Today you’ll learn about greenwashing, how Formula 1 is amping up their sustainability efforts, and how loneliness is scientifically proven to be bad for your health.
Today you’ll learn about greenwashing, how Formula 1 is amping up their sustainability efforts, and how loneliness is scientifically proven to be bad for your health.
Find episode transcripts here: https://curiosity-daily-4e53644e.simplecast.com/episodes/greenwashing-f1-sustainability-unhealthy-loneliness
Greenwashing
F1 Sustainability
Unhealthy Loneliness
Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to get smarter with Calli and Nate — for free! Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers.
[SFX: INTRO MUSIC/WHOOSH]
NATE: Hi! You’re about to get smarter in just a few minutes with Curiosity Daily from Discovery. Time flies when you’re learnin’ super cool stuff. I’m Nate.
CALLI: And I’m Calli. If you’re dropping in for the first time, welcome to Curiosity, where we aim to blow your mind by helping you to grow your mind. If you’re a loyal listener, welcome back!
NATE: Today you’ll learn about greenwashing, how Formula 1 is amping up their sustainability efforts, and how loneliness is scientifically proven to be bad for your health.
CALLI: Without further ado, let’s satisfy some curiosity!
[SFX: WHOOSH]
NATE: A new study out of The Atlantic makes the case that when it comes to why climate change is happening - and they’re saying that the blame isn’t all on the consumer… major corporations need to take some responsibility.
CALLI: Well yeah no duh. It actually kinda drives me crazy when regular people work hard to do their part to be energy efficient and corporations, who do WAY more damage than the average person, don’t take the same actions.
NATE: 100% and it becomes an even bigger issue when those corporations are being misleading about the sustainability of their products. Whether it’s the food we eat, or the clothes we wear, or even the ways we travel, everything we do leaves a carbon footprint. To help prevent climate change, a lot of us might turn to more eco-friendly products. But where do you even begin on trying to find out what’s actually “eco-friendly”? The Atlantic says it’s pretty common for people to take companies at their word… but there’s a lot of evidence that that’s the worst thing we can do.
CALLI: Ah yes, greenwashing.
NATE: Exactly. Greenwashing is when a company gives either false or misleading information on how their products are safe for the environment. It could be saying something is “environmentally friendly” without evidence, or it could also be an accurate statement about how certain aspects of their products ARE sustainable… all while the company is doing OTHER things that AREN’T environmentally conscious. A REALLY common example of this is whenever you see a trash bag labeled as being “recyclable.” This is a deceptive marketing tactic, because it appeals to anybody trying to be environmentally conscious without actually creating a sustainable footprint. The bag could actually BE recyclable… but have you ever used a trash bag to dump the trash so you could reuse it? Or even recycle it?
CALLI: I wonder how much you could get for actually recycling trash bags. Are we about to invent the hot new trend?
NATE: The only thing that would invent are a whole lot of newly angry waste management workers because the bags need to be labeled COMPOSTABLE for them to truly be recyclable. Trash bags are a really small example, though. There’s a company called Inditex, for instance, who says they’re trying to reach “Net Zero Emissions” by the year 2040. Sounds nice… except the nonprofit organization Carbon Market Watch looked into Inditex’s plan and said it’s just as empty as those trash bags you’re trying to recycle. Inditex is listed in their report as a “poor integrity” company, who propose using “more sustainable” materials to sell low-cost clothing made at a quick and speedy rate.
CALLI: That doesn’t sound so bad, though.
NATE: It sounds great! But when Carbon Market Watch read over Inditex’s proposal… they found that Inditex does not actually say what “more sustainable” even means. They conclude that Inditex’s plan is “ambiguous and unsubstantiated” - unfortunately, Inditex is far from the only company guilty of sustainability plans that don’t pass the sniff test. A nonprofit known as CDP released a report not too long ago that said: of the 4,100 global companies they surveyed who claim to have “transition plans”... only 81 have a plan that makes any sense.
CALLI: So let me ask you this: if it’s so easy to figure out why the Emperor has no clothes, so to speak, then why do we keep just staring? To put it simply: why do sketchier companies greenwash when it’s obviously a scam?
NATE: Because companies know that people are beginning to care more about the environment. But it’s not just consumers - it’s investors, the people helping keep corporations afloat. Greenwashing is a way to symbolically show that a company cares without actually doing anything to affect their profits. A professor at University of Pennsylvania named Eric Orts told The Atlantic that trying to be more sustainable can actually have a negative impact on your profit margins, because depending on your business model, becoming sustainable might actually set you back a good amount of money.
CALLI: Gross. What can we do to stop companies from getting away with greenwashing just because they don’t want to, or can’t, spend a few extra bucks?
NATE: Truthfully? We don’t have to do anything. The Atlantic says that something big is coming in the financial regulation field, where huge companies across the globe are going to be required, by law, to disclose their current emission rates and when they’re going to hit the sustainability targets they’ve pledged.
CALLI: Across the globe? How does that work?
NATE: I’m gonna navigate through a little business jargon for a sec to explain this, so bare with me here. For decades, companies across the globe have dabbled in something called “financial disclosures,” which are when publicly traded companies are required by law to create yearly reports on how their companies work; that way, potential investors know what they’re getting themselves into. The United States has a specific group handling this called the Securities and Exchange Commission, who legally require companies to disclose “material items,” which aren’t a physical object but are pieces of information investors need to know about before investing. So for example - your company’s profits are up, the public trusts you, everything looks great - but you’re being sued by someone for fraud.
CALLI: Are you saying that sustainability practices are considered “material items”?
NATE: Not yet - but soon. Back in February of 2023, the G20, which is a group representing the nations that make up roughly 90 percent of the global economy, set an agreement in stone that says companies EVERYWHERE need to disclose their greenhouse-gas emissions levels. They also have to share information on how climate change would have a negative impact on the company, like for example if you’re a hotel built along a coastline at a time when sea levels are rising? Every country represented by G20 will begin doing this in January 2024,
CALLI: I mean, I love it. Sign me up. But out of curiosity: how is climate change considered a “material item”? I’m still stuck on that part.
NATE: Because companies not considering how they’re affecting the world face a number of consequences, based on pre-existing laws. Think about it like this: if you were an investor, would you want to invest in a company that has to pay higher taxes, consistent fines, or face a lot of lawsuits just because of your sustainability problem? Would you want to invest in a company targeted by protests and negative media attention? And even if you did - would you want your money tied up in a company that HASN’T made the shift yet, and will eventually have to spend a LOT of money to make the shift? By definition, those are 100% material concerns.
CALLI: Gotcha, point taken. There’s gotta be a catch here, though.
NATE: Isn’t there always? Financial disclosures, remember, are related to whether a company can turn a profit or not. There’s a similar plan to the G20’s that has been in play in the European Union for a while now that goes a step further: it requires DIRECT information on what damages the company’s practices do to the environment. Using more financial jargon, this is known as “double materiality” because it’s information that might not matter to an investor - but it sure as heck will to citizens of a town breathing cement plant fumes.
CALLI: WELL, that’s great, right?
NATE: It is! …except it’s not part of the G20’s requirements, and it’s not something required in the US at all. All that’s required is how sustainability relates to your bottom line. What’s even worse is that, by US law, if a company doesn’t want to disclose even THAT much, and they don’t have any investors… they can take their company private, and therefore would have no reason to disclose that information. Right now, unfortunately, we’ll have to make do with the plan we have.
CALLI: Gross. Well, I guess we can just avoid some of the sketchier companies doing this.
NATE: I’m glad you said “sketchier” because it’s definitely not all companies. Some companies are, in fact, dedicated to making an impact on the climate. There’s actually a nonprofit known as As You Sow that releases the Carbon Clean 200 every year - a list of the companies most dedicated to fighting climate change across the planet. Some of the companies still face a few of the problems we talked about earlier, like doing SOME sustainable things while hurting the planet in other ways… but at the very least, with a list like this, you can at least know which companies are TRYING to be sustainable.
[SFX: WHOOSH]
CALLI: Wanna hear something cool? Formula 1 racing is not only super awesome - it’s actively working to make the world better.
NATE: Ah, the quote unquote “pinnacle of motorsport races.” We’re deep in the thick of the Formula 1 season here and this year’s season was awesome. But other than just being a lot of fun to watch - how is it making the world better?
CALLI: We’ve been talking a lot about sustainability lately, and it’s made me feel a little guilty about how cool I think Formula 1 racing is. On one hand, FAST CARS - VROOM VROOM! So awesome. But on the other hand, race cars still use fossil fuels, one of the leading causes of climate change, not to mention all the emissions that come from transporting race teams, drivers, and even all the fuel burnt by fans heading to the races. What you might be surprised to know is that the organization governing Formula 1 racing knows this, too, and they have a plan to go fully carbon neutral by 2030.
NATE: Oh wow! 2030 is pretty soon. How are they gonna convert an entire organization in just seven years?
CALLI: Well to be clear, the plan actually already started! The FIA, which is short for The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile, made the plan all the way back in 2019 to begin changing the fuel used in Formula 1 vehicles. Right now, each car uses a hybrid fuel that has a 10% biofuel mix. By 2026, they’re shifting gears to full-on sustainable fueltypes. By 2030, any potential carbon output from the vehicles will be balanced out by how the fuel is produced. And that’s not all: they also announced a new “feeder series” of fuel.
NATE: Uhhh… feeder series?
CALLI: You might know this, but there are also a series of younger drivers that race for Formula 1 under the banners of Formula 2 and Formula 3 - aka the feeder series. Think of how we have major league and minor league baseball - they’re the minor league Formula drivers. This year, in 2023, the feeder series cars are testing out a new fuel blend of 55% “advanced Sustainable Fuel” that’s expected to be replaced by 2027 with a more environmentally friendly fuel known as e-fuel.
NATE: Neat! You’ve mentioned a lot about how these fuels are more sustainable, but just like we said when we talked about greenwashing, companies say stuff like that all the time. What is Formula 1 doing to walk the walk AND talk the talk on sustainable fuels?
CALLI: You’re not wrong: sustainable fuel is a sort of “one size fits all” phrase for all the different ways we make eco-friendly fuels. So Formula 1’s hybrid fuel is called “biofuel,” for instance. This is made by recycling organic materials and turning them into biofuel. The feeder series’ 2027 plan for fuel relies on a more complex system that makes the carbon levels in an oxygen supply combust within the car for more of an energy boost.
NATE: Wait, how?
CALLI: The person leading the fuel program at the International Council on Clean Transportation says that sustainable fuel is basically made one of two ways. The Formula 1 fuel usually pulls its carbon from a smokestack; even with the renewable resources used to make the fuel, it’s still leaving a BIT of a carbon footprint. Unlike the feeder series model, which according to him, is sourced directly from a combination of renewable electricity and carbon dioxide. That’s the difference between biofuels and e-fuels, and it’s such a new innovation that the feeder series are sort of acting as guinea pigs for the fuel type.
NATE: Wow. So if this fuel works out pretty well, it could change how race cars are fueled up?
CALLI: Bigger. It would change the ENTIRE transportation world. It’s very ambitious, and based on a very new technology, but Formula 1 is committed to leading the way so that transportation can cross the finish line into a new world.
NATE: Well, like you always ask me: what’s the catch?
CALLI: There’s always a catch! The FIA, which as a reminder is the governing body for Formula 1, NEEDS to make sure that e-fuel is always made from renewable energy. E-fuel works a lot like an electric car: just because e-fuel is made from electricity doesn’t mean you’re limiting the emissions necessarily. It just means you’re shifting into a DIFFERENT kind of emissions. The fuel program leader at the International Council on Clean Transportation also thinks e-fuel isn’t the best method for most cars, and that its future is more certain with airplanes. Only time will tell how effective e-fuels are for Formula 1, but at the very least, Formula 1 seems to be putting their money where their mouth is.
[SFX: WHOOSH]
NATE: I don’t love jumping off on a sad note but we all know the sensation of loneliness just FEELS bad right? Well turns out, there’s some science to that because loneliness is LITERALLY shrinking our brains.
CALLI: So, when Britney Spears said “my loneliness is killing me,” she wasn’t joking. How did they figure that out?
NATE: They did a study at The Neumayer III polar station in Antarctica, one of the most isolated places on the planet. An Antarctic winter sees temperatures of -50 degrees Celsius/-58 degrees Fahrenheit, also known as REALLY FREAKING COLD, and when the winds get going, they hit speeds of 100 kilometers per hour/over 62 miles an hour. So unsurprisingly, you can’t leave the building during the winter. You couldn’t manufacture a better study sample on loneliness if you tried.
CALLI: When Backstreet Boys said “show me the meaning of being lonely,” were they talking about Antarctica?
NATE: What year is it?
CALLI: Look, I’ve been on a 90s kick, ok?
NATE: If they weren't, they might as well have been. German scientists scanned the brains of eight researchers at the Antarctic station for over a year, starting before their mission and ending afterwards. They also had a control group, and what they found was that when they compared the two groups, the Antarctic researchers’ brains shrank. Specifically: their prefrontal cortex lost volume, which is the part at the front of our brains responsible for making decisions or solving problems. On top of that, the subjects had low amounts of a protein known as neurotrophic factor… which is a protein responsible for our brains’ nerve cells staying alive. Troublingly, this lasted for over a month after their return.
CALLI: Okay, I’ll stop singing now, that’s actually scary. And this is because of loneliness?
NATE: Not clear, really, how much was related to them feeling lonely. But hear me out: similar to the German’s teams results, there’s a lot of evidence that says loneliness is not only bad for our brains but also our overall health. Some of the results are even worse. For instance, loneliness is linked to conditions like stroke or high blood pressure, and can also nearly double our potential to get Type 2 diabetes or dementia. “Chronically lonely people,” as they’re called, have a whopping 83% higher risk of mortality than anybody else.
CALLI: Holy crap. But how do we even “measure” loneliness? Is it an actual clinical condition?
NATE: Technically no. Loneliness, as a concept, is hard to talk about objectively because it has to be self-reported. To make that easier, researchers at places like UCLA have developed tools like the UCLA Loneliness Scale to measure it. The Loneliness Scale is a self-survey people can take that figures out how their loneliness began, and how often they feel it. One instance revealed that 22% of the Americans surveyed felt lonely either all the time or most of the time… and that was BEFORE the COVID-19 pandemic. By October 2020, that number blossomed to 36%.
CALLI: Oh wow!
NATE: Another study found researchers trying to figure out where exactly loneliness comes from in the mind. They expected two things: number one, for loneliness to stem from social anxiety. And number two, for loneliness to come from the amygdala region, which is where fear is believed to originate. So for instance, if you’re afraid of a dog, and you see a dog, the amygdala flares up. And indeed, the amygdala DOES flare up during a threatening situation… but only for people with social anxiety. People who self-identify as lonely, but haven’t been diagnosed with social anxiety, actually didn’t see an increase in amygdala activity at all.
CALLI: So what does that mean?
NATE: You can’t treat loneliness by trying to make people feel less lonely. Another study confirmed that by trying to pair lonely people off with potential friends, only for the study to reveal that this had no effect on how lonesome they felt.
CALLI: Geez. Okay, so do we know why we get lonely?
NATE: Vaguely. A study back in 2020 that surveyed over 40,000 brain scans said the loneliness “hot spot” is somewhere within our brain’s default network. Which is strange, because that’s the part of the brain that turns on whenever we’re just idling about. It’s a mysterious part of the brain we didn’t even know existed until a few decades ago, but we now know is one of the biggest energy-consumers IN the brain. Some parts of this region were actually larger in the brains of the chronically lonely - which tells us a lot of interesting things about lonely people.
CALLI: Like what?
NATE: We don’t know for sure, but it’s evidence that lonely people are more likely to daydream about imagined scenarios with people, or get nostalgic for things they used to do. All of these are related to the default network, anyway, and there’s a good chance a lonely person’s default network is working overtime to imagine all the ways they might not be lonely.
CALLI: Okay, so it’s bad for our physical health AND our mental health. Is there any way to treat loneliness?
NATE: There are a few ways, such as cognitive therapy. It helps lonely people see how their minds are stopping them from making the connections they dream about, while also introducing them to ways they can avoid social isolation. But if those kinds of therapy don’t work, there are also… “chemical therapies.”
CALLI: That one sounds insidious.
NATE: Honestly, it’s not. In Switzerland, they did a study on loneliness involving none other than psilocybin, which is the part of “magic mushrooms” that gets you high. Lonely people who ate small doses of mushrooms had their brains scanned, and the parts of their brain associated with social interaction being painful had much less activity than before.
CALLI: Okay, but we can’t just give every lonely person a dose of magic mushrooms, we’ve talked on the show before and unfortunately they’re illegal.
NATE: Maybe so, but the truth is, there’s no surefire cure for loneliness. It’s something each of us will have to deal with at some point - and there’s nothing wrong with that. The trick is to try whatever we can to overcome CHRONIC loneliness. Think of loneliness the same way you would think about your fight or flight instincts. They’re not something you’re gonna enjoy at the moment, but they’re feelings that let us know - we’re still human.
[SFX: WHOOSH]
NATE: Let’s recap what we learned today to wrap up. Rest in peace, greenwashing: we never liked you much anyway. 90% of the world’s most prosperous nations have come to an agreement that would require disclosing to investors how environmentally friendly a company is. The plan isn’t without its flaws, especially as it relates to US law, but it’s the beginning of the end for companies lying or misleading their consumers on their sustainability output!
CALLI: For the more environmentally conscious listener, you might have a hard time grappling with a fondness for Formula 1 racing due to the countless ways that racing is contributing to climate change. You can rest assured, however, that Formula 1 is leading the way in sustainability efforts with the introductions of environmentally conscious fuel - some even running 55% or more efficiently than other fuels! Experts aren’t sure if the innovations will change transportation like Formula 1 thinks, but unlike other companies, at least Formula 1 is trying!
NATE: When Britney Spears said her “loneliness is killing” her, we didn’t think she was being literal. New research confirms what we’ve all known but could never prove: loneliness IS bad for our health, and can lead to higher incidence of heart failure, stress, and other ailments. There is no cure for loneliness, but there are groups and methods that can help. And ultimately, much like the feeling of stress, loneliness is normal. Ironically, it makes me feel less alone to know that so many of us are also feeling alone.