How are eco-friendly resources eco-friendly if they take things from the enviroment?

[ryan]

I think the word is being over used. I see things like bamboo made hair brush so they cut down some bamboo forests that pandas need to eat. So how is this being eco-friendly? Is it causing more damage than good? More than factories making a brush without bamboo?

[john]

I agree it’s not really the best term. But, we should look at what it means, not the literal interpretation. Humans need to utilize resources at some level just to survive. Even hunters and gatherers had to remove some plants and animals from the environment for food and tools. The term isn’t meant to give the impression that it’s non-impact, just better that the alternative. Like with most things, eco-friendliness isn’t really best measured on a yes/no scale, but as a matter of degree. If the product is something completely useless that we don’t need anyway, it’s best to not use it all, second best to use a greener alternative, and worst to use something completely destructive and non-renewable.

Bamboo used for manufacturing doesn’t come from forests, it’s farmed in a plantation method. Yes, this means that land is being allocated to mono-cropping instead of natural growth, so that has it’s inherent non-friendly aspects, but it’s not exactly the same as ripping the food right from the panda’s mouth. Mono-cropping has it’s eco downsides, but it is more land-efficient than natural growth so in some ways it’s better.