• knightly the Sneptaur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    The resources used to make the sign don’t come from nowhere. They have go be mined, processed, transported, fabricated into a finished product, and shipped again. That’s a non-zero environmental impact even for a basic non-illuminated sign.

    • entwine413@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      By that logic, having buildings is harmful. You’re never going to achieve zero environmental impact no matter what you do.

      But again, not all advertising uses physical resources. If an independent artist shares their work on their social media page for people who want to see their content, that’s advertising, and it’s not a bad thing.

      But, of course you’re going to nitpick things to hell until you find the exception.

      Edit: Actually, come to think of it, building signage can have a net positive environmental effect. You could easily make a sign with reclaimed lumber or other recycled/upcycled materials.

      • knightly the Sneptaur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Buildings provide shelter, advertising provides nothing.

        Artists who post their work on social media aren’t advertising unless they are also paying to have their posts injected into the feeds of people who don’t follow them.