As far as activities you can do in your leisure time go, browsing through your phone probably has less environmental impact than anything other than napping. Even say, reading a (physical) book is usually going to require you to go to a bookstore or library (or worse, have it delivered) which will have carbon expenditure.
Exercise, board games, write, read a book you already own, socialise with housemates/neighbours, do any of a billion hobbies, do anything where you only have to walk to the place. Go for a walk, go foraging, sit in the sun, do some gardening, plant some seeds from your own fruit, volunteer somewhere local, draw stuff, craft stuff, daydream, do some puzzles, do some DIY repairs.
I’m not saying these things are ideal, some will be more possible than others due to circumstances. But I mean it did take two minutes to come up with that list of (typically) enjoyable stuff to do in your leisure time that has net neutral or even net positive environment impact.
I don’t think it’s good nor correct to say the phone usage is the second best possible ‘leisure’ thing you can do with your life for environmental impact. Depending on how granular one got, it wouldn’t even make #100.
All of those are way more rewarding than scrolling on a phone, but most of them actually have a higher carbon footprint. Not that life should be lived purely on that metric, but the ad aims to guilt people for their screen usage. Reminds me of a discussion I read around this chart:
Modern batteries are so efficient that an e-bike has less carbon footprint than traditional cycling- which in itself is much more efficient than walking.
As far as activities you can do in your leisure time go, browsing through your phone probably has less environmental impact than anything other than napping. Even say, reading a (physical) book is usually going to require you to go to a bookstore or library (or worse, have it delivered) which will have carbon expenditure.
Exercise, board games, write, read a book you already own, socialise with housemates/neighbours, do any of a billion hobbies, do anything where you only have to walk to the place. Go for a walk, go foraging, sit in the sun, do some gardening, plant some seeds from your own fruit, volunteer somewhere local, draw stuff, craft stuff, daydream, do some puzzles, do some DIY repairs.
I’m not saying these things are ideal, some will be more possible than others due to circumstances. But I mean it did take two minutes to come up with that list of (typically) enjoyable stuff to do in your leisure time that has net neutral or even net positive environment impact.
I don’t think it’s good nor correct to say the phone usage is the second best possible ‘leisure’ thing you can do with your life for environmental impact. Depending on how granular one got, it wouldn’t even make #100.
All of those are way more rewarding than scrolling on a phone, but most of them actually have a higher carbon footprint. Not that life should be lived purely on that metric, but the ad aims to guilt people for their screen usage. Reminds me of a discussion I read around this chart:
Modern batteries are so efficient that an e-bike has less carbon footprint than traditional cycling- which in itself is much more efficient than walking.