Plastic pollution in our seas

[gonesail]

if you really want to see something frightening .. take a look at a land fill garbage dump in your neighborhood. and multiply it by about a million.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Ibid.
Or they work harder, longer hours. 90 hour work weeks don't give them much time to travel. A lot of wealthy people are wealthy because they don't blow their money on a lot of crap. They might have nicer stuff, but don't necessarily have more stuff.

Relax - I didn't say anything about whether anybody "deserves" or earned something... just speaking to whether they have a bigger carbon footprint or not. I'm on pretty firm ground as to whether the average wealthy person does more travelling, has more stuff, etc than the average person who is below that bracket. No judgement, it's just how it is.

How do you put a carbon price on investment profits?

Invested money is used to engage in business activities and ventures, all with some carbon impact. I am not suggesting that there should be some additional carbon tax or price on cap gains.

Non sequitur. Drought, disease, frost, too much rain, etc. etc. - these are all wildcards when it comes to agriculture. Do you expect me to say that I enjoy paying more for food when there's a bad year? Of course not; that's ridiculous. What does this have to do with carbon taxes?

Mainly that inaction on pollution and climate has and will have costs of its own.

[S/V Adeline]

While there are possible good uses for landfill refuse, the most obvious is at least it isn't in our oceans. Modern landfills are designed with huge bowl shaped containment underneath that prevents leaching into groundwater. One of my favorite local driving jobs was hauling leach water to a location specified by the local treatment plant for treatment.
Our local landfill had a 20,000 gallon capacity in the storage tanks (water pumped out already)
During heavy rain we had 6 trucks (two 3,000 gal and two 5,000 straight trucks. my 6,000 tanker and another 7,000 gal tanker) all running 5-6 loads daily. Start of day the holding tanks were between 19-20k, end of day maybe 18-19k..
The amount of water leaching out is staggering

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

When scientists admit (like you just did) that humans didn't cause the first 15 climate shifts in the last million years, the argument that human carbon is causing this one just lost all merit..

I don't believe anyone can deny we are contributing to it But how much? This globe has been through many climate fluctuations. When Al Gore isn't using jets. I'll take his drivel seriously. I place him on with Nader. The best handling car I've had was a Corvair.

[Lake-Effect]

Al Gore, picking on the rich, cc denial... dangerous waters, folks.

Should we stick to plastic pollution in our seas, maybe?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Relax - I didn't say anything about whether anybody "deserves" or earned something... just speaking to whether they have a bigger carbon footprint or not. I'm on pretty firm ground as to whether the average wealthy person does more travelling, has more stuff, etc than the average person who is below that bracket. No judgement, it's just how it is.

Yes, the person getting something done creates more carbon than the person getting nothing done. But that’s a straw man comparison. The question ought to be how do we minimize the carbon footprint amongst the various ways of getting things done. And in a free economy the most efficient (profitable) way is the least impactful way. That’s how it really is. But that doesn’t fit the narrative of “make everyone poor” so we can save the planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yes, the person getting something done creates more carbon than the person getting nothing done. But that’s a straw man comparison. The question ought to be how do we minimize the carbon footprint amongst the various ways of getting things done. And in a free economy the most efficient (profitable) way is the least impactful way.

Some form of carbon pricing is a free-market way of efficiently reducing carbon emitting. Check with an economist.

That’s how it really is. But that doesn’t fit the narrative of “make everyone poor” so we can save the planet.

From whom are you getting that “make everyone poor” narrative? it seems to be unique to you.

[transmitterdan]

It was argued that poor people have less carbon footprint than “rich” people. If that is true then the obvious solution is to make everyone poor. But you know that won’t work. Poor people are horribly inefficient.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

All assumptions. Your assumptions. Any data to back up that "fact"?

And we're not talking about the relative wealth of Canadians and Americans to the third world - we're talking about the difference in the carbon footprints between the wealthy and the poor in Canada and the US. It comes down to more than just doodads. A wealthy person can afford to shop "local", shop "sustainable", shop "eco-consciously." Poor people are more likely to be in Walmart buying cheap polyester sh*t that's shipped from half-way around the world.

You can't honestly be pursing this line of argument. Just type in "carbon footprint rich vs poor" into your favourite search engine. There is reams of data, but if you insist, I can post some links.

Shopping local, "sustainably" (whatever that means), and "eco-consciously" does not equate to using less, or in this case having a smaller carbon footprint. It may lessen the intensity of the resource use, but if you're just using more, it doesn't really matter.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

When scientists admit (like you just did) that humans didn't cause the first 15 climate shifts in the last million years, the argument that human carbon is causing this one just lost all merit..

Huh??? That makes no sense at all. Human civilization DID NOT EXIST during the past dramatic climate shifts. So it is complete nonsense to then claim this is somehow proof that our civilization isn't a primary cause of our current dramatic climactic shift -- as climate research shows.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

So we should all strive to be as poor as possible so as to save the planet? Yeah, that’ll work.

Actually, you're not far off. We, meaning those who live in rich developed countries, need to live with less. We need to learn live smaller. The poor do this by default, so yeah, if we were all a lot poorer we'd all use less.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Relax - I didn't say anything about whether anybody "deserves" or earned something... just speaking to whether they have a bigger carbon footprint or not. I'm on pretty firm ground as to whether the average wealthy person does more travelling, has more stuff, etc than the average person who is below that bracket. No judgement, it's just how it is.

Can you produce a study that backs up your statement? I can take any old ass-pluck and call it fact, but that doesn't mean it's factual. The people I know that travel the most are single middle-income types.

Invested money is used to engage in business activities and ventures, all with some carbon impact. I am not suggesting that there should be some additional carbon tax or price on cap gains.

What if that business is green energy - making windmills and solar farms? What if that money is made in trading carbon credits?

Mainly that inaction on pollution and climate has and will have costs of its own.

Pollution is not the target of carbon taxation - perhaps it's a minor side-benefit. But I think it's generally been demonstrated that incentivizing business to adopt cleaner tech is more effective.
As to the main target - climate change might benefit the agriculture sector.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Can you produce a study that backs up your statement? I can take any old ass-pluck and call it fact, but that doesn't mean it's factual. The people I know that travel the most are single middle-income types.

In general terms it satisfies intuition. As per Mike, there's also enough out there to back it up. I don't frankly know why you're fighting such a small and obvious point.

What if that business is green energy - making windmills and solar farms? What if that money is made in trading carbon credits?

There's good money to be made in these new industries.

Obviously some activities have a bigger carbon footprint than others, and some even have a net positive effect.

I've always argued that if Al Gore persuaded enough people and companies to reduce their carbon output, then he could heat 6 mansions with open barrels of burning tar, and still have a smaller net carbon footprint than you or I

Originally Posted by Lodesman

As to the main target - climate change might benefit the agriculture sector.

Probably not.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You can't honestly be pursing this line of argument. Just type in "carbon footprint rich vs poor" into your favourite search engine. There is reams of data, but if you insist, I can post some links.

Shopping local, "sustainably" (whatever that means), and "eco-consciously" does not equate to using less, or in this case having a smaller carbon footprint. It may lessen the intensity of the resource use, but if you're just using more, it doesn't really matter.

Please post some valid links. Googling seems to produce a lot of headlines about 'global' inequalities - I don't want to compare apples to oranges, I want to compare rich apples to poor apples.

A rich person does not eat more than a person who is not rich - but they might eat better or more consciously of the carbon footprint of their food - they can afford to follow a 100-mile diet, whereas someone without loads of disposable income hasn't the means to be so picky.

A rich person working in downtown Toronto can drop 1.5 mil on a 900 sq ft condo, walk to work, shop at the overpriced farmer's markets, and eat at the trendiest vegan restaurants; the poor middle-class punter working in downtown Toronto lives a 2-hour drive away in a 3000 sq ft cookie-cutter single in a cloned community, and spends a significant portion of his life idling on the 401. Who has the bigger carbon footprint?

[StuM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by S/V Adeline
When scientists admit (like you just did) that humans didn't cause the first 15 climate shifts in the last million years, the argument that human carbon is causing this one just lost all merit..

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Huh??? That makes no sense at all. Human civilization DID NOT EXIST during the past dramatic climate shifts. So it is complete nonsense to then claim this is somehow proof that our civilization isn't a primary cause of our current dramatic climactic shift -- as climate research shows.

No one is claiming proof, just raising reasonable doubt about alarmist claims.



Until you establish what caused those 15 prior climate shifts and demonstrate that those causes no longer apply, your argument that "civilisation is a primary cause because nothing else can explain it" fails completely.

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Al Gore, picking on the rich, cc denial... dangerous waters, folks.

Should we stick to plastic pollution in our seas, maybe?

I don't recall anyone denying climate change, I just don't believe a carbon tax (or any tax for that matter) will remove plastic from water....