Very catchy headline, but isn't the end result rather negative from ecological and environmental point of view? It smells the same as Germany and Netherlands ca

Very catchy headline, but isn't the end result rather negative from ecological and environmental point of view? It smells the same as Germany and Netherlands causing a real ecological catastrophy as we speak by burning Siberian, Canadian and eastern countri's forests using EU subsidies (well now the talks begin to curb it a little). Same with the liquid-bio-fuels ecological "holocaust", again funded by the western governments posing as eco-warriors, but doing the exact opposite. Simply put, Im questioning the fact that poor economics (efficiency in energy usage in material production) can be divorced from assessing ecological footprint. Plastics in this way are the most ecological. The argument is not to be exclusive to this metric alone, but at least the discussion should weight among the options on different metrics. Otherwise, we are just doing the same, moving from crisis to crisis and wasting activist energy on solution which are worse than the problems.