Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PatienceHero t1_iuazfwx wrote

I'm only partway through the article, but I already suspect that this is for the same reason that Wal-Mart and other companies' Fair labor practices don't impact how much of their product comes from sweatshops: Most times companies that make those pledges will contract a factory that they've 'vetted', and that factory will then subcontract one that doesn't conform to those standards.

The company usually knows this is going on too, but they can claim ignorance, since the first factory they hired did meet those standards.

331

wiffleplop t1_iuazsed wrote

I came here to mention plausible deniability.

78

[deleted] t1_iuchr4d wrote

My mom used to work for George, the clothing brand Asda owns in the UK (Asda = Walmart)

She discovered tonnes of this whenever she went overseas and raised it. Things changed. Problem was? The second she wasn't like a hawk on these suppliers? They'd be back to their old games and sweatshops.

There's only so many suppliers you can build relationships with about this madness.

70

Madholm t1_iuc031x wrote

While there are loads of scams regarding pledges to xyz goal, I think it’s better that we try to root out the bad faith actors than to paint them all as ineffective.

21

PatienceHero t1_iuc11a7 wrote

Oh, indubitably. I never meant to imply otherwise. It's just that as a society we currently seem to be interested in doing either.

I'm sure some of the companies making deforestation-free pledges may very well be making good on those pledges, but I unfortunately feel the number of companies exploiting plausible deniability may be much higher. Part of this is very much due to the government needing to step up and hold bad actors accountable.

8

gamingthrowawway2021 t1_iuc231t wrote

Governments only care about trying to farm money and political power for their nations and immediate neighbors. Often the environment is the last concern, save for sadly the tiny island nations who have to face its effects first.

4

Hand-Picked-Anus t1_iub2qw4 wrote

On the head. These companies have destroyed our planet already, why stop now? Greedy fucks.

12

gamingthrowawway2021 t1_iuc1xq6 wrote

We will have to get used to living in a hostile desert like Venus, and rulers will have to adapt to the chaos they've inherited from their elders.

0

reddituser567853 t1_iuc2xvc wrote

Why do you think billionaires are buying all the farmland. They know this and are preparing

2

quyllur t1_iucihld wrote

Context is missing here and I believe we need to go deeper. Ultimately it is law enforcement of forest and land tenure policies. If the local actors who are supposed to enforce these policies don't do it due to lack of resources or get incentives under the table to turn a blind eye, is this the responsibility of the companies? If it is, are we then saying that companies - the private sector - should be responsible for law enforcement? Maybe the answer is yes. Or maybe the answer should be that when faced with this situation companies should just shut close all business in that region?

5

worotan t1_iucrdtr wrote

The answer is between the two extremes you offer as a way of making it seem impossible.

And it demonstrates why we need people who care about working, not people who are just trying to find any way to strip costs from industries they’ve seen people like to consume and so have bought the rights to in order to skim money easily.

Work to live well, not to profit easily.

3

Sanpaku t1_iubhgnj wrote

What is the Amazon being cut down for? Principally, grazing land for beef and cropland to produce soy for animal feed.

Until Brazil chooses to regulate this, only international prohibitions on Brazilian beef or soy exports, or a marked global reduction in beef and other animal product demand, will have much impact.

Brazil has much to lose from Amazon deforestation. Only the atmospheric rivers of moisture from the Amazon prevent the La Plata basin from becoming scrubland or desert. But like most people in the world, they're not well enough informed to secure the welfare of their children and grandchildren.

64

Orbx t1_iuc28ui wrote

Brazil=Nauru

Nauru was completely destroyed by strip mining, and the money gained from it is long gone.

Wikipedia: led by founding president Hammer DeRoburt. In 1967, the people of Nauru purchased the assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners, and in June 1970, control passed to the locally owned Nauru Phosphate Corporation. Money gained from the exploitation of phosphate was put into the Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust and gave Nauruans the second highest GDP Per Capita (second only to the United Arab Emirates) and one of the highest standards of living in the Third World.[26][

Modern-day Nauru. As its phosphate stores began to run out (by 2006, its reserves were exhausted), the island was reduced to an environmental wasteland. Nauru appealed to the International Court of Justice to compensate for the damage from almost a century of phosphate strip-mining by foreign companies.

20

DreamMaster8 t1_iucjc6r wrote

The thing is usa areant the one buying Brazilian beef. It's mostly asia, mainly china. And i don't see them wanting to stop.

12

Aardark235 t1_iujtijc wrote

I don’t see Americans reducing the amount the amount of tasty animals we eat. 250 lbs/pp/year is beyond excessive, leading to massive health issues.

We love to point fingers at countries with less than half that amount of per capita consumption.

1

sw_faulty t1_iucwbqb wrote

Animal corpses are a global commodity. Reduced demand anywhere will reduce supply everywhere.

0

r-reading-my-comment t1_iudw3os wrote

Alright, well this is also being cause by soy so get off that high horse.

And soy also relies on killing the hell out of any local fauna.

5

sw_faulty t1_iudwoxp wrote

Most soy is fed to animals

1

ManiacalDane t1_iuipbok wrote

Replace those animals with soy products

And... You know what you get?

A big old nothin' burger.

1

sw_faulty t1_iuir40g wrote

You get about a tenth as much arable land used for food

1

ManiacalDane t1_iuip8wf wrote

Soy is an even bigger commodity, and also incredibly damaging to the environment. :|

1

Polymathy1 t1_iub2pjr wrote

This is why I want to hulk smash every product I see that says "sustainable palm oil". There is no such thing.

54

NightflowerFade t1_iuc5jkh wrote

On the contrary, you can consider most palm oil to be as sustainable as it gets. Given that demand stays constant, palm oil is one of the most efficient oils to produce. Any alternative will be more damaging than palm oil.

The issue is the level of demand rather than the medium to satisfy the demand.

18

Polymathy1 t1_iuc79nk wrote

No, the issue is that like 90% of palm oil production is from slashed rainforest.

22

NightflowerFade t1_iucpfiq wrote

Right, but in order to decrease production of palm oil you need to either decrease demand or increase supply of other types of comparable oils. I'm saying that substituting palm oil for any other type of oil will incur a higher human and environmental cost in some way or other.

10

Polymathy1 t1_iudqnuz wrote

There are few to no equivalent oils. Pig lard is close, but nobody wants that in their peanut butter...

We could decrease demand by banning it outright. It's unnecessary, and this greenwashing makes people think it's not harmful.

1

worotan t1_iucrm3s wrote

No, because other oils aren’t produced in such a rapaciously destructive manner.

−5

NightflowerFade t1_iucudi0 wrote

That's because the volume of production of other oils is much less. Producing the same volume of oil from other sources will consume up to 20 times the land while depriving the local community of their livelihood.

At the end of the day, I think immediate human outcomes should take priority over future sustainability considerations. Although the cost of environmental destruction should be built into the cost of goods through consumer choice, the sheer efficiency of palm oil production makes it the ideal oil producing crop.

Moreover, rainforests benefit everyone in the world but the opportunity cost of maintaining them (compared to the benefit of clearing the land for economically productive usage) is entirely on the host country. This applies to SEA and Brazil, when Reddit was outraged by the Amazon logging a few years ago. If the rest of the world enjoy the benefits of forests and biodiversity, it only makes sense for governments to pay the host countries part of the lost economic value from clearing forest land.

10

butts____mcgee t1_iucx1vh wrote

You're missing the point

2

Polymathy1 t1_iudqsok wrote

What do you mean?

Companies lie and mislead consumers. Greenwashing is just one of the more recent ways to do that.

1

kilranian t1_iucfugu wrote

Orangutans are nearly extinct in the wild, because of our love of palm oil.

12

DiceStrike t1_iud17ke wrote

Same as fair trade coca - Cadbury where caught out earlier this year using child labour

1

Polymathy1 t1_iudr6k6 wrote

To be honest, it's hard to find cacao that doesn't involve child labor because cacao (and coca as in cocaine :/ ) is mostly coming from countries with extreme poverty and poor to absent schooling.

2

thejynxed t1_iubhe41 wrote

Of course it means nothing because those forest acres are being cleared for four commodities (beef cattle, corn, soybeans, sugarcane) and not finished products. Any harvestable trees are first logged and sold worldwide, mostly to pulp paper plants in the US and Canada.

29

TheShadyGuy t1_iudui6r wrote

> Any harvestable trees are first logged and sold worldwide, mostly to pulp paper plants in the US and Canada.

I work in the paper industry in the US and there is little to no reason to import fiber for pulp. The company I work for actually exports pulp. 100% of our fiber comes from the US. I'd wager that the paper industry in Brazil receives the majority of the locally harvested fiber if we are making baseless claims. At least my unsubstantiated claim makes economic sense.

Edit: Brazil is one of the top 10 paper producing countries. https://www.iea.org/news/iea-deepens-cooperation-with-brazil-with-new-benchmarking-report-on-the-pulp-and-paper-sector

8

Heres_your_sign t1_iub4m3p wrote

Because pledges are worthless. Ask the Uighurs how that pledge went for them.

19

[deleted] t1_iubjyqo wrote

McDonald's Corp. has ties to deforestation and labor abuses in Brazil's Pantanal wetlands and in the Amazon rainforest, which plays a crucial role in regulating the world's climate, according to a report published Wednesday by Reporter Brasil, an independent research group focused on environmental and labor issues.

17

Bl00dyDruid t1_iubg6fn wrote

Here is some science: no consequences means no action will be taken, just got PR. Companies learned this social and economic sciences lesson long ago. We should take heed

13

Torance39 t1_iuc5rf8 wrote

That's because corporations are liars. They only care about making money.

4

Terbatron t1_iudfuhq wrote

So much lip service so little reality. On a less related note the term “green” is freaking stupid.

3

plenebo t1_iubmcpl wrote

You mean they can just lie? Get out!

2

AutoModerator t1_iuawfnt wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

MrFiendish t1_iudw9gg wrote

You cannot trust a private company to do what is right. They will murder you and your family if they thought it would increase their revenue.

1

isbashko t1_iuebxr5 wrote

“They’re putting things in the radiation that turns the friggin’ frogs black”

1

eldred2 t1_iube02a wrote

"Claims" don't work. Actions do.

−1

TheJunklest t1_iub4wtn wrote

The supply chain is not the problem with environmentally unfriendly products. The demand chain is.

−5

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iub6s1y wrote

What is that even supposed to mean?

7

ribnag t1_iubmj2b wrote

It means stop blaming Exxon for the fact that we all want to commute to work as the only occupant of a 2000lbs internal combustion vehicle and on our own schedule, rather than taking public transit or biking in the rain. Exxon wouldn't even exist if there wasn't a demand for their carbon-spewing poison.

CEOs are statistically sociopaths, but sociopaths aren't stupid. They don't clear-cut the rainforest with a pinky to their lips and cackle with glee; they do it because we thought that mahogany coffee table would perfectly compliment great grandma's quilt (framed and hanging on the wall rather than providing warmth as we crank the thermostat, of course).

14

Teedeeone t1_iuc2hva wrote

Yep - nobody wants to hear this, do they?

7

iinavpov t1_iucdke7 wrote

Crucially the bit about commuting. It make people predictably unhappy, but they still do it!

4

kilranian t1_iucg57y wrote

Because it isn't true.

2

ribnag t1_iucuipz wrote

Name just one product that's produced solely because some stereotypical archvillain CEO wants to destroy the planet faster, rather than because we are willing to throw money at him to make it.

1

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iufeu7b wrote

Here is a challenge for the people at home:

Step 1. Count how many pieces of clothing you own that weren't produced in a sweatshop. To clarify: This rules out any pieces produced in developing countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia etc.

Step 2. Ask yourself whether you deliberately chose to buy all the sweatshop produced clothing you own.

Step 3. Try and come up with a reason that reconciles your alleged total freedom of choice with the idea that you don't actually want to wear sweatshop produced clothing.

1

Svenskensmat t1_iuchm7j wrote

Tell someone complaining about the deforestation in Amazons to vegan and you’re met with a long explanation as to why they must eat meat.

2

sw_faulty t1_iucwjjy wrote

"I went vegan for a week and I almost died!"

1

Sansa_Culotte_ t1_iufeh1v wrote

Good point, the problem will be solved once we forcefully veganize America and Europe.

0

kilranian t1_iucg08q wrote

Except you have it exactly backwards. We don't choose how the world is built or what is produced. "Voting with your dollar" as an idea is ludicrous.

And public transit? You have to be out of your head. Outside of dense cities, public transport in the US is an afterthought, at best.

3

nef36 t1_iucphdw wrote

Public transit is an afterthought in the US because the American automotive and oil industries lobby to keep it that way so people will buy more cars and gasoline.

4

kilranian t1_iuefcp3 wrote

Exactly. It has nothing to do with consumer choice.

0

worotan t1_iucs7ez wrote

Reduce demand, reduce supply, first law of economics.

The one thing that scares companies and governments is a well-organised boycott - it’s the one thing they can’t deal with, as has been long-demonstrated.

You just don’t want to give up your lifestyle, and have excuses that have been astroturfed for you to use.

Climate scientists disagree with you, and say that the only way to deal with climate change is for a significant reduction in peoples consumption. You’re just playing the game where you say that companies have to do it, so that they can say that consumers have to prompt them to do it, and you all carry on as though you’ve addressed the question, as the planet burns harder each year.

You’re the idiots people look back on in history and say, why didn’t they just stop doing the unnecessary social things that caused the disaster?

4

ribnag t1_iuctnse wrote

We are how the world is built and what is produced.

Look - I'll offer an olive branch here: You're right that POU is a tiny fraction of our total environmental footprint as a species (10-15% gets mentioned often). You'd be absolutely correct in saying that taking shorter showers is a drop in the bucket vs almond farming in the frickin' desert.

But all that overhead, from mining to manufacturing to shipping to that god-awful clamshell packaging (also made of oil)... Is still only because we demanded that iPhone, those almonds, that Hummer.

Not a single gigaton of supply-side emissions are because the evil manufacturing industry "wants" to make iPhones. They want to make money, and for our part, we can't throw it at them fast enough regardless of how awful their products are for the environment.

1

kilranian t1_iuefkeq wrote

You're rewriting history. No one demanded the iPhone.

What kind of backwards nonsense is it to claim consumers want plastic clamshell packaging? That's just profit motive. It's all supply side.

0

cptmcsexy t1_iudegm8 wrote

No one wants to spend a hr + driving one way to work what are you talking about? Theres a reason theres so much pushback about returning to office after lockdowns.

1

ribnag t1_iuirbnt wrote

Who's forcing you to drive to work? Ford? Exxon? Ammann & Apollo? And which of those is physically preventing you from biking there instead?

This has nothing to do with "want" - If you're buying the product, you're still contributing to the demand for it. Nobody "wants" to own a washing machine. Yet, virtually everyone that can afford one, does. Why? We want clean clothes - A washing machine is merely a convenient means to that end.

1

RAMAR713 t1_iuco8av wrote

This is once again placing the blame on the wrong people. The average person is powerless and already doing their best to sustain themselves in the harsh conditions our society imposes. Someone working minimum wage can't afford to eat a healthy vegetarian diet, they can't afford to buy products fabricated in places with fair working conditions, etc.

Companies don't care about the damage they're causing, and governments aren't doing enough to regulate them. The consumers can't put a stop to this when they're too busy trying to survive.

0

worotan t1_iucsefd wrote

Reduce demand, reduce supply, the first law of economics.

Companies and governments fear boycotts more than anything.

And your idea that the problem is poor people who have no choices is ridiculous.

Stop using the poorest as a human shield for the large sector of the population that is wealthy enough to consume irresponsibly. It’s obscene.

2

quyllur t1_iuciupg wrote

I want to assume possitive intent on this one. For me the issue is consumption vs regeneration rate. One software developer in California consumes as much as 40 farmers in Uganda (measured in carbon footprint). The software developer changes phones every year and has a milkshake and a burger every other day. The Ugandan farmer grows crops for food. Companies respond to demand. Natural resources need time to regenerate. When the demand and consumption rate outpaces the regeneration rate we have a problem. We don't tend to talk about consumption rates when talking about Deforestation and that's a big miss.

3

Laughingman323 t1_iuc494o wrote

I have a hypothesis that the massive pressure exerted by humans as an intelligent species on the rest of the animal kingdom will nurture a massive evolutionary jump somewhere. Could be wrong but I kind of think it would be a good thing if there were something to put our species in check.

Edit:

A lot of people seem to disagree. I’d love to see why you think this isn’t feasible in the comments.

To quantify my previous statement, I would consider minor changes in brain physiology /function to be ‘massive’. I don’t think this would knock humans off the top of the hierarchy by any means but changes like this I think would have the potential to shift how we interact with the world.

I mean if anything that existed in relatively large numbers (ants for example) developed even a small amount of intelligence, 100 times dumber than the dumbest human, their threat level to any other species would increase exponentially.

Insects probably unlikely, I think it would most likely be primates first or one of a few other mammals.

And I guess if you don’t believe in evolution, that would kind of make further discussion pointless since my assertion relies on it.

−6

raoulduke12 t1_iucit1j wrote

It’s gonna be the octopi isn’t it.

Octopi, if you’re reading this, I have never eaten you, please show me mercy.

4

nef36 t1_iucpl9r wrote

All bow to the mighty octopus god. He is our lord and saviour

1

r-reading-my-comment t1_iudwa2m wrote

They don't live long enough to do anything of note.

1

Laughingman323 t1_iuenohv wrote

That is valid. I considered species would likely go extinct before a notable mutation would show up. The only exception might be if a species were already heading in a certain direction genetically for the last ‘X’ million years maybe it would accelerate. I’ve seen or heard several different things that made me start toying with the idea… orangutans using a spear to fish, deer behaving differently in more highly hunted areas over several generations, orcas learning to bait birds with regurgitated fish. There is still a huge gap before reasoning though.

1

DefenestrateThemAll t1_iubfuk6 wrote

Next time you fly, look out the window. The earth is literally covered with trees.

−14

raoulduke12 t1_iucizbz wrote

It’s funny that’s your take, because everytime I fly I’m in awe of how everything is either farmland or desert, and how little land there is left that hasn’t been divided up and fenced off from nature, even in a country as vast as the US.

Or are you one of those people that thinks a half acre of foliage in your subdivision is enough to sustain an ecosystem?

4

worotan t1_iucshgi wrote

Next time you’re on the Internet, take a look at climate science.

The Earth is literally changing to become an environment where humans will struggle to survive.

1

Laughingman323 t1_iudifxs wrote

It is the loss of any specific ecosystem that concerns me the most. This is one of if not the leading cause of extinction. Extinction of any species, flora or fauna, is truly a loss.

1

DefenestrateThemAll t1_iudq6w5 wrote

I understand that. The extremists spin it as the depletion of all the earth's trees however.

0