The ‘eco-foes’ and the sustainability rhetoric
Every year, on June 5th, we celebrate World Environment Day like a routine rhetoric ritual. The time has come to give it some definite real-time purpose.
Numerous examples and cases around the world make us hopeful that we might be able to slow down the rate of climate change and achieve the target of keeping the global temperature within +1.5 degrees C of pre-industrial times.
The Governor of France’s Central Bank recently said that a global agreement is near completion that would require all listed companies to disclose the risks they face from climate change in a standardized way. He said that the talks had progressed faster than expected and that an international framework about it could be agreed upon in UNFCCC COP 26, scheduled to be held in November 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland.
“Salesforce”, a maker of cloud-based software for sales, marketing, and other professionals, also works with lawmakers and regulators and winner of Climate Group’s “Best Policy Influencer Award,” says that its supplier contracts will now require companies that do business with it, such as airlines, to set carbon-reduction goals and deliver products and services on a carbon-neutral basis.
Bain & Company has set aside a 1-billion-dollar budget to focus on four issues, with sustainable and green businesses being one of them. The other three are racial equality & social justice, education, and economic development.
Interestingly the two rival companies, Adidas & Allbirds, joined hands and created a performance shoe with less than a 3 kg CO2 footprint.
A word of caution!
Among these rays of light lies a contrasting picture! These companies often undo the good environmental works of others by taking some reckless anti-environment steps. For example, a large number of 57-year-old oaks and cedars are getting chopped off at the Yoyogi Park in Tokyo to make way for the “Olympic Live Zone” by the Japanese authorities.
Ironically, these trees were planted by the departing athletes after the 1964 Olympic Games held in Tokyo.
We face the problem of severe pollution caused by Indian farmers burning their stubble twice a year, savagely damaging the health of all. This pollution is felt more during the winter stubble-burning months across North India owing to weaker sun rays and heavy winter weather.
These are cases wherein damage to the environment is clearly seen and felt. But there are situations where severe damages have been caused but invariably go unnoticed or suppressed by those who do it. So, we see, at one point, a company appears to be sustainable and eco-friendly, but in reality, they are far from it. They hide their environmental crime under the garb of the environment-friendly veil.
Today, many companies manufacture plastic-based products and categorize them as “sustainable.” They justify their ‘eco-foe’ products by saying that their plastic products will last longer and hence wouldn’t be required to be disposed of too soon. What a cruel joke! If you recall the history, exactly the same argument was given when polyethene bags were first introduced in the world. And look where we stand now, facing the plastic disaster threatening all forms of life on the third planet.
Even if such companies have a recollection chain going on and then recreating or refurbishing products out of those same plastics, I can still understand the extent of them using the word “sustainable” to sell their products. Right now, they are either being too casual in their usage or just trying to exploit consumers for their lack of understanding of the term sustainable and what it truly entails.
In fact, “Recycling” is another rhetoric, as only 9% of the 360 million MT of plastics produced are recycled every year.
We need to come out of this bombast. Most companies are working towards mitigating climate change according to what feels “comfortable” to them. We are way past looking at this issue from a vanity point of view, and it’s imperative that each and everyone comes out of their comfort zone and contributes in a meaningful way.
In my opinion, one of the best ways forward would be to create public equity in the environment. If people understand that nature would earn them money, they will protect it, create more nature-based solutions and subsequently adopt such products.
A classic example of this happened In Kaziranga National Park in Assam, India. The poaching of one-horn rhino was a significant issue with locals at the helm of it. It was not until when the forest department realized that they should appoint all the locals and give them jobs in various capacities that the poaching was curbed. It was vital for the locals to realize that one live rhino was more valuable than a dead one. Most of the Forest Departments in India have taken similar steps in their National parks. I believe that is a great step forward.
On the part of the people, they need to realize that a prospering green biome has more value than a dead, decaying one. They should realize that their survival depends on the health of our green biosphere, and we need to detoxify it.
There are many sustainable products in the market now, and they are slowly becoming cost-effective. As responsible citizens, depending upon the size of our pocket, we should make them a part of our daily use products. The aim should be to take these sustainable items out of the novelty cage.
The whole biosphere works in conjunction. Humans are the only species that is creating discord. We need to learn quickly and change. Otherwise, the “Sixth Extinction” is not far.
