16 ms·

Why industry is going green on the quiet

201 points by NeedMoreTea 7y ago

shioyama 7y ago
"Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." This unfortunately prevalent belief is extremely destructive. If people believe it must cost money to be environmentally friendly, then they will not be motivated to look for profit from actions that have a net positive impact on the environment. And that means the entire motivation to make money, which drives business and most of the economy, is largely absent from the range of serious problems we label as "environmental". Luckily some people (like the ones in this article) see through this myth to find profit from this collective blind spot.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The key is better education. Without this, all we others do to try and save the world climate from extinguishing human life is made moot.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    It will never extinguish. Maybe kill most humans, not all humans.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  The irony is that sustainable practices are so effective at lowering costs that they can actually cause higher overall consumption levels due to all the new business potential; aka the Jevons paradox. I believe the issue is all the pointless green-signaling products out with ridiculous markups tainting public perception.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  > "Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." Is mostly true though. Efficient market hypothesis and all, rational people are unsustainable because they view it as the best (economic) choice.[1] As a rule any deviation from the market optimum, in this case towards 'sustainability' will introduce inefficiencies and make things more expensive, even adjusting e.g. taxes to correctly account for externalities will make items more expensive (but make the system more efficient as a whole). [1]They of course may be wrong.
ezoe 7y ago
When I saw a label of organic, I immediately assume it's over-priced fraud product. To me, it's same as those stupid product which claims magical cure for cancer.
- snthd 7y ago
  Organic farming is primarily about producing products better rather than producing better products.
  - enriquto 7y ago
    better for whom? for the environment in the long term or for the health of the consumer in the short term? these two criteria are probably contradictory.
  - chicob 7y ago
    Organic farming is primarily about producing organically (i.e. without synthetic means), rather than producing sustainably.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  What do you mean ? That fraudsters mix regular product with organic product to lie to consumers in order to cash in the benefits ? Or that organic products are a fraud ?
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    That consumers think it means something different than what the industry knows it means.
- jhrmnn 7y ago
  It‘s not the same. If anything, organic produce and its labeling are regulated (at least in EU), magical cures for cancer are not.
  - WA 7y ago
NepMan123 7y ago
If you tell me something is "environment friendly", I will immediately doubt the product quality. In my head, if your product was good by itself, you wouldn't try to emotionally guilt me into "going green".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jhrmnn 7y ago
  Is there any credence to this, or is it just in your head? There is a lot that goes into earning the organic label from regulators, and it‘s highly correlated with doing things slowly, the old-fashioned way. So the only way you can beat non-organic produce is with quality.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    > There is a lot that goes into earning the organic label from regulators, and it‘s highly correlated with doing things slowly, the old-fashioned way. So the only way you can beat non-organic produce is with quality. This sentence doesn't seem to be supported by the sentence before it, unless there's an assumption that slower and more old-fashioned methods produce higher quality products -- an assumption that seems questionable, at least.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Lots of people buy organic on principle, so those are automatic customers regardless of quality. Many other people buy organic for quality, but that doesn’t actually require quality, merely the perception of it. For a lot of people, the “organic” label is enough to create that perception.
- spodek 7y ago
  Nobody can make you feel guilty. Perhaps you mean they make you feel more aware of the guilt you already feel.
- rat9988 7y ago
  What if you had a product that is good by itself and environment friendly? You should hide the latter?
minikites 7y ago
I'm surprised "spite" isn't mentioned as a reason, a lot of people see a "green" label and deliberately choose something else in an act of rebellion. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130430-light-bulb-labeling/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/13043... >Green labeling causes some consumers to shun energy-efficient light bulbs even when they know the choice could save them money, a new study finds. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”
- mschuster91 7y ago
  >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.” Good grace. Maybe the Soviets did have a point with reeducation camps. Sarcasm aside, we as societies desperately need to come up with ways to cope with such people. Being as dense as rocks isn't criminal, but harming others as a result of that should be severely punished (and same goes for antivaxxers and abstinence-only ideology).
amelius 7y ago
Negative externalities should be taxed, so companies optimize for "green" by default.
- yunruse 7y ago
  Indeed. Many companies are affected by the environment, so this tax would serve to directly ensure a long-term cost is also a short-term cost, such that the market does not ignore it.
  - willis936 7y ago
    I’ve been of this thinking for a while, but have read that small scale carbon tax tests have not yielded positive results. I still don’t understand how that could be, but I’m not a macroeconomics expert.
    - amelius 7y ago
      Perhaps the best thing to do first is purely administrative: place a tax on carbon and immediately subsidize the companies so the net effect is zero. That way we buy some time to get accounting right and prevent a mass shock to the economic systems.
      - smolder 7y ago
        We don't have time. A mass shock is inevitable. Deferring it makes it worse.
        amelius 7y ago
        One of the problems with (and arguments against) carbon taxing is that you'd have to apply it globally to maintain a level playing field. Companies will not accept a carbon tax unless it is applied fairly. Having the accounting in place increases trust in the fairness of the system. Also it will enable a more fertile ground for political discussion, as more information will be available. Finally, if the problem is rephrased as "companies effectively receiving state-support to exploit the planet", it will make the problem more urgent.
HenryBemis 7y ago
I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition. Once a company has a proven and better solution, immediately has a competitive advantage over the rest in the industry. Why bother telling them how to get a 18% sustainable increase of your yield? Try and take advantage as much and as far as you can, try to get far ahead, and enjoy the ride. And once the rest figure out what you've done, you have already matured and getting ready for leap #3 while they are still trying the leap #1.
- MiroF 7y ago
  > I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition Oh huh! Did you read the article?
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    The article does not include this point. Or if it does, I missed it.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet." > It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%)
      - robocat 7y ago
        > the cost saving amounted to less than 1% The figure is doubly misleading: * In a low margin business, 1% cost savings could easily be hugely increased profits. Toyota's profit is about 6% at the moment: changing to 7% would be significant. Many businesses have lower margins. * "Less than 1%" is anywhere between 0% and 1%. I would guess similar savings are being made by other manufacturers.
        7y ago
open-source-ux 7y ago
"Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." This belief is borne out somewhat when you visit a supermarket. Products labelled 'green' are often more expensive than 'non-green' products. Is it mostly 'green-washing'? I don't know but it does reinforce the belief that 'green' products command a premium price. Example brands that fit this perception: Ecover or Method. As far as organic fruit and vegetables go, the cost of these varies in the UK depending on the produce. Organic mushrooms are often the same price as non-organic mushrooms in many supermarkets. Some organic produce can be a little bit more expensive (e.g. onions) and other produce can be twice as expensive as non-organic (e.g. leeks). But being non-organic doesn't mean unsustainable.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's not green-washing, IMO it's mostly fleecing the more naive and anti-science parts of the population. Not much different than the related area of "natural" dietary supplements - it doesn't have to work or be any different than regular products, but if it's made entirely from some plant that is "known" to "remove ""toxins""", you can sell it at a premium and a lot of people will buy it.
maelito 7y ago
Is there a "climate label" somewhere in one country, based on climate impact (kgCO2eq), that has successfully been deployed to more than one product sold in supermarkets ? E.g. Oatly's label but more independent and widespread https://www.oatly.com/uk/climate-footprint https://www.oatly.com/uk/climate-footprint
rocqua 7y ago
Being green used to be purely virtue signaling. The idea 'be the change you want to see' combined with (a few years ago) the higher costs of green products have lead to 'look what I am willing to sacrifice for the environment'. Once going green is no longer a sacrifice, it loses its value as virtue signaling. Moreover, as it used to be the case that green was more expensive, much of the marketing really focused on this virtue signaling. Because being green needed to be a unique selling point to make it worth it. It seems like this perception of green hasn't caught up with reality yet. This also explains the (worry about) accusations of green-washing. If a company announces some green improvement in their products, people read that as virtue signaling. Then, when it comes out the company has not made green sacrifices elsewhere, that is seen as not virtuous. Problem is, their announcement was not 'we are making sacrifices to be green' but 'we made improvements that are green'. But that is not how people read such announcements.
frosted-flakes 7y ago
There's definitely truth to the point that consumers might suspect poorer quality when eco-friendly labels are present. When it comes to food, if I see two products on the shelf that are identical except that one is labelled "50% less salt" or "lite", I immediately come to the inclusion that the "healthier" one compromises taste for healthiness, leading me to select the "regular" product. Because why have two separate products otherwise? Experience has definitely confirmed this for me. "Lite" pancake syrup (not maple) tastes noticeably worse than the regular stuff, and anything gluten-free that normally contains gluten, like bread, is typically disgusting in comparison to the normal product. (On the other hand, Cheerios cereal became gluten-free simply by changing the manufacturing or growing process to avoid cross-contamination, and that didn't bother me.)
chicob 7y ago
This article seems to conflate organic farming with sustainability. Organic farming resorts only to non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Unless these are provably bad, in which case some synthetic substances are allowed. It feels awkward having to state, in the most technological age mankind has seen, that the divide between organic and synthetic is not the same as the one between sustainable and unsustainable, nor between safe and unsafe for human beings. I suspect one of the Portuguese wineries mentioned in the article to be Esporão, that has recently converted to Organic Farming. This was not, coincidently, done in a inconspicuous way, but rather publicized by corporate PR in sustainable farming venues, rather disingenuously I should say.[1][2] On one occasion, and for lack of time for QnA, I didn't get the opportunity to ask a very simple question: - Once engaged in Organic Farming, a farmer is limited in the range of permissible practices, and synthetic pesticides are off limits. On the other hand, if engaged in Integrated Farming, a well known farming standard in the EU, a farmer can still proceed according to the precepts of Organic Farming if one so chooses. Why, then, is that company committed to Organic Farming? I suspect the reason is the possibility of labelling their products as such.[3] Marketing - not love for the environment - is behind the move. So regarding the headline question, soft PR avoids the accusation of greenwashing in a world of corporate virtue signalling. [1] https://www.esporao.com/en/ https://www.esporao.com/en/ [2] Search results for organic farming: https://www.esporao.com/en/?s=organic+farming https://www.esporao.com/en/?s=organic+farming [3] Example of label: https://www.esporao.com/en/olive-oil/organic-olive-oil-2017/ https://www.esporao.com/en/olive-oil/organic-olive-oil-2017/
- addicted 7y ago
  The article is not conflating organic farming with sustainability. It’s citing a specific example where a company switched to organic farming because it was more sustainable, specifically making the soil more sustainable.
  - chicob 7y ago
    "In the case of the Portuguese wineries, both already had good reputations for quality. All they wanted to do was to keep giving consumers great wine at a good price, without degrading their soil. They hadn’t increased the cost of making wine as they shifted to organic practice." My interpretation comes from this kind of phrasing, were it is assumed that the shift towards organic farming was a move towards sustainability.
ozorOzora 7y ago
All of this seems quite counter-inuitive to me: "Instead of buying pesticides and artificial fertilisers, they have invested heavily in labour and technology." but also: "They hadn’t increased the cost of making wine as they shifted to organic practice" As far as the article goes, these are just claims with no evidence. I hardly imagine any solution that could maintain price and provide "sustainability".
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  It says in the article they had a 18% higher yield due to better soil quality. The sustainability was essentially just a convenient side effect. Same with the auto manufacturer; they didn't cut energy costs for the marketing, they did it because the energy costs made spending for the upgrade worth it.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It's a submarine PR ad, ironically denying its own PR nature.
  - bonniemuffin 7y ago
    Seems like it's not very effective PR, since the article doesn't even name any of the companies it's talking about.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dahfizz 7y ago
This seems to be the natural progression of things. As technology gets better, people adopt the technology because it makes their lives better and their businesses easier to run. 20 years ago, it was impossible to monitor your crops with drones and sensors and software. All you could do was dust it with pesticides band fertilizer and hope. Now that we have a better alternative, people use that. It's not about being "sustainable", it's just what makes financial sense. That winery now needs to buy less fertilizer and gets a better yeild.
- ozorOzora 7y ago
  Except this is thanks to the energy peak we're living in (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy). Take out crude oil, natural gas and coal, and most of these luxuries are gone. We'll be lucky if we manage to keep HN running.
dpflan 7y ago
Could there be a market for these sustainable technological/process improvements? I'm sure something in one industry could be mapped to another or even be directly applied. The benefit to society overall could be great, but economic benefits seem to be locally maximized (i.e. we're missing out of an entire industry/ies improving sustainability).
johnchristopher 7y ago
It's fascinating how the backlash and the anger towards organic run deep in the US and on HN. The first time I noticed that was ten or 15 years ago when some 20-something on a train ride were complaining about how the green party was everywhere (they had just peaked at 15% in the previous election) and how soon we'll be obliged to eat green, to drink green coke, that everything is going to be organic, etc. It was a weird mix of "i don't want to admit they are right so let just say anything bad about them" and... I don't know what. They are people in my work circle who voted for the far-right because they were "fed up with the climate campaign" (referring to the recent climate demonstrations). Like they would hold to any position to justify their own actions. "It's the fault of environmental activists if we don't go green because they scared us too much and we didn't listen to them." I think I see the same pattern in the anti organic arguments. edit: Also, "they are making me feel guilty, so they are bad and manipulative". Sorry, there isn't much coherence to my post. Just my feelings.
- humanrebar 7y ago
  The deontology (paper straws) and eschatology (the end is nigh) of some environmentalism smacks of religion to some. And, given that, the focus in state action incorporates many of the downsides of state adoption of religion, including sectarian bickering, a lack of grace, virtue signalling, and hypocrisy. A reasonable response to those takes is "but this take on things happens to be true". That's fair, however that's the premise of the defense of basically every belief system.
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    A good amount of the uncertainties involved in climate science, though, can be laid directly at the feet of the Right, and how they've undermined and obstructed science for decades to enable their corporate donors to continue polluting the planet. Perfect example is when global warming was rebranded to climate change, largely by the Right, after which right-leaning politicians have spent every moment saying "See they had to change it from warming to change! They clearly don't know what they're talking about." Or that they've defunded departments showing the ample data on Climate Change, or instructed various departments to not use the language. Anything they can do to shut it down and make sure their corporate donors don't have to lose a minor bit of their bottom line to, oh I don't know, perpetuate the SPECIES a little longer. IMHO such flagrant and destructive distortion of truth, especially with such an existential threat as Climate Change is, deserves some criminal charge on the order of Crimes Against Humanity. I've been watching this charade play out from inside Republican ranks for decades and whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.
seanwilson 7y ago
This is what bothers me about organic farming: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs... > What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2 > Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid's predators This means organic farms cannot use a modern pesticide even when that pesticide is known to be safer, more efficient or more sustainable, purely on the grounds that it isn't a "natural" pesticide. That's pseudoscience. Sustainable farming should be based on science and facts. Instead, farmers are following arbitrary organic farming rules so they can label their produce as "organic" and charge more. I want a system where the most sustainable farming approaches are encouraged (e.g. via taxes, better labelling) instead of being held back by the "organic" label.
- fact_factory 7y ago
  >What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. This is not exactly truthful, at least in the United States. Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. If an ostensibly organic farm relies on chemical management routinely, that violates the letter and the spirit of the organic program regulations and should cause certification to be withdrawn. >b) Pest problems may be controlled through mechanical or physical methods including but not limited to: (1) Augmentation or introduction of predators or parasites of the pest species; (2) Development of habitat for natural enemies of pests; (3) Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, and repellents. (c) Weed problems may be controlled through: (1) Mulching with fully biodegradable materials; (2) Mowing; (3) Livestock grazing; (4) Hand weeding and mechanical cultivation; (5) Flame, heat, or electrical means; or (6) Plastic or other synthetic mulches: Provided, That, they are removed from the field at the end of the growing or harvest season. (d) Disease problems may be controlled through: (1) Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms; or (2) Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs. (e) When the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are insufficient to prevent or control crop pests, weeds, and diseases, a biological or botanical substance or a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases: Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are documented in the organic system plan. (f) The producer must not use lumber treated with arsenate or other prohibited materials for new installations or replacement purposes in contact with soil or livestock. Tl;dr, you’re only permitted to use pesticides in organic farming when nothing else works to control the organisms, and you have to stop using them as soon as the organisms are controlled. Organic farmers are not permitted to routinely spray their fields. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...
carapace 7y ago
In theory, economics and ecology are the same science. The fact that that's hard to see for a lot of people is the deeper ecological disaster of which the visible problems are symptoms. If we can "deprogram" our society from ignoring basic problems (like pouring pollution into the air and water) the same drive and resourcefulness that brought us our modern prosperity will then adapt to do so without poisoning ourselves, eh? Internalize the externalities and our system becomes sane.
carapace 7y ago
> He believes this stems from a common perception that there must be some kind of downside to the introduction of sustainable practices: either a reduction in product quality, or an increase in the price of manufacturing, or both. There's an existing body of knowledge and practice for regenerative agriculture, or even productive "food forests" that are ecologically harmonious and can supply the needs of billions (meaning we don't have to postulate mass starvation as a prerequisite of ecological food production.) (One school is called Permaculture (a portmanteau of PERMAnent agriCULTURE).) If you're doing this right there is an increase in quality and yield and a decrease in cost. But yeah, a lot of people don't get this. There was a question the other day, "Does regenerative agriculture scale?" Well, yes, of course it does, the clue is in the name. Search on "Geoff Lawton Greening the Desert" for living examples of converting barren desert into flourishing farms. Each farm is then capable of supplying not only produce and meat but also the materials to perform the same transformation at another site. Obviously, this is exponential growth. There is a way, we must have the will.
- hinkley 7y ago
  What I've seen bumping around this area is that the cost increase is in engagement. I don't know any conventional farmers, and I don't know anyone who has known one in thirty years, so I can't tell you what sucks up their time all day. But I've heard reports it's a second job to keep the farm solvent. In a way, restoration agriculture is asking them to double down on the farm and hope it's profitable. One of the louder voices in this space is known for compartmentalizing his operation by starting tons of LLCs that collaborate. He really enjoys that sort of thing (or it makes him feel safe) but this is a lot of responsibility on a few shoulders. I don't think the import of what he's done will be appreciated until either his kid get old enough to take over from Pops, or he files bankruptcy for one of these LLCs due to an accident or a product recall.
  - carapace 7y ago
    My limited experience with local Permaculture farming here in CA is that the biggest challenge is reaching markets. Growing food here is pretty easy (such climate! wow) but getting that produce into the kitchens of the city-dwellers is expensive (compared to the economies of scale for big commercial outfits.)
Nasrudith 7y ago
The "greenwashing" reason has to be the saddest aspect in my opinion. It is one thing to try not to offend regressive fools as a part of your market - they are already part of the problem. Similarly trying to not look like a marketing gimmick is understandable given the typical marketing strategy of emphasizing something irrelevant when lacking in quality and really the fault of marketers jading people. But from those who want to help the environment? That is a sad combination of tall poppy syndrome and perfect the enemy of the good.
crispinb 7y ago
Let's not forget the far-right Aus government, which targets companies and technologies it considers on the wrong site of its superstitious culture war against sustainability.
mark-r 7y ago
> This is despite an increase in evidence that actively investing in sustainable practices helps business thrive. An example is provided by the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, a series of benchmarks assessing the sustainability of companies around the world. Research has repeatedly shown that those at the top end of the benchmark outperform those at the bottom. Doesn't this just make sense? Companies that are innovative in one dimension of their business should be expected to be innovative in other areas too, with a corresponding impact on the bottom line.
thatthatis 7y ago
There are at least two other factors: 1) most of these certifications come with large philosophical impact. You can’t choose to be a “social impact only” B Corp, for example, you have to go all in on their philosophy on waste management too. 2) by not publicizing you reserve the option to switch grades/practices if necessary in the future.

201 points by NeedMoreTea 7y ago

"Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." This unfortunately prevalent belief is extremely destructive. If people believe it must cost money to be environmentally friendly, then they will not be motivated to look for profit from actions that have a net positive impact on the environment. And that means the entire motivation to make money, which drives business and most of the economy, is largely absent from the range of serious problems we label as "environmental". Luckily some people (like the ones in this article) see through this myth to find profit from this collective blind spot.

mschuster91 7y ago
The key is better education. Without this, all we others do to try and save the world climate from extinguishing human life is made moot.
- jacobush 7y ago
  It will never extinguish. Maybe kill most humans, not all humans.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
The irony is that sustainable practices are so effective at lowering costs that they can actually cause higher overall consumption levels due to all the new business potential; aka the Jevons paradox. I believe the issue is all the pointless green-signaling products out with ridiculous markups tainting public perception.
thereisnospork 7y ago
> "Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." Is mostly true though. Efficient market hypothesis and all, rational people are unsustainable because they view it as the best (economic) choice.[1] As a rule any deviation from the market optimum, in this case towards 'sustainability' will introduce inefficiencies and make things more expensive, even adjusting e.g. taxes to correctly account for externalities will make items more expensive (but make the system more efficient as a whole). [1]They of course may be wrong.

ezoe 7y ago

When I saw a label of organic, I immediately assume it's over-priced fraud product. To me, it's same as those stupid product which claims magical cure for cancer.

snthd 7y ago
Organic farming is primarily about producing products better rather than producing better products.
- enriquto 7y ago
  better for whom? for the environment in the long term or for the health of the consumer in the short term? these two criteria are probably contradictory.
- chicob 7y ago
  Organic farming is primarily about producing organically (i.e. without synthetic means), rather than producing sustainably.
johnchristopher 7y ago
What do you mean ? That fraudsters mix regular product with organic product to lie to consumers in order to cash in the benefits ? Or that organic products are a fraud ?
- ctdonath 7y ago
  That consumers think it means something different than what the industry knows it means.
jhrmnn 7y ago
It‘s not the same. If anything, organic produce and its labeling are regulated (at least in EU), magical cures for cancer are not.
- WA 7y ago

NepMan123 7y ago

If you tell me something is "environment friendly", I will immediately doubt the product quality. In my head, if your product was good by itself, you wouldn't try to emotionally guilt me into "going green".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jhrmnn 7y ago
Is there any credence to this, or is it just in your head? There is a lot that goes into earning the organic label from regulators, and it‘s highly correlated with doing things slowly, the old-fashioned way. So the only way you can beat non-organic produce is with quality.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  > There is a lot that goes into earning the organic label from regulators, and it‘s highly correlated with doing things slowly, the old-fashioned way. So the only way you can beat non-organic produce is with quality. This sentence doesn't seem to be supported by the sentence before it, unless there's an assumption that slower and more old-fashioned methods produce higher quality products -- an assumption that seems questionable, at least.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Lots of people buy organic on principle, so those are automatic customers regardless of quality. Many other people buy organic for quality, but that doesn’t actually require quality, merely the perception of it. For a lot of people, the “organic” label is enough to create that perception.
spodek 7y ago
Nobody can make you feel guilty. Perhaps you mean they make you feel more aware of the guilt you already feel.
rat9988 7y ago
What if you had a product that is good by itself and environment friendly? You should hide the latter?

minikites 7y ago

I'm surprised "spite" isn't mentioned as a reason, a lot of people see a "green" label and deliberately choose something else in an act of rebellion. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130430-light-bulb-labeling/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/13043... >Green labeling causes some consumers to shun energy-efficient light bulbs even when they know the choice could save them money, a new study finds. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme... >“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”

mschuster91 7y ago
>“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.” Good grace. Maybe the Soviets did have a point with reeducation camps. Sarcasm aside, we as societies desperately need to come up with ways to cope with such people. Being as dense as rocks isn't criminal, but harming others as a result of that should be severely punished (and same goes for antivaxxers and abstinence-only ideology).

amelius 7y ago

Negative externalities should be taxed, so companies optimize for "green" by default.

yunruse 7y ago
Indeed. Many companies are affected by the environment, so this tax would serve to directly ensure a long-term cost is also a short-term cost, such that the market does not ignore it.
- willis936 7y ago
  I’ve been of this thinking for a while, but have read that small scale carbon tax tests have not yielded positive results. I still don’t understand how that could be, but I’m not a macroeconomics expert.
  - amelius 7y ago
    Perhaps the best thing to do first is purely administrative: place a tax on carbon and immediately subsidize the companies so the net effect is zero. That way we buy some time to get accounting right and prevent a mass shock to the economic systems.
    - smolder 7y ago
      We don't have time. A mass shock is inevitable. Deferring it makes it worse.
      - amelius 7y ago
        One of the problems with (and arguments against) carbon taxing is that you'd have to apply it globally to maintain a level playing field. Companies will not accept a carbon tax unless it is applied fairly. Having the accounting in place increases trust in the fairness of the system. Also it will enable a more fertile ground for political discussion, as more information will be available. Finally, if the problem is rephrased as "companies effectively receiving state-support to exploit the planet", it will make the problem more urgent.

HenryBemis 7y ago

I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition. Once a company has a proven and better solution, immediately has a competitive advantage over the rest in the industry. Why bother telling them how to get a 18% sustainable increase of your yield? Try and take advantage as much and as far as you can, try to get far ahead, and enjoy the ride. And once the rest figure out what you've done, you have already matured and getting ready for leap #3 while they are still trying the leap #1.

MiroF 7y ago
> I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition Oh huh! Did you read the article?
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  The article does not include this point. Or if it does, I missed it.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    It explicitly lists this as a point when providing examples of incorrect reasons "why industry is going green on the quiet." > It refused, not because the innovations were trade secrets, or because it risked losing a cost-saving competitive edge (due to cheap electricity prices, the cost saving amounted to less than 1%)
    - robocat 7y ago
      > the cost saving amounted to less than 1% The figure is doubly misleading: * In a low margin business, 1% cost savings could easily be hugely increased profits. Toyota's profit is about 6% at the moment: changing to 7% would be significant. Many businesses have lower margins. * "Less than 1%" is anywhere between 0% and 1%. I would guess similar savings are being made by other manufacturers.
      - 7y ago

open-source-ux 7y ago

"Consumers seem to believe that products cannot become more sustainable without becoming more expensive." This belief is borne out somewhat when you visit a supermarket. Products labelled 'green' are often more expensive than 'non-green' products. Is it mostly 'green-washing'? I don't know but it does reinforce the belief that 'green' products command a premium price. Example brands that fit this perception: Ecover or Method. As far as organic fruit and vegetables go, the cost of these varies in the UK depending on the produce. Organic mushrooms are often the same price as non-organic mushrooms in many supermarkets. Some organic produce can be a little bit more expensive (e.g. onions) and other produce can be twice as expensive as non-organic (e.g. leeks). But being non-organic doesn't mean unsustainable.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
It's not green-washing, IMO it's mostly fleecing the more naive and anti-science parts of the population. Not much different than the related area of "natural" dietary supplements - it doesn't have to work or be any different than regular products, but if it's made entirely from some plant that is "known" to "remove ""toxins""", you can sell it at a premium and a lot of people will buy it.

maelito 7y ago

Is there a "climate label" somewhere in one country, based on climate impact (kgCO2eq), that has successfully been deployed to more than one product sold in supermarkets ? E.g. Oatly's label but more independent and widespread https://www.oatly.com/uk/climate-footprint https://www.oatly.com/uk/climate-footprint

rocqua 7y ago

Being green used to be purely virtue signaling. The idea 'be the change you want to see' combined with (a few years ago) the higher costs of green products have lead to 'look what I am willing to sacrifice for the environment'. Once going green is no longer a sacrifice, it loses its value as virtue signaling. Moreover, as it used to be the case that green was more expensive, much of the marketing really focused on this virtue signaling. Because being green needed to be a unique selling point to make it worth it. It seems like this perception of green hasn't caught up with reality yet. This also explains the (worry about) accusations of green-washing. If a company announces some green improvement in their products, people read that as virtue signaling. Then, when it comes out the company has not made green sacrifices elsewhere, that is seen as not virtuous. Problem is, their announcement was not 'we are making sacrifices to be green' but 'we made improvements that are green'. But that is not how people read such announcements.

frosted-flakes 7y ago

There's definitely truth to the point that consumers might suspect poorer quality when eco-friendly labels are present. When it comes to food, if I see two products on the shelf that are identical except that one is labelled "50% less salt" or "lite", I immediately come to the inclusion that the "healthier" one compromises taste for healthiness, leading me to select the "regular" product. Because why have two separate products otherwise? Experience has definitely confirmed this for me. "Lite" pancake syrup (not maple) tastes noticeably worse than the regular stuff, and anything gluten-free that normally contains gluten, like bread, is typically disgusting in comparison to the normal product. (On the other hand, Cheerios cereal became gluten-free simply by changing the manufacturing or growing process to avoid cross-contamination, and that didn't bother me.)

chicob 7y ago

This article seems to conflate organic farming with sustainability. Organic farming resorts only to non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Unless these are provably bad, in which case some synthetic substances are allowed. It feels awkward having to state, in the most technological age mankind has seen, that the divide between organic and synthetic is not the same as the one between sustainable and unsustainable, nor between safe and unsafe for human beings. I suspect one of the Portuguese wineries mentioned in the article to be Esporão, that has recently converted to Organic Farming. This was not, coincidently, done in a inconspicuous way, but rather publicized by corporate PR in sustainable farming venues, rather disingenuously I should say.[1][2] On one occasion, and for lack of time for QnA, I didn't get the opportunity to ask a very simple question: - Once engaged in Organic Farming, a farmer is limited in the range of permissible practices, and synthetic pesticides are off limits. On the other hand, if engaged in Integrated Farming, a well known farming standard in the EU, a farmer can still proceed according to the precepts of Organic Farming if one so chooses. Why, then, is that company committed to Organic Farming? I suspect the reason is the possibility of labelling their products as such.[3] Marketing - not love for the environment - is behind the move. So regarding the headline question, soft PR avoids the accusation of greenwashing in a world of corporate virtue signalling. [1] https://www.esporao.com/en/ https://www.esporao.com/en/ [2] Search results for organic farming: https://www.esporao.com/en/?s=organic+farming https://www.esporao.com/en/?s=organic+farming [3] Example of label: https://www.esporao.com/en/olive-oil/organic-olive-oil-2017/ https://www.esporao.com/en/olive-oil/organic-olive-oil-2017/

addicted 7y ago
The article is not conflating organic farming with sustainability. It’s citing a specific example where a company switched to organic farming because it was more sustainable, specifically making the soil more sustainable.
- chicob 7y ago
  "In the case of the Portuguese wineries, both already had good reputations for quality. All they wanted to do was to keep giving consumers great wine at a good price, without degrading their soil. They hadn’t increased the cost of making wine as they shifted to organic practice." My interpretation comes from this kind of phrasing, were it is assumed that the shift towards organic farming was a move towards sustainability.

ozorOzora 7y ago

All of this seems quite counter-inuitive to me: "Instead of buying pesticides and artificial fertilisers, they have invested heavily in labour and technology." but also: "They hadn’t increased the cost of making wine as they shifted to organic practice" As far as the article goes, these are just claims with no evidence. I hardly imagine any solution that could maintain price and provide "sustainability".

tomatotomato37 7y ago
It says in the article they had a 18% higher yield due to better soil quality. The sustainability was essentially just a convenient side effect. Same with the auto manufacturer; they didn't cut energy costs for the marketing, they did it because the energy costs made spending for the upgrade worth it.
lonelappde 7y ago
It's a submarine PR ad, ironically denying its own PR nature.
- bonniemuffin 7y ago
  Seems like it's not very effective PR, since the article doesn't even name any of the companies it's talking about.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dahfizz 7y ago

This seems to be the natural progression of things. As technology gets better, people adopt the technology because it makes their lives better and their businesses easier to run. 20 years ago, it was impossible to monitor your crops with drones and sensors and software. All you could do was dust it with pesticides band fertilizer and hope. Now that we have a better alternative, people use that. It's not about being "sustainable", it's just what makes financial sense. That winery now needs to buy less fertilizer and gets a better yeild.

ozorOzora 7y ago
Except this is thanks to the energy peak we're living in (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy). Take out crude oil, natural gas and coal, and most of these luxuries are gone. We'll be lucky if we manage to keep HN running.

dpflan 7y ago

Could there be a market for these sustainable technological/process improvements? I'm sure something in one industry could be mapped to another or even be directly applied. The benefit to society overall could be great, but economic benefits seem to be locally maximized (i.e. we're missing out of an entire industry/ies improving sustainability).

johnchristopher 7y ago

It's fascinating how the backlash and the anger towards organic run deep in the US and on HN. The first time I noticed that was ten or 15 years ago when some 20-something on a train ride were complaining about how the green party was everywhere (they had just peaked at 15% in the previous election) and how soon we'll be obliged to eat green, to drink green coke, that everything is going to be organic, etc. It was a weird mix of "i don't want to admit they are right so let just say anything bad about them" and... I don't know what. They are people in my work circle who voted for the far-right because they were "fed up with the climate campaign" (referring to the recent climate demonstrations). Like they would hold to any position to justify their own actions. "It's the fault of environmental activists if we don't go green because they scared us too much and we didn't listen to them." I think I see the same pattern in the anti organic arguments. edit: Also, "they are making me feel guilty, so they are bad and manipulative". Sorry, there isn't much coherence to my post. Just my feelings.

humanrebar 7y ago
The deontology (paper straws) and eschatology (the end is nigh) of some environmentalism smacks of religion to some. And, given that, the focus in state action incorporates many of the downsides of state adoption of religion, including sectarian bickering, a lack of grace, virtue signalling, and hypocrisy. A reasonable response to those takes is "but this take on things happens to be true". That's fair, however that's the premise of the defense of basically every belief system.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  A good amount of the uncertainties involved in climate science, though, can be laid directly at the feet of the Right, and how they've undermined and obstructed science for decades to enable their corporate donors to continue polluting the planet. Perfect example is when global warming was rebranded to climate change, largely by the Right, after which right-leaning politicians have spent every moment saying "See they had to change it from warming to change! They clearly don't know what they're talking about." Or that they've defunded departments showing the ample data on Climate Change, or instructed various departments to not use the language. Anything they can do to shut it down and make sure their corporate donors don't have to lose a minor bit of their bottom line to, oh I don't know, perpetuate the SPECIES a little longer. IMHO such flagrant and destructive distortion of truth, especially with such an existential threat as Climate Change is, deserves some criminal charge on the order of Crimes Against Humanity. I've been watching this charade play out from inside Republican ranks for decades and whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

seanwilson 7y ago

This is what bothers me about organic farming: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs... > What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2 > Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides more effective means of control, the organic pesticides were more ecologically damaging, including causing higher mortality in other, non-target species like the aphid's predators This means organic farms cannot use a modern pesticide even when that pesticide is known to be safer, more efficient or more sustainable, purely on the grounds that it isn't a "natural" pesticide. That's pseudoscience. Sustainable farming should be based on science and facts. Instead, farmers are following arbitrary organic farming rules so they can label their produce as "organic" and charge more. I want a system where the most sustainable farming approaches are encouraged (e.g. via taxes, better labelling) instead of being held back by the "organic" label.

fact_factory 7y ago
>What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides used. This is not exactly truthful, at least in the United States. Organic farmers are required to manage competitor organisms with non-chemical methods as a matter of practice. They are only permitted to use approved organic pesticides when the other means are insufficient, and it has to be documented. If an ostensibly organic farm relies on chemical management routinely, that violates the letter and the spirit of the organic program regulations and should cause certification to be withdrawn. >b) Pest problems may be controlled through mechanical or physical methods including but not limited to: (1) Augmentation or introduction of predators or parasites of the pest species; (2) Development of habitat for natural enemies of pests; (3) Nonsynthetic controls such as lures, traps, and repellents. (c) Weed problems may be controlled through: (1) Mulching with fully biodegradable materials; (2) Mowing; (3) Livestock grazing; (4) Hand weeding and mechanical cultivation; (5) Flame, heat, or electrical means; or (6) Plastic or other synthetic mulches: Provided, That, they are removed from the field at the end of the growing or harvest season. (d) Disease problems may be controlled through: (1) Management practices which suppress the spread of disease organisms; or (2) Application of nonsynthetic biological, botanical, or mineral inputs. (e) When the practices provided for in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are insufficient to prevent or control crop pests, weeds, and diseases, a biological or botanical substance or a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases: Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are documented in the organic system plan. (f) The producer must not use lumber treated with arsenate or other prohibited materials for new installations or replacement purposes in contact with soil or livestock. Tl;dr, you’re only permitted to use pesticides in organic farming when nothing else works to control the organisms, and you have to stop using them as soon as the organisms are controlled. Organic farmers are not permitted to routinely spray their fields. [0] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d7eae45799f2375&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1206&rgn=div8 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=94361624bc8858349d...

carapace 7y ago

In theory, economics and ecology are the same science. The fact that that's hard to see for a lot of people is the deeper ecological disaster of which the visible problems are symptoms. If we can "deprogram" our society from ignoring basic problems (like pouring pollution into the air and water) the same drive and resourcefulness that brought us our modern prosperity will then adapt to do so without poisoning ourselves, eh? Internalize the externalities and our system becomes sane.

carapace 7y ago

> He believes this stems from a common perception that there must be some kind of downside to the introduction of sustainable practices: either a reduction in product quality, or an increase in the price of manufacturing, or both. There's an existing body of knowledge and practice for regenerative agriculture, or even productive "food forests" that are ecologically harmonious and can supply the needs of billions (meaning we don't have to postulate mass starvation as a prerequisite of ecological food production.) (One school is called Permaculture (a portmanteau of PERMAnent agriCULTURE).) If you're doing this right there is an increase in quality and yield and a decrease in cost. But yeah, a lot of people don't get this. There was a question the other day, "Does regenerative agriculture scale?" Well, yes, of course it does, the clue is in the name. Search on "Geoff Lawton Greening the Desert" for living examples of converting barren desert into flourishing farms. Each farm is then capable of supplying not only produce and meat but also the materials to perform the same transformation at another site. Obviously, this is exponential growth. There is a way, we must have the will.

hinkley 7y ago
What I've seen bumping around this area is that the cost increase is in engagement. I don't know any conventional farmers, and I don't know anyone who has known one in thirty years, so I can't tell you what sucks up their time all day. But I've heard reports it's a second job to keep the farm solvent. In a way, restoration agriculture is asking them to double down on the farm and hope it's profitable. One of the louder voices in this space is known for compartmentalizing his operation by starting tons of LLCs that collaborate. He really enjoys that sort of thing (or it makes him feel safe) but this is a lot of responsibility on a few shoulders. I don't think the import of what he's done will be appreciated until either his kid get old enough to take over from Pops, or he files bankruptcy for one of these LLCs due to an accident or a product recall.
- carapace 7y ago
  My limited experience with local Permaculture farming here in CA is that the biggest challenge is reaching markets. Growing food here is pretty easy (such climate! wow) but getting that produce into the kitchens of the city-dwellers is expensive (compared to the economies of scale for big commercial outfits.)

Nasrudith 7y ago

The "greenwashing" reason has to be the saddest aspect in my opinion. It is one thing to try not to offend regressive fools as a part of your market - they are already part of the problem. Similarly trying to not look like a marketing gimmick is understandable given the typical marketing strategy of emphasizing something irrelevant when lacking in quality and really the fault of marketers jading people. But from those who want to help the environment? That is a sad combination of tall poppy syndrome and perfect the enemy of the good.

crispinb 7y ago

Let's not forget the far-right Aus government, which targets companies and technologies it considers on the wrong site of its superstitious culture war against sustainability.

mark-r 7y ago

> This is despite an increase in evidence that actively investing in sustainable practices helps business thrive. An example is provided by the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, a series of benchmarks assessing the sustainability of companies around the world. Research has repeatedly shown that those at the top end of the benchmark outperform those at the bottom. Doesn't this just make sense? Companies that are innovative in one dimension of their business should be expected to be innovative in other areas too, with a corresponding impact on the bottom line.

thatthatis 7y ago

There are at least two other factors: 1) most of these certifications come with large philosophical impact. You can’t choose to be a “social impact only” B Corp, for example, you have to go all in on their philosophy on waste management too. 2) by not publicizing you reserve the option to switch grades/practices if necessary in the future.