
Why industry is going green on the quiet - NeedMoreTea
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/08/producers-keep-sustainable-practices-secret
======
chicob
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
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.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
It is conflating the two. For example, the paragraph starting with:

> This phenomenon is not limited to the clothing industry. The UK organic
> groceries market has been expanding steadily for the past eight years.

Without any explanation given of how this relates to sustainability, they
imply that the relationship between organic and sustainable is obvious. That
looks like conflation to me.

~~~
addicted
Except that isn’t doing that either.

The this here refers to “whereby innovations are silently enacted and kept
from the rest of the industry” which is not sustainability. Further, it calls
this practice “secret sustainability” and the article itself encloses it in
quotes indicating it’s using this term out of convenience, and that it’s not
actually a precise term.

The use of quotes around secret sustainability is the article explicitly
pointing out that it does not consider this an accurate term, and is using it
extremely loosely.

------
seanwilson
This is what bothers me about organic farming:

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-
sushi/httpblogs...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-
sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-
sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)

> 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.

~~~
AmericanChopper
All “organic” farming has achieved is taking word that had a particular
meaning, and removed any trace of that meaning. What does “organic” mean? Well
it certainly no longer means organic. It also doesn’t refer to a set of more
“natural” farming principles. Depending on who you ask, each certifying body
will have their own unique definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of
regulations. “Organic” is equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical
free”.

~~~
fact_factory
>Depending on who you ask, each certifying body will have their own unique
definition that amounts to hundreds of pages of regulations. “Organic” is
equally as meaningless and nonsensical as “chemical free”.

That’s not accurate in the United States. All the organic certifying bodies
are required to apply the same rules.

>§205.501 General requirements for accreditation. (a) A private or
governmental entity accredited as a certifying agent under this subpart must:

(1) Have sufficient expertise in organic production or handling techniques to
fully comply with and implement the terms and conditions of the organic
certification program established under the Act and the regulations in this
part;

(2) Demonstrate the ability to fully comply with the requirements for
accreditation set forth in this subpart;

(3) Carry out the provisions of the Act and the regulations in this part,
including the provisions of §§205.402 through 205.406 and §205.670;

[0][https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=d2567878d0b94a88ef69dbb5d11f493d&mc=true&node=se7.3.205_1501&rgn=div8)

~~~
AmericanChopper
I’m not sure what you think you’ve proven here. The USDA has its own unique,
long winded definition, so does the EU, and so do many other countries, and
private organisations.

In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it
cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an
exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning,
because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations
defined by one of many organisations at a time.

~~~
fact_factory
>The USDA has its own unique, long winded definition, so does the EU, and so
do many other countries, and private organisations.

It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed, and the interpretation
does not vary substantially among certification bodies, as you implied.

Supposing _arguendo_ that there are major differences between the definitions
in the US, EU, and elsewhere, perhaps that is a feature, not a bug. Many other
regulations are different from country to country, and to some degree that’s
the point of having different countries. Can you explain what the problem is?

>In this context the world has no relation at all to its original meaning, it
cannot possibly be concisely defined, as the only way to define it is with an
exhaustive set of rules and regulations, and has no consistent meaning,
because you can only talk about it in the context of the rules and regulations
defined by one of many organisations at a time.

The modern world (to include agricultural technology) _is indeed complex_ and
consequently the laws reflect that. It’s not that difficult for the
professionals to understand the details, and while I agree that the handful of
pages of regulations are a bit too much for the average consumer, that’s the
point of distilling them to a few principles and a regulated label. This way
the consumer doesn’t need to decipher fine print on every label if they want
to be cautious and environmentally responsible with their purchases.

Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest? As it stands it’s
pretty good for everyone. Firms that want to use modern biotech are able to do
so, firms that want to hew a more cautious course are able to pursue organic
certification, and consumers have a variety of products to choose from without
being overburdened by complexity in an unfamiliar domain. There’s always room
for improvement, can you suggest a way to improve this system without
disrupting things for all the current stakeholders (consumers, biotech
producers, and organic producers)?

~~~
AmericanChopper
> It’s not “hundreds of pages” as you originally claimed

The regulation itself is about 60 pages, and references numerous other
regulations itself. It most certainly adds up to hundreds of pages of
regulation. Not that that changes anything, usage of the word in this way
still precludes the possibility of any sort of concise definition.

> and the interpretation does not vary substantially among certification
> bodies, as you implied.

Then why are inter-jurisdiction equivalence programs so complex? Typically
only including a short list of equivalent countries, with all other imports
requiring recertification. Oh, except with USDA Organic. That doesn’t have an
equivalence program.

> Do you have an alternative to the current system to suggest?

Come up with a label that doesn’t unduly prejudice consumers, and doesn’t
strip another word of its meaning. The word organic did used to have a very
clear meaning before “organic” farming came about. If you were to ask an
average consumer whether they knew their organic food was allowed to be
treated with chemical pesticides and synthetic opioid painkillers, I bet
they’d be pretty surprised by that.

GDPR is a complex set of regulations. People understand this when they talk
about it, even if they don’t understand all of the rules. Thankfully it’s not
called Privacy Certified, with a restriction preventing any non-certified
business from using the word “privacy” to describe their product.

~~~
fact_factory
>The regulation itself is about 60 pages, and references numerous other
regulations itself. It most certainly adds up to hundreds of pages of
regulation. Not that that changes anything, usage of the word in this way
still precludes the possibility of any sort of concise definition.

Most of those references are to other parts of the same document. As I said
before, the world is complex, biotechnology is complex, and agriculture is
complex. If you have any suggestions on what parts of the 60-odd pages are
unnecessary or superfluous, feel free to share.

>Then why are inter-jurisdiction equivalence programs so complex? Typically
only including a short list of equivalent countries, with all other imports
requiring recertification. Oh, except with USDA Organic. That doesn’t have an
equivalence program.

The US does, in fact, have an equivalency program with the EU. [0] earlier you
claimed that certification bodies had different, unique definitions. That’s
not true. Why is it complicated to meet the standards from different
countries? Because you’re meeting standards from different countries, stuff
has to be legal to produce, legal to export, legal to ship, legal to import,
and legal to sell. Lots of people think there is too much regulation in the
modern world, perhaps you are one of them, can you suggest something
constructive that meets the goals of the program?

>Come up with a label that doesn’t unduly prejudice consumers

Can you show that consumers are unduly prejudiced by the current system?

>and doesn’t strip another word of its meaning. The word organic did used to
have a very clear meaning before “organic” farming came about.

“Organic” had several clear meanings and has not lost any, however it has
gained another clear meaning and people who use it don’t seem to see a
problem.

>If you were to ask an average consumer whether they knew their organic food
was allowed to be treated with chemical pesticides and synthetic opioid
painkillers, I bet they’d be pretty surprised by that.

In general, they would be right to be surprised about the chemical pesticide
and the synthetic opioid because 1) pests are systematically controlled with
non-chemical means and 2) chemical pesticides and synthetic opioids are only
permitted to be used as a last resort, when other means of controlling
pesticides and ensuring the health and welfare of animals are found to be
insufficient. Organic farmers are not permitted to routinely dope up their
cattle or spray their crops. [1]

>GDPR is a complex set of regulations. People understand this when they talk
about it, even if they don’t understand all of the rules. Thankfully it’s not
called Privacy Certified, with a restriction preventing any non-certified
business from using the word “privacy” to describe their product.

If people were generally mistaken about the way organic food is produced, I
could agree with you that there was a problem. However most of the
misinformation I see comes from people who are critical of the organic food
program. I agree that the term isn’t perfect, I had a person tell me “there’s
no difference between organic and inorganic food” and that was funny. But
since there’s not really any such thing as “inorganic food” I’m still not sure
what problem you see with the term. It’s not as though consumers of organic
food are confused about the general principles. They buy organic food because
they want to minimize their exposure to pesticides and to minimize their
impact on the environment[2], organic regulations are written in order to
achieve this goal while still permitting the producers to stay in business. If
you want to criticize the organic program because it’s not strict enough when
it comes to limiting these substances, that’s fine. But it already requires
that the farmers use these substances as a last resort when other methods have
failed, and the evidence suggests that it’s effective at achieving the goals,
at least to some degree. [3]

[0][https://www.usda-eu.org/trade-with-the-eu/trade-
agreements/u...](https://www.usda-eu.org/trade-with-the-eu/trade-
agreements/us-eu-organic-arrangement/)

[1][https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=f1419426e5...](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-
bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=f1419426e53137792ace1bf1e1ec4481&mc=true&n=pt7.3.205&r=PART&ty=HTML#se7.3.205_1271)
(See §205.238 Livestock health care practice standard, part (b) and §205.206
Crop pest, weed, and disease management practice standard, entire section)

[2][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09503...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095032930200188X)

[3][https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.8418](https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.8418)

[4][https://www.nature.com/articles/330370a0](https://www.nature.com/articles/330370a0)

[5][https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Newsletter_Dynamis_Novembre_2018&utm_medium=email)

~~~
AmericanChopper
> “Organic” had several clear meanings and has not lost any, however it has
> gained another clear meaning and people who use it don’t seem to see a
> problem.

Well putting aside the fact that the new meaning is anything but clear, this
is just demonstrably untrue. There’s no such thing as an inorganic carrot, but
you can not describe a carrot as being organic unless it is certified as such
by the USDA (or whatever other certifying body), according to their unique
criteria that have no relation at all to the carrots organicness.

> Can you show that consumers are unduly prejudiced by the current system?

Try googling a simple definition of “organic”. Google will tell you “produced
or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides,
or other artificial chemicals.” Everything about that definition is false
according to any organic certification program (regardless of what you think
an “artificial chemical” is...)

~~~
gamblor956
"Organic" with respect to agricultural goods is a term of art defined by law.

"Inorganic" is not a legally defined term with respect to agricultural goods,
nor is it a scientifically meaningful term because carrots are made of organic
materials (as "organic" is used scientifically). Thus, calling a food product
"inorganic carrot" would either be fraudulent or deceptive under US and EU
laws.

On the other hand, it is possible to have a "meat carrot" like Arby's did this
summer, which consisted of carrot-shaped meat.

And it's certainly possible to have an iron carrot or a plastic carrot. Just
not as a food product.

Context matters.

------
shioyama
"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
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
It will never extinguish. Maybe kill most humans, not all humans.

------
minikites
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/2013/04/13043...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130430-light-
bulb-labeling/)

>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-
environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-
environment/rolling-coal-in-diesel-trucks-to-rebel-and-provoke.html)

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

~~~
roenxi
Politics is all about hitting the right shade of gray; however if we follow
the logic there all the way through we'd tax negative externalities and
subsidise positive externalities; likely leading to a massive subsidy for
fossil fuels. I know 'tax them!' is probably something of the realistic
compromise solution but that justification has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Taxing the externalities also suggests we know how to measure how bad they are
in some quantitative way and it is commonly accepted knowledge that the
political process can implement in a law. Both of those assumptions are
incorrect.

I'm basically arguing for 'tax them because we don't like this specific type
of pollution' rather than trying to generalise into vague language. The
generalisation doesn't hold.

~~~
gshdg
How on earth would that result in subsidy for fossil fuels? What positive
externalities do they produce?

~~~
roenxi
On net; most of modern civilisation. China didn't have a hope of bootstrapping
themselves using wind power. The energy harvested by mining and burning fossil
fuels enables outrageous amounts of good. Nobody talks about it because it is
too pervasive.

If we blanket banned fossil fuels tomorrow; there would be a few billion
dollars in losses to the producers. That would be the ... I don't recall what
the opposite of an externality is. Internality, say. The extrenalities would
be the collapse of a bunch of things that depend on fossil fuels, like cheap
transport.

~~~
srl
I think the broad point is correct (fossil fuels are a net positive, compared
to the gruesome alternative), but I wouldn't say they have net positive
_externalities_. This is a critical distinction. The positive effects of
fossil fuels are mostly paid for; some important negative effects are not. As
a result, fossil fuels are used more than they should be.

Slightly pithier: fossil fuels _currently_ have massive subsidies --- from all
the people who pay for them! It's just that that isn't what `subsidy' is
usually taken to mean.

~~~
roenxi
I'm pretty confident on the point here. For a specific example, the Haber
process [0] consumes quite a significant amount of natural gas. That and the
logistics network of moving the food around is all fossil fuels. If we cut
fossil fuels out, and food prices rise the damage goes a bit beyond the
measurable short-term economic impact.

If the cost of a sea level rise destroying a small island nation is a negative
externality, then enabling population growth in a large city (without food
riots) is a positive externality. An extrenality is just an impact that goes
beyond the immediate buyer and seller; most of the value chain is an
externality to a fossil fuel provider who was to be targeted by this
hypothetical tax.

The argument in essence is that cheap abundant energy always has a bigger
positive impact than a first order approximation would suggest. Pretty much
the entire industrial revolution was a long chain of "wow, coal is enabling
stuff we never imagined" that was certainly not value being directly captured
in the buying and selling the miners were doing. The oil & coal companies
aren't capturing very much of the value vs what is created.

I mean, seriously, nobody can argue that fossil fuels haven't enabled
civilisation to move from the 1800s to 2019. In a very practical sense they
are the enabler of everything we have; there wouldn't be any positive
externalities without them. Fossil fuels, crops, wood, iron & a few other
metals are the setup materials for all of it.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects)

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
So, your argument then is that if we ignore all but the least significant
negative externalities of fossil fuels, then fossil fuels have mostly positive
externalities? Is that a fair summary?

~~~
roenxi
The argument is that "we should tax externalities" is an intellectually lazy
justification because it includes costs but not benefits. People should find a
better one. We've never used fossil fuels because people have a political love
of fossil fuels; we use them because they enable great works.

My line is that we should either use the cheapest energy (before any
government efforts to pick a winner) or nuclear as the most technically
excellent energy source.

~~~
imtringued
I don't see the argument. The benefits of fossil fuels are fully accounted for
by the free market. The reason why taxing the negative externalities is
necessary is because the free market doesn't account for the negative
externalities.

> it includes costs but not benefits

This is completely illogical because the benefits have always been included
and nothing can change that other than a complete ban of fossil fuels.

------
open-source-ux
_" 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
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.

------
ozorOzora
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".

~~~
lonelappde
It's a submarine PR ad, ironically denying its own PR nature.

~~~
bonniemuffin
Seems like it's not very effective PR, since the article doesn't even name any
of the companies it's talking about.

------
carapace
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.

------
HenryBemis
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
> I didn't see anyone mentioning: alerting the competition

Oh huh! Did you read the article?

~~~
frosted-flakes
The article does not include this point. Or if it does, I missed it.

~~~
MiroF
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
> 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.

~~~
MiroF
Perhaps - nonetheless, it isn't absent from the article

------
maelito
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)

------
mark-r
> 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.

------
Nasrudith
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.

------
dpflan
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).

------
thatthatis
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.

------
carapace
> 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
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
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.)

------
NepMan123
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".

~~~
jhrmnn
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.

~~~
mikeash
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.

------
crispinb
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.

------
dahfizz
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
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.

------
ezoe
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.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Why fraud? Organic is certifying different, but clearly defined production and
husbandry standards. You have to meet EU, USDA etc requirements before you can
legally use the term organic. It's a worthwhile indicator of less excess in
farming, and a marked step up from the many, often dubious, self-certification
schemes and logos.

Whether you prefer the flavour, or think the restrictions of organic are
necessary or not, or don't go far enough are another matter.

~~~
delfinom
USDA struggles to enforce the labeling standard for organic items. Fraud is
rampant and they don't have the ability to enforce it fast enough.

[https://newfoodeconomy.org/organic-food-fraud-usda-doj-
randy...](https://newfoodeconomy.org/organic-food-fraud-usda-doj-randy-
constant/) This was a case just last month. $142 million in false organic
grain over 7 years that was shipped as feed to animals later sold as organic.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
USDA has, I think, just about the weakest definition of organic globally. I
can't say I'm surprised to find some fraud in the system, given all we know of
the rest of US agriculture. _Clearly_ better enforcement is required, as is a
tighter definition of the standard. Even so, it still seems to be the highest
US enforced certification available, so remains the best indicator of
production and animal treatment a US consumer has, for all its flaws and
inadequacy.

Thankfully the EU is doing better, though that may well change markedly for
the worse here in the UK after Brexit. Especially if the much mooted, and one-
sided UK-US trade deal is made real, not just mythical rainbows and unicorns.

------
johnchristopher
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
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
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.

~~~
wavepruner
I don't think it's true to say that the rebranding to "climate change" came
from the right.

It came from academics who realized that saying "global warming" was confusing
to people when the climate swung wildly from unusually hot to unusually cold.
It takes some time and a willing listener to explain that "warming" means
increased energy in the climate system, and therefore more dramatic swings
between hot and cold weather.

Saying "global warming" also does nothing to communicate things like change in
precipitation patterns.

Using the phrase "climate change" does a much better job of encompassing these
phenomenon.

------
frosted-flakes
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.)

------
rocqua
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.

