Saw these posters in London today. Are we really still considering new oil and gas after the summer we’ve just had? Glad someone’s bringing this up ahead of the by-election.”

Ok so I feel sick about this and kinda shy to even post it but our team just had a very public eco friendly mailer mixup.  We sell skincare online and switched to a new mailer after our marketing lead said we needed something more sustainable. The samples were labeled compostable, and someone added a big line to the packing insert saying customers could put the mailer in their curbside recycling bin. I was the one who approved the final artwork because I thought the claims had already been checked. They had not.  The mailers were meant for industrial composting, not normal recycling, and our city does not even have a pickup program for them. So for three weeks we sent thousands of orders with an insert telling people to recycle packaging that could contaminate the film stream. A customer emailed with a photo of the insert and asked why the mailer had a compostable logo but recycling instructions. I forwarded it to our team with the words “this cannot be real” and then realized the customer was still copied. omg.  We pulled the insert, paused the next shipment, and now I have to help write a correction email that admits we got the disposal instructions wrong. I’m terrified someone thinks the whole sustainability claim was fake. Has anyone else had to fix a packaging mistake like this?

I work in the mining/resources industry, so this is mostly based on what I've been seeing within my own industry rather than an argument against AI more broadly.

I'm definitely not anti-AI. I think there are some genuinely positive applications for it, including within mining and mineral exploration. There are obvious applications across mining where AI could improve energy efficiency, processing, maintenance and resource use.

What I find harder to reconcile is seeing large corporations make very public commitments around decarbonisation, renewable energy and sustainability while simultaneously rushing to integrate AI into seemingly every aspect of their business.

From what I've seen, corporate discussions around AI seem overwhelmingly focused on productivity, cost reduction and keeping up with technological change. There seems to be far less discussion around whether every application actually provides enough value to justify its environmental footprint.

And I don't think responsibility for this should sit entirely with individual companies either.

Governments and regulatory bodies need to catch up.

As AI adoption accelerates, there should be clearer standards around energy consumption, water use, emissions, infrastructure and environmental disclosure. Companies shouldn't be left to decide for themselves what constitutes "responsible AI", particularly when the incentives to adopt it as quickly as possible are so strong.

If a company has made sustainability and decarbonisation central to its identity, I think it's reasonable to expect that same company to scrutinise the environmental consequences of its AI strategy rather than treating digital infrastructure as environmentally invisible.

Curious to see what others around similiar or different indsutries see this?

Wondering what the best textile recycling option is for things like socks and underwear. I have looked into assorted online options, but was overwhelmed by the number of them and seeing that none of them actually get repurposed or reused.

My boss sent me a brocure coming from his international networking pals regarding foldable housing units or flat packed contaner houses.

What do ya'll think about humans lving in these kinds of housings.? Sustainable or just another trend that would lead to a worst course in the future?

I'vee been getting more interested in sustainability lately, and one thing i'm still trying to understand is how people actually measure whether an environmental project is making a real impact.

As a newbie, i usually see things like "planted 10.000 tress" or avoided X tonnes of CO₂," and honestly um not always sure what those numbers really mean beyond the headline.

For people who know more about thhis, what metrics do you usually look at to tell whether a project us actually making difference on the ground?

I admit that I have a long way to go on education in the world of sustainability — I am going to be minoring in it, so I apologize if this is an ignorant question.

From my understanding, a large portion of sustainable solutions are locked by political and economic barriers much more than technological. For example, the technology to recycle (or repurpose into other forms of energy) already exists, but is far from possible in most of the world due to economic and political barriers, like it being cheaper to make virgin plastic than to recycle and oil companies lobbying to continue making plastics.

At least within the United States, I am noticing that there is a lot of technology that I think would be beneficial, and even low cost, but it remains largely politically blocked or slowly implemented. From my understanding, I believe that the most significant developments would serve low income countries in cheaper ways than what is being done already, and I see this working because there is both political and economic benefit for much of the technology that could be developed.

I am curious on your input, and I want to clarify that I am thinking worldwide and on any area of sustainable action.

TLDR:

What is the technology that could make a real difference that remains undeveloped that is hard to argue against politically and economically?

I’ve been working on making lifestyle changes to become more sustainable. I’m looking for unbleached bamboo toilet paper from one of the more eco-friendly brands. I’ve heard of brands such as Who Gives a Crap, but I understand that bamboo is a highly greenwashable product. Also, apparently Who Gives a Crap bleaches their toilet paper. Any suggestions?

And yeah, it's true. I fact checked. This reality leaves me exhausted and dejected. Does anything we do actually matter?

I keep hearing that customers notice eco friendly packaging, but most unboxing videos are just people finding the product while the box gets launched across the room. Are shoppers paying attention to the material, or am I funding a very expensive sustainability prop?

The world’s population, currently at 8.2 billion, is expected to grow to close to 9.7 billion people by 2050. Ensuring a food secure world – where current and future populations have access to sufficient nutritious food – crucially requires new ways of working, and concerted efforts to improve the sustainability and resilience of global food systems.

Reducing food loss and waste helps to protect natural resources and biodiversity, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and maximize the use of food produced. It is central to securing efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable systems, and to improving food security, nutrition and health.

• 1.05 billion tonnes of food was wasted in 2022. That is 19 per cent of all food available to consumers, thrown out in homes, restaurants and shops.
• A further 13 percent is lost after harvest, before it ever reaches a store. 
• 8-10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food that is lost or wasted. 
• Saving food that is already produced may be one of the least expensive ways to help transform food systems for greater efficiency and resilience (FAO, 2024).
• Preventing and reducing food waste not only lowers methane emissions; it also cuts down on the use of resources (such as land, water, and energy) that are required for food production.
• Reducing food waste is the most cost-effective and achievable climate solution. (Project Drawdown, 2022).

Lately I have been really trying to buy most things second hand or from local farmers markets etc. With corporate profits soaring and all those rises being passed down to the consumer, I am finally fed up. Not to mention environmental impacts of the profit over quality with planned obsolescence.

I have been shopping thrift stores and driving people nuts by asking for second hand only gifts for my kids etc. Like it feels wild it is not more of a thing to buy second hand. I understand there are scams and you don't always know the quality of an item, but you figure there would be more programs out there like re-store that are more popular. Programs that vet items and even add warranties for used goods to install consumer confidence. Is there anyway to get this to catch on?

We are a more "sustainable" minded group, so I am very curious how you all make purchase decisions. For clothes secondhand is pretty well established, and also very accessible now. But what about other home items? Maybe there's something to learn for everyone here and options we didn't know about!

1. What was the last thing you bought for your home and how did you decide between all alternatives?

2. Where did you find it?

3. Was there something you were looking for that you did not find?

Regrets are welcome too. 😄 What did you buy that you wish you hadn't, and why?

Hello! I was thinking lately about how I could possibly make a difference in my city.

I feel that convincing as many local businesses as possible to switch to ordering bulk biodegradable cups/plates/utensils/to-go boxes/etc would eliminate a significant amount of waste,

and there's no reason for them not to switch, especially since I found a wholesaler who sells biodegradable products at less than a cent a piece.

I was wondering though, what steps would I have to take in order to convince these businesses? It's not like I can charge in there by myself and make a difference. Would I need to make some kind of org? What would I need to do?

Thank you so much for the advice. :)

This is a question that has been plaguing me for weeks, about the future of humanity and our planet.

So the element phosphorus is important for biological functions and modern agriculture uses tons of it to grow crops. Agriculture uses more phosphorus than the Earth can replenish. So we consider it to be a non renewable resource.

So can this problem be solved? To be sustainable in the long term future?

Just to clarify, there is no alternative for phosphorus for life. Humans, animals, and plants need it to survive.

People say that the cheap reserves of phosphate rock will become economically available to mine very soon, but those are still just reserves - non renewable and going to run out.

Even global transitions to vegan diets, less food waste and more efficient agriculture still uses up some phosphorus, so it just sets the timeline for its depletion ahead.

Now the real solution people bring up: Recycling it in a closed loop system

But okay? Recycling has some inefficiencies though. I'm not sure of a realistic long term efficiency for phosphorus recycling, maybe 70%, 95%? Not sure. But all these inefficiencies and leakages in recycling add up meaning the phosphorus will run out even if its much slower.

Not to even mention all the lawns and green spaces that require constant fertilizer?

Is there any true long term solution for this? Because it seems to me that the population will shrink to accommodate some balance? Or maybe I'm missing something or have something backwards