Can you tell the difference between eco fact and eco fiction? With the green movement growing in momentum, we frequently come across any number of statements repeatedly presented as conventional eco-wisdom, statements we often do not question. Sometimes there is a ring of intuitive truth to these statements, which turns out to be false upon further examination. Other times, after a public debate, one aspect of an issue wins out over other equally important aspects--or the nuance gets lost. Then there is the gorilla marketing approach: a particular industry simply puts out a message with such frequency that eventually it becomes accepted, regardless of truth.
Whatever the cause, some of these statements are powerful enough to rise to the level of green myths, and the line between fact and fiction gets blurred. These five in particular are causing tremendous global harm, but there are many more out there. We encourage readers to add to this list in the comments.
Green Myth #1: Genetically Modified Crops Have Higher Crop Yields and Help Reduce Poverty
While Prince Charles' statement that expanding the use of genetically modified crops will be the
"biggest environmental disaster of all time" does have a touch of hyperbole in it, nonetheless the benefits of
genetically modified crops have been exaggerated, to say the least. In terms of having higher crop yields, and reducing hunger or poverty the evidence simply doesn't support the claimed benefits of GM crops.
In terms of food crops the following statement from a 2008 Friends of the Earth report, Who Benefits From GM Crops [PDF], sums it up well:
"The majority of GM crops are not destined for hungry people in developing countries, but are used to feed animals, generate biofuels, and produce highly processed food products–-mainly for consumption in rich countries. GM crops have not increased food security for the world’s poor. None of the GM crops on the market are modified for increased yield potential and research continues to focus on new pesticide-promoting varieties that tolerate application of one or more herbicides."
Citing Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soya as an example--a good one considering it’s the most widely planted GM crop in the world--FOE points out on average it has "5-10% lower yields than conventional soya, as well as reduced uptake of essential nutrients." (Friends of the Earth [PDF] )
In short, hunger and poverty have much more do with lack of access to land, water shortages, lack of access to credit and education, and poor infrastructure (some of which are exacerbated by industrial agriculture) than it does with the poor quality of conventional crops. GM crops may benefit the companies who make them, but that's about it.
Even if you take carbon emissions out of the equation, other pollution (such as acid rain) and mercury remains an issue with coal. photo: Keli
Green Myth #2: Clean Coal Technology Will Solve the Coal Pollution Problem
This is an instance of one issue taking center stage while arguably more important ones are forced to wait in the wings. The potentially devastating effects of climate change are undoubtedly a huge issue, and radically reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a key factor in mitigating those effects. Therefore it's no surprise that when people talk about 'clean coal technologies' they are talking primarily about ways to reduce carbon emissions and permanently store the CO2 which is released. But even if this was possible, there are other pollution and environmental problems with burning coal which have a much more immediate effect on the environment.
Even if all greenhouse gases could be sequestered from burning coal (a big if...) mercury, sulfer dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide emissions would still be a huge environmental problem. After a coal mine closes, an area is just as likely to feel the loss of financial capital as the effects of pollution, water poisoning, and habitat destruction years after the fact.
And then there is, as fellow TreeHugger John Laumer has pointed out in several posts, the problem with fly ash. Here's just part of the problem:
"Historically, coal combustion wastes rarely exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste. However, if coal burning utilities and the so-called "clean coal plants" were required to meet air emissions standards protective of human health, fly ash produced by them could be regulated as hazardous waste due to the elevated levels of mercury that would result. We might suppose that any fly ash with hazardous characteristics due to heavy metal content would have to be sent to special and expensive waste fills or be treated at great cost."
No matter how you frame the discussion with coal, from an environmental perspective, nothing good comes from it. Even as the longer term climate change problems with burning coal are increasingly being recognized by the public at large, the more immediate environmental problems of coal are still significant.
photo: Michael
Green Myth #3: Developing Nations Need to Stop Having Babies
When you look at the population growth rates of certain parts of Africa and Asia, and compare them to the growth rates in Europe and North America, you can’t help but think that the developed world is being overtaken by the developing world: Which in terms of absolute numbers is true. In terms of immediate and local resource consumption this is a genuine problem. But for those of us living in conditions of comparative material luxury, it's all too easy to point the finger elsewhere and mutter something like 'why can’t they just stop having babies.' However, when you consider per capita natural resource consumption and environmental impact the problem is more complicated.
Just consider this one statistic: Over the course of a lifetime, a baby born in the UK will produce 160 times the carbon emissions of an Ethiopian baby. Then this one: According to data gathered by Global Footprint Network the 972 million people living in high income countries have double the total ecological footprint of the 5.4 billion people living in middle and low income countries.
In terms of natural resource consumption, overpopulation is a genuine issue nearly everywhere. Even in low income countries, moderate or low levels of consumption are multiplied by growing populations to create ecological deficits. But this is even more so the case in high income nations, where much smaller population numbers consume resources well beyond the local, regional or national biological capacity. The notion that the current level of natural resource consumption of high income nations can be extended to the majority of people in middle and low income nations is clearly false.
A greater problem than too many people being born in low income countries is too many people trying to consume natural resources at the level of high income nations. The only equitable solution seems to be to meet somewhere in the middle: Increasing material consumption at the bottom end of the scale (and probably decreasing population growth as educational opportunities expand and health improves) while decreasing significantly per capita resource consumption in high income countries.
Yes, that's the mark left by a bird hitting a window, a greater source of bird deaths than wind turbines. photo: Hendrik Dacquin
Green Myth #4: Wind Turbines Are a Serious Threat to Birds
Thankfully, this one is heard with decreasing regularity these days, but occasionally it still pops up so it's worth recapping: Older wind turbine designs, which used smaller blades rotating at faster speeds, could do a job on birds when erected in certain high risk locations. Today we have newer turbine designs, which use longer, slower moving blades, and don’t seem to cause significant amounts of bird deaths.
In fact, more birds are killed annually by colliding with moving vehicles, flying into windows or by cats kept as house pets than by modern wind turbines. There are genuine environmental, visual, and social issues regarding where wind farms get built but it is patently false that wind turbines are a serious threat to flying birds.
Wind turbines causing bat deaths is another issue...
photo: Al
Green Myth #5: Small Green Steps Won’t Make a Big Difference
It seems to come in waves, comments to the effect that all these small changes TreeHugger and other green websites tell people to make--installing energy efficient CFLs, air drying your clothes, eating local food and/or a vegetarian diet--won’t really create the type of changes that will be required to move humanity into an ecologically sustainable, post-carbon world.
Sometimes I admit that I fall into that way of thinking, particularly when faced on a day-to-day basis with a litany of reports detailing how climate change is happening faster than expected, China is building even more coal power plants per week than is commonly known, more animal species face extinction now (mostly because of human activity) than in the last thousands if not millions of years, deforestation is expanding, et cetera.
But this is why I think it is ultimately an eco-myth that small changes don’t have the possibility to make a difference: It's about increasing eco-mindfulness, environmental awareness and mental green acuity. Forgive the following slightly cheesy (if apt) pop culture reference.
In the "Karate Kid," the Ralph Macchio character wants to learn karate and enlists Mr. Miyagi (Pat Morita) to teach him. Macchio's character wants to get in there and start throwing down roundhouse kicks on the first day, but Mr. Miyagi has other plans: He has Macchio paint the fence, wax his car, and generally do a whole bunch of seemingly pointless activities around the house. But in reality all of them are preparing Macchio for karate at a deeper level than simply going out and practicing kata.
More than (the genuine) positive environmental changes they can bring, advocating small changes is about this: Getting people to start thinking more acutely about the ecological impact of their actions, their consumer purchases and what they put into their bodies. Once this increased awareness has been ingrained then people will more easily and naturally move on to greater changes in the way they live their lives--and have an even greater impact on creating an ecologically sustainable society.
Green Seal Product Standards 
, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, is an exotic beetle that was discovered in southeastern Michigan near Detroit in the summer of 2002. The adult beetles nibble on ash foliage but cause little damage. The larvae (the immature stage) feed on the inner bark of ash trees, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients. Emerald ash borer probably arrived in the United States on solid wood packing material carried in cargo ships or airplanes originating in its native Asia. Emerald ash borer is also established in Windsor, Ontario, was found in Ohio in 2003, northern Indiana in 2004, northern Illinois and Maryland in 2006, western Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 2007, and Wisconsin, Missouri and Virginia in summer 2008. Since its discovery, EAB has:
