Beaver

The intelligence of slow water

And how unlikely engineers are fixing what we broke.

Somewhere between dams, drains and forgotten beaver ponds, we taught water to behave unnaturally.

For centuries, rivers weren’t linear channels cutting through land. They were living systems with multiple rhythms. They had (some still do) a normal bed, a medium bed and a larger floodplain. During certain periods, rivers would overflow into nearby fields and forests, depositing sediments, organic matter and nutrients. They would slow down, spread out, feed themselves and recharge the surrounding soils before returning to their usual course. Water lingered. Land absorbed it like a sponge. Life depended on that slowness.

Modern (human) engineering broke this balance. To protect infrastructure, agriculture and urban areas, rivers were straightened, dredged and confined between embankments. Their wider beds were erased. This caused for river channels to deepen because the straighter a river is, the faster it goes, and the faster it goes, the more it digs under itself, thus lowering its bed. This phenom’ had two immediate consequences. First, rivers stopped feeding themselves. Cut off from floodplains, they no longer collect organic matter, sediments and nutrients that once sustained aquatic ecosystems. Second, and more critically, they stopped feeding the land around them. The earth lost its role as a sponge.

When soils are regularly rehydrated by slow, spreading water, they remain loose, alive and porous. Microorganisms thrive. Roots penetrate deeply. Organic matter accumulates.

When this process is interrupted, soils dry out and compact. They become stiff and tight. Rain no longer infiltrates. It slides across the surface, picking up speed, eroding topsoil and rushing straight into rivers, then quickly into the ocean. Water is no longer stored in landscapes but evacuated as quickly as possible. What we call floods and droughts are often two sides of the same engineered mistake.

This acceleration of water is a massive stress on the planet. Freshwater ecosystems collapse. Groundwater reserves fail to recharge. Agricultural soils lose fertility. Coastal zones receive sudden, polluted surges of freshwater and sediments. The problem is not a lack of rain but a lack of time. Water is not allowed to stay.

Nature, left to itself, mirrors its creator’s perfection. So naturally, solutions do exist, and one of the most powerful allies in restoring hydrological balance is none other than the beaver.

Often dismissed as a nuisance or a pest, the beaver is in fact a master engineer, working in harmony with natural laws rather than against them. By building “dams”, beavers slow water down. They raise river levels back toward their natural height. They reconnect streams with floodplains. They recreate the layered beds that humans spent centuries destroying, and still are.

Beaver dams create chains of small wetlands and ponds, true oases across landscapes. These wetlands filter water by trapping sediments and pollutants. They store water during wet periods and release it slowly during dry ones, reducing both floods and droughts. They soften the surrounding soils, allowing water to infiltrate deeply and recharge aquifers. Land regains its sponge-like function.

The ecological benefits are extraordinary. Beaver wetlands provide habitat for fish, amphibians, aquatic insects, birds and mammals. Frogs, salamanders, dragonflies, trout, ducks and herons all thrive in these environments. Biodiversity increases not despite the dams but because of them. Even forests benefit, as higher groundwater levels support healthier trees and reduce vulnerability to fires.

Beavers don’t build for profit, efficiency or short-term control. They build for stability. Their work reverses, piece by piece, the damage caused by rigid, fast and extractive water management systems, built by us.

Where humans forced rivers to behave like drains, beavers restore them as living systems.

Reintroducing and protecting beavers is not a romantic gesture or a return to some imagined past. It’s a practical, science-backed response to centuries of bad engineering. Beavers show that the solution to water crises is not always more concrete, deeper channels or faster flows. Sometimes, the solution is to slow down, raise water back into the land and let ecosystems do what they have always done best.

If we’re serious about restoring soils, securing water and easing the planetary stress we created, we should stop fighting nature’s intelligence and start learning from it.

In that lesson, the beaver is the blueprint.

Food for thought.

Thank you for stopping by.

Teekay

Will AI cause the death of humanity?

The hefty cost of convenience in an artificial world

AI tools have made an already bad situation worse.

Every time you touch an AI tool, whether you’re making images or words, you’re feeding a machine that drinks real water and eats real power. Not in theory. Literally. There’s no harmless cloud floating above us. There are data centers on the ground, towers pulling heat out, plants burning fuel, all so content can come out faster while the bill gets paid somewhere else.

Think of it this way. One text request to a large AI model uses roughly the same amount of water as a few mouthfuls from a soda can. That sounds small until you remember these systems handle billions of requests a day! At that scale, we’re not talking about sips. We’re talking about entire truckloads of bottled drinks being poured straight down the drain, every single day, just to keep servers cool.

The estimated CO2 emissions from training common NLP models, compared to familiar consumption (University of Massachusetts, 2019)

Generating a single AI image uses several times more energy than a text request. One article with five or six AI images might be using the equivalent electricity of leaving a laptop running for hours. Multiply that by thousands of articles, social posts, newsletters and ads, and suddenly it’s not trivial at all.

Zoom out a little more and the picture gets uglier. AI-related data centers are already using as much electricity as mid-sized cities. Estimates put global AI power demand on track to rival places like San Francisco or Boston within a few years. That’s millions of homes worth of electricity being burned so companies can automate writing, art and video at scale. AI doesn’t just steal jobs, it steals our resources.

Now stack dozens of these facilities across drought-prone states and you start to see why people are angry.

And they are angry.

Lately, I’ve seen organizers in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Georgia mobilize against new data center construction. Nobody wants these things in their communities. They strain power grids, drain water supplies and mostly benefit companies that don’t live there (don’t they always?). Luckily, these fights seem to be working. Projects are being delayed, while others are being stopped altogether. We can and will win against these tech oligarchs, but first, we need to be smart about our usage.

This is why it’s so frustrating to see articles about resistance, climate justice or helping nature paired with AI-written images. You can’t talk about fighting extraction while actively participating in it. You can’t warn about corporate overreach while relying on the most opaque, resource-hungry tech industry on the planet.

And it’s not just images. AI-written articles, AI-edited videos, AI voiceovers, all of it runs on the same infrastructure. Longer outputs mean more compute. Videos are especially brutal, far more than text or AI generated images. That one slick AI video you just posted (or liked) could represent the electricity use of a household for days. Yes, dayzz!

The worst part is how little transparency there is. AI companies won’t clearly say how much water or energy a specific model or request uses. Communities are asked to trust them, just like users are. Meanwhile the meters keep spinning.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying we need to go off-grid or stop using technology entirely, but we should start making conscious choices. Take your own photos. Use art made by real people. Scan a drawing, even a bad one. Use stock photos from photographers who actually went outside and did the work. Write things yourself or don’t write at all!

If you’re serious about resistance, about protecting nature, about fighting back against corporate power, your tools matter. Using AI by default, especially for images and media, actively undermines your message. People feel that contradiction, even if they don’t always have the numbers to explain it.

Food for thought.

Thank you for stopping by.

Teekay.

water magic

Water speaks in ways we ignore

A memory, a teacher, a traveler from space.

Once upon a time, exactly 4.5 billion years ago, Earth was a violent place.

There were no oceans. No rivers, no rain, no life. Just a molten ball of fire and gas, spinning restlessly in space.

And then it came. Not as a storm or a miracle, but as dust, rock, and ice, hurtling through space and crashing into this young planet during what scientists now call the Late Heavy Bombardment.

Over millions of years, icy asteroids and meteorites may have delivered what Earth itself couldn’t produce on its own: water. Drop by drop, this alien substance transformed our planet, cooling its surface, filling its craters, and laying the foundation for every living thing that would ever exist.

In other words, the water in your glass, in your blood, in your tears, may not be from Earth.

This is a common theory among scientists, but how do they back it up?

Well, simply put, traces of deuterium (a form of hydrogen) in Earth’s water match those found in carbon-rich meteorites, not in Earth’s original atmosphere. In other words, water could well be extraterrestrial and we’re walking oceans, born of stardust and comets.

Pretty cool.

“A water molecule is made up of one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Hydrogen was created in the Big Bang, and oxygen in the cores of stars more massive than the Sun. Enormous amounts of water, in gaseous form, exist in the vast stellar nurseries of our galaxy.” – NASA

All that being said, new discoveries have challenged that theory. Science doesn’t care about romance and poetry..

But that’s only the beginning of the story.

Water is alive in ways we’re still discovering

Science has always viewed water as simple H₂O. But the more we look, the more mysterious it becomes.

Water doesn’t just hydrate, it reacts. It listens, and it may even remember!

Case in point, when scientists drill into glaciers in Antarctica or Greenland, they’re not just pulling out ice. They’re pulling out history. Inside those frozen cores are bubbles of ancient air, particles of volcanoes and wildfires, records of rainfall, drought, and dust storms, all preserved in perfect detail. These layers tell us the climate story of Earth going back hundreds of thousands of years.

So yeah, water stores information. It has a memory. It IS a memory, not metaphorically but quite literally.

But what if water also stores something more subtle?

Can water feel ? Like, does it have feelings?

The late Dr. Masaru Emoto, a Japanese researcher, believed it did. In his famous (and controversial) experiments, he exposed water to different words, prayers, music, and intentions, then froze it and photographed the crystals that formed.

On one hand, water blessed with words like “love” or “gratitude” formed stunning, symmetrical snowflake-like shapes. On the other, water exposed to hate, anger, or pollution formed distorted, chaotic patterns.

His work was dismissed by many in the scientific community, as they do. But for others, it cracked open a door. A possibility that consciousness and water might be connected in ways we don’t yet understand.

The mystery of memory in water

In 2009, Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize–winning virologist who co-discovered HIV, published a paper suggesting that highly diluted DNA in water emits electromagnetic signals, and that water retains this information even when the DNA is gone.

Another researcher and Swiss chemist, Louis Rey, studied water’s “memory” through thermoluminescence and noticed changes depending on what the water had previously been exposed to.

These findings are controversial, but they echo something ancient cultures have always known:

That water is not just a substance, it’s a carrier. A messenger. A mirror.

Water in religion & spirituality

Across every tradition and belief system, water is sacred.

• In Islam, it is said in the Qur’an: “We made from water every living thing” (21:30). Before drinking or washing, Muslims say “Bismillah”, or In the name of God, inviting His name to bless the water. Then there is the water of Zamzam, a sacred well in Mecca, believed to have sprung miraculously for Hagar and her son Ishmael in the desert. This water is revered for its purity and spiritual significance, and pilgrims often drink it during Hajj and Umrah, and take it home as a cherished gift.

• In Christianity, water baptizes, purifies, rebirths.

• In Buddhism and Taoism, water is a symbol of humility and transformation. It yields but wears down mountains.

• And Bruce Lee, blending martial arts with Eastern philosophy, famously said:

“Be like water, my friend.”

Meaning: stay flexible, formless, adaptive, like the element that takes the shape of whatever holds it, and yet remains itself.

Water teaches us to flow, to remember, and to release.

Our bodies remember too

Our body is made up of about 60% water. Our brain? Closer to 75%.

We are, quite literally, a walking river. Every cell depends on water, not just to survive, but to communicate, to regenerate, to feel.

Our emotions, hormones, sleep, focus, creativity, they all ride on the flow of water inside us.

And yet, for something so vital, we’ve forgotten how rare it is.

Water is scarce and under threat

Earth may be covered in water, but only 0.007% of it is drinkable and accessible. The rest is locked away in oceans, glaciers, or underground.

Meanwhile, pollution, overconsumption, and climate change are drying up and polluting a resource that our very existence relies on. Every environmental campaign is focused on the pollution of air (which causes 7 million deaths a year), which is great, but most campaigns don’t even touch on the irreversible pollution of water (mostly due to the fashion industry and animal breeding). Why? The air is much easier to clean than our fresh water streams. and yet..

Meanwhile, pollution, overconsumption, and climate change are depleting and contaminating a resource essential to our very survival: water. Most environmental campaigns rightly focus on air pollution, which causes 7 million deaths each year btw, but rarely address the irreversible pollution of our freshwater sources, much of it driven by the fashion industry and industrial animal farming. Why? I mean if anything, air is far easier to clean than our streams, rivers, and aquifers..

• The fashion industry produces 20% of global industrial water pollution. Dyes and synthetic materials poison rivers from Asia to South America.

• The meat industry is one of the biggest consumers and polluters of water. One single beef burger requires over 2,000 liters of water to produce. But that’s not it: Waste from livestock contaminates rivers and groundwater. Read about the Green Tide, aka Killer Slime or green algae, a magic seaweed that can kill you in SECONDS, another scandal brushed under the rug because a certain lobby is too powerful to let it be mediatized.

Food production accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. 18% of those are due to livestock production. – Stanford

Plastic and pesticides enter our lakes and oceans at alarming rates. Microplastics have now been found in rainwater and even in unborn babies.

By 2030, the United Nations warns that 40% of people could face severe water scarcity if we don’t act.

Water is strong. It’s self-purifying, patient, ancient. But even it has limits.

A call to return to reverence

We live in a world where water comes from a tap, which is why we forget how sacred it is. We wear clothes made in countries we’ll never visit, eat food raised on land we’ll never see, throw away plastics that outlive us by centuries, and we don’t see the water trails behind them.

But now we know better.

We know that water is more than H₂O. It holds the blueprint of life and the story of our planet. It listens. It reflects us.

So what can we do?

• Plant trees.

• Eat more plants and less dead flesh.

• Repair our clothes.

• Use less plastic and ban single use plastics.

• Speak blessings into our glass.

• Treat water like the rare, cosmic treasure that it is.

Because every drop of water you drink has seen stars. It’s been ice. It’s been vapor. It’s fallen as rain, flowed through rivers, and run through the veins of everything that has ever lived.

And maybe, just maybe, when you speak to it, it remembers you too.

Thanks for reading.

Tee.

Pollinating bee

Reasons why we don’t eat honey

Besides the fact that we don’t “need” to.

Honey comes from bees. Bees are tiny creatures who play a huge role in keeping our planet alive and healthy, I’ll explain how.

Bees are born in beehives, where they grow up, work together, and take care of each other. While most people think bees are just busy flying around, they’re not! They actually have specific “jobs”, or tasks if you will. In fact, each bee has a specific role: some clean the hive, some feed the baby bees, and others go out to find food. Basically, they’re like us, except more advanced, because they don’t pollute, fight over nonsense and hate each other for no reason.

Bees are also pollinators.

When bees buzz from one flower to the next, they’re doing something extremely important known as pollination. Here’s how it works: As bees collect nectar for making honey, they carry pollen from flower to flower. This simple act helps plants grow fruits, veggies, seeds, and even more flowers. Without bees doing their thing, a lot of the food we rely on wouldn’t exist.

Let that sink in for a second.

Case in point, 75% of the food we eat depends on pollinators like bees (WEF). 75 freakin’ percent! Apples, strawberries, cucumbers, almonds, and even coffee all need pollination. So, losing bees would mean most of these foods would disappear, or become extremely rare and expensive.

Besides, pollinators also help plants that grow in the wild. These plants give food and shelter to animals and help keep the air clean. So, pollinators help whole ecosystems survive, not just farms and gardens.

While bees are the most famous pollinators, they’re not the only ones. Butterflies, hummingbirds, bats, moths, beetles, and even some types of ants and wasps also help pollinate plants. However, bees are the most effective because they focus their energy on flowers and carry lots of pollen.

This year (2025), we’ve had the worst honeybee loss in recorded history in the US. In fact, 80% of honeybees died suddenly. We still “don’t know” why (pesticides, it’s pesticides).

So, why don’t we eat honey? Simple: bees make honey to feed themselves and keep their hive alive, especially through the winter. When humans harvest honey, they’re taking away the bees’ own food (and heat) source. To make up for it, beekeepers sometimes replace the honey with sugar water, but that doesn’t give bees the nutrients they need to stay healthy. In fact, just like in humans, too much sugar can weaken their immune systems and make them more vulnerable to disease.

Worse still, to harvest honey, beekeepers often use smoke or chemical fumes to force bees out of their hives. This disorients them, causing stress, panic, and confusion, sometimes even leading them to get lost or die as they flee.

Even though it might not seem harmful at first, stealing honey puts a lot of pressure on bee colonies. It is in fact one of the reasons we’ve seen millions of bees die in recent years.

This is why many vegans consider honey as part of animal exploitation. The more we take from bees and damage their homes, the fewer bees we have, which in turn puts entire ecosystems, and our own food systems, at risk. In numbers, honeybees pollinate a worth of 15 billion dollars of crops in the US only, yearly.

If bees disappear, many plants won’t be pollinated. This means fewer fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Animal species that eat these plants will struggle, and so will the animals that eat them. It’s a chain reaction that could cause entire ecosystems to collapse. Eventually, the extermination of bees would entail food shortages even for us, humans, and thus our death as well.

Humans have long seen themselves as sitting at the top of the pyramid, a concept known as speciesism, but in reality, we’re just one part of a vast, interconnected family of living, sentient beings.

Fascinating facts about bees

Here’s where things get interesting: Plants, being rooted in the ground, carry a small negative electric charge. Interestingly, this charge increases the higher up the plant you go, creating an electric field around the flower itself.

Bees, in contrast, acquire a positive charge during flight due to friction with the air, which causes them to lose electrons. So, as a bee approaches a flower, the opposing electric fields of the bee and the plant begin to interact. This interaction subtly changes the flower’s natural vibrations or signals, imperceptible to humans, but detectable to bees.

When the bee lands on the flower, the positive charge from the bee and the negative charge of the flower neutralize each other almost instantly. This leads to two remarkable outcomes:

  1. The negatively charged pollen from the flower is attracted to and effectively “jumps” onto the positively charged bee;
  2. The flower’s electric field is altered, signaling to other approaching bees that it has already been visited. This change communicates that the flower likely has no nectar left, prompting bees to move on and return later. Mindblowing!

So, flowers use electric fields not just to attract pollinators, but also to communicate whether they still have nectar. They have their own language of electricity, completely imperceptible to us.

Other interesting facts about bees: They can also recognize human faces, communicate with each other through a little dance, and even show signs of emotion. Scientists also suggest bees can count and they might even dream.

What can we do to protect the bees and our soils?

  • Ban pesticides.
  • Plant flowers that bees love, like lavender, sunflowers and wildflowers.
  • Replace honey with the million other alternatives in existence: maple syrup, agave nectar, date syrup, molasses, and even fruit-based syrups work great. Why participate in the extinction of a whole species (and many other would follow suite) when you can avoid it?

Bees may be small, but they are mighty. Taking care of them is not just about saving one species, it’s about saving the world we all share.

Thank you for stopping by. This post was inspired by a conversation with my wife ❤

Peace!

Teekay

WATCH: 31 Documentaries that will change your perception of food (with trailers)

You are what you eat.

An Updated Guide to Must-Watch Documentaries on Health, the Environment, and Animal Welfare

A few years ago, I compiled a list of powerful documentaries that opened eyes and sparked conversations about the connections between our diets, personal health, the planet, and animal welfare. Since then, new documentaries have emerged, offering fresh perspectives and deeper insights into these critical topics.

This updated list features 31 must-watch documentaries that will inspire you to rethink your choices, understand the broader impact of what’s on your plate, and consider the powerful role food plays in shaping our world.

Whether you’re passionate about health, sustainability, or ethics, these films are a compelling call to action, and a perfect way to kickstart meaningful change.

You Are What You Eat: The Twin Experiment (2024)
A twin-focused dietary experiment exploring the effects of different eating habits on health.
Notable Figures: None known.

Earthlings (2005)
A groundbreaking documentary examining humanity’s reliance on animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.
Notable Figures: Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix.

Dominion (2018)
Exposing the darker side of animal agriculture through hidden-camera footage.
Notable Figures: Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix, Rooney Mara, and Sia.

Forks Over Knives (2011)
A case for adopting a plant-based diet to combat chronic diseases.
Notable Figures: Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn.

What the Health (2017)
Investigating the link between diet, disease, and corporate influence in health organizations.
Notable Figures: Kip Andersen, Keegan Kuhn.

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014)
Revealing the environmental impact of animal agriculture.
Notable Figures: Directed by Kip Andersen.

Seaspiracy (2022)
A critique of the fishing industry’s devastating impact on marine ecosystems.
Notable Figures: Directed by Ali Tabrizi and Kip Andersen

Christpiracy (2024)
Examining the intersection of religion and ethical food choices.
Notable Figures: Directed by Kip Andersen and Kameron Waters.

The Game Changers (2018)
Debunking myths about plant-based diets and athletic performance.
Notable Figures: Produced by James Cameron, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I Could Never Go Vegan (2024)
Addressing common excuses and challenges against veganism.
Notable Figures: None known.

Vegucated (2011)
Following three people as they attempt to adopt a vegan lifestyle.
Notable Figures: Directed by Marisa Miller Wolfson.

Milked (2021)
A deep dive into the dairy industry and its global implications.
Notable Figures: Created by Chris Huriwai.

Pignorant (2024)
Exploring the psychology behind ignoring the ethics of animal consumption.
Notable Figures: Created Joey Carbstrong.

Eating Animals (2018)
An exposé of industrial farming and its impact on food systems.
Notable Figures: Based on Jonathan Safran Foer’s book, narrated by Natalie Portman

Carnage: Swallowing the Past (2017)
A satirical take on a future where veganism is the norm and meat-eating is taboo.
Notable Figures: Directed by Simon Amstell.

The Smell of Money (2022)
Investigating the environmental racism tied to industrial pig farming.
Notable Figures: Guess appearance: Cory Booker

The End of Meat (2017)
Imagining a world where meat consumption has ended.
Notable Figures: Directed by Marc Pierschel.

The Invisible Vegan (2019)
A focus on the often-overlooked contributions of Black communities to veganism.
Notable Figures: Directed by Jasmine Leyva, guest appearance by John Salley

Mission Blue (2014)
Chronicling Dr. Sylvia Earle’s mission to protect ocean habitats.
Notable Figures: Featuring Sylvia Earle.

Eating Our Way to Extinction
Exploring how our diets are destroying ecosystems and biodiversity.
Notable Figures: Narrated by Kate Winslet.

Eating You Alive (2018)
Highlighting the health benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet.
Notable Figures: Featuring Samuel L. Jackson, James Cameron.

H.O.P.E. What You Eat Matters (2018)
Demonstrating the health, environmental, and ethical reasons for eating consciously.
Notable Figures: Guests;  Jane Goodall, Vandana Shiva

Food Choices (2016)
A comprehensive look at how dietary choices impact health and the planet.
Notable Figures: Directed by Michal Siewierski.

Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home (2009)
Farmers recount their journeys from animal agriculture to veganism.
Notable Figures: Directed by Jenny Stein.

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days (2009)
Following individuals reversing diabetes through a raw vegan diet.
Notable Figures: Featuring Gabriel Cousens.

The Cove (2009)
Unveiling the horrors of dolphin hunting in Japan.
Notable Figures: Featuring Ric O’Barry.

Speciesism: The Movie (2013)
Challenging societal norms about animal exploitation.
Notable Figures: Directed by Mark Devries.

73 Cows (2018)
The journey of a farmer transitioning from cattle farming to sustainable living.
Notable Figures: Directed by Alex Lockwood.

Live and Let Live (2013)
Examining ethical veganism and its implications.
Notable Figures: Directed by Marc Pierschel.

Land of Hope and Glory (2017)
An exposé on UK factory farming practices.
Notable Figures: Directed by Ed Winters.

Rowdy Girl (2023)
A former cattle rancher turns her farm into an animal sanctuary.
Notable Figures: Featuring Renee King-Sonnen.

Why We Love Nature but Keep Destroying It

How can we do better, collectively?

My self-professed love for nature is no secret to my readers.

Being close to nature is and has always been my thing.

Nature is wondrous, full of beauty and peace.

Hiking photo by Teekay Rezeau-Merah
Hiking photo by author Teekay Rezeau-Merah

The reason I became a vegan minimalist was mainly to protect it and its inhabitants.

But doing so opened my eyes on a fascinating paradox, especially in the vegan and vanlife communities; a paradox I ponder upon on a daily basis.

Spending more time in the great outdoors allowed me to come to a poignant realization: The very nature that we, avid nature enthusiasts and animal lovers, hold dear to our hearts, is the very same nature we often unwittingly damage with our bad habits.

How can we enjoy something so much while simultaneously participate in its destruction?

Teekay @teekayrezeaumerah
Please don’t leave toilet paper in nature (photo by author)

Well, here’s where my thinking is at the moment.

  • Reasoning

First of all, I want to make something clear: As pragmatic as I can be, my personal belief is that human beings are born good.

However, human beings are also amazing at compartmentalizing.

meaning of compatmentalize by Teekay Rezeau-Merah
Screenshot by author

A fitting illustration of my point is that of individuals who profess to be staunch advocates for human rights, yet they contradictorily sport Nike shoes, H&M dresses and Zara pants.

Note: If you don’t know what I’m hinting at, read this.

The same can be said about vegans who consume palm oil, or vanlifers who consume animal products (that destroy the very nature we want to be surrounded by).

Now look, I always say life is all about balance, and I believe it is, but sometimes — often times — rocking something ethically sourced won’t hurt you in any way, shape or form. Perhaps you’ll pay more for it, but you don’t have to if you buy second hand.

This applies to almost all consumables.

So the first takeaway from this piece is to think twice before your next purchases. Always consider the added value of what you buy, its environmental impact and whether there are other alternatives.

That’s one way to tackle this paradox.

Another reason we engage in actions that cause harm to nature is our toxic sense of entitlement, or deservingness.

This manifests itself in different forms: Arrogance, greed, boastfulness or in some cases, negative narcissism.

Some of us behave as if the world owes us. This sense of entitlement emanates from a lack of self-awareness and gratitude, which itself is the result of a Godless, non-religious and non-spiritual society.

Many people believe, wholeheartedly and arrogantly, that everything they have was owed to them.

Hustle culture prescribes “hard work and determination” as the ultimate solution for success, often discarding external factors that also contribute to one’s accomplishments.

Unfortunately, such attitude blinds us from seeing the bigger picture: That none of what we have, none of what we achieve is truly ours, and that it can be taken away from us at any time. It will be when we die.

More humility would do us all a world of good, and without it, we will continue indulging in things that harm us and everything we love.

When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money. — Native American saying

The third reason behind this great paradox is our lack of concern for the future.

In other words, selfishness.

Social Media may have exasperated this, but many people believe they MUST prioritize their own pleasures and conveniences over the well-being of the environment and future generations.

It’s sickening when you think about it.

But I don’t blame us, not entirely. If anything, we were programmed and brought up this way, but it’s time for a change, a big one.

As a matter of fact, we can’t live like we did 30 years ago, times are changing and so should we, evolution and all.

Indeed, our planet can’t sustain our greed and selfishness for too long, and the time to turn things around is now.

I would never advocate for anything radical, life is all about balance once again.

As such, we don’t have to move to self-built huts, nor do we have to wear banana leaves, but it’s our duty to watch what we consume, how we consume it, and what we want to support.

Your dollars are more potent than your vote and your words. So put your money where your mouth is.

  • How

You see, I often write about boycotting certain products: Palm oilwhite sugaranimal products, single use plastic, brands that pollute our water and source their products in Chinese slave camps and Bengali/Indian sweatshops, brands that support wars, so on and so forth.

To take part of this would make the world significantly better. To do so and to raised our collective awareness is as close to perfection as we can get.

That and reversing consumerism. Remember, minimalism (and essentialism) isn’t just an aesthetic, it’s a philosophy.

In 1927, a Boston-born, Harvard educated son of immigrants went to work for Lehman Brothers. His name was Paul Mazur and his interest in the economics of consumption and retailing made him a rising star in the investment banking establishment for more than 50 years.

Mostly he was responsible for manipulating the psyche of the American consumer. — Sherry Truitt

His philosophy in a nutshell:

“We must shift America from a needs, to a desires culture,” He wrote. “People must be trained to desire, to want new things even before the old had been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.

Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.” That’s a powerful statement, and a scary one.

So you see, as stated above, human beings are born good, but we were led astray for many decades.

Indeed, our actions are often shaped by cultural and societal norms. Unfortunately, said norms favor efficiency and convenience over wellbeing and ethics. They also favor desires over altruism and consumerism over self-awareness.

We all follow patterns and attitudes considered “normal” in our society, hence why we hardly question anything.

With that being said, let’s not forget that we’re still human, and luckily for us, God bestowed upon us reason and logic.

God gave us free will too, so it’s on us to outgrow our biases and harness original thinking.

  • Final word

All in all, the paradox of enjoying and destroying nature at the same time is a complex and deeply ingrained issue.

It’s not just about individual behavior, it’s rooted in our cultural, political, and economic systems, making it extremely difficult to shake off.

The one thing I want to leave you with is to question things and at least make sure your actions are aligned with your values, that’s it.

Perhaps some of us have a stronger moral obligation to protect nature, while others don’t. That’s okay, life can’t be perfect and neither can we, but does that mean we should stop trying?

Peace!

Tee.

The harms of sugar and salt and how to get away from the addiction

Indulging in an excessive array of sugary and salty foods leaves our taste buds in a state of numbed oblivion.

As a result, we find it harder to enjoy the natural flavors of healthier foods.

how to beat sugar addicition by Teekay Rezeau-Merah
Sugar addiction by wayhomestudio on Freepik

It’s a vicious cycle, really: The more sweets and salty foods we consume, the less we taste, so we crave even more of them to feel satisfied. Artificial sweeteners and sucrose activate the brain’s natural reward pathway like drugs, releasing dopamine.

From a health point of view, resetting your taste buds will decrease your cravings for sweets and salty foods, thus leading to better eating habits.

But most importantly, resetting your taste buds will lead to a more nutrient-dense diet. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, green proteins, herbs and spices offer a wide range of essential nutrients that contribute to overall health and well-being.

  • So How Can I Reset my Taste Buds ?

That’s the million dollar question, with a 0 dollar solution: Intermittent Fasting.

Intermittent Fasting is the fastest way to good health.

In fact, did you know fasting is used as a method to reverse cancer and tumor growth ?

Dr. Sebi and now Chris Beat Canceramong many others, talks about it a lot on his podcast. I highly recommend his content for health freaks and people who want to learn more about holistic medicine as a cure for cancer.

Think about it: Do you ever feel hungry when you’re sick ? No, no you don’t. Eating is the last thing I want to do when I’m sick. It’s ironic because, even though society (and our parents) often encourage us to eat for energy and to combat illnesses, it always feels like we’re going against our natural instincts.

That’s because we are.

But things get even more interesting.

Did you know that it takes our digestive system 24 to 72 hours to digest a meal ? Yes, one single meal.

It’s fascinating because the likes of Kelloggs, Nestle, Mickey Dee’s did such a great advertising job and so much brainwashing that we now think eating 3 to 4 times a day is normal. It’s the healthy way to be.

From Happy Meals to morning cereals and lunch menus, we are constantly bombarded with messages telling us to consume more. More of everything, but let’s stick to food.

Sugar Psychology: Does Sugar Promote Consumerism ?

Consuming three meals a day is taxing to the body. It overloads your digestive system. In other words, your digestive system is often living three days in just one.

That’s why our societies are now ridden with illness and all sorts of diseases. That’s why the numbers of SADS, or Sudden Adult Death Syndrome are increasing as time progresses. Of course, that and some other factors, including but not limited to the quality of food we eat.

  • How to Stay Healthy Today

Stop taxing your digestive system and your body.

Intermittent Fasting, proper hydration and the right foods can change your life. Literally, not figuratively.

Intermittent Fasting and a balanced diet can help you keep a healthy weight, detach yourself from addictions and sleep well/better.

10 Unconventional Ways to Improve Sleep

Besides, Intermittent Fasting not only saves you time but also reduces your expenses.

  • How to start Intermittent Fasting for beginners ?

First of all, breakfast is NOT a meal. It’s the moment when you BREAK your FAST. That can be at any moment in the day.

A good rule of thumb is to start your day with a tall glass of water. Add some lemon, cucumber or mint for better taste and hydration.

Starting the day with a glass of water gives your digestive system a gentle nudge, setting it on a healthy path for the day ahead.

The Unbelievable Benefits of Drinking Water on an Empty Stomach !

Now, as for breaking your fast with a meal, another good rule of thumb is to have your first meal when the sun is the highest in the sky, and to stop eating when the sun goes down. This obviously changes depending on the seasons, as the sun sets much later in the summer.

To start your Intermittent Fasting journey, start slow, perhaps with a 14:10 or 16:8 method, then walk your way back to an ideal of 18:6.

I have been on the 18:6 method for several years. This means that I abstain from eating for 18 hours, then eat during the following 6. I usually eat between 2PM (first meal) and 8PM (last meal). I don’t snack in between, except when I’m at the beach ^^

My favorite snacks are fresh fruits and dry fruits. I love oats as well, so at times I just make myself a bowl of oats with oat milk and a bunch of dried fruits (apricots, berries, nuts etc.).

Intermittent Fasting allows the body to properly detoxify itself with the help of your liver (hence the importance of hydration), thus self-healing.

  • Final Thoughts

I started this piece with the idea of resetting your taste buds, Intermittent Fasting is the way to go, but don’t forget your bitters and your ginger drink.

Jamaicans (and Rastafarians) who practice the Ital diet will tell you that ginger drinks are extremely important to detoxify the body, and they’re right.

Rastafarianism in a nutshell

Bitters and ginger drinks also cleanse your system of mucus, the source of most diseases. But that’s another story for another day.

Thanks for reading.

Teekay.

colors by Teekay RM

The Environmental Cost of Colorful Clothing

Hi!

My name is Teekay and I’m obsessed with vibrant colors.

From bright sneakers to colorful hoodies, I’ve never been the type to dress in plain black or gray. Bright colors make me feel alive. They lift my mood, give me energy and help me express who I am.

When I put on my yellow T-shirt or my orange fleece, I feel optimistic, confident and ready for the day.

But my attachment to colorful clothing goes beyond aesthetics.

Across much of Africa, Asia and South America, vibrant clothing has always carried meaning. Colors celebrate identity, culture and tradition. From African wax prints to Andean ponchos, clothing tells stories without saying a word.

I grew up appreciating that.

For me, wearing colorful clothes has always been a way of expressing myself while staying connected to a part of my cultural heritage.

So naturally, I never questioned it.

Like most people, I admired the finished product without giving much thought to how it was made.

In fact, for the longest time, I genuinely believed sewing threads came pre-colored.

Ignorance is bliss.

As I grew older and became increasingly interested in environmental issues, I began questioning almost everything I owned. Where did it come from? Who made it? What resources were needed to produce it? What happened after I threw it away?

Eventually, those questions reached my wardrobe.

The answers weren’t what I expected.

The more I learned about the textile industry, the harder it became to look at colorful clothing the same way.

What once represented creativity and self-expression suddenly revealed another side entirely, one hidden behind factory walls, polluted rivers and supply chains most of us never think about.

That realization forced me to confront something I didn’t want to admit.

I could no longer claim to care deeply about the environment while ignoring the environmental cost of one of my favorite things.

I don’t make exceptions when my values are involved.

Changing my mind isn’t a weakness. Refusing to change despite new information is.

That’s one of the reasons I left social media and mass media years ago.

Conformism is intellectual death.

I don’t scroll. I don’t watch television. I only read the news when I’m researching something. I even stopped listening to music.

Stepping away from constant stimulation gives me the space to think for myself, to challenge my own habits instead of simply following everyone else’s.

Before learning about textile dyes, I would’ve defended my colorful wardrobe without hesitation. I would’ve convinced myself that my choices made no difference and that everyone else was doing the same thing anyway.

My thinking was flawed.

Individual actions don’t solve every global problem.

But they do shape the world we choose to support.

Once I understood what was hiding behind the colors I loved so much, I couldn’t pretend I didn’t know anymore.

So I started asking a different question.

What does it actually take to make our clothes so colorful?

What it really takes to make clothes colorful

Like most people, I never thought much about textile dyes.

I assumed fabrics simply came in different colors. I never wondered where those colors came from, how they were made or what happened once the dyeing process was over.

As it turns out, that’s where one of the fashion industry’s biggest environmental problems begins.

Every vibrant shirt, hoodie or pair of sneakers has to be dyed. While that may sound harmless, textile dyeing is one of the most polluting stages of clothing production.

According to the World Bank, textile dyeing is responsible for roughly 20% of global industrial water pollution.

Twenty percent.

I had to read that number twice.

The water used to dye our clothes is often mixed with synthetic chemicals, salts and heavy metals. In many parts of the world, especially where environmental regulations are weak or poorly enforced, that wastewater finds its way back into rivers and streams with little or no treatment.

The colors we enjoy don’t simply disappear.

They go somewhere.

Many synthetic dyes contain substances such as lead, cadmium and mercury, all of which can damage ecosystems and pose health risks to both wildlife and humans.

The pollution doesn’t stop once a garment leaves the factory either.

Every time we wash synthetic clothing, tiny plastic microfibers are released into our waterways. Most are too small to be filtered out by wastewater treatment plants, meaning they eventually end up in rivers, lakes and oceans.

The more I learned, the more difficult it became to separate my wardrobe from its environmental footprint.

Then I discovered something else.

Color wasn’t the only problem.

The dyes were only the beginning.

The entire fashion industry relies on enormous amounts of water, energy and raw materials.

Take a simple cotton T-shirt.

Producing just one can require around 2,700 liters of water. That’s often described as enough drinking water for one person for roughly two and a half years.

It’s difficult to comprehend numbers that large.

Yet most of us own dozens of shirts.

Then came another statistic that genuinely shocked me.

The fashion industry is responsible for roughly 10% of global carbon emissions, more than international aviation and maritime shipping combined.

And despite all those resources, most clothing doesn’t stay in circulation very long.

Around 87% of textile fibers eventually end up incinerated or buried in landfills.

Think about that for a moment.

We extract resources from the earth, consume vast amounts of water and energy to turn them into clothing, transport those garments across the planet and then throw most of them away after only a fraction of their useful life.

The problem isn’t color alone.

It’s the entire system surrounding it.

That realization changed the way I looked at my wardrobe.

It also forced me to ask a much more uncomfortable question.

If I already know all of this, how should I respond?

The only response that made sense to me

When I first learned all this, I wasn’t sure what to do.

I wasn’t about to throw away my wardrobe.

That would’ve been wasteful.

Nor was I willing to give up colors altogether.

After all, colors make me happy. They always have.

For a while, I found myself caught between two values I wasn’t willing to abandon.

On one side was my love for vibrant clothing.

On the other was my desire to live in a way that respects nature.

Reconciling the two wasn’t easy.

Then I realized something.

The problem wasn’t colorful clothing.

The problem was how we produce, consume and dispose of clothing.

Those aren’t the same thing.

It’s easy to blame a product.

It’s much harder to question the system that made the product so cheap, disposable and abundant in the first place.

That’s where minimalism entered the picture.

Not the version of minimalism that’s obsessed with white walls, empty apartments and owning exactly thirty-three possessions.

The version that asks a much simpler question.

Do I really need this?

Minimalism isn’t about deprivation.

It’s about intentionality.

It asks us to pause before buying.

To question whether we’re purchasing something because we genuinely need it, because it’ll last, because it’ll improve our lives, or simply because it’s new, colorful and temporarily exciting.

That distinction changed everything for me.

Instead of asking, “Can I buy this?”

I started asking, “Should I?”

Those are two completely different questions.

One is financial.

The other is moral.

Minimalism taught me that every purchase is a vote.

Every dollar we spend rewards a certain way of producing goods and encourages companies to continue doing more of it.

Whether we realize it or not, our wallets shape the world.

That’s why I no longer believe minimalism is just a lifestyle.

I see it as one of the most practical environmental tools available to ordinary people.

Buying less means fewer resources extracted from the earth.

Buying better encourages companies that invest in quality instead of disposability.

Buying secondhand extends the life of products that already exist instead of demanding new ones.

None of these actions will solve climate change on their own.

I know that.

But that’s never been the point.

People often dismiss individual actions because they’re small.

I think that’s a mistake.

Every large movement begins with individuals deciding to behave differently.

No one waits for society to change before changing society.

Individual actions don’t matter because they’re large.

They matter because they’re contagious.

The more I reflected on all this, the more obvious my next step became.

I wasn’t going to stop appreciating beautiful colors.

I was simply going to become far more selective about where those colors came from.

Whenever possible, I’d buy secondhand.

When buying new, I’d prioritize durable clothing over trendy clothing, natural dyes over synthetic ones whenever feasible and usefulness over impulse.

That may not change the world overnight.

But it’ll change the part of the world I’m responsible for.

And that’s enough reason to do it.

What I’m changing

Changing my habits doesn’t mean rejecting everything I own.

Quite the opposite.

Throwing away perfectly good clothes simply to replace them with “eco-friendly” alternatives would only create more waste.

The most sustainable garment is often the one that’s already in your closet.

So I’m keeping the colorful clothes I already own.

I’ll wear them until they can no longer be repaired.

That’s the minimalist approach.

Respect what already exists before demanding something new.

What will change is how I shop from now on.

Whenever possible, I’ll buy secondhand first.

Almost everything I own already comes from thrift stores, online marketplaces or flea markets. Aside from underwear and socks, I see little reason to insist on buying new.

Secondhand shopping doesn’t just save money.

It keeps perfectly usable clothing in circulation and reduces the demand for new production.

When I do buy new, I’ll try to choose garments that are built to last.

Not because they’re fashionable.

Not because they’re trendy.

Because durability is one of the most overlooked forms of sustainability.

A shirt that lasts ten years is usually far better for the environment than five shirts that each last two.

Whenever possible, I’ll also look for brands that use natural or lower-impact dyes.

They’re not perfect.

No product is.

But supporting companies that are genuinely trying to improve their production methods is one way of encouraging better practices across the industry.

The final change is perhaps the simplest.

I’ll wash my clothes less often.

Not because I enjoy dirty clothes.

Because most garments simply don’t need to be washed after every use.

Less washing means less water, less electricity, fewer detergents entering waterways and less wear on the fabric itself.

Ironically, my clothes now last longer because I clean them less.

Living without a washing machine taught me that.

At first, I thought it would be inconvenient.

Instead, it changed my relationship with clothing altogether.

We naturally started accumulating fewer clothes, washing larger loads less frequently and appreciating what we already had.

It also made me realize something much bigger.

Not every household needs to own every appliance.

Shared laundries make a great deal of sense, especially in apartment buildings.

One washing machine used efficiently by many households often has a lower environmental footprint than dozens of underused machines sitting behind dozens of different doors.

The same principle applies to many other things we own.

Perhaps the future isn’t about owning more.

Perhaps it’s about sharing more.

The sharing economy deserves an essay of its own.

For now, I’ll leave that thought here.

Because ultimately, this article isn’t about washing machines.

It isn’t even about colorful clothes.

It’s about becoming more conscious of the hidden cost behind the ordinary things we rarely question.

Once we begin asking those questions, it’s surprisingly difficult to stop.

Final thoughts

Writing this essay didn’t make me love colorful clothing any less.

If anything, it reminded me why I loved it in the first place.

Colors express joy, creativity and culture. They tell stories. They allow us to celebrate who we are.

The problem was never color.

The problem was everything hidden behind it.

Like many environmental issues, textile pollution remains largely invisible to those of us living thousands of miles away from where our clothes are made.

We don’t see polluted rivers.

We don’t breathe the chemicals.

We don’t meet the workers handling hazardous dyes every day.

We simply see a colorful shirt hanging under bright lights in a clean store.

It’s easy to disconnect consumption from consequence.

I know, because I did it for years.

But once we become aware of the hidden cost behind everyday products, pretending not to know becomes much harder.

That doesn’t mean we should strive for perfection.

Perfection doesn’t exist.

None of us will ever make perfectly ethical purchases.

I certainly won’t.

What matters is that we keep moving in the right direction.

Maybe that means buying one less shirt this year.

Maybe it means repairing one instead of replacing it.

Maybe it means discovering that your favorite jacket already exists in a thrift store.

Small actions rarely make headlines.

They quietly become habits.

And habits eventually become culture.

I often write about minimalism because I genuinely believe it offers practical solutions to many of the challenges we face today.

Environmental degradation.

Financial stress.

Consumerism.

Clutter.

Even mental fatigue.

Owning less doesn’t solve every problem.

But owning intentionally changes the relationship we have with everything else.

In many ways, that’s what this essay has really been about.

Not colorful clothing.

Not textile dyes.

Not even fashion.

It’s about learning to see the invisible consequences of ordinary decisions.

Because every purchase supports a certain vision of the future.

The question isn’t whether our choices matter.

The question is:

What kind of world are our choices helping create?

If you’d like to support my work, consider following me or subscribing to my newsletter.

I write about minimalism, intentional living, environmental solutions, travel and the world as it could be.

Thanks for reading.

Tee.

You Don’t Need to Trust the Media to See Climate Change

Global warming is here to stay.

Climate change has become one of the most polarizing topics of our time.

Depending on who you ask, it’s either the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced or a problem that’s been exaggerated beyond recognition. Politicians argue about it. Television debates it. Social media turns it into another battleground.

But what if we stepped away from all of that for a moment?

What if, instead of asking what politicians, journalists or commentators think, we simply looked around us?

Sometimes, reality speaks for itself.

Over the past few years, I’ve watched rivers shrink, forests burn and heatwaves become increasingly common in places where they once felt exceptional. Friends living in different parts of the world tell similar stories. Farmers talk about unpredictable seasons. Water restrictions have become more frequent. Wildfires have intensified across multiple continents.

You don’t have to agree with every headline to notice that something is changing.

You don’t have to trust every report to observe what’s happening around you.

Talk to older relatives.

Talk to people who work the land.

Talk to fishermen, hikers or anyone who spends significant time outdoors.

Ask them whether the seasons still feel the same as they did twenty or thirty years ago.

Whether you trust politicians, journalists or climate scientists isn’t actually the point I’m making.

Reality exists independently of who reports it.

Climate change doesn’t care whether we’re conservative or progressive, religious or secular, rich or poor.

The atmosphere doesn’t vote.

Nature doesn’t negotiate.

The real question isn’t whether the climate is changing.

It’s how we choose to respond.

For me, the answer has less to do with waiting for revolutionary technologies than with rethinking the way we live.

We consume far more than we need.

We replace products that still work.

We normalize waste.

We chase convenience even when it comes at a tremendous environmental cost.

Modern consumerism has taught us that happiness comes from buying more.

The planet is telling us otherwise.

That doesn’t mean giving up comfort or returning to life centuries ago.

It means consuming more intentionally.

Buying fewer but better things.

Repairing instead of replacing.

Walking when we can.

Using public transportation more often.

Supporting companies that take sustainability seriously.

Reducing food waste.

Sharing resources instead of duplicating them.

Holding companies like banks accountable.

Many of these habits don’t just reduce our environmental impact.

They also save money, reduce stress and improve our quality of life.

That’s one of the reasons I was drawn to minimalism in the first place.

The same choices that help us live with less clutter often happen to be the same choices that place less strain on the planet.

Perhaps that isn’t a coincidence.

Maybe we’ve spent so long looking for complicated solutions that we’ve overlooked the simple ones.

Throughout history, humanity has repeatedly adapted to new challenges.

This one is no different.

The question isn’t whether change is coming.

It’s whether we’re willing to change with it.

Thanks for reading.

Teekay.

Electric Cars VS Internal Combustion Engine cars: everything you need to know

I honestly couldn’t make my mind up on this one, so I had to do a quick dive to see what’s what.

Note: said quick dive took a whole month of research, but I don’t want to talk about it 🙄

Anyway, what I found was interesting, read on!

Before we go any further, keep in mind that I have nothing to gain from any of this, nor do I want to change your mind 🙂

It’s just food for thought.

Lingo:

ICE = Internal Combustion Engine (conventional cars)

EC = Electric Car

EV = Electric Vehicle

GHG = GreenHouse Gas

  • Intro

The first question I wondered about was financial cost, and the answer was unsurprisingly straight forward: ICE cars are way cheaper than ECs.

The second question I asked myself, quite obviously, was about environmental cost (or impact), ’cause money ain’t the sole reason we do what we do and consume what we consume.

Things like biodiversity, social justice, air quality, disease prevention and health are far more important than money, which makes this topic well worth the debate.

Here are 3 questions worth considering when discussing the environmental impact of car-making:

  • What are the emissions from production (materials and lining) for both types of vehicle ?
  • What are the GHG emissions to be expected from both types of vehicle ? 
  • What are the end of life/end of cycle GHG emissions for both types of vehicles ? 

Before we get any further, there was a study by Yale in 2019 that concluded that emissions for both types of cars are similar and very small to be worth looking further into.

They changed their stance in 2021 when they found that Electric Vehicles provide lower carbon emissions “through additional channels”.

Subsequently, Jarod Cory Kelly, principal energy systems analyst at Argonne National Lab, said making EVs generates more carbon than combustion engine cars, mainly due to the extraction and processing of minerals in EV batteries and the production of power cells.

  • Electric VS Internal Combustion Engine cars: emissions

A dozen studies show that conventional vehicle production emissions range between 2 to 17 metric tons of GHG (10 metric tons being the most common average I found)

They also show that a typical, medium-sized, conventional family car will create around 24 tons of CO2 during its life cycle.

The same studies indicate that average EC production emissions sit at around 10 metric tons per car as well, without the battery.

They also show that a typical EV will create around 18 tons of CO2 during its life cycle.

For EVs, 46% of their total carbon footprint is generated at the factory, before they’ve traveled a single mile.

For instance, and because of battery production, this whitepaper claims that we emit 15 to 70% more GHG to produce electric cars.

  • Battery size matters

Now, there’s also a huge difference when it comes to battery size: a Nissan leaf battery (and car) will only cause 15% more emissions to produce than a classic combustion engine (conventional car), whereas a Tesla battery could cost up to 70% more, according to Net Zero Watch.

  • In numbers

ICE cars produce 10 tons of CO2 to make, and emit 5.2 metric tons of CO2 per year (on the road).

ECs without the battery also produce 10 tons to make, but only emit 2.2 metric tons of CO2 per year.

Now, to make a 30 kWh lithium battery (Nissan Leaf), companies emit from 1 to 5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. To produce a 100 kWh (Tesla) battery, that number ranges between 6 and 17 tons of GHG.

If we base our reasoning on these numbers only, it takes roughly 2 years on the road before a small electric car starts producing less carbon than an ICE car.

If you change the battery in the meantime, you’re looking at around 3.2 years to offset your carbon emissions.

That only applies when talking about small ECs.

For a Tesla, however, you’re looking at roughly 5.53 years of driving before you break-even.

Note: estimates as to how big that carbon gap is when a car is first sold and where the “break-even” point comes can vary widely, depending on the assumptions, driving style, distances covered and the country in question.

For instance, if said electric car is being driven in a country like Norway, which generates almost all its electricity from renewable hydropower, the break-even point would come much sooner.

University of Liege researcher Damien Ernst said in 2019 that the typical EV would have to travel nearly 700,000 km before it emitted less CO2 than a comparable gasoline vehicle. He later revised his figures down.

Now, he estimates the break-even point could be between 67,000 km and 151,000 km.

  • Lithium, cobalt, nickel and aluminum

Lithium makes up for 5 to 7% of an EC battery, which isn’t as much as most people think.

Cobalt and nickel make up a bigger chunk, up to 20% for cobalt and up to 10% for nickel.

  • Lithium mining

One of the main problems with Lithium mining is that it’s a very water intensive process, which makes it environmentally consequential.

Lithium extraction uses a lot of water and is the cause for droughts in regions where it’s extracted.

For instance, Lithium mining used 65% of water supply of Salar de Atacama in Chile. Many studies confirmed these astronomical numbers.

“Lithium mining requires large volumes of groundwater to pump out brines from drilled wells. Mining activities in the Atacama are estimated to consume 65 percent of the area’s water, and they have in some cases contaminated streams and caused significant fall in groundwater”

More on that here.

The main difference between pollution caused by Lithium mining and CO2 pollution is that we, and our planet, can capture CO2 through forests, soils and oceans. The same can’t be said about the loss of water, a scarce element on earth.

FYI, the ocean is the planet’s largest carbon sink. It absorbs excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it. “Approximately 40% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning since the dawn of the industrial era has been taken up by the ocean“, per Oceanographic Magazine.

Besides water consumption and pollution, evaporation and contamination, Lithium mining is also a cause for high GHG emissions, which comes as no surprise.

Large ECs with long range batteries (which you’d want in a car) could be responsible for up to 17 metric tons of CO2 emissions, so while governments may want to subsidize EC and EV manufacturers, I’m still unsure of the effectivity of this tactic for the environment.

Download this Fact Sheet (PDF) if you want to learn about Lithium, Lithium mining, regulations and laws.

  • How about cobalt mining?

The race for cobalt risks turning it from miracle metal to deadly chemical‘, per The Guardian.

Cobalt-producing nations like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia and Cuba are discovering that cobalt mining is trickier than they first thought.

Lung disease and heart failure have been linked to high levels of this element, while the mines that produce it are blamed for devastated landscapes, water pollution, contaminated crops and a loss of soil fertility.

Scientists are also investigating a possible link to cancer.

The environmental impact extends through the life-cycle of the product from refineries, battery plants, consumers goods manufacturers, electronic recycling facilities and waste dumps.

Among the most affected are workers at poorly-regulated mines, as always.

Concerns in the Congo, which produces more than 60% of the world’s cobalt and where the mineral is often mined in tandem with nickel, copper or silver, are rising when it comes to child mining and child labor.

For instance, Apple and Google were recently named in a US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths.

Obviously, ECs and EVs aren’t the only ones to blame, as most electronic devices use cobalt as well.

  • Nickel mining

Did you know that Nickel (Ni) is the most expensive material in EVs after Cobalt ?

Did you also know that Indonesia accounts for the largest supply of Nickel in the world ? As if Palm Oil wasn’t destructive enough for the island country.. (Indonesia counts for more than half of global palm oil supply btw)

Note: On April 22nd 2022, Indonesia announced plans to ban exports of Palm Oil (Yay!)

Back to the Nickel (no Nickelback jokes, please)

Reports by IDTechEx state that the demand for nickel from EV batteries is expected to increase ten-fold by 2030 compared to 2019.

One of the main problems surrounding nickel mining is that ores normally contain only a very small percentage of useful Ni, resulting in a large amount of waste material.

“Recently it has been announced that two nickel mining companies in Indonesia are planning to use deep-sea disposal for the raw material waste into the Coral Triangle as they ramp up operations,” the report states.

On the other side of the spectrum, back in 2017, the Philippines government suspended nearly half of its nickel mines citing environmental concerns.

So Nickel, like Cobalt and Lithium, is also highly destructive to the environment in ways that we can’t easily bypass, unlike CO2 emissions..

  • Recycling of batteries

The recycling of batteries is another issue, an important one, especially in the water scarcity debate.

In the EU, as few as 5% of lithium-ion batteries are recycled. This has an environmental cost.

Not only do the batteries carry a risk of giving off toxic gases if damaged, but core ingredients such as lithium and cobalt are finite and extraction can lead to water pollution and depletion, among other environmental consequences.

Francisco Carranza, former managing director at Nissan and current VP of sales and marketing at Automotive Cells Company, says the fundamental problem is that while the cost of fully recycling a battery is falling toward €1 per kilo, the value of the raw materials that can be reclaimed is only a third of that.

That said, Nissan, like many other car manufacturers, has partnered with power management firm Eaton for its car batteries to be re-used for home energy storage, rather than be recycled.

Perhaps there’s reason to be optimistic, after all.

For instance, the Johan Cruyff Arena, Ajax Amsterdam’s home field, is home to the equivalent of 148 used Nissan Leaf batteries, which found a second life in this stadium.

The JCA is one of the most sustainable spots in Europe. Solar panels, super-green energy storage and onsite vehicle-to-grid charging can all be found in this beautiful piece of engineering.

The arena is a prime example of sustainability at scale. It’s currently the largest energy storage bank in a commercial building in Europe.

  • Where do electric vehicles get their electricity ?

Let’s put all of this to the side and discuss something that’s equally as important as battery components: energy.

Where do EVs get their energy from ?

It turns out that many regions in the world are still getting their electricity from COAL-powered plants.

In fact, 23% of electricity comes from coal-fired plants in the United States alone. Studies estimate that number to be around 22.9 percent in Europe.

How much of Europe’s energy comes from fossil fuels?

For the structure of gross available energy in 2020, 68.4 % of all energy in the EU was produced from coal, crude oil and natural gas.

Not so green huh ?

  • The verdict ?

I don’t have one.

But one thing is for sure, I’ll definitely stick to my beautiful 2005 Corolla for now.

Besides, I will always prefer higher CO2 emissions to water pollution, leading to water shortages and scarcity. Child labor and the massive environmental impacts mentioned above are also reasons why EVs aren’t my thing, now more than ever. I don’t see them as a solution but just a massive greenwashing campaign to make us switch our old functional cars with newer, shinier and more expensive ones.

That said, by no means am I saying conventional cars don’t pollute. All I’m saying is, there’s no need to push for newer technologies just for the sake of newness. That’s the whole premise around consumerism, which is the core ideology of capitalism.

Our oceans, with around 38,000 gigatons of carbon, contain 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere.

On the other hand, our CO2 emissions today sit at around 36.4 gigatons of CO2.

Our oceans are one of the most promising places to sequester carbon. They currently take up a third of the carbon emitted by human activity, roughly 2.9 billion metric tons each year, according to new estimates.

Now, let me ask you this: can you imagine how much CO2 we would intrap if our oceans were healthy ?

Imagine a world where industrial fishing is banned for good?

People often say that we need to “Save The Earth”. I personally don’t think the Earth needs saving, I think the Earth will be just fine without us. Instead, we need to save ourselves by abolishing all unnecessary exploitations.

The earth is a magical place, a gift that’ll keep on giving, but we need to start looking at things differently.

The solution to the current environmental crisis doesn’t necessarily lie in switching out ICE cars for EVs, not everywhere. We must reintroduce trains, rely on cleaner energy to run them, perhaps focus on industrial EVs, but not necessarily swtich from personal ICE cars to personal EVs.

We have to start looking at all industries, and go through them one by one.

The impacts of certain industries are often dismissed, it’s dangerous.

To save ourselves, we need to abolish unnecessary exploitations and consumerism. Simultaneously, we need to keep pushing research towards truly cleaner options.

Our beautiful planet can easily deal with GHG emissions, but it can hardly “regenerate” polluted water, water being the scarcest element on earth.

Last but not least, if you thought Russia controlling 5% of oil exports was a threat to global stability, wait until you find out who controls 90% of the critical rare earth elements needed for EVs and solar panels.

  • In sum

ICE Cars are here to stay and that’s okay, for now.

Perhaps newer technologies will come into place and replace the old ones, but let’s give credit where credit is due.

Cars are a blessing.

The demonization of ICE cars has risen sharply, it’s baffling and quite unwarranted. People who can’t afford EVs (or don’t want to switch) have been heavily criticized by mainstream media, so this piece is essentially here to establish some sort of balance.

It’s important to remember that cars, just like railroads, boats and airplanes have played a huge part in how humanity has developed in the past century.

Cars make our lives safer and more comfortable. They allow us to access places and resources that are viable and necessary to evolve as a species.

The debate around EVs vs ICE cars is a matter of choosing the lesser of two necessary evils, it’s sterile and borderline absurd.

As things stand economically, socially and historically, there is no clear winner. Besides, as I mentioned before, I reckon we’re barking at the wrong tree in the sustainability debate.

How about we tackle unnecessary industries like fast fashion, industrial fishing, factory farming, food retail first ?

Worth considering.

Watch this if you want to know more about the innovation of the engine.

  • Studies worth exploring: 

Yale: link 1

Reuters: link 2

The Wall Street journal: link 3

The NY Times: link 4

US Environmental Protection Agency: link 5

Cordis EU Research results: link 6