How are eco-friendly resources eco-friendly if they take things from the enviroment?

Question by scαяℓεтт;; ate a poptart: How are eco-friendly resources eco-friendly if they take things from the enviroment?
How are eco-friendly resources eco-friendly if they take things from the enviroment?
I think the word is being over used. I see things like bamboo made hair brush so they cut down some bamboo forests that pandas need to eat. So how is this being eco-friendly? Is it causing more damage than good? More than factories making a brush without bamboo?

Best answer:

Answer by thelightedtorch
Because they are sustainable, and renewable. Bamboo for instance, is a grass. It grows to it’s full size in only a few months. If that hairbrush had been made with wood, it would require a tree that would take a hundred years to be replaced.

Add your own answer in the comments!

5 Responses to “How are eco-friendly resources eco-friendly if they take things from the enviroment?”

  1. They only take things we wont need and if they do tale something from the envirment its not much

  2. Bamboo and stuff like that is more eco-friendly than regular wood because it is one of the fastest growing plants, therefore it can regrow more quickly, unlike other trees, which take many years to reach their previous height.
    As for whether or not it takes away panda food, I don’t know but I would think it would be a different kind or maybe grow in a different place.
    We would probably hear if environmentally friendly stuff killed pandas, right?

  3. What they mean by Eco-Friendly is renewable safe and abundant amount of. Let me put it like this. Right now we are not Eco-Friendly. We continue to run our automobiles on fossil fuels when there are Plenty other safer alternates such as Hemp oil. another example would be the lumber industry i dont even have to say more then 1 Acer of hemp can produce as much paper as 4.1 Acers of lumber =/
    Even though cutting down bamboo forests dosent seem “Eco-Friendly” it fits the definition in a way, even if it does do bad. But come on cutting down bamboo forests for a hair brush? Use ur fingers before you do that hehe

  4. I agree it’s not really the best term. But, we should look at what it means, not the literal interpretation. Humans need to utilize resources at some level just to survive. Even hunters and gatherers had to remove some plants and animals from the environment for food and tools. The term isn’t meant to give the impression that it’s non-impact, just better that the alternative. Like with most things, eco-friendliness isn’t really best measured on a yes/no scale, but as a matter of degree. If the product is something completely useless that we don’t need anyway, it’s best to not use it all, second best to use a greener alternative, and worst to use something completely destructive and non-renewable.

    Bamboo used for manufacturing doesn’t come from forests, it’s farmed in a plantation method. Yes, this means that land is being allocated to mono-cropping instead of natural growth, so that has it’s inherent non-friendly aspects, but it’s not exactly the same as ripping the food right from the panda’s mouth. Mono-cropping has it’s eco downsides, but it is more land-efficient than natural growth so in some ways it’s better.

  5. Oftentimes, it depends on whether something is clear cut or not, or whether something is grown and re-grown in a specific area (like farming- it doesn’t harm anything if it is grown in a designated plot). I do agree that the word is overused, though. Companies often do the tiniest thing and pass themselves off as environmentally concerned. Ridiculous.

The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to,,,,, or