Figure 1: Nike’s “Sea to Shoe” project advertisement (Young Urban Project, n.d.).

Greenwashing and social media trends

Since the 2000s, tens of thousands of companies have been promoting their companies as “helping the environment” or “green”, but 68% of them are not verified and there are many cases of greenwashing, which is where companies advertise themselves as “eco-friendly” while absolutely demolishing the environment. Fashion brands like Patagonia, Adidas, Shein and H&M glaze their “recycled polyester”, but these release even more microplastics than regular polyester. Using metal straws, tote bags instead of plastic, and buying the quote unquote “better” Stanley water bottle hardly has an impact, since these products simply aren’t the ones producing the emissions. The culprits are actually mostly state-owned energy companies, with just 100 of these companies (e.g. Saudi Aramco, Coal India, CNPC) producing 71% of the world's industrial emissions. There’s no point in paying extra for “eco-friendly” while the “eco-deadly” continue to thrive.

The Environmental consequences 

To chase the “green dream”, the world needs to transfer all of its energy dependence to renewable energy, which first needs tens of trillions of dollars of initial investment, large amounts of rare earth metals for solar panels, (e.g. lithium, cobalt and nickel for electric batteries), and land space. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world needs around $4.5–$5 trillion dollars annually by 2030 to reach the 2050 goals, which adds up to about $112.5 trillion dollars total over the course of 25 years; worth the entire world's annual GDP (around ~$111 trillion in 2024).

After that, maintenance is required because solar panels degrade over time, batteries need replacements, and wind turbines rust over time. Waste is caused by the unusable parts and there will be a need for a continuous supply of earth metals and mining, which undermines the importance of green energy in sustainability. 

Another factor is land, where land use must be cut down to follow the UNEP endorsed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Agreement; the “30x30” framework of where 30% of global land and oceans need to be formally protected and maintained. On paper, only about 17.6% of the world's land and waters are currently legally protected. This will lead to even more densely populated cities, which is impossible for places like Hong Kong or India. 

The Economical consequences 

Wealthy nations have the economical capability and funding to make these changes and dedicate themselves to these goals. However, nations in the global south or poorer developing nations cannot commit to sustainable development when they are facing conflicts, droughts, food shortages, and/or severe inequality gaps. An interesting theory is the idea of “eco-colonialism” or “green colonialism”, which is when poorer nations are exploited for raw materials for green technology, while making it more difficult for those nations to develop and become green. Another term for this is “green imperialism”. An example is Private American Carbon Offset projects in Ghana and Kenya (e.g. Ogiek community), where local communities and indigenous tribes have faced forced evictions from their ancestral and religious sites, just for these forests and natural resources to compensate for US carbon emissions. Later on, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights had forced the Kenyan government to compensate and respect the community and their land.

For sustainability, globalization will need to be sacrificed. Global trade and supply chains will be minimised, because local sourcing is needed for sustainability. Currently, food trade, technology and machine exports, goods and services are worth a significant amount in Global GDP, with nearly every household relying on products from around the world. Tourism also needs to be cut, which means no more trips to visit your grandparents and uncles every summer, and no more jobs for pilots.

The Social consequences

Sustainability goals will contradict the growing population, squeezing urban environments. There will be a complete overhaul in the lifestyle of people, life in a completely sustainable world will have no fast fashion, plant-based meals (forced vegetarianism), and absolutely no disposable products. This means no more toilet paper, no more plastic pens, glue sticks, notebooks, minimised air conditioning and heating. Inventions will be slowed down, products must last long and be repairable. People need to use second hand clothing, and have a minimalistic lifestyle which limits their personal freedom, and in a sense reverse all the innovations that happened in the past couple decades.

This is the direct opposite of the consumer driven development, which was focused on customer satisfaction, comfort, creativity and cultural diversity. Complete sustainability can only be met if the entire global population is able to prioritize sustainability over their personal freedoms, under a restricting and nearly authoritarian control. We will need to lose our everyday habits like scrolling on social media, changing phones every year, buying new clothes, ordering delivery food, etcetera.

Hiding behind a seemingly simple name, sustainability has an unanswered paradox, with a trade off where humanity has to choose between survival and freedom. Where we either risk extinction while living a comfortable and adventurous life, or sacrifice our freedom and restrain ourselves for the continuation of future generations. If you ask me, I enjoy my freedom and I will never under any circumstances re-use toilet paper (ew) or turn vegan.