Tips: buy better

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I do not know this detail but obviously big doubt, our director, at the time, died of that!

He wasn't the kind to go to the woods, he was a navigator ...

human-natural-disasters / the-6th-extinction-t14200-140.html # p465612

[Obamot]

He's really crazy!

Suddenly he excludes himself from “nature” what a claim

[memory onforum]

This topic is linked to my graduation thesis! I give you the link of my questionnaire: https://ieseg.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/for ... Outon9X3Yq

My research consists of analyzing the authenticity of ethical brands. Your help would be invaluable to me, the duration of the questionnaire is only 5 minutes.

Thank you in advance!

[Obamot]

Do you consume products sold by committed brands? (who support environmental or social causes)?

Section 1 last question: How to answer this question by “never” or “sometimes” if one does not know if the brands which one buys are “engaged”? Suddenly the question is leading / tendentious (deliberately or not, although I think it is unintentional ...) since you are going to collect votes for something that does not correspond ...

Elements of section 2 are unrelated and relate more to “market research” and not because of an interest in “committed” brands. There the bias is deliberate.

In section 3 you even suggest trademarks! One way perhaps to induce in our mind that some brands would be “committed” and others not: you are doing the subliminal ...
You wouldn't give a damn about us, would you?

Section 4, Jungian typology course? Heuuuh ... ?? Well yes ... It seems the case ...

Section 5 ah bein we are trying to make correlations between answers to questions and typical profiles! Income scale, etc ...

There it is very clear, and voluntary, you take us for noodles => we are in the “Market research"

In short, the more your questionnaire unfolds, the further we are from your “initial intention”.

I love these “selfless students working for a good cause!

[gillesberdugo]

I think your comment is more of an interest in challenging ecological assumptions in general, rather than a real reaction. It's a shame because I think that this critical approach could be interesting and that we need people who honestly question the good thinking in the field of ecology. I would take up some of your comments, point by point:

- “with equal production, non-organic pollutes less”. Sources? Would we speak only in terms of weighted pollution measurement per kilotmeter and production weight? For such a precise remark, I would like to see such precise studies.
Organic pollutes less in general, whatever the scale. My comment was not particularly aimed at the agricultural areas mobilized, but at a general assessment of agriculture including: chemical treatment, soil impoverishment due (precisely) to intensive monocultures, biodiversity, etc ...

- No, if we start organic farming, the forests will not necessarily regress. If we follow your logic of course, but there are many other ways to produce organic than the one you are considering. I see that you are using the same argument for these French forests which have doubled since 1830. Sources?

- Certainly, animal productions produce organic waste that can be used for crops. This organic waste could very well be produced equally by waste produced by human activity, without resorting to “chemicals”.

- Health benefits of organic: You say that there is no scientific study saying that organic has health benefits. This remark is funny as it seems naive to me. Just type in exactly those keywords on google scholar and you will have literally thousands of studies on the subject. It is not just the exposure to pesticides that matters, but the content of nutrients, vitamins etc: the quality of the final product.

To conclude: I understand this mistrust of organic, greenwashing and the possible excesses of environmentalists, but I think that we must be careful not to limit our thinking to simply being the opposite of that of the people we have in front of we.

[sicetaitsimple]

I searched a bit to find where to post this information, I decided on this thread for lack of anything better:

What is the sticker yes ad on mailboxes?
ANTIGASPI From Thursday, it will be prohibited to distribute advertising leaflets in the mailboxes of fifteen communities, including the metropolis of Grenoble, unless they bear a sticker "Yes pub"

https://www.20minutes.fr/grenoble/33441 ... es-lettres

According to the article, it would follow a proposal from the Citizen's Climate Convention.

[phil59]

I believe that on a certain date, it will be for all of France.

Currently you put "no to the pub", and soon all advertising in the boxes will be prohibited, unless you put a sticker....

[Ahmed]

The inversion effect of the statement of the poster will certainly have effects of exclusion: if only the die-hards of advertising decorate their mailboxes with it, the great mass of "no opinion" and "blah" will do nothing and will join those who were already hostile to it. Advertising companies will therefore give up funding tours for too limited a number of "prospects"...
Beyond this consequence, it is all the same a sign of renunciation of what made the beauty of the consumer society, an ambiguous sign however, because this manifest call to decrease is intended as a temporary transition to better restore later (if possible!) the usual waste which still remains the dominant model: strange paradox!

[sicetaitsimple]

Personally I find it interesting.
Of course Ahmed I thought of you, but you told us that the glossy paper of the pubs was not a good base for your bricks, so I let go!
By the way, any progress? (on the corresponding thread of course).

[Petrus]

Yeah, interesting not to assume people are willing to get their mailbox stuffed with ads.
What about the same for phone calls?
Well, personally I like paper ads, it helps to light the fire and they are nice, the number of flyers increases around Christmas, right when I need them

It changes from the current trend to "opt-out", or we have to come forward if we are not interested, like for example the email from EDF that I received:

Pursuant to the commitments it has made in the context of Competition Authority decision no. 22-D-06 of February 22, 2022, EDF is required to make available to electricity suppliers who request it, certain data relating to the electricity supply contracts of its customers at the regulated sales tariff (or Blue Tariff). This measure aims to enable these electricity suppliers to carry out commercial prospecting actions and offer you offers of electricity, gas or services.
[...] If you accept the transmission of your data (or do not oppose it), this will be carried out from November 2022.