How green are the “eco-friendly” products we all use, actually? With the rise of climate-conscious consumers in the wake of worsening climate change, single-use plastic — and other products and services with a bad environmental rep — have fallen out of favor around the world. Egypt was no exception to the rule, with the Red Sea governorate banning single-use plastic products in 2019, while the Environment Ministry announced last March a USD 3 mn project to expand that policy countrywide. As awareness about the environmental impact of single-use plastic has increased, the cotton tote became the poster child of a new age of eco-friendly personal habits.

But the cotton tote is a classic example of how the unintended drawbacks of climate-conscious choices may outweigh their benefits, the New York Times writes. A 2018 study by the Danish Environment and Food Ministry found that, to offset the carbon footprint of its production, one cotton tote would need to be used daily for 54 years. The environmental cost of growing the crop is particularly relevant to Egypt, which is long-famed for its luxurious (but water-intensive) cotton and is working to combat water scarcity with a USD 50 bn water-saving plan.

Totes are not the only culprit: The findings raise a flag concerning greenwashed products and services that have a hidden environmental consequence. We take a look at some others:

#1- Fast fashion — yes, even the green labels. In a classic case of greenwashing, most fast fashion brands now have a “climate conscious” line made of recycled textiles or materials. But no matter how green those labels are, one-tenth of industrial water use goes towards fashion, with one cotton shirt taking approximately 3k liters of water to manufacture. Producing one pair of jeans is estimated to take about 7.5-10k liters of water — the equivalent of 10 years of drinking water for one person. Some 10% of global carbon emissions and almost 20% of wastewater can be attributed to the fashion industry.

Fashion is “currently responsible for more annual carbon emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping combined,” portending a 50% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decade, according to a Princeton University study. And with fast-changing trends (and low-quality products) resulting in higher turnover, people are discarding clothes faster. An estimated 57% of discarded clothes end up in landfills, only to later be incinerated, exposing nearby communities to dangerous gases.

Local brands are adapting to cater to the conscious consumer: Home-grown labels have sought to capture the attention of environmentally conscious consumers, with labels like local artisan-produced Thaat, ethical streetwear brand Scarabaeus Sacer, plastic upcycling brands UpFuse and Reform Studio raising awareness about waste in fashion with their products.

#2- Going paperless, which we’ve been told time and again is better for the environment, also has a hidden price tag. We are just starting to gauge the true environmental impact of going digital, as we factor the carbon footprint of manufacturing electronic products and the energy needed to power them. As a study by the Institute for Applied Ecology puts it, “a lack of data … does not imply a lack of impact.” The study points to the direct impact of the digital transformation on biodiversity and land use, ranging from pollutants produced in resource extraction and hardware production, to power generation and the effect on underwater species due to data transmission, as well as e-waste. With global electronic waste growing by 38% from 53.6 mn metric tons (mt) in 2019 to a whopping 74.7 mn mt in 2030, e-waste is the world’s fastest growing domestic waste stream.

Egypt was one of Africa’s top e-waste producers in 2019, generating 585.8 kilotons (kt) of e-waste, according to a 2020 report by the Global E-Waste Monitor. Recent figures provided by Environment Minister Yasmine Fouad put Egypt’s e-waste production at a significantly lower 90 kt annually, with 58% produced by the private sector, 23% by households, and 19% by the public sector.

On the upside, there have been government and citizen-based drives to help with e-waste recycling, which the CIT Ministry said in 2014, is an industry worth USD 2.2 bn in Egypt. That same year, the ministry adopted the Green ICT Strategy, which “aims at reducing the adverse environmental impacts resulting from the expansion of using ICT devices.” A host of e-waste management startups have also cropped up to dispose of unwanted electronics, including student-launched RecycloBekia, and E-Tadweer, which the CIT and environment ministries launched this year. In 2017, the Sustainable Recycling Industries (SRI) also launched E-khorda, an e-waste recycling entrepreneurship support program.

#3- “Deadheading” undermines ridesharing’s green-ness: Ridesharing, once considered a climate-friendly alternative to owning or driving a car, has quickly proven to not be as efficient as initially thought. Data shows that ride-hailing trips pollute about 69% more than trips that they are replacing. One of the main reasons for this is deadheading (the miles driven between dropping off one passenger and picking up another), which produces up to 50% more carbon emissions than the same trip in a private vehicle. Ride hailing and ride sharing are also increasingly replacing low carbon modes of transport such as walking, biking and transit.

Do we need to tell you that Cairo has a big air pollution problem? As many as two mn people seek treatment for respiratory problems each year due to poor air quality. According to a 2021 report by the World Bank, switching from private vehicles to public transport is the single most effective way to reduce air pollution in the nation’s capital. Uber and Careem launched bus services in 2018, placing them as competitors with ride-sharing bus app Swvl.

The bottom line: Climate-consciousness isn’t about a single product or way of life, but about understanding that how we use products and services is as important as the choice of products and services themselves.