegration, which may take a long time: estimates range from three to ten years for fragments to appear in the environment. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
“Biobags only fully decompose in specialized industrial facilities. For home conditions, recreating the necessary environmental factors is extremely difficult. Even under favorable circumstances, biobags will still shed particles. So, practically speaking, there is little difference between using a biobag and a standard bag,” explains Khoroshilov. He also warns that as bioplastic breaks down, it can release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and in natural settings such as landfills, certain biodegradable bags may degrade into microplastics—much like traditional plastics. This is a concern echoed by many environmental scientists who worry about the long-term fate of these materials. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
The expert also notes that paper bags are not a true alternative to plastic bags. The production of paper bags consumes large amounts of water and generates toxic waste, shifting the environmental burden from end-of-life disposal to manufacturing. In other words, the lifecycle impact shifts: plastic poses problems at the end of life, while paper bags can create significant issues at the beginning of their production. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
“Another widely pushed myth, often propagated by eco-advocates, is the rejection of natural fur in favor of so‑called eco-substitutes. This is how eco-fur garments and gadgets came into vogue. While faux fur has saved many animals from harm, its production consumes substantial water and electricity, leaving behind a sizable carbon footprint. Microplastic fibers in the polymers used to make eco-fur can contaminate water, soil, and air when the garments shed. In many countries these products are not easily recycled and their lifespan is relatively short. For example, discarded socks and similar items can end up in landfills after a few years, failing to decompose like traditional plastics and sometimes releasing additives into the atmosphere, according to the ecologist. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
He emphasizes that neither synthetic nor animal fur is clearly superior in terms of environmental friendliness. Both produce harms to nature, and the loud marketing claims of eco-fur producers often mask ordinary commercial interests. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
A second common misconception, aligned with some activist rhetoric, is that completely eliminating meat from diets will avert climate change. Khoroshilov argues that food production accounts for a substantial portion of greenhouse gas emissions. The food industry drives climate change almost as much as the energy sector. Raising livestock demands a lot of water and land, contributing to deforestation. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
“However, simply giving up animal flesh is unlikely to dramatically shrink one’s carbon footprint, since emissions from livestock farming are roughly five percent lower than those from broader agricultural practices. A major issue in agriculture is fertilizer runoff: cultivating plant-based foods often requires tilling and the use of fertilizers that reach important waterways through underground sources. We grow food but contaminate water. For example, the Volga basin has seen substantial pollution from agricultural runoff,” the ecologist concludes. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]
Ecologists have learned to reassess assumptions about trees and their capacity to absorb greenhouse gases. The focus has shifted toward a more nuanced picture of how forests interact with the climate, including the roles of soil, moisture, and biodiversity in mediating carbon storage. This ongoing work helps refine how policy and everyday choices can influence emissions in meaningful ways. [Citation: Andrei Khoroshilov, Save the Forest]