5 ms·

Just looking at the pictures of Lebanon's shores after a regular storm https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-lebanon-beach.html https://www.

by spodek 9y ago

Just looking at the pictures of Lebanon's shores after a regular storm https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-lebanon-beach.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/world/middleeast/trash-le..., the amount of garbage is shocking, even after seeing tons of pictures of garbage. Maybe nature destroyed affects me more than others, but they're pictures of regular, ordinary life these days. People didn't hunt for them. For those who remember the 1970s "Crying Indian" public service announcement, the chart in this article https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-tear-anti-litter-ads-from-70s-youll-cry-too-at-our-pollution-levels-today.html https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/remember-single-tear-anti-... shows its place in the context of global plastic production. When past generations considered garbage levels a crying shame, the global amount plastic produced ever looks something like what we produce in a week today. That's just plastic. There's also CO2, mercury, etc, plus depletion of topsoil, fish, rain forests, species diversity... I should add my point isn't to bring people down first thing in the morning but to call to action to reduce our consumption. We can act on these things.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tw1010 9y ago
"on average" could be added to the headline. There will always be outliers.
tfha 9y ago
Going to need internationally enforced regulation to make a difference. Penalties heavy enough to kill companies that dump, and enforcement policies for other countries that have real teeth to them. People will always consume as many resources as they can, it's how you get ahead. Especially at a macro scale (corporations and nations). This will get worse in any region where there are not severe penalties for destroying the environment
- locopati 9y ago
  no they will not - people do self-regulate and are capable of living sustainably - to say always is to make it an unstoppable fate rather than to create systems that allow people to take greater responsibility
KozmoNau7 9y ago
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Such a simple concept, but seemingly impossible to get people to actually understand why it's so important.
- tw1010 9y ago
  People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it.
  - spodek 9y ago
    I have, in several ways, and they've improved my life. One example is avoiding food packaging, which has made my diet more delicious and convenient. More social too, in knowing my farmers and hosting more guests for dinners http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packaging http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packagin.... YMMV, but it's been one of my life biggest improvements.
    - tw1010 9y ago
      On an individual level, of course. But wishing that people would "just get it", or letting it affect you emotionally in any way, is a losing battle since the bigger picture social behaviour won't change unless the incentives are in place. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean monetary incentives. It could mean introducing carrots and sticks in the form of new social norms and dynamics.
      - spodek 9y ago
        Is anyone suggesting only working on an individual level, just wishing, or getting down emotionally? As for me, I'm inspired by past leaders who have led change and movements on this scale before. Unless I misunderstand you, "People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it." seems inconsistent with history. My podcast, Leadership and the Environment http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast, is an initial step I'm taking, but just a start.
RobertRoberts 9y ago
Look at this map for plastic pollution, and tell me the most effective locations in the world to implement your suggested "call to action" solution (ie, lower consumption) to pollution. "Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-pl... It does not appear to be an educational or a consumption issue, but instead a lack of focus on proper waste management. (Or perhaps the funds, or desire to spend the funds, to support proper waste management.)
- spodek 9y ago
  My biggest takeaway from that link was the sidebar: > THERE WILL BE MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH IN THE SEA BY 2050 Think about the size of the oceans. How much plastic we're dumping in them and how much fish we're taking out. I can't tell which surprises me the most. Where to implement reducing pollution? Since programs aren't exclusive and may reinforce each other, I'd answer all places. Is there a place we want more garbage?
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    >Is there a place we want more garbage? Of course not, but let's be completely logical about this. Let's pretend we have a finite amount of time and money to fix this issue. (which we do) Where should we spend this resource to fix the plastic pollution? If we have evidence that up to 95% of the pollution comes from 10 rivers, why shouldn't we _start_ there first? Ending 100% of pollution everywhere else in the planet first, would only stop 5-10% of world pollution.

by spodek 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tw1010 9y ago

"on average" could be added to the headline. There will always be outliers.

tfha 9y ago

Going to need internationally enforced regulation to make a difference. Penalties heavy enough to kill companies that dump, and enforcement policies for other countries that have real teeth to them. People will always consume as many resources as they can, it's how you get ahead. Especially at a macro scale (corporations and nations). This will get worse in any region where there are not severe penalties for destroying the environment

locopati 9y ago
no they will not - people do self-regulate and are capable of living sustainably - to say always is to make it an unstoppable fate rather than to create systems that allow people to take greater responsibility

KozmoNau7 9y ago

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Such a simple concept, but seemingly impossible to get people to actually understand why it's so important.

tw1010 9y ago
People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it.
- spodek 9y ago
  I have, in several ways, and they've improved my life. One example is avoiding food packaging, which has made my diet more delicious and convenient. More social too, in knowing my farmers and hosting more guests for dinners http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packaging http://joshuaspodek.com/js_blogseries/avoiding-food-packagin.... YMMV, but it's been one of my life biggest improvements.
  - tw1010 9y ago
    On an individual level, of course. But wishing that people would "just get it", or letting it affect you emotionally in any way, is a losing battle since the bigger picture social behaviour won't change unless the incentives are in place. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean monetary incentives. It could mean introducing carrots and sticks in the form of new social norms and dynamics.
    - spodek 9y ago
      Is anyone suggesting only working on an individual level, just wishing, or getting down emotionally? As for me, I'm inspired by past leaders who have led change and movements on this scale before. Unless I misunderstand you, "People won't change unless the incentive structure (monetary or in the shape of social pressure) is in place to make them want to do it." seems inconsistent with history. My podcast, Leadership and the Environment http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast http://joshuaspodek.com/podcast, is an initial step I'm taking, but just a start.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

Look at this map for plastic pollution, and tell me the most effective locations in the world to implement your suggested "call to action" solution (ie, lower consumption) to pollution. "Now a study shows the top 10 rivers - eight of which are in Asia - accounted for 88 to 95 per cent of the total global load because of the mismanagement of waste." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-pl... It does not appear to be an educational or a consumption issue, but instead a lack of focus on proper waste management. (Or perhaps the funds, or desire to spend the funds, to support proper waste management.)

spodek 9y ago
My biggest takeaway from that link was the sidebar: > THERE WILL BE MORE PLASTIC THAN FISH IN THE SEA BY 2050 Think about the size of the oceans. How much plastic we're dumping in them and how much fish we're taking out. I can't tell which surprises me the most. Where to implement reducing pollution? Since programs aren't exclusive and may reinforce each other, I'd answer all places. Is there a place we want more garbage?
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  >Is there a place we want more garbage? Of course not, but let's be completely logical about this. Let's pretend we have a finite amount of time and money to fix this issue. (which we do) Where should we spend this resource to fix the plastic pollution? If we have evidence that up to 95% of the pollution comes from 10 rivers, why shouldn't we _start_ there first? Ending 100% of pollution everywhere else in the planet first, would only stop 5-10% of world pollution.