Using eco-friendly products is the need of the hour. When there is widespread destruction of natural resources taking place worldwide, the earth is being exploited and overtaxed; it is the use of eco-friendly products that can take some burden off the shoulders of nature. Over-exploitation, pollution, and destruction of natural resources can cause an imbalance in nature. Since mankind is a part of nature, it is crucial to switch to eco-friendly products to help save nature from destruction.
Everything in this world is interdependent. If any part of nature is affected, humans too will be affected by it- directly or indirectly. We see how many new diseases are creeping into society every day- all this has roots lying in the irresponsible production and disposal of products. Climate change is real, and it is happening at an extremely faster rate than it was a few decades ago. The extremes of temperatures of both heat and cold have a devastating effect on all aspects of our life- right from health to agriculture, ice caps, and even our flora and fauna. Using eco-friendly products can help combat this effect and ensure better climatic conditions for the future.
Vaping products
E-cigarettes are generally considered to be less dangerous for human health than combustible cigarettes, and are a promising harm reduction tool for smokers. However, despite possible health benefits compared with tobacco smoking, vaping is a potential environmental threat. Recently, metered dose inhalers—widespread medical devices routinely used to treat pulmonary diseases—were shown to have a concerning carbon footprint. Given their similarities to inhalers, the impact of e-cigarettes on planetary health can also no longer be ignored.
Historically, tobacco waste was one of the most abundant forms of plastic pollution in the world, with trillions of individual cigarette butts polluting the global environment every year. Cigarette butts and their filters are made of a common man-made plastic, and when thrown into soil and water, release harmful chemicals before turning into microplastic pollution. Discarded cigarette butts present a serious threat to human health and wildlife, and are an example of how the tobacco industry has had a substantial impact on the environment for decades.
Vaping, an alternative to smoking, has substantially risen in popularity over the past 15 years. With the vape market mainly owned by the tobacco industry, it is legitimate to question whether vaping is more eco-friendly than smoking, or whether the tobacco industry has actually gone from bad to worse. To fix the problem of cigarette butt waste, several countries are introducing measures to make tobacco companies responsible for reducing and managing this waste through a mandatory product stewardship scheme.4 Nonetheless, a new threat is now facing our planet: vape waste, including disposable devices, e-liquid containers, packaging, and batteries, comprising not one but three forms of waste.
The first type of waste that vaping products contain is plastic waste. Many popular e-cigarettes are pod-based devices with single-use plastic cartridges. Just like coffee capsules were over the past decade, the vape industry could soon be the next environmental crisis in terms of plastic pollution.
The second type of waste is electronic waste. Similarly to cigarette butts, disposable e-cigarettes are thrown away carelessly, instead of being disposed in special electronic waste facilities like smartphones are. Vape waste presents at least two waste disposal issues, since e-cigarettes contain both circuit boards and lithium-ion batteries. As e-cigarette batteries degrade, their toxic compounds progressively leach into the environment.
The third type of waste is hazardous chemical waste. Pods and e-liquid containers cannot be recycled with other plastic waste because they contain nicotine, a substance which is an acute hazardous waste. Therefore, nicotine-contaminated single-use cartridges and e-liquid waste should not be thrown in the regular waste unit or poured down the sink.
Fortunately, vape waste is a preventable environmental disaster, but for this disaster to be averted, disposable e-cigarettes must be better regulated.
Wool vs synthetic
If you want a planet-friendly building, then choose synthetic products and not wool. That’s the message wool manufacturers are getting from independent companies that investigated the impact wool and synthetic materials used in the building industry have on the environment.
Chief executive of T&R Interiors, a company that makes wool acoustic panels for commercial buildings, Natasha Thwaite, said the rise of environmentally conscious consumers was the biggest opportunity to regain market share for wool, but the need to certify the impact of materials used during building was a new hurdle for the wool market.
The New Zealand government urged the use of environmental product declarations (EPD), green certificates that reported products’ lifetime environmental data in line with a set standard and showed synthetic materials were better for the planet, Thwaite said. These declarations were increasingly gaining global recognition in building environmental rating schemes, including the Green Star scheme in New Zealand, according to the website of local independent assessor Branz.
Thwaite said the certificates were based on the carbon life cycle of a product, and assigned a larger carbon footprint to wool than it did to synthetic materials. The wool considered the emissions produced on a farm and the methane produced by sheep, amongst other things, Thwaite said. In contrast, the ability to recycle synthetic products reduced their carbon rating on a green certificate, she said. While these certifications were becoming common internationally, it disadvantaged New Zealand’s natural, biodegradable and sustainable materials like wool, she said.
Synthetic materials, with properties that were bad for the environment, could be efficiently manufactured and could at the same time have a lower carbon footprint than wool.
Milk
This World Milk Day, researchers at the University of Oxford have announced new findings that shed light on the ecological impact of various types of milk, revealing surprising insights about the environmental toll of our favourite breakfast drink. The researchers analysed the carbon emissions, land use, and water consumption associated with the production of dairy milk and several vegan alternatives. They present a comprehensive comparison that consumers might want to consider before buying their next carton of milk.
The study, directed by Joseph Poore, has identified almond milk as the most eco-friendly vegan option for those wishing to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. On the contrary, rice milk was found to be the least sustainable among the plant-based options. The overall environmental impacts of animal milks far exceeded that of plant-based alternatives, due primarily to the substantial greenhouse gas emissions associated with cows. Livestock farming at its current scale is a significant source of greenhouse gases, thereby propelling our planet further towards a climate crisis, according to the scientists.
Dairy milk, a mainstay in many households, was found to have the highest emissions at approximately 1.41lbs (0.64kg) for every 200ml glass. After dairy milk, rice milk was shown to have the second highest emissions, clocking in at around 0.66lbs (0.3kg) per glass, followed by soy milk, oat milk, and almond milk.
The environmental impact of milk alternatives is not solely dictated by their carbon footprint. The researchers also examined the land and water resources utilized in milk production, key factors in determining the sustainability of food choices. Almond milk was found to have a significant water footprint, with 74 liters required to produce a 200ml glass, largely due to the high water demands of almond trees. Similarly, the semi-aquatic nature of rice plants necessitates constant irrigation, leading to a considerable water use of 54 liters per glass for rice milk. Comparatively, soy and oat milks had low water use.
When it comes to land use, all four vegan alternatives outperformed dairy milk, which was the least eco-friendly choice by a large margin. Land use of dairy milk was found to be a staggering 1.7 square meters per 200ml glass, whereas the vegan alternatives required 0.1 square meters or less.
Cosmetics
Makeup has lost its appeal in recent years for various reasons. While about 39% of women wore makeup in 2019, the cosmetic industry is experiencing a downward trend in popularity. Nowadays, people are opting for a more natural look and are generally using less makeup than before. Others have started to dive deeper into some of the environmental and health issues often associated with the cosmetic industry.
In the past, the industry has been in hot water in terms of ethical practices, worker conditions, animal experimentation, and more. But as our world shifts toward a more sustainable mindset and people are more focused on their health, it is essential to know what the impacts of the industry really are, and how its popularity could continue to damage the planet and people’s overall well-being.
Whether you love wearing makeup, you do it occasionally, or you have opted to be more natural in your beauty routine, it is still important to know how the cosmetic industry continues to impact the environment and human health. The more people educate themselves on these issues, the greater the demand will be for positive, healthy changes within the industry.
Paper packaging
The environmental threat posed by plastic packaging is well known. The popular press and environmental groups alike have long stressed the dangers of plastic products, from their impact on marine wildlife to their buildup in landfills. In contrast, paper is often seen as the sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative — despite the reality that more than six million tons of paper packaging end up in landfills every year.
Whether due to genuine concern for the environment or the widespread vilification of plastic among consumers, many companies have invested heavily in reducing their use of plastic packaging. Another trend that’s grown out of the anti-plastic movement is a lot less positive: overpackaging. More and more brands have begun adding superfluous paper packaging on top of plastic packaging in order to make their products look more environmentally friendly, without actually reducing plastic waste.
Part of what makes this overpackaging trend particularly insidious is that it is most salient for consumers who are most environmentally conscious. Interest in sustainability varies across political affiliations and countries, but we found that people who reported engaging in more eco-friendly behaviours were more likely to view overpackaged products as environmentally friendly. As a result, the very consumers who are most interested in pushing companies to make sustainable choices are likely inadvertently encouraging the environmentally harmful practice of overpackaging.
The good news is, overpackaging isn’t the only way to signal sustainability and attract environmentally conscious consumers. In studies, they found that instead of additional paper packaging, simply adding a “minimal packaging” sticker to plastic packaging could correct the misperception that overpackaged products are more sustainable. Especially for products for which plastic is necessary to ensure safe transportation and lengthen shelf life, this kind of explicit messaging can help reduce consumers’ biases against the responsible use of plastic packaging (without the need for unnecessary paper waste).
Apple’s red herring
Apple’s first ‘carbon neutral’ products are a red herring. Apple announced that its Watch Series 9 marks its first carbon-neutral product. But focusing on the watch distracts from the bigger picture of the company’s climate impact. Some of Apple’s new watches will be carbon neutral, but only based on “select” combinations of cases and bands. Apple also said it plans to stop selling leather accessories like watch bands and phone cases to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
When it comes to climate commitments, boasts about a specific product’s sustainability can distract from the far more important goal of reducing the company’s overall environmental impact. Apple has a goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2030, the key measure for which we should hold it accountable.
Don’t get this wrong; it is important to reduce all those sources of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s just that the supposed sustainability of any single product doesn’t necessarily tell us how much progress the company is making overall toward its climate goals. A company might make a single product less carbon-intensive, for example. But if it winds up selling more of that product than it used to, it might end up pumping out as much or even more greenhouse gas emissions than it used to.
