4 ms·

> North America is quite good at properly disposing of plastic you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a problem. Yeah, about that, North America ships

> North America is quite good at properly disposing of plastic you wonder why we are so obsessed with this as a problem. Yeah, about that, North America ships garbage to China and to poor countries in Southeast Asia to be burned there, or to be dumped in a forest/farmland next to low-income rural communities. > we should be helping developing nations to better manage their plastic waste so that it doesn’t end up in waterways I don't know why you say that like it's easy, but in the first place, maybe plastics just shouldn't be forced upon developing nations as conditions of trade if we already know that they don't have the infrastructure to manage it, in the first place? > The Yangtze and Ganges are releasing plastic into the ocean at a rate far greater than all of North America combined, and our response is to expend huge amounts of energy produced by fossil fuels trying to recycle our plastic instead of burying it in a landfill where it is unlikely to pose a major ecological threat. I never understood this line of reasoning, to be honest. So you have a ton of problems, some bigger than others. Why does the fact that you have bigger problems in your backlog negate working on the smaller, quicker wins first? Also you keep talking about "North America" as if it's a single, sovereign, unified country that has no conflicting interests. > Like many environmental initiatives I worry that we’re more concerned about making ourselves feel better than actually solving the problem. Didn't we already make ourselves feel better by arguing ourselves into what is effectively indifference about the problem of pollution?

relax88 5y ago
Agree on your first two points. That’s what I mean about helping developing nations. We shouldn’t be exporting billions of pounds of plastic waste to places that cannot ensure proper disposal. By focusing resources on waste management and international cooperation we would be focusing on 90% of the ocean plastics problem instead of directing our resources at well managed waste streams that do little environmental damage by comparison. Being pragmatic is very different than being indifferent. At the end of the day a plastic bag in a landfill is a way better outcome than a plastic bag in a waterway, and also arguably better than spending 43-250x more energy mostly from fossil fuels producing paper/glass/aluminum instead. When there are no perfect solutions, you must choose the least harmful.
- Trex_Egg 5y ago
  good
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a landfill, but to not produce plastics at all. :) Similarly, we can put more money into research on how to produce paper/glass/aluminum/others with less energy, and also redesign consumerism and normalize bringing refillable containers to the grocery down to the household level. There's a lot that can be done that doesn't involve polluting the environment.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a landfill, but to not produce plastics at all. And all of the human advancements in sanitation, food safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics? You'd significantly increase CO2 output of transportation if every plastic item was replaced by something heavier. Stopping all plastic production would be very harmful. As for people bringing reusable containers to the store, this was stopped because it's a health hazard.
    - 3grdlurker 5y ago
      OK, we need to be specific that most of the plastic that end up in oceans and landfills are those called "single-use", mostly used in food packaging. > all of the human advancements in sanitation, food safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics The pollution negates the health benefits of sanitation and food safety though, especially in the places where they are dumped, which are in rural communities in developing countries, whose people are somehow expected to make a living out of it for themselves and for their children. Besides, there are so many uses of plastic in food packaging that aren't even necessary to begin with, and which shouldn't exist. How much of single-use plastics are just bags of unhealthy junk food and candy wrappers and carbonated soda? Is it even necessary to have such a large economy based on unhealthy food sources?
  - goodpoint 5y ago
Trex_Egg 5y ago
I agree.
gurkendoktor 5y ago
> Why does the fact that you have bigger problems in your backlog negate working on the smaller, quicker wins first? One should pick the tasks with the best cost/benefit ratio first. It seems intuitive enough to me that the same amount of $ will go much, much further around the Ganges than in an effort to ban plastic straws in developed countries, or whatever else I see political capital being burnt on.
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  Is it just the cost/benefit ratio that you have to consider? How about the quality of being realistic? Tell me, and in the context of the previous responses--how realistic is it that North America will be able to carry out and enforce its agenda in the Ganges?
  - gurkendoktor 5y ago
    A good cost/benefit analysis would have to include this. And yes, I personally think that the developed world can drive change in other countries, otherwise I wouldn't donate to an NGO that attempts to do just that (not for plastics though). One problem is that what I'm saying could easily be framed as "white people telling brown people what to do", and then everyone would drop it like a hot potato because it smells like colonialism. So it's politically safer to stay in my lane and buy a MacBook pouch made from recycled PET bottles instead. (What I agree on is that the developed world should not export its trash or otherwise sabotage foreign countries.)
    - 3grdlurker 5y ago
      The problem isn't just "white people telling brown people what to do", though that's certainly one aspect of it. The more important issue, though, is that there's no way for developed countries to significantly "drive change" in other countries without undermining the sovereignty of the latter through some kind of bribery or debt trap or predatory trade deal.
kingdomcome50 5y ago
> we should be helping developing nations to better manage their plastic waste so that it doesn’t end up in waterways >>I don't know why you say that like it's easy Are they saying that like it's easy? How should it be said? Your tone is so defensive...
- 3grdlurker 5y ago
  Buddy, that wasn't even a comment on his tone.

relax88 5y ago

Agree on your first two points. That’s what I mean about helping developing nations. We shouldn’t be exporting billions of pounds of plastic waste to places that cannot ensure proper disposal. By focusing resources on waste management and international cooperation we would be focusing on 90% of the ocean plastics problem instead of directing our resources at well managed waste streams that do little environmental damage by comparison. Being pragmatic is very different than being indifferent. At the end of the day a plastic bag in a landfill is a way better outcome than a plastic bag in a waterway, and also arguably better than spending 43-250x more energy mostly from fossil fuels producing paper/glass/aluminum instead. When there are no perfect solutions, you must choose the least harmful.

Trex_Egg 5y ago
good
3grdlurker 5y ago
And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a landfill, but to not produce plastics at all. :) Similarly, we can put more money into research on how to produce paper/glass/aluminum/others with less energy, and also redesign consumerism and normalize bringing refillable containers to the grocery down to the household level. There's a lot that can be done that doesn't involve polluting the environment.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  And the least harmful is not to dump plastic in a landfill, but to not produce plastics at all. And all of the human advancements in sanitation, food safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics? You'd significantly increase CO2 output of transportation if every plastic item was replaced by something heavier. Stopping all plastic production would be very harmful. As for people bringing reusable containers to the store, this was stopped because it's a health hazard.
  - 3grdlurker 5y ago
    OK, we need to be specific that most of the plastic that end up in oceans and landfills are those called "single-use", mostly used in food packaging. > all of the human advancements in sanitation, food safety, and transportation energy afforded by plastics The pollution negates the health benefits of sanitation and food safety though, especially in the places where they are dumped, which are in rural communities in developing countries, whose people are somehow expected to make a living out of it for themselves and for their children. Besides, there are so many uses of plastic in food packaging that aren't even necessary to begin with, and which shouldn't exist. How much of single-use plastics are just bags of unhealthy junk food and candy wrappers and carbonated soda? Is it even necessary to have such a large economy based on unhealthy food sources?
- goodpoint 5y ago

Trex_Egg 5y ago

I agree.

gurkendoktor 5y ago

> Why does the fact that you have bigger problems in your backlog negate working on the smaller, quicker wins first? One should pick the tasks with the best cost/benefit ratio first. It seems intuitive enough to me that the same amount of $ will go much, much further around the Ganges than in an effort to ban plastic straws in developed countries, or whatever else I see political capital being burnt on.

3grdlurker 5y ago
Is it just the cost/benefit ratio that you have to consider? How about the quality of being realistic? Tell me, and in the context of the previous responses--how realistic is it that North America will be able to carry out and enforce its agenda in the Ganges?
- gurkendoktor 5y ago
  A good cost/benefit analysis would have to include this. And yes, I personally think that the developed world can drive change in other countries, otherwise I wouldn't donate to an NGO that attempts to do just that (not for plastics though). One problem is that what I'm saying could easily be framed as "white people telling brown people what to do", and then everyone would drop it like a hot potato because it smells like colonialism. So it's politically safer to stay in my lane and buy a MacBook pouch made from recycled PET bottles instead. (What I agree on is that the developed world should not export its trash or otherwise sabotage foreign countries.)
  - 3grdlurker 5y ago
    The problem isn't just "white people telling brown people what to do", though that's certainly one aspect of it. The more important issue, though, is that there's no way for developed countries to significantly "drive change" in other countries without undermining the sovereignty of the latter through some kind of bribery or debt trap or predatory trade deal.

kingdomcome50 5y ago

> we should be helping developing nations to better manage their plastic waste so that it doesn’t end up in waterways >>I don't know why you say that like it's easy Are they saying that like it's easy? How should it be said? Your tone is so defensive...

3grdlurker 5y ago
Buddy, that wasn't even a comment on his tone.