Is that eco-friendly really eco-friendly?

Most broadleaf forests in Japan are deciduous. Many insects live on the trunks and leaves of broadleaf trees, and birds gather to hunt for these insects. In autumn, broadleaf trees turn the mountainside red and yellow, then shed their leaves. The fallen leaves gradually decompose, becoming nutrients that are absorbed into the soil. The water that seeps into the streams over time becomes rich in nutrients, allowing river insects to grow. These in turn support many mountain stream fish, such as char and yamame trout, which eat the river insects.
The nutrient-rich water that flows out of the broadleaf forest eventually reaches the sea, where it helps seaweed such as kelp and wakame grow, and at the same time produces a lot of plankton. This in turn attracts many fish in search of the plankton. Fallen leaves that flow into the sea also provide food for small animals such as sea urchins and amphipods, supporting life.
In this way, rivers and the sea are closely connected, and rich seas spread out at the mouths of rich rivers. In other words, it can be said that mountains of deciduous broadleaf trees nurture rich seas.

On the other hand, coniferous forests have a high oil content, so even if dead branches and leaves accumulate, they do not decompose, making them an environment that is difficult to call suitable for the growth of microorganisms and insects. If thinning is not carried out sufficiently, undergrowth does not grow and even a little rain will wash away the topsoil. If the soil that flows out covers the rocks in the stream, river insects will no longer be able to live there. Char and yamame trout will also be deprived of their food and beautiful habitat.
The sediment that flows out eventually reaches the ocean, but if it covers the seabed, small animals such as sea urchins and starfish cannot survive. Although the ocean has the ability to purify itself, if sediment flows into it for a long period of time, the surrounding sea will eventually die. In other words, the reforestation project that we invested in with good intentions may actually have caused environmental destruction in terms of maintaining biodiversity.

Like this, there are many things around us that look environmentally friendly at first glance, but in reality they are not. One example is the eco-car subsidy that was widely publicized a while ago. According to one estimate, 1,700 kg of CO2 is emitted when making a new car, but it is said that to make up for this amount of emissions through improved fuel efficiency, it would take 50,000 to 80,000 km of driving. Since the average annual driving distance for a salaryman's household is said to be about 5,000 km, it would take more than 10 years. By that time, it will be time to buy a new car, and the more you drive in an attempt to make up for the emissions quickly, the more CO2 emissions you will emit. It may be appreciated as a measure to revitalize the economy, but can we say that it is also effective as an environmental measure?

It goes without saying that environmental conservation, energy conservation, and resource conservation are now issues that we in the architectural world must tackle head-on. However, when adopting new technologies and new materials, we need to take a moment to calmly and objectively make a judgment. "Can we really call this technology environmentally friendly in its entirety?" How much energy is used during production and distribution, and what about when it is disposed of after its useful life has expired? We need to evaluate it based on its total performance, including all of these factors, but currently there is a critical lack of information to do so. I would like manufacturers of materials and products to proactively disclose such information.