3 ms·

But the point of this article is that we can initiate the change. If we collectively decide and eliminate plastic bags in our town / place or whatever subdivisi

But the point of this article is that we can initiate the change. If we collectively decide and eliminate plastic bags in our town / place or whatever subdivision then for sure we can make an impact. There is nothing bigger than people power.

nobodyandproud 7y ago
I wish it were that simple. While you’re correct that individual actions will ultimately decide our fate, what you’re not accounting for is this: The economics are stacked against anyone trying to do the right thing. It’s actually cheaper, less time consuming, and more convenient to kill our planet. To properly recycle I would have to spend 15 to 30 minutes a day. If wanted to recycle food (compost), add another 15 to 30 minutes. So per week, that’s about 4 to 7 hours. Time that could be spent working or sleeping. With regards to plastic shopping bags: Yes, I can avoid it. But then I need to buy plastic waste bags anyway, because I’m required to package my waste. With regards to meat: I don’t go crazy with meat, but in terms of cost most Western societies have masked the cost. Fresh produce is more expensive per calorie than a slab of beef per calorie. Or how about electronics? It’s insane that it’s generally cheaper to buy new consumer electronics, rather than have someone fix it. Or packaging: There is zero economic reason for businesses to minimize the amount of plastic packaging. Plastic has the advantages of low weight and tensile strength, so any company that tries to change would be at an immediate disadvantage. To fix these imbalances we need social policies (with teeth) that force a new, market-driven optimum for both companies and individuals. For that to happen we need leadership that have the courage to undertake a long, hard battle against vested interests.
- sendilkumarn 7y ago
  I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7 hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your colleagues will do it. Meat, plastic and electronics are the problems I agree completely. We can change the packaging slightly. I already heard a lot about some vendors in Germany are going PET-less solution, TamilNadu (a state in India) also started banning plastics and packaging. My core idea is social policies will not change unless people are willing to accept it. When your locality goes zero-plastic bags, you will start seeing the influences that it creates on your local supplier and then it expands. It is how nature works and definitely, it takes time and effort but slowly it will (may) change the world. But in the end, it will remain at least we tried.
  - nobodyandproud 7y ago
    Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and organizations that don’t care. By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence. If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don’t, guess who expands and has lobbying money and time? At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost. Really, my individual effort isn’t enough. Just look at littering. I don’t litter, but there are too many people around me that do. And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals! The way to ensure we don’t kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor sustainable approaches. Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies. Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes. Etc. The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals. The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or don’t-care organizations. Or it will fail.

nobodyandproud 7y ago

I wish it were that simple. While you’re correct that individual actions will ultimately decide our fate, what you’re not accounting for is this: The economics are stacked against anyone trying to do the right thing. It’s actually cheaper, less time consuming, and more convenient to kill our planet. To properly recycle I would have to spend 15 to 30 minutes a day. If wanted to recycle food (compost), add another 15 to 30 minutes. So per week, that’s about 4 to 7 hours. Time that could be spent working or sleeping. With regards to plastic shopping bags: Yes, I can avoid it. But then I need to buy plastic waste bags anyway, because I’m required to package my waste. With regards to meat: I don’t go crazy with meat, but in terms of cost most Western societies have masked the cost. Fresh produce is more expensive per calorie than a slab of beef per calorie. Or how about electronics? It’s insane that it’s generally cheaper to buy new consumer electronics, rather than have someone fix it. Or packaging: There is zero economic reason for businesses to minimize the amount of plastic packaging. Plastic has the advantages of low weight and tensile strength, so any company that tries to change would be at an immediate disadvantage. To fix these imbalances we need social policies (with teeth) that force a new, market-driven optimum for both companies and individuals. For that to happen we need leadership that have the courage to undertake a long, hard battle against vested interests.

sendilkumarn 7y ago
I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7 hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your colleagues will do it. Meat, plastic and electronics are the problems I agree completely. We can change the packaging slightly. I already heard a lot about some vendors in Germany are going PET-less solution, TamilNadu (a state in India) also started banning plastics and packaging. My core idea is social policies will not change unless people are willing to accept it. When your locality goes zero-plastic bags, you will start seeing the influences that it creates on your local supplier and then it expands. It is how nature works and definitely, it takes time and effort but slowly it will (may) change the world. But in the end, it will remain at least we tried.
- nobodyandproud 7y ago
  Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and organizations that don’t care. By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence. If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don’t, guess who expands and has lobbying money and time? At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost. Really, my individual effort isn’t enough. Just look at littering. I don’t litter, but there are too many people around me that do. And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals! The way to ensure we don’t kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor sustainable approaches. Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies. Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes. Etc. The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals. The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or don’t-care organizations. Or it will fail.