4 ms·

Washington could be taken over by the Green party, ban fossil fuels, etc - and we'd still be in trouble due to China, et al with their increasing CO2 output. R

by gedy 11y ago

Washington could be taken over by the Green party, ban fossil fuels, etc - and we'd still be in trouble due to China, et al with their increasing CO2 output. Reminds me a bit of banning plastic bags in California to help the ocean. That's lovely, but given Asia dumps something like 150 times the amount plastics into the ocean, so is basically meaningless.

whyenot 11y ago
> banning plastic bags in California to help the ocean They were banned because they don't decompose, so they end up all over the place. Not just in the ocean, but on the beach, in creeks, lakes, anywhere near a highway, etc. As an example local to Silicon Valley, Stevens Creek used to be completely clogged with plastic bags. It's gotten a lot better now.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  They've banned plastic bags in the UK too. Of course any wasteland or street is still littered with fast food plastic, plastic bottles and the excessive packaging found in most supermarkets. We have slightly effective recycling schemes for a tiny proportion of what we use, and massive amounts of recycling end up shipped to the developing world to be dumped. Manufacturers of TVs, appliances, IoT toys and any thing else using plastics aren't required to own their debris at end of lifespan. So, as is typical with modern politics, we've had a token gesture that affects the public but utterly avoids the real issue. The oceans are doomed unless we grow up and own our debris as a species.
- Evenjos 11y ago
  There's some research that the creation of paper bags, and those more permanent plastic bags, is just as harmful to the environment as plastic disposable bags. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460
- gerbilly 11y ago
  Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
ageofwant 11y ago
Its not meaningless. Its millions of tons of plastic less, it may be the 2% margin that matters.
- eggy 11y ago
  I read the book Guesstimation 2.0 by Lawrence Weinstein a few years ago, and it had this breakdown. This is not addressing any other fact than how much time people spend worrying about the wrong thing, thinking emotionally rather than rationally or mathematically: "Paper or Plastic? How many plastic bags does the US use in one year? 10 bags per grocery store trip x 2 trips per week x 52 weeks per year = 1000 bags per person per year. 300 x 10^6 people in the U.S. = 300 x 10^11 bags in the US per year. Is this a lot? Compared to what? A roll of bags weighs a few ounces so there are about 200 bags/lb Your 10^3 bags weigh about 5 pounds. The 500 gallons of gasoline you burned last year weighs 4000 pounds (2 tons). Your 10^3 bags are irrelevant. (Just don’t litter)." ...Or use a re-usable bag ;) I want to read "How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint Of Everything" by Mike Berners-Lee. It addresses similar disconnections on how we think about our impact on the climate, and the steps we take to try and do something. For example, people who bike everywhere, but eat foods shipped from all over the world over local produce.
  - ageofwant 11y ago
    I commented meaning to address plastic pollution and its direct affect on the biosphere. China's pollution may destroy 98% of foo species, America's plastic may push foo to extinction. I agree that focus are many times misdirected and ineffective, but that's no reason not to try.
    - eggy 11y ago
      The comment was not to negate the impact of plastic bags; it was to illustrate, and I think very much in line with the evidence, of how we misappropriate our attention. The suburban family who pauses at checkout to decide plastic or paper has good intentions, but misplaced intellect. They should be looking at the gas used to and from the store, imported food purchases vs. locally grown, and their own household for energy-efficiency. Yes, plastic, and paper for that matter, are a reasonable item on the list, but the others outweigh it by magnitudes, and the common person thinks 'paper or plastic?'.
blondie9x 11y ago
gedy regardless we must lead by example. We have seen that guilt and public inertia can drive others to act. Being exemplary does have an impact. China signed a climate deal with the US to limit emissions for the first time in 2014. In 2015 they and earlier this year they signed a global deal on climate also. Leading and being by example can lead to change.
- gedy 11y ago
  In the competition of nations, leading by example is fairly useless. Nations do what they want to move forward. China dumps a lot of CO2, and it's growing. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
CalRobert 11y ago
My santa Monica alleyway went from garbagr-strewn to... Well not perfect but a lot better after SM banned them.

by gedy 11y ago

whyenot 11y ago

> banning plastic bags in California to help the ocean They were banned because they don't decompose, so they end up all over the place. Not just in the ocean, but on the beach, in creeks, lakes, anywhere near a highway, etc. As an example local to Silicon Valley, Stevens Creek used to be completely clogged with plastic bags. It's gotten a lot better now.

anexprogrammer 11y ago
They've banned plastic bags in the UK too. Of course any wasteland or street is still littered with fast food plastic, plastic bottles and the excessive packaging found in most supermarkets. We have slightly effective recycling schemes for a tiny proportion of what we use, and massive amounts of recycling end up shipped to the developing world to be dumped. Manufacturers of TVs, appliances, IoT toys and any thing else using plastics aren't required to own their debris at end of lifespan. So, as is typical with modern politics, we've had a token gesture that affects the public but utterly avoids the real issue. The oceans are doomed unless we grow up and own our debris as a species.
Evenjos 11y ago
There's some research that the creation of paper bags, and those more permanent plastic bags, is just as harmful to the environment as plastic disposable bags. https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4460
gerbilly 11y ago
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

ageofwant 11y ago

Its not meaningless. Its millions of tons of plastic less, it may be the 2% margin that matters.

eggy 11y ago
I read the book Guesstimation 2.0 by Lawrence Weinstein a few years ago, and it had this breakdown. This is not addressing any other fact than how much time people spend worrying about the wrong thing, thinking emotionally rather than rationally or mathematically: "Paper or Plastic? How many plastic bags does the US use in one year? 10 bags per grocery store trip x 2 trips per week x 52 weeks per year = 1000 bags per person per year. 300 x 10^6 people in the U.S. = 300 x 10^11 bags in the US per year. Is this a lot? Compared to what? A roll of bags weighs a few ounces so there are about 200 bags/lb Your 10^3 bags weigh about 5 pounds. The 500 gallons of gasoline you burned last year weighs 4000 pounds (2 tons). Your 10^3 bags are irrelevant. (Just don’t litter)." ...Or use a re-usable bag ;) I want to read "How Bad Are Bananas?: The Carbon Footprint Of Everything" by Mike Berners-Lee. It addresses similar disconnections on how we think about our impact on the climate, and the steps we take to try and do something. For example, people who bike everywhere, but eat foods shipped from all over the world over local produce.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  I commented meaning to address plastic pollution and its direct affect on the biosphere. China's pollution may destroy 98% of foo species, America's plastic may push foo to extinction. I agree that focus are many times misdirected and ineffective, but that's no reason not to try.
  - eggy 11y ago
    The comment was not to negate the impact of plastic bags; it was to illustrate, and I think very much in line with the evidence, of how we misappropriate our attention. The suburban family who pauses at checkout to decide plastic or paper has good intentions, but misplaced intellect. They should be looking at the gas used to and from the store, imported food purchases vs. locally grown, and their own household for energy-efficiency. Yes, plastic, and paper for that matter, are a reasonable item on the list, but the others outweigh it by magnitudes, and the common person thinks 'paper or plastic?'.

blondie9x 11y ago

gedy regardless we must lead by example. We have seen that guilt and public inertia can drive others to act. Being exemplary does have an impact. China signed a climate deal with the US to limit emissions for the first time in 2014. In 2015 they and earlier this year they signed a global deal on climate also. Leading and being by example can lead to change.

gedy 11y ago
In the competition of nations, leading by example is fairly useless. Nations do what they want to move forward. China dumps a lot of CO2, and it's growing. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...

CalRobert 11y ago

My santa Monica alleyway went from garbagr-strewn to... Well not perfect but a lot better after SM banned them.