3 ms·

The important policy question is what are big and small governments around the world gonna do about it? No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Electric ca

by mc32 5y ago

The important policy question is what are big and small governments around the world gonna do about it? No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions. They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc).

redisman 5y ago
Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?
- lmilcin 5y ago
  So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and AliExpress packages shipped to their doors. That they don't do it now is just because they don't have means to do so, but they work very hard to get there.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.
  - nonbirithm 5y ago
    Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.
    - lmilcin 5y ago
      You are way out there with your thinking. Nobody denies born children the right to live. The idea was more in line of preventing children from being conceived in the first place. Not that this isn't fraught with moral, philosophical and other problems (just look at China), but at least it is obvious no children are being harmed by not being conceived.
paganel 5y ago
> and population growth That will be a very hard sell, as most of the people that count and actually take the decisions that matter still don't believe in Malthus. > The west did it (via progress on education, etc). Unfortunately that is still not enough as long as those same Western consumers will keep, well, consuming as much as they do. Problem is that changing today's consumption patterns will most probably have huge (negative) economic consequences for most of the world's population.
dleslie 5y ago
Banning plastic straws and plastic bags wasn't to combat climate change, the bans were created because those single-use plastics were overwhelming municipal garbage disposal systems. And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle. It was never recycled. Pretty much always was systematically illegally dumped into the ocean.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    Well, yah. Recycling has always been something between an unfulfilled hope and an outright sham. Reduce and Reuse were always the most important components of the trifecta.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      I would still like to see a push toward cellulose and wax replacing single use plastic.
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s still nonsense because the volume created by these things is minuscule. All it is is Greta feel-good bullshit. Household goods, transport packaging, industrial uses those account for the majority of plastics by mass. Yeah sure, 100 billion plastic straws sounds like a lot, but it’s nothing compared to the main culprits.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    It was a large enough problem to cause an international diplomatic dispute between Canada and the Philippines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Philippines_waste_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Philippines_was...
notJim 5y ago
> No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Straws and plastic bags are about pollution more than global warming, I think. > They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc). I'm not a malthusian, but there's still good news for those types. Birth rates have greatly declined globally, and continue to go down. This is largely due to greater access to education and contraception, which I think we can almost all agree are good things. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN > Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions. Transportation is 29% of emissions in the US, and over their lifespan, electric cars have much reduced emissions. They will get better as we transition away from fossil fuels, unlike gasoline cars. Fun fact: in the US, 40% of our power already comes from nuclear and renewables. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
gwbas1c 5y ago
Banning straws is virtue signaling. (Plastic straws have little impact on waste.) Banning plastic bags has immediate results in containing visible litter.
908B64B197 5y ago
> They need to address industry, shipping That would be possible with well thought out tariffs. Foreign countries (like China) have no problem bringing online coal power plants at an out of control pace. Then, with all these cheap power plants it's no wonder they can undercut every European and American manufacturer, who has to pay for green energy and environmental norms.
- em500 5y ago
  No need to trot out the China bogeyman, when "greenest president" Biden is issuing more drilling and fracking permits than Trump, and is pressuring OPEC to increase production, since golly gee gas is getting really expensive nowadays.

by mc32 5y ago

redisman 5y ago

Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?

lmilcin 5y ago
So this is the old, false argument. Population control WOULD be effective at solving the problem. That is if it was humane. Your arguments seems true because at first sight it looks (and it is true) that it is the first world that emits most of the greenhouse gasses. But everybody forgets that the third world countries do also experience progress and will also want industry and cars and air conditioning and KFC and AliExpress packages shipped to their doors. That they don't do it now is just because they don't have means to do so, but they work very hard to get there.
- mc32 5y ago
  Exactly! If we could get reverse migration going where people in OECD countries downsized to developing nations while maintaining efficiencies, that would be ideal but of course it’s not going to happen, indeed the opposite happens where people who consume less move to rich countries and start consuming like the natives in rich countries adding to demand.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  Admittedly, existential despair results from this argument. If population control had been enacted in a humane way centuries ago, maybe I would be one of the millions of people missing from the present. On the other hand, I did not consent to being born, either. It's harrowing to consider that your existence may be a liability on the rest of the human race in the near future. But I'm only capable of despairing over it because someone gave birth to me. It's why I think that once the decision to have a child has been made, the consequences of reversing course are severe, especially since society bestows an unalienable right to exist to the people that do leave the womb. A living agent like myself is able to contemplate its own existence and is most likely to fight for its continued survival. Nobody questions the rights or individual liberties or consumption levels of people that were never born. We are likely to be willing into existence a generation that will curse us for not acting sooner. But because unchecked growth is a default behavior of humanity, it seems that the only way of putting in societal controls on humans is to let humans carry their knowledge of negative externalities through multiple generations.
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    You are way out there with your thinking. Nobody denies born children the right to live. The idea was more in line of preventing children from being conceived in the first place. Not that this isn't fraught with moral, philosophical and other problems (just look at China), but at least it is obvious no children are being harmed by not being conceived.

paganel 5y ago

> and population growth That will be a very hard sell, as most of the people that count and actually take the decisions that matter still don't believe in Malthus. > The west did it (via progress on education, etc). Unfortunately that is still not enough as long as those same Western consumers will keep, well, consuming as much as they do. Problem is that changing today's consumption patterns will most probably have huge (negative) economic consequences for most of the world's population.

dleslie 5y ago

Banning plastic straws and plastic bags wasn't to combat climate change, the bans were created because those single-use plastics were overwhelming municipal garbage disposal systems. And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle.

908B64B197 5y ago
> And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle. It was never recycled. Pretty much always was systematically illegally dumped into the ocean.
- dleslie 5y ago
  Well, yah. Recycling has always been something between an unfulfilled hope and an outright sham. Reduce and Reuse were always the most important components of the trifecta.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    I would still like to see a push toward cellulose and wax replacing single use plastic.
mc32 5y ago
It’s still nonsense because the volume created by these things is minuscule. All it is is Greta feel-good bullshit. Household goods, transport packaging, industrial uses those account for the majority of plastics by mass. Yeah sure, 100 billion plastic straws sounds like a lot, but it’s nothing compared to the main culprits.
- dleslie 5y ago
  It was a large enough problem to cause an international diplomatic dispute between Canada and the Philippines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Philippines_waste_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Philippines_was...

notJim 5y ago

> No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Straws and plastic bags are about pollution more than global warming, I think. > They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc). I'm not a malthusian, but there's still good news for those types. Birth rates have greatly declined globally, and continue to go down. This is largely due to greater access to education and contraception, which I think we can almost all agree are good things. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN > Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions. Transportation is 29% of emissions in the US, and over their lifespan, electric cars have much reduced emissions. They will get better as we transition away from fossil fuels, unlike gasoline cars. Fun fact: in the US, 40% of our power already comes from nuclear and renewables. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

gwbas1c 5y ago

Banning straws is virtue signaling. (Plastic straws have little impact on waste.) Banning plastic bags has immediate results in containing visible litter.

908B64B197 5y ago

> They need to address industry, shipping That would be possible with well thought out tariffs. Foreign countries (like China) have no problem bringing online coal power plants at an out of control pace. Then, with all these cheap power plants it's no wonder they can undercut every European and American manufacturer, who has to pay for green energy and environmental norms.

em500 5y ago
No need to trot out the China bogeyman, when "greenest president" Biden is issuing more drilling and fracking permits than Trump, and is pressuring OPEC to increase production, since golly gee gas is getting really expensive nowadays.