Eco

[souspeed]

We'll see I guess. I am quite confident that his thinking is slightly more sophisticated than that.

I do share his criticism of how things actually work today by the way. But that is not the meta discussion.

Let' start with a global ban on the usage of plastic for small packaging and throw away tools, and replace these with biodegradable or durable versions.
Plus each country being responsible for the recycling of their own plastic, and not allowed to export this plastic.

I do not know enough about the total picture to have much of an opinion, but seems like a reasonable goal at least.

What I find so sad is how it is impossible at the moment to have a proper nuanced conversation. slide obviously being a good example of someone that is just incapable of having any sort of meaningful discussion with. Plastic is probably doing some harm, but it is also doing a lot of good things for human "life". What if replacing plastic means an increase in Co2-emissions because whatever we replace it with will require more energy to be produced? Doesn't mean in such a situation that I mean plastic should not be replaced, but this requires some deep thinking - and that one cannot have such a discussion based on slogans and instagram pictures of tortoises swallowing plastic.

I understand your question, but this cannot be answered on a meta level, then it stays too vague.
Less CO2 for plastic versions, might be better or worse. Depending on the possible solutions.
Therefore; you will need to quantify it.

Milk in plastic bottles is far more CO2 friendly to transport, than milk in 'heavy' reusable glas bottles.
So you will need to find a solution for this transportation problem.
E.g. having milk supply trucks refill the glass bottles at the supermarket or a distribution center close to the city.
This will make the milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will all have to pay for a clean environment.

Plastic is too cheap to use, that's the problem, and that's why we need a ban.

[Havre]

Let' start with a global ban on the usage of plastic for small packaging and throw away tools, and replace these with biodegradable or durable versions.
Plus each country being responsible for the recycling of their own plastic, and not allowed to export this plastic.

I do not know enough about the total picture to have much of an opinion, but seems like a reasonable goal at least.

What I find so sad is how it is impossible at the moment to have a proper nuanced conversation. slide obviously being a good example of someone that is just incapable of having any sort of meaningful discussion with. Plastic is probably doing some harm, but it is also doing a lot of good things for human "life". What if replacing plastic means an increase in Co2-emissions because whatever we replace it with will require more energy to be produced? Doesn't mean in such a situation that I mean plastic should not be replaced, but this requires some deep thinking - and that one cannot have such a discussion based on slogans and instagram pictures of tortoises swallowing plastic.

I understand your question, but this cannot be answered on a meta level, then it stays too vague.
Less CO2 for plastic versions, might be better or worse. Depending on the possible solutions.
Therefore; you will need to quantify it.

Milk in plastic bottles is far more CO2 friendly to transport, than milk in 'heavy' reusable glas bottles.
So you will need to find a solution for this transportation problem.
E.g. having milk supply trucks refill the glass bottles at the supermarket or a distribution center close to the city.
This will make the milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will all have to pay for a clean environment.

Plastic is too cheap to use, that's the problem, and that's why we need a ban.

Too many shortcuts there for me.

You identify an issue - and you get out by saying "will need to find a solution for this transportation problem" and "make milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will have to pay".

I guess most people on here got enough resources to buy a computer and I guess in most cases kites. Meaning you/we are already far richer than if not most so a significant percentage of the world's population. So paying that premium might seem like a small thing, but it isn't - for many. And how many of these "premiums" will accumulate? Clearly there are more premiums to be paid than just for milk.

Now we seem to have entered some such of absurd world where we are all signaling how good we are - without having a deep understanding of what is the right way to go and in which order.

I would gladly work to ban plastic if I felt reasonably safe it would be the right way to go. Only thing I know now is that I have far too little information to know.

[souspeed]

I do not know enough about the total picture to have much of an opinion, but seems like a reasonable goal at least.

What I find so sad is how it is impossible at the moment to have a proper nuanced conversation. slide obviously being a good example of someone that is just incapable of having any sort of meaningful discussion with. Plastic is probably doing some harm, but it is also doing a lot of good things for human "life". What if replacing plastic means an increase in Co2-emissions because whatever we replace it with will require more energy to be produced? Doesn't mean in such a situation that I mean plastic should not be replaced, but this requires some deep thinking - and that one cannot have such a discussion based on slogans and instagram pictures of tortoises swallowing plastic.

I understand your question, but this cannot be answered on a meta level, then it stays too vague.
Less CO2 for plastic versions, might be better or worse. Depending on the possible solutions.
Therefore; you will need to quantify it.

Milk in plastic bottles is far more CO2 friendly to transport, than milk in 'heavy' reusable glas bottles.
So you will need to find a solution for this transportation problem.
E.g. having milk supply trucks refill the glass bottles at the supermarket or a distribution center close to the city.
This will make the milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will all have to pay for a clean environment.

Plastic is too cheap to use, that's the problem, and that's why we need a ban.

Too many shortcuts there for me.

You identify an issue - and you get out by saying "will need to find a solution for this transportation problem" and "make milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will have to pay".

I guess most people on here got enough resources to buy a computer and I guess in most cases kites. Meaning you/we are already far richer than if not most so a significant percentage of the world's population. So paying that premium might seem like a small thing, but it isn't - for many. And how many of these "premiums" will accumulate? Clearly there are more premiums to be paid than just for milk.

Now we seem to have entered some such of absurd world where we are all signaling how good we are - without having a deep understanding of what is the right way to go and in which order.

I would gladly work to ban plastic if I felt reasonably safe it would be the right way to go. Only thing I know now is that I have far too little information to know.

Well you can start small.
Buy a bicycle for local transportation, and use less plastic where possible.

[Pemba]

I understand your question, but this cannot be answered on a meta level, then it stays too vague.
Less CO2 for plastic versions, might be better or worse. Depending on the possible solutions.
Therefore; you will need to quantify it.

Milk in plastic bottles is far more CO2 friendly to transport, than milk in 'heavy' reusable glas bottles.
So you will need to find a solution for this transportation problem.
E.g. having milk supply trucks refill the glass bottles at the supermarket or a distribution center close to the city.
This will make the milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will all have to pay for a clean environment.

Plastic is too cheap to use, that's the problem, and that's why we need a ban.

Too many shortcuts there for me.

You identify an issue - and you get out by saying "will need to find a solution for this transportation problem" and "make milk a bit more expensive, but this is the premium we will have to pay".

I guess most people on here got enough resources to buy a computer and I guess in most cases kites. Meaning you/we are already far richer than if not most so a significant percentage of the world's population. So paying that premium might seem like a small thing, but it isn't - for many. And how many of these "premiums" will accumulate? Clearly there are more premiums to be paid than just for milk.

Now we seem to have entered some such of absurd world where we are all signaling how good we are - without having a deep understanding of what is the right way to go and in which order.

I would gladly work to ban plastic if I felt reasonably safe it would be the right way to go. Only thing I know now is that I have far too little information to know.

Well you can start small.
Buy a bicycle for local transportation, and use less plastic where possible.

There must be many plastics items which could be banned at very little cost, and to some extent this is happening. But I remember when a few years back Tanzania completely banned the use of "single use plastic bags, the type that was given out for free in any amount at the supermarket checkout, a similar ban was considered unfeasible or something in Europe. Something like that anyway. What does it take to bring a shopping bag ? Too much obviously. Plastic cups in coffee machines, plastic utensils used in planes, 3 tomatoes packed and sold in the supermarket on a little styrofoam tray with plastic cover etc etc, there must be many such things. Off course there will be some jobs lost. But some jobs will be gained as well. Where plastic is necessary, the cost could include real recycling costs. If implemented at a certain pace, society will come up with alternatives. Yes, life will become a little bit more expensive for everybody. But off course this should be looked into properly before being implemented.

[knotwindy]

Is plastic part of the ‘petroleum’ based problem? Of course, so maybe we stop subsidizing that and then add the cost of recycling to get a much more accurate actual cost of the plastic. My guess is that if the true cost of it was passed on, there would be less used and more recovery/reuse/recycle going on. But as most have said, it’s very convoluted and complicated and none of use really knows enough to be sure of the outcome of any major changes.

[Matteo V]

Well you can start small.
Buy a bicycle for local transportation, and use less plastic where possible.

The most recycled, and failed, idea in human history! From diets to defense, this satisfying and ancient thought process seems to get the respect that actually solving problems deserves.

If you are on a sinking ship, would you start to bail out the incoming water with a thimble? Should you be commended for organizing 20 fellow passengers to all bail with thimbles?

The problem with this mentality is that it pacifies and eliminates the drive to actually do something with measurable results. Yes, math is hard. But ignoring it makes life even harder.

[Pemba]

Well you can start small.
Buy a bicycle for local transportation, and use less plastic where possible.

The most recycled, and failed, idea in human history! From diets to defense, this satisfying and ancient thought process seems to get the respect that actually solving problems deserves.

If you are on a sinking ship, would you start to bail out the incoming water with a thimble? Should you be commended for organizing 20 fellow passengers to all bail with thimbles?

The problem with this mentality is that it pacifies and eliminates the drive to actually do something with measurable results. Yes, math is hard. But ignoring it makes life even harder.

I think you're right and we prefer to fool ourselves. I believe that the drive you refer to just isn't there. People aren't willing enough to change. Can you give a practical example of what you believe we should we do ?

[Matteo V]

Is plastic part of the ‘petroleum’ based problem? Of course, so maybe we stop subsidizing that and then add the cost of recycling to get a much more accurate actual cost of the plastic. My guess is that if the true cost of it was passed on, there would be less used and more recovery/reuse/recycle going on. But as most have said, it’s very convoluted and complicated and none of use really knows enough to be sure of the outcome of any major changes.

No, the math is pretty easy to figure out. Recycling takes energy. Most supposed recyclable materials take more energy to recycle than pulling the raw material out of the Earth and making new materials. In certain areas there is even water cost concern with recycling, as it takes water to clean many materials prior to recycling. So if you consider all of the pollution and environmental impact, burying your trash is oftentimes a better environmental alternative. I know some people can't deal with that, but it is the truth.

As far as subsidies, they are an indication of inefficiencies. Sure you can charge more for a product so that you can afford the water and energy to recycle that product, but do you really want to increase energy output so that you can say you recycled something?

[StellaBlu]

Is plastic part of the ‘petroleum’ based problem? Of course, so maybe we stop subsidizing that and then add the cost of recycling to get a much more accurate actual cost of the plastic. My guess is that if the true cost of it was passed on, there would be less used and more recovery/reuse/recycle going on. But as most have said, it’s very convoluted and complicated and none of use really knows enough to be sure of the outcome of any major changes.

No, the math is pretty easy to figure out. Recycling takes energy. Most supposed recyclable materials take more energy to recycle than pulling the raw material out of the Earth and making new materials. In certain areas there is even water cost concern with recycling, as it takes water to clean many materials prior to recycling. So if you consider all of the pollution and environmental impact, burying your trash is oftentimes a better environmental alternative. I know some people can't deal with that, but it is the truth.

As far as subsidies, they are an indication of inefficiencies. Sure you can charge more for a product so that you can afford the water and energy to recycle that product, but do you really want to increase energy output so that you can say you recycled something?

Much of what you are saying is not true. It is true that the math is easy -- and the math says that most commonly recycled products expend FAR less energy to recycle vs creating new. There are exceptions, but your statement is largely false. Consuming less is the best form of reducing a carbon footprint, but end of life recycling is fairly efficient for many materials.

You are dismissive of small efforts to reduce carbon footprint (recycling, using a bicycle, etc...), but these things add up and have (or have the potential to have) a meaningful impact particularly when implemented in mass. Rather than dismiss helpful efforts and resign the human race to extinction via stupidity, can you please enlighten us with some productive solutions?

[souspeed]

Well you can start small.
Buy a bicycle for local transportation, and use less plastic where possible.

The most recycled, and failed, idea in human history! From diets to defense, this satisfying and ancient thought process seems to get the respect that actually solving problems deserves.

If you are on a sinking ship, would you start to bail out the incoming water with a thimble? Should you be commended for organizing 20 fellow passengers to all bail with thimbles?

The problem with this mentality is that it pacifies and eliminates the drive to actually do something with measurable results. Yes, math is hard. But ignoring it makes life even harder.

I didn't say this for me, I said this for you.
Sounded like you don't want to do anything, since you don't know if the solution is worse than the problem.

In that case start small, that is at least something.

I prefer a global ban.
And if that requires some math, then that is fine.