Skeptoid: Critical Analysis Podcast 
About This Podcast
Subscribe
Subscribe to the Podcast
Episode Guide
Skeptoid Forum
Hosted by JREF
Skeptalk
Email Discussion List
Search:
What Is Skepticism?
Swag & Crap
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
Videos
Appearances
What People Are Saying...
Press Room
Contact
Subscribe with iTunes
Twitter
Skeptoid on MySpace Facebook

Because it uses common scientific-sounding words, many people will simply accept it at face value without questioning it

- Pond Magnet Foolishness
Recent Comments...

Super Sized Fast Food Phobia
by Max: "I got a definition of artifical vs. natural for you. Are you ready? Natural is food we evolved eating, or food that passed the test…"

SUV Phobia
by N Ring: "Sure I agree with a few of your points but ultimatly I think this is a document written to be skeptical for skeptic sake. …"

What You Didn't Know about the Stanford Prison Experiment
by N Ring: "Ironic that you are asking individuals to be skeptical about a book/professor/experiment that is skeptical. Indeed all scientists go in with a particular bias when…"

An Evolution Primer for Creationists
by neil griffiths: "Yeah! That's why it's called "MYTH"#2! Fr om the works of Darwin Himself-p419-"It is well known that several animals...which inhabit caves of Styria and Kentucky, are…"

Blood for Oil
by Damien: "I am not sure if someone has already made this point, but oil is a fungible comodity. Therefore it does not matter who one's suppliers are…"

Subliminal Seduction
by George Gillan: "New research that might bear on the subject: http://www.ni da.nih.gov/newsroom/08/NR 1-29.html Title: &q uot; Does the Desire for Drugs Begin Outside Awareness? For Release January 29, 2008 NIDA Research Reveals…"

Skeptoid

Sustainable Sustainability

Skeptoid #05
November 01, 2006
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Stumble This
Share on Facebook

I bet you didn't know that Skeptoid is a sustainable podcast, delivered over a sustainable Internet, using sustainable networks, and received through your sustainable ears. Now you know. But really you should have known that already, because this year's winner of the meaningless, overused buzzword award has to be the word "sustainable".

To label your product as "sustainable" is to imply that competing products are not sustainable. What this is intended to mean is often pretty vague. Presumably it means that competing products are manufactured from materials that we'll run out of, should current methods and usage continue.

The environmentalists, usually portrayed in the media as the good guys, first coined the phrase to describe products or methods that are generally better for the environment than the competition. Soon the marketing gurus got ahold of the word, and now everything from toothpaste to music to real estate is being sold as "sustainable".

It's so effective, and thus popular, because it's an alarmist term. Calling your product sustainable is not really saying anything about your product; it's clanging the warning bell about the alternative being unsustainable: Can't be sustained! The world is ending! It's like calling your product "hate free" or "cruelty free". In no way is it descriptive of your product, it's simply an underhanded way to insult your competition. As any marketing expert will tell you, people respond much better to a negative than to a positive.

One gross overusage of the term is "sustainable agriculture", used almost exclusively by those selling organic crops. Organic agriculture is certainly sustainable, so long as a third of the world's population is willing to die off so the rest of us can eat. As with many people who use the word sustainable, proponents of organic foods aren't really saying anything particular about their product, they're trying to frighten you into thinking that modern advanced farming methods will somehow destroy or deplete the environment, and are thus "unsustainable". Ironically, the reverse is closer to the truth. Among other benefits, modern hybridized crops are designed for specific soil types, and to leave those soils less depleted so that they can be replanted for more seasons before being rotated. So-called sustainable agriculture is, in fact, far less sustainable than the planting of crops that have been optimized to thrive in the available conditions.

The word "organic" is itself the same kind of deceptive marketing: intended to trick you into thinking the alternative is somehow not organic. Strictly speaking, all plants and animals are organic, according to the word's true definition. When you hear any product defined only by a vague buzzword, be skeptical.

You also hear a lot about sustainable fuels for cars. This usually refers to biodiesel and ethanol, since they come from renewable resources instead of a limited resource, natural petroleum. In this sense, the production of biodiesel and ethanol is certainly more sustainable than gasoline, since we'll always be able to grow them. However, they have a show-stopping drawback. Burning biodiesel or ethanol in our cars exhausts the most significant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the air — just like gasoline does. So even if we switched all of our cars over to biodiesel and ethanol tomorrow, down the road we'll be no better off. The production of biodiesel and ethanol might be sustainable, but their usage is absolutely not. This is a great example of why you need to bring a skeptical attitude when you hear the word "sustainable". Are the environmentalists promoting biodiesel really looking out for what's healthiest for the earth, or do they have some other motivation, possibly political, possibly economic, possibly philosophic?

The word sustainable has become so pervasive that its usage is often just plain silly. Colgate recently purchased a company that makes sustainable toothpaste. It contains bone powder. Does an intelligent person really think that it's unsustainable to make toothpaste any other way?

Sustainable tourism is being marketed everywhere. It usually describes destinations where the attractions are generally undeveloped, like the Amazon. It is really unsustainable to vacation in developed destinations like Paris or Tokyo?

Sustainable economics are particularly bizarre. Google the term, and you'll find that it's used largely to refer to wealth redistribution. Has communism really proven to be more sustainable than capitalism?

A prominent automotive magazine recently tested four "sustainable sport sedans". Are four cars that get marginally better gas mileage than other similar cars — none of which are particularly great — honestly the only type of vehicles whose production can be sustained?

Sustainable music is also all over the Internet. In one case, it means the guy makes his own instruments. Is "sustainable" really the word that best describes that? Playing an instrument someone else made is not sustainable? In other cases, it refers to songs about anticorporatism. Is it truly impossible to sustain the playing of music about other themes?

I found a web site offering sustainable real estate. Two of the houses were built of corn cobs and hay bales (I wish I was making this up). I'll ask the Big Bad Wolf how sustainable that type of engineering is.

There's no doubt that doing things in a truly sustainable way is good. Accomplishing a worthy goal in a way that's infinitely repeatable is best, and that's what sustainable really means. True sustainability might violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It's still a good goal, and as such, sustainability deserves not to be diluted into a meaningless buzzword. Thus, true environmentalists should be the first ones to object to the misleading pop-culture usages of the word that we see every 2 minutes. When you hear it, be skeptical. Figure out what they're really trying to say, and what their motivation is. And for God's sake, don't buy any bone-powder toothpaste just because it says "sustainable" on the package.

Stumble This

Brian Dunning
Brian Dunning

References
© 2008 Skeptoid.com

Discuss!

5 most recent comments | Show all 16 comments

Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.

Actually straw houses are pretty sustainable (I'm not making this up either!)
I've no idea about the States, but there's certainly a great number of hay bale houses that have been, and are still being, made in Europe.
Ok, they may not have the longevity of stone henge, but I'm sure they'll give the builders of these new "flat pack" estates that are popping up all over the UK a run for their money.

Andy E, Edinburgh, Scotland
June 04, 2007 8:03am

Do you have nothing better to do with your time than argue about an issue that is as pointless as how we use a certain word? We are who we are and we will do what we want as people. You should really look at that and maybe get back to your real day activities.

Taylor Heckman, Bayfield/Wisconsin
September 10, 2007 5:36pm

I enjoy the program, and generally agree with most points made, but some elements of this episode really grated.

The carbon released (as C02) by burning biofuels was originally derived from atmospheric CO2 that was captured by the plant during its lifetime. Since plants used for biofuels (such as sugarcane) are fast growing, they're an efficient means of absorbing atmospheric carbon (unlike mature trees).

Hence providing that there isn't an increase in cleared land to support the growth of the biofuel crop, and harvesting and distribution is performed by trucks/equipment running on biodiesel (which, at least at the harvesting stage, is generally the case), then the process as a whole, from planting to burning is carbon-neutral.

Biofuels aren't a perfect solution (eg. they use land that would be valuable for food production and use valuable water resources), but are greatly preferable than using fossil fuels, which are a limited resource and the effect of burning which is to release carbon that is otherwise sequestered deep underground into the atmosphere.

Hence I think that biofuels are actually a good example of something that can genuinely be touted as "sustainable", rather than just bearing that as a trendy label, and I don't think should have come under attack.

Daniel, Sydney, Australia
December 30, 2007 7:18pm

I must agree with those contesting your analysis of biofuels and hay construction.

I am opposed to biofuels in temperate areas, as they seem to provide little if any net energy supply. The equation is different in sunnier climates (Brazil), and for potential new production methods (new enzymes, GM bacteria, etc.). But they cannot simply be equated to using fossil fuels. As was said, ignoring the production energy costs, the carbon in a unit of biofuels came from the current atmosphere; the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere long long ago. It's not the same thing.

And I must support the poster who talked about hay construction. It is unusual, but increasingly popular in Europe, and is indeed far more sustainable in terms of energy consumption than concrete or brick, the most common materials used in Europe (except for wood, commonly used in Northern Europe in particular).

As to the toothpaste, I don't know how toothpaste is made. Before mocking "sustainable toothpaste", I'd want to find out how conventional toothpaste is made. If it relies on minerals, that is not a sustainable source, and is usually very energy intensive.

Marc Naimark, Paris, France
April 05, 2008 1:21pm

Actually I think Brian is right, biofuels would be only a marginal improvement on CO2 emmissions. Since the best estimates of currently used methods to create ethanol on the U.S. Department of Energy's website states that "The most official study of the issue, which also reviews other studies, concludes that the ‘net energy balance’ of making fuel ethanol from corn grain is 1.34." So you get 1.34 units of ethenol energy for every 1 unit of petro energy you put in. Biodiesel is better at 3 or 4 to 1. That is until you add in the cost of growing the soybeans. A which point it drops to
1.44 to 1.
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19940101 _gen-027.pdf

Aaron Richoux, New Orleans
April 07, 2008 9:05pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:
characters left. If you paste in more than 1500 characters, it will be truncated. You cannot comment the same episode twice in a row. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other posters will be deleted.
Answer 7 + 6 =

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.

Skeptoid book:
Now available!
 
Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena, by Brian Dunning
Watch Here Be Dragons, the 40-minute video introduction to critical thinking. Based on the Skeptoid podcast.
 
Skeptoid Widget
Newest

Spy Radio: Numbers Station
Skeptoid #107
July 1, 2008
Read | Listen (10:28)
King Tut's Curse!
Skeptoid #106
June 24, 2008
Read | Listen (10:43)
When People Talk Backwards
Skeptoid #105
June 17, 2008
Read | Listen (11:10)
Yet More Winning Listener Feedback
Skeptoid #104
June 10, 2008
Read | Listen (12:43)
Should You Take Your Vitamins?
Skeptoid #103
June 3, 2008
Read | Listen (10:12)
Newest
#1 -
The Detoxification Myth
Read | Listen
#2 -
An Evolution Primer for Creationists
Read | Listen
#3 -
Religion as a Moral Center
Read | Listen
#4 -
World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down
Read | Listen
#5 -
Apocalypse 2012
Read | Listen
#6 -
Super Sized Fast Food Phobia
Read | Listen
#7 -
Killing Faith: Deconstructionist Christians
Read | Listen
#8 -
New Age Energy
Read | Listen
[Valid RSS]
ZIP Code Database