© CABAR - Central Asian Bureau for Analytical Reporting
Please make active links to the source, when using materials from this website

Five Widespread Myths About Ecology  

Not only ecologists are talking about emissions of carbon dioxide, plastic pollution of the planet, global warming, and other environmental problems. There are more and more people who are trying to lead an eco-friendly lifestyle. But sometimes out of good intentions, in order to help nature, people take actions that not only do not help to cope with the ecological crisis but also harm the planet.


In this article, we’ve debunked five popular and widespread environmental myths and gathered a few tips on how everyone can contribute to the preservation of the environment and lead an ecologically conscious lifestyle.

Hunters are the cause of the extinction of rare animal species
Hunters love to chase rare animals and bring home such trophies as horns, hooves, fangs, skins. At first glance, it seems that such a hobby threatens the extinction of a whole species of animals. But in fact, trophy hunting helps local people to preserve the fauna in the wild and manage the environment efficiently. Real hunters acquire licenses to kill animals. For example, a license for a Marco Polo ram costs 55 thousand somonis (4800 US dollars). Every year the state receives about 6-7 million somoni (500-600 thousand US dollars) for the licensed shooting of only four species of rare animals. The state spends 40% of the money paid by the hunter on the protection, monitoring, and restoration of the animal population. In addition, most often hunters choose old animals as their prey, who do not contribute to the increase in the population, and who may soon die – it is possible to get a trophy much larger from adults than from young ones. From the nature point of view, the preservation of the species is more important than the preservation of the individual. And the sacrifice of the individual, in this case, helps to save the population. Since the hunt can last for several days, a trophy fan pays for a hotel, food, car, guide, etc., this money helps the local community to live comfortably and fight poachers. The latter, by the way, really pose a threat to the endangered species list. They kill animals by the thousands and are not regulated in any way. Read more: Hunting Animals Listed in the Red Data Book in Tajikistan.
Electric cars do not harm nature
Unlike cars with internal combustion engines (ICEs), electric cars really do not emit harmful gases into the atmosphere and run relatively quieter, but this does not mean that they are a safe ecological solution for the planet. To assess the harm that an electric car does, we need to take into account the entire life cycle of the car - from its creation to disposal. The production of one electric vehicle accounts for 8.8 tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, about 4 tons are accounted for by the production of batteries. By the way, the production of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine requires only 5.6 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Electric cars consume more electricity, and the complete transition of the population to this type of vehicle will create an increased load on power plants, which will ultimately lead to an increase in emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere. The environmental value of electric vehicles for a particular country will be higher if the cars are produced abroad, and the electricity needed to recharge the batteries will be taken from alternative and renewable sources. Norway is an example of a country that imports electric vehicles and generates energy from renewable sources. In this particular case, electric vehicles do not harm the nature of the country. But on a planetary scale, it is not correct to talk about the environmental friendliness of machines running on electricity. Do not forget that car batteries must be properly disposed of, you cannot simply throw them into a landfill. Batteries contain hazardous substances - magnesium, mercury, tin, lead, nickel, etc., which poison, depending on their volume, tens and hundreds of square meters of soil. Unfortunately, today not all states have the technical capabilities to dispose of lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries.

Read more: Bury and Forget: How people “struggle” with growth of landfills in Tajikistan

Conclusion: in order to help nature, you need to give up unnecessary trips in any car. Use public transport or bike, and walk more often if possible.

Paper bags are more ecologically friendly than plastic bags

In order to debunk this myth, we use the same approach as above - we will analyze the full life cycle of the product. For the production of a durable paper bag, most often it is not the recycled paper that is used, but fresh, extra long wood and a variety of chemicals. Fabricating and recycling paper bags uses 91% more electricity and 20 times more water than making a plastic bag. The chemicals needed to heat the wood chips poison the water in the territory nearby the factory and cause acid rain. The production of one paper bag is equivalent to the production of several polyethylene bags in terms of the number of resources expended and the generation of harmful emissions. The only way to compensate for the imbalance is to use the paper bag multiple times. However, the same logic can be applied to plastic bags, not throwing them away, but using them until they deteriorate. Although the problem of plastic decomposition after use will still exist. An alternative to paper and plastic is reusable canvas shopping bags that are truly durable and naturally biodegradable.

Logging of old trees can be compensated for by planting a new forest.

Similar to the kidneys and liver in the human body, forests act as a filter to the planet - they purify the air and protect the soil from erosion. It is impossible to compensate for the feeling of one adult tree with five young ones, because new seedlings will not be able to cool and humidify the air, absorb dust to the same extent, and certainly cannot serve as a food base and habitat for fauna. After all, young trees initially lack the amount of green biomass that the previous tree gained for decades. It is biomass that benefits the environment, not the number of seedlings. If we talk about pristine forests, then their deforestation will entail a serious violation of biodiversity. Rare species of plants and animals live in areas untouched by humans. Getting rid of pristine forests, we reduce their habitat and pose a threat to all other living organisms. Planting new trees, of course, is necessary, but in order for them to fully "reveal" their potential, it is necessary to wait for many years. Therefore, along with landscaping areas, the cutting of old trees should be reduced as much as possible.

By buying products with "eco", "bio", "ecological", "natural" labels I help to preserve the nature

In 2014, the analytical company Nielsen surveyed residents of 60 countries around the world about whether they are ready to pay more for a product from a company that promises to contribute to the development of society and the preservation of the environment. More than half of those surveyed (55%) were willing to pay more for “environmentally friendly” goods. Today, unfortunately, marketers overuse consumer desires and label products that are not environmentally friendly. Since there is demand, there must be supply, but in reality, companies need to completely rebuild production processes, purchase new technologies, replace raw materials with more environmentally friendly alternatives in order to reduce waste and significantly reduce the amount of carbon footprint in the atmosphere. In addition, it is necessary to prove to the regulatory authorities that the product is really environmentally friendly and obtain the appropriate certificate and labeling. But, for example, in Tajikistan, there is still no existing procedure for obtaining an eco-label. The Committee for Environmental Protection still does not have a specialized department that would analyze the production and the products themselves. Therefore, most of the local products that the Tajik consumer sees on store shelves that have labels “eco”, “bio”, etc. are not a guarantee that the product is ecologically friendly and safe.

 

 

 

If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

Spelling error report
The following text will be sent to our editors: