there is a definition of “sustainability” and it is not what you think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- 🌴🌿 Support my Patreon and find exclusive content: / gittemary
PREORDER MY DANISH COOKBOOK: muusmann-forla...
ORDER MY BOOK, SUSTAINABLE BADASS, HERE: www.gittemary....
BUY THE DANISH BOOK, BÆREDYGTIG BADASS, HERE:muusmann-forla...
definition: eur-lex.europa....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🌿MY BOOK (ENG): mango.bz/books...
🌿MY BOOK (DK) - muusmann-forla...
🌿MY BLOG - www.gittemary.com/
🌿INSTA - / gittemary
🌿FACEBOOK - / gittemary
🌿 MY ONLINE SUSTAINABILITY COURSE: ioa.pxf.io/c/2...
For business contacts and miscellaneous awesomeness: Gittemary@outlook.dk
Why has no one created a credible certification to show how “sustainable” a company really is?? LEEDs certification exists for green building and all of these “sustainable” companies should really have this certification as well.
like zoobop and good on you?
this is, hands down, one of the best videos on your channel. everyone should hear this talk -- lawmakers, shareholders, customers, activists and company copywriters. this is a clear presentation of the sort of clarity we need -- and need to demand -- in the sustainability discourse.
I really appreciate the way that you differentiate between individual usage of the word sustainable versus government and corporate use. Also thank you so much for calling attention to the fact that everyone has different abilities to make a positive impact for the environment. I’ll be teaching an environmentalist club in my daughter’s elementary school and these kids have limits to what they can do but they certainly can get the climate crisis message out.
I really hope for that social tipping point in favor for conscious consumption of products with a transparent origin. To support that movement i buy everything i can get secondhand in my region and talk about it to everyone and their cat.
Have you ever thought about creating a comprehensive course on (let's use the word) sustainability? I think it would be a great resource to have.
Comment for the algorithm 😉 so that this important and (once again) very well and eloquently presented topic reaches an even wider audience!!!
Wow you were on fire in this video! 🔥
You also articulated perfectly the thoughts I've been struggling with lately, about trying to put your money towards products that allign with my values, but companies making it so damn difficult to figure out what's what.
Maybe calling everything "green" is part of the problem. Green is a color.
There’s an app I use call good on you, they rate clothing brands in three different categories (environment, animal, and labor) of how sustainable they actually are. I try to buy second hand clothes but for baiting suits and shoes this app is super helpful to skip all the greenwashing bs and find a brand that is rated well by an outside source.
Well done, Gittemary!
Thank you.
In Spanish speaking world, in the 80’s had a long conversation about the translation for the word “sustainable”; some people called as “sustentable” and other as “sostenible”. Since that point, through decades, governments, brands, banks and politicians use the term best describes they interests.
Sostenible = in time
Sustentable= for the planet
Some times they defend their companies saying they are the other definition, like “we’re not talking about the planet. Our practices are for long-term facilities”.
However, in nowadays, scientists say both definitions are exactly the same
.-.
Very informative, thank you.
Good points about how greenwashing corporate and governmental uses of the term "sustainability." It could have been a little clearer than it was, because, despite the title, you used the definition of sustainability that is really "sustainable development," and wellbeing or equity or profit--as beneficial as they may be, are not the same as ecological sustainability. As much as the other factors matter, our survival only depends on ecological sustainability, and that idea doesn't just date back to the early 1700s, it was embodied in how many indigenous cultures thought and acted.
You said 99% but it’s difficult for me to think of any products can meet the definition of sustainable as far as coming without a negative impact to future generations. Can you name any? I’m getting stuck even on most foods since even hyper local farms have water use and transport and some waste
I feel like unfortunately this might be one of the reasons why so many unsustainable corporations are turning to "ESG" as opposed to "sustainability". It allows them to simply put out numbers and look good that they at least are doing "something" in front of their investors without risking being called out for greenwashing (as ESG is just plain data), while confusing consumers who may simply associate the term ESG with sustainable because they heard of it in that context...
Tilth Certified Organic Foods are Sustainable as is Regenerative Farming and Range Fed Cattle... not much else is sustainable though Certified Organic Textiles come close.
Range fed cattle still contribute to tons of emissions and range feeding them actually takes more land than if not. The report grazed and confused touches on how while regenerative is positioned as eco friendly it is not nearly as sustainable as shifting to plant based and plant forward diets. Regenerative farming can work without animal exploitation and slaughter, I recommend researching seaweed crops.
@@helenapflaum6800 feed lot cattle are the problem not range fed cattle. Bison are Cattle and the Prairies of North America need Bison to maintain a balanced ecosystem.
@@catherineleslie-faye4302"feed lot cattle are the problem not range fed cattle." Actually, the research shows that grass-fed beef are worse for the environment overall than are CAFO cattle. Because they grow more slowly, to produce the same amount of meat as CAFO approaches do, you have to degrade/destroy more acreage of natural ecosystems to produce as much meat.
More generally, raising cattle has been one of the very most ecodestructive things humans do, and the main reason why is that they just use so much land and water--land and water that used to be wilderness--and could still be more lush and biodiverse wilderness if people ate less beef and more whole plant foods instead. For eight billion people to have a sustainable civilization on a planet this small, global beef consumption must drop sharply. (And if you've been fed some of the Allan Savory stories, just google Allan Savory debunked and read a few articles.
Ultimately, the idea that grass-fed beef is "sustainable" or it's "regenerative" if you use managed grazing is itself unscientific greenwashing. The most regenerative thing we can do in diet is ditch beef and dairy, and eat more whole plant foods (and some meats with far lower land footprints and carbon footprints). Just by ditching beef and dairy, we would need so much less land to feed the world, we could reforest and re-wild and area the size of North America.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻🏅💐