4 ms·

My wife and I were talking today about how people fail to distinguish between a work and its creator. To her this was a great shame, as some art works can no lo

My wife and I were talking today about how people fail to distinguish between a work and its creator. To her this was a great shame, as some art works can no longer be seen easily, or talked about favorably, because the creator turned out to have major personal flaws. I agree; this is a shame. It is worth engaging with the article on its merits, irrespective of where it appears. One learns most from people who think differently from oneself. I agree with the article as far as this: - 1. Some (many?) people use recycling as a "license to pollute". "I recycle everything I can. I deserve my twice-yearly holiday that's a six hour plane flight each way." 2. Focusing on recycling takes finite attention away from bigger issues, like meat consumption, flying, and coal power. 3. Recycling is meant to be a last resort. The first thing to do is reduce. 4. Post-consunmer recycling is dirty, dangerous and difficult, and in many places most of what people virtuously put in recycling bins ends up in landfill anyway. --- It'd be nice if environmental groups could get together and agree to focus on the big issues: coal usage, passenger flying, and meat. But that's not how humans work, it seems.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
Although I agree with your sentiment of embracing contrarian views, this is very clearly a paid for Petro-chemical PR piece. Now, digging into the points you make: > 2. Focusing on recycling takes finite attention away from bigger issues, like meat consumption, flying, and coal power. I have two issues with this: 1. The focus on recycling is itself a deflection maneuver from the Packaging and Petro-Chemical groups. Recycling and the shifting of responsability and 'guilt' from industry to consumers is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. 2. All the examples of 'bigger issues' you refer are areas where there is more Carbon/Methane emissions. However, the issue everybody has against plastic was never the issues of emissions but the calamity of microplastics. Microplastics have created a defacto man made plastic geological epoch. They have by now contaminated our food sources, our water supplies, and have contaminated the whole water cycle to the point that they can be found in alpine glaciar ice. More worryingly there is now strong evidence on the hormonal and fertility disruption in both humans and animals due to microplastic absorption/ingestion. So Plastic is indeed a _huge_ issue not due to emissions but due to it's disruption in our ecosystems and our health.
mint2 6y ago
> It'd be nice if environmental groups could get together and agree to focus on the big issues: coal usage, passenger flying, and meat. Wait, but Environmental groups do focus on those things too. So They like Solar and renewables but it has nothing to do with coal?!?! Why do you think they don’t focus on those things too? They aren’t one trick ponies.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > Why do you think they don’t focus on those things too? "Too" is the problem. I think they're not enough of one-trick ponies. Coal. Let's just focus on eliminating the use of coal.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago

Although I agree with your sentiment of embracing contrarian views, this is very clearly a paid for Petro-chemical PR piece. Now, digging into the points you make: > 2. Focusing on recycling takes finite attention away from bigger issues, like meat consumption, flying, and coal power. I have two issues with this: 1. The focus on recycling is itself a deflection maneuver from the Packaging and Petro-Chemical groups. Recycling and the shifting of responsability and 'guilt' from industry to consumers is an incredibly succesful cost externalization for the petro-chemical and packaging industries. 2. All the examples of 'bigger issues' you refer are areas where there is more Carbon/Methane emissions. However, the issue everybody has against plastic was never the issues of emissions but the calamity of microplastics. Microplastics have created a defacto man made plastic geological epoch. They have by now contaminated our food sources, our water supplies, and have contaminated the whole water cycle to the point that they can be found in alpine glaciar ice. More worryingly there is now strong evidence on the hormonal and fertility disruption in both humans and animals due to microplastic absorption/ingestion. So Plastic is indeed a _huge_ issue not due to emissions but due to it's disruption in our ecosystems and our health.

mint2 6y ago

> It'd be nice if environmental groups could get together and agree to focus on the big issues: coal usage, passenger flying, and meat. Wait, but Environmental groups do focus on those things too. So They like Solar and renewables but it has nothing to do with coal?!?! Why do you think they don’t focus on those things too? They aren’t one trick ponies.

tuatoru 6y ago
> Why do you think they don’t focus on those things too? "Too" is the problem. I think they're not enough of one-trick ponies. Coal. Let's just focus on eliminating the use of coal.