4 ms·

Any time there is an attempt to specifically reduce plastic waste, such as banning or charging fees for plastic bags or plastic straws, people retort that this,

Any time there is an attempt to specifically reduce plastic waste, such as banning or charging fees for plastic bags or plastic straws, people retort that this, too, is all a farce. The argument always goes that people want to feel good while doing very little. But what I hear mostly are people who want to do nothing but still complain.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 7y ago
My issue with all the small scale stuff such as bags and straws is that we have limited time to try to correct the issue, and bags and straws and recycling aren’t going to make a lick of difference. It’s the 30 mile commutes, single person occupied SUVs, flying for vacations, and living driving distance to everything in suburbs and exurbs causing exponentially greater than necessary usage of fuel to move mass that is the vast majority of our problem. The only solution to the issue is to increase the cost of fuel. If we don’t accomplish that, all the other efforts are a waste of time and energy. If we do accomplish raising the cost of fuel, then everything else will fall in line, including costs of disposable plastic goods which will go up and cause people to consume less. Except, of course, this is politically untenable because of all the investment assumptions requiring 10% ROI to meet debt obligations.
- magduf 7y ago
  No, it's politically untenable because people don't want to change their lifestyles significantly. At least in the US (since you're talking about SUVs and exurbs and long commutes), it's a democratic society: campaigning on a platform that you're going to drastically raise fuel prices to force everyone to move into the city (which is already extremely expensive, due to many other long-standing factors like bad zoning, NIMBYism, lack of multi-use (combined commercial/residential) spaces, etc.) will mean you simply won't be elected.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    Even in cities you have "the apartment problem". The noise of the streets, neighbors, an even other residents in the same apartment (if sharing, because there's not enough single / studio places at good value) invade. The smells from neighbors and others invade. The shared garbage chute, elevator or stairwell where you interface with the lingering smoking, pet, or messes invades personal space as well. The building code (at least in the US) in the cities isn't high enough to provide actual solitude and escape from being so close to everyone else. Inside cities the rent seeking keeps rents there too high. Outside of cities, rent seeking helps to prevent new home ownership (rather than temporary rental), while the lack of regulations and taxation for infrastructure (like transport of goods and people) undervalues and under-taxes the opportunity cost. Much like many of the other social ills in the US the problems require a national framework and local solutions; but the balance and distribution of planning is out of scale and stuck decades if not a hundred years or more in the past when the speed of transportation provided pressures that made local management good enough.
- glitchc 7y ago
  While you have the right idea, that “every little bit counts” is bunkum, you stopped a little short: Car emissions only account for ~42-44% of total emissions from transportation in North America. Large trucks account for 56-58%. Source: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. This book dives into the bigs that need to be tackled before the smalls. Plus, penalizing fuel hurts the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones driving long distances from cheap housing to city centres for work. They are the personal support workers, caregivers and Uber drivers. The rich can afford to live within 10 mins walking distance of work, and can also afford to move when changing jobs to maintain walkability.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Fuel (fossil) is causing the problem. It doesn’t matter if it affects rich or poor more or less, the only solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Raising the cost will also reduce truck’s usage of fuel. I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.
    - glitchc 7y ago
      Fossil fuels are the bedrock of modern western civilization. Period, full stop. Moving away from fossil fuels requires us to take a huge hit in our current standard of living, at least in the short to medium term. Everything we purchase or interact with is dependent on fossil fuels. Those trucks you vilify are transporting all manner of goods. Taxing fuel raises prices on all goods, from fresh cauliflower to XBoxes. There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets. Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom. There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lotsofpulp 7y ago

My issue with all the small scale stuff such as bags and straws is that we have limited time to try to correct the issue, and bags and straws and recycling aren’t going to make a lick of difference. It’s the 30 mile commutes, single person occupied SUVs, flying for vacations, and living driving distance to everything in suburbs and exurbs causing exponentially greater than necessary usage of fuel to move mass that is the vast majority of our problem. The only solution to the issue is to increase the cost of fuel. If we don’t accomplish that, all the other efforts are a waste of time and energy. If we do accomplish raising the cost of fuel, then everything else will fall in line, including costs of disposable plastic goods which will go up and cause people to consume less. Except, of course, this is politically untenable because of all the investment assumptions requiring 10% ROI to meet debt obligations.

magduf 7y ago
No, it's politically untenable because people don't want to change their lifestyles significantly. At least in the US (since you're talking about SUVs and exurbs and long commutes), it's a democratic society: campaigning on a platform that you're going to drastically raise fuel prices to force everyone to move into the city (which is already extremely expensive, due to many other long-standing factors like bad zoning, NIMBYism, lack of multi-use (combined commercial/residential) spaces, etc.) will mean you simply won't be elected.
- mjevans 7y ago
  Even in cities you have "the apartment problem". The noise of the streets, neighbors, an even other residents in the same apartment (if sharing, because there's not enough single / studio places at good value) invade. The smells from neighbors and others invade. The shared garbage chute, elevator or stairwell where you interface with the lingering smoking, pet, or messes invades personal space as well. The building code (at least in the US) in the cities isn't high enough to provide actual solitude and escape from being so close to everyone else. Inside cities the rent seeking keeps rents there too high. Outside of cities, rent seeking helps to prevent new home ownership (rather than temporary rental), while the lack of regulations and taxation for infrastructure (like transport of goods and people) undervalues and under-taxes the opportunity cost. Much like many of the other social ills in the US the problems require a national framework and local solutions; but the balance and distribution of planning is out of scale and stuck decades if not a hundred years or more in the past when the speed of transportation provided pressures that made local management good enough.
glitchc 7y ago
While you have the right idea, that “every little bit counts” is bunkum, you stopped a little short: Car emissions only account for ~42-44% of total emissions from transportation in North America. Large trucks account for 56-58%. Source: Sustainable energy, without the hot air. This book dives into the bigs that need to be tackled before the smalls. Plus, penalizing fuel hurts the poor more than the rich. The poor are the ones driving long distances from cheap housing to city centres for work. They are the personal support workers, caregivers and Uber drivers. The rich can afford to live within 10 mins walking distance of work, and can also afford to move when changing jobs to maintain walkability.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  Fuel (fossil) is causing the problem. It doesn’t matter if it affects rich or poor more or less, the only solution is to reduce the use of fossil fuel. Raising the cost will also reduce truck’s usage of fuel. I don’t think sustainable fuel (non fossil fuel) is realistic on the timescale that humans need it to be. Fossil fuel is just so convenient with its portability and ease of use, that it will remain preferred for many uses.
  - glitchc 7y ago
    Fossil fuels are the bedrock of modern western civilization. Period, full stop. Moving away from fossil fuels requires us to take a huge hit in our current standard of living, at least in the short to medium term. Everything we purchase or interact with is dependent on fossil fuels. Those trucks you vilify are transporting all manner of goods. Taxing fuel raises prices on all goods, from fresh cauliflower to XBoxes. There is no plastic without fossil fuels. All goods are dependent on plastic in some form or another; many goods are made entirely of plastic. Eliminating plastic requires anywhere from minor to major redesign of a given good and a correspondingly increased bill of materials, both for the cost of redesign and cost of sourcing the alternative, and these costs will be passed directly onto the customer, thereby raising the prices of everything. Put those two together, it will become apparent that living in a modern western society with the abundance we are used to becomes quickly unsustainable for everyone except the very wealthy. You may think you can bear the cost on an SV salary but most people in America cannot. You are asking people in America to accept a non-trivial downgrade in their standard of living and they will fight you tooth and nail to preserve it, at the ballot box and elsewhere. That’s just how human beings are wired. In terms of other countries, they are all looking to attain the same standard of life available in the west and will happily consume more fossil fuels to get there. Any lack of demand on the west’s side results in cheaper prices, spurring increased consumption in emerging markets. Furthermore, lets say you do succeed in increased fuel costs, thus reducing our collective standard of living. It will probably backfire when that happens, as your SV salary depends on their high standard of living. If the avg person’s purchasing power plummets, their demand for tech goods also plummets. After all, the overwhelming majority of tech goods satisfy wants, not needs, and discretionary purchases of new phones, Alexas and Sonos speakers are the first things to go out the window when survival is at stake. There goes that large salary and vested stocks. Now you’re stuck fighting for survival too. It’s a race to the bottom. There are only two real solutions: A source of energy more dense or portable than gasoline, or some form of population control. The first is difficult, the second is currently unthinkable for most people.