Sustainability Myths
Sustainability is one of the keys to guaranteeing our future. However, when it’s emptied out, this concept becomes a tool that comforts us with superficial solutions without really changing anything. And this is exactly why we need to take a critical approach to the discourse of sustainability.
True transformation arises not from marketing strategies, but from systemic inquiries, social pressures, and collective actions. The question of what we sustain in terms of our habits, structures and relationships based on interest is perhaps the most fundamental sustainability question.
Myths we explore in this article may seem innocent when taken individually. However, when they all come together, they form a framework that makes us “feel good” without inquiring our production and consumption habits. In fact, what we really need is not to feel good, but create fair, transparent and permanent solutions.
Sustainability has become a common concept encountered in almost every sector in recent years. It is possible to see “sustainable” or “green” labels everywhere, from company logos and government policies to food packaging and fashion collections. This increased visibility is directly related to the awareness created by global environmental crises and climate change.
However, the issue is this: Does every action with a sustainability statement really contribute to sustainability? Many practices that appear to be environmentally friendly may merely be superficial illusions that obscure underlying systemic issues. Some concepts may be misunderstood, overshadowing the efforts of those with good intentions, or they could be intentionally distorted.
In this article, we will look at the common myths surrounding the discourse of sustainability. What lies behind all these myths that sound logical and innocent, do they really offer a solution, or are they ineffectual actions that only serve to make us “feel good”? We will explore the answers together. Enjoy reading.
To read our article titled Eco-anxiety: Psychological Impacts of Climate Crisis, click here.
Recycling is one of the first actions that come to mind when we think about sustainability. For example, separating plastic, glass and paper wastes to dispose of them in the related recycle bins became one of our daily rituals that feed the feeling of individual responsibility and give us the feeling of “I am doing my share”.
When we look closer, however, recycling is not as “sufficient” as we think it is. To begin with, the fact that numerous materials are recyclable does not imply that they are automatically recycled. If recycling infrastructure is inadequate or polluted waste cannot be separated, these materials end up in landfills or incineration facilities.
Moreover, recycling itself is a process based on energy, water and chemical substance consumption. Especially in oil-based products such as plastics, environmental cost of recycling is not as low as one might think. Furthermore, many plastics can only be recycled a few times until their quality is reduced in time. In other words, this system is not circular, it resembles more of a delayed waste production.
Beyond all that, the most dangerous aspect of the myth of recycling is this: It justifies consumption instead of prompting us to question. We buy more packaged products by saying “I recycle anyhow.” However, according to the Circularity Gap Report, only 6.9% of the materials used in a year come from recycled resources. This ratio indicates that “recycling” is not the only solution for sustainable resource consumption, and that we need more radical behavioral changes such as “prevention” and “reutilization”.
The label "Biodegradable" serves as a means for numerous consumers to maintain a clear conscience. Buying “biodegradable bags” instead of plastic bags becomes a way to use disposable products by feeling less guilty. This concept, however, is not as simple and 100% natural as we might think.
Each biodegradable product does not decompose in nature by itself. Many products can only be decomposed at industrial composting facilities, at certain temperatures and humidity conditions. When these conditions are not met, biodegradable products can turn into microplastics and can remain in nature for a long time just like plastics. Microplastics can cause significant harm to living beings in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Moreover, the label “biodegradable” is used in confusing ways most of the time. It can be confused with different categories such as compostable, fissile or oxodegradable. And this makes it challenging for consumers to make conscious choices.
Electric vehicles are offered as an alternative to fossil fuel-powered vehicles, and they are regarded as a key solution for sustainable transportation in many countries. Are the vehicles depicted in advertisements silent, harmless, and environmentally friendly truly zero-emission?
Partially. Electric vehicles generate no exhaust emissions during operation, but this does not mean they are entirely free of emissions. The environmental impacts arising during their production processes and their economic use are among the factors that should be taken into account in emission calculations. Moreover, there are some environmental and social issues arising in the regions, where metals used in battery production such as lithium, cobalt and nickel are extracted, related to damage on local ecosystems, depletion of water resources, and negative impacts on the quality of life of the communities. In addition, working conditions in the facilities where these metals are extracted in some regions are controversial in terms of ethical standards.
Furthermore, the source the energy required for electric vehicles is also important. If electricity generation still depends on fossil fuels, the carbon footprint of these vehicles may not be as low as we might think. In other words, emissions would only be relocated: They would be released not in the city centers, but at the power plants. Supporting energy generation from renewable resources should be an indispensable part of the process of transitioning to electric vehicles.
In this context, electric vehicles do not represent an absolute solution, they are only a means to transition to more sustainable transportation systems. Effective solutions involve decreasing the reliance on personal vehicles, enhancing public transportation systems, and planning urban areas to reduce the necessity for transportation.
In recent years, almost all big brands have “sustainable collections”. Organic cotton t-shirts, pants made of recycled polyester, eco-friendly shoes... But do these collections truly fulfill their commitments to ethical production and environmental sensitivity?
Unfortunately, most of the time, this is only a marketing tactic. Fast-fashion industry maintains its production model as it is by using the discourse of “sustainability” for its advantage. A product containing 1% recycled material can be labeled as “green”. And this creates a twisted perception of environmental responsibility.
Another weak point of the discourse of sustainable fashion is the non-transparency of its production processes. Many critical questions remain unanswered most of the time, such as the conditions of production, whether labor rights are protected, and the product’s impact on nature throughout its economic life. Moreover, even though the products are “sustainable”, encouraging consumption through new collections are against the principle of sustainability.
Genuine sustainable fashion involves reducing production, creating durable garments, and promoting the repair and reuse of clothing. Ethical production encompasses not just the selection of textiles, but also includes labor rights, fair trade practices, and transparency.
Environmental conservation is typically the first consideration that arises when discussing sustainability: Protecting nature, reducing carbon emissions, limiting the use of plastics... However, this approach represents only one dimension of sustainability.
In truth, sustainability is founded on three essential pillars: environmental, economic, and social. A practice may be considered environmentally friendly; however, if it relies on the exploitation of labor or causes suffering to local communities, it cannot be classified as sustainable. A company, for example, can claim that it is carbon-neutral, but if it does not pay equal wages to women, this would not be a true sustainability.
Social justice, food sovereignty, gender equality, rights of local communities... These are all indispensable to sustainability. Initiatives that only protect the environment while perpetuating social inequalities would exacerbate the sustainability crisis over time.
Therefore, sustainability should protect not only nature, but also human dignity. A true solution cannot be achieved without taking into account both social equity and ecological sustainability.