6 environmental myths you shouldn't believe
Miscellaneous / / July 12, 2023
Green alternatives and habits are not always as clean as they seem to be.
1. Wind farms are an absolutely safe source of energy
The process of obtaining energy from the wind is indeed one of the most harmless. But it is difficult to call it ideal. Such installations allocate 4 tons of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour. This is much less than gas (490 tons), coal (820 tons) and hydropower plants (34 tons), but more than nuclear ones: their result is 3 tons. In addition, greenhouse gases issued to the atmosphere during the manufacture of wind farm components, such as steel towers, concrete bases, and epoxy resins that hold the elements together. However, the damage here is blocked by the benefits of long-term operation of the installation.
Another feature of such power plants, which harms their reputation, is the danger to animals. Spinning blades sometimes become cause the death of birds and bats. And sometimes during a collision they get serious injuries that lead to a fatal outcome later.
Reduce risks really. To do this, companies need to study the characteristics of the territory in advance and take into account the behavior of animals, such as migration routes, even before installing wind turbines. And then - monitor the situation and correct their work if the birds suffer. Another solution is to paint the blades black: so, even despite the high speed of rotation, they will be visible to animals.2. Electric vehicles leave no carbon footprint at all
The source of energy in electric vehicles is batteries. Their composition usually includes lithium, nickel, cobalt or other metals, the extraction and processing of which is accompanied by the release of greenhouse gases. And quite impressive: the creation of one electric car leaves carbon footprint is 80% greater than the production of a car with a gasoline engine.
Despite this, such cars can still be called green, because during operation they harm the planet much less than traditional ones. Compensate for environmental damage from lithium-ion batteries capable recycle or reuse them for other purposes, such as back-up storage of energy derived from solar panels.
3. Deforestation is quickly offset by the planting of new ones.
Not really. Forests are not just a group of trees. Insects, birds and animals live there. And after cutting down they lose a home that is hard to find a replacement for. For some species, human intervention proves fatal. For example, deforestation caused the disappearance of the dragonflies Sympetrum dilatatum, which lived on the island of Saint Helena, and the secretive philidors, birds that lived in Brazil. Another part of the animals on the planet is at risk now, among them the Sumatran orangutans and the Darwin fox. Finally, deforestation affects on the increase in the temperature on the planet and the condition of the soil.
Young trees will not be able to immediately correct the situation. But this does not mean that they are useless: over time, when the seedlings grow up, they will turn into full-fledged arrays with their own ecosystem. New forests are being created all over the world, including in Russia. In 2022, the area of young plantations in the country by almost a quarter exceeded the number of felled or dead - for the first time in 20 years. In 2023, this ratio may change more strongly, because another 1.4 million hectares are planned to be restored in a year.
4. The label "Eco" or "Bio" is a sure sign of a good for health and nature
Caring for the environment is now popular. Some brands take advantage of this and add labels to packaging only to promote their products, in fact, doing nothing to preserve the purity of nature. This behavior of companies is called greenwashing. Therefore, it is not necessary to blindly believe in loud promises and advertising slogans.
Official labels will help you find products from brands that honestly care about reducing harm to the environment. Let's say "leaf of life», Cruelty Free International And "organic». In order to receive such marks, companies need to pass the test and prove their environmental friendliness and ethics.
5. Energy-saving light bulbs - an eco-friendly option
They last longer than incandescent bulbs and help reduce utility bills because they consume less electricity. But they are not always safe for nature. For example, energy-saving fluorescent lamps are waste the first class of danger, that is, the most toxic. All because of the mercury in the composition, but it will not work to get rid of it - it is responsible for the formation of light. Such lamps must be handed over to specialized collection points, otherwise nature will definitely not say thank you: sooner or later the glass will break in a landfill, and mercury vapor will penetrate the soil and air. You can find collection points for such consumables, for example, in hardware stores or hypermarkets.
LED lamps are considered a cleaner option. Their work is not based on mercury, but on diodes. But they aren't perfect either. relate to the fourth hazard class (low hazard). Therefore, it is also better to hand them over for processing, having previously disassembled them into parts - metal, plastic and glass. Finding tanks for receiving will be easier - these can even be located somewhere near the house. In Russia over the past three years in the regions sent 150 thousand containers for recyclables, and 211 new facilities for recycling and sorting waste were created.
6. Biodegradable bags do not pollute nature
Biodegradable bags there are different. The first type is compostable, made from plant materials such as soy or potato starch. The second is oxo-degradable, they are made from conventional polymers with the addition of components that accelerate the decay of the material in the open air. But neither species is completely green.
For compostable bags, more plants need to be grown and, accordingly, water and fertilizer must be used. And for such a packing to dissolve into zero, special conditions are needed. Just burying it in the yard or throwing it in a landfill is not enough, the only option is to send it to a waste processing plant. And not on any, but only on the one where waste is collected for composting. With oxo-degradable packages, the situation is even more complicated. In nature, they, like the classic ones, break up into small pieces, only faster, and stimulating components can only enhance the toxic effect.
Therefore, it is not worth using biodegradable packaging as a replacement for polyethylene. It is better to look for reusable alternatives, such as textile shoppers. If possible, it is worth choosing models from dense natural material: these will last a long time, and when worn out, they can be sent for recycling.