Plastic pollution in our seas

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

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.

You went there.

First, you'd need to establish that those X prior shifts were sufficiently identical to the current one, so that what caused them could conceivably have caused this one as well. (with some level of certainty higher than "well, it could have, maybe")

Next, the argument isn't "civilisation is a primary cause because nothing else can explain it", it is that the abundant data to date continues to reasonably support the idea that human activity has been the major cause.

It is of course an inconvenience to the skeptical that there has not been a single or combination of measurable factors that would support a credible alternative explanation.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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?

Footprint: Rich vs Poor

Rich US households produce more CO2 each year from driving than the entire carbon footprint of poor households over 8 months

Good Intents, but Low Impacts: Diverging Importance of Motivational and Socioeconomic Determinants Explaining Pro-Environmental Behavior, Energy Use, and Carbon Footprint

From abstract: "Environmental impacts were best predicted by people’s income level. Our results show that individuals with high pro-environmental self-identity intend to behave in an ecologically responsible way, but they typically emphasize actions that have relatively small ecological benefits."

Re-read that last sentence from this research study. It directly addresses your false claim. It's obviously possible for a wealthy person to have a smaller ecological footprint, but these are outliers, not the general rule.

BTW, here's a general article the cites the same data.
Wealthier people produce more carbon pollution — even the “green” ones

... these were all easily found in the first few hits of the search I suggested. As I said, there is ample data.

Originally Posted by 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..

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.

It's not my argument or claim Stu. It is the consense of current climate science. I'm merely stating what is already well established. If you have a quibble with the science, then go become a climate scientist and do some research.

And to be clear, just because the science says human civilization is a primary cause of current climate change, this does not mean it is the only cause.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

In general terms it satisfies intuition.

Does this satisfy intuition?:

And second, “environmental self-identity did not predict overall energy use or carbon footprint.” In fact, energy use and carbon footprints were slightly higher among self-identified greenies. D’oh!

Thanks at least for producing that article. I was unable to download the study, but it probably wouldn't matter - my German is not so good. From the Hungarian study I was able to look at, I'm not 100% convinced the author of that article really got the gist of the studies. Actual research is preferred.

I don't think it's a small or particularly obvious, point. What it is, is commie wealth-distribution. Charge everyone across the board, to use their cars, heat their homes, and buy their groceries. Then give back that money to the poorer half. Ultimately this is going to impact the middle-class the most - they'll get a smaller rebate, but won't have the means to measurably reduce their carbon expenditures.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

A carbon tax will make the wealthy more so, and make the poor poorer.
Carbon produced by mankind was not an issue in the last 15 significant climate shifts documented by scientific research and has little bearing on our current situation.

Removing plastics from all of our water supplies, fresh and salt based, is a priority but taxing the working class into deeper poverty is not an acceptable answer.

And they will use the revenue to expand government which we will be stuck with the extra cost of even after the CO2 has been reduced.

Fuel taxes in Australia were first levied as the fairest way to build roads. They have been expanded in numerous ways and now fund many other things. Governments can not be trusted with taxing powers no matter what the overt purpose is.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

I don't think it's a small or particularly obvious, point. What it is, is commie wealth-distribution. Charge everyone across the board, to use their cars, heat their homes, and buy their groceries. Then give back that money to the poorer half. Ultimately this is going to impact the middle-class the most - they'll get a smaller rebate, but won't have the means to measurably reduce their carbon expenditures.

I'm not interested in a religious debate, which is all this "commie wealth-redistribution" guff is. Plenty of economists have weighed in on the utility of carbon pricing; if you won't believe them, you won't believe me.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Re-read that last sentence from this research study. It directly addresses your false claim. It's obviously possible for a wealthy person to have a smaller ecological footprint, but these are outliers, not the general rule.

Do you mean the last sentence from the abstract? I'd check the paper, but I don't want to drop $36 to read it. If so, it doesn't seem to support your position, just proof that most eco-nuts are hypocritical wankers.

Your first link talks about global distribution - but it surprises me how wealthy they must be in Mongolia - who'da thunkit?

Pulled this from your second:

The analysis concludes that progressive income redistribution in the United States could result in an increase in household carbon dioxide emissions. Sager calculates that transferring $1000 from a richer household to a poorer household could increase emissions created by that $1000 by 5% or 28.5 kilogrammes of carbon dioxide.

Really sounds like a carbon tax will have the intended effect - NOT!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Really sounds like a carbon tax will have the intended effect - NOT!

Well, a carbon pricing scheme isn't exactly taking $1000 from the rich and giving it to the poor. So, that wouldn't really be the effect.

The paper ably supports the contention that the wealthy have a bigger carbon footprint. So you have conceded that point and are onto something new, I guess?

[S/V Adeline]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You went there.

First, you'd need to establish that those X prior shifts were sufficiently identical to the current one, so that what caused them could conceivably have caused this one as well. (with some level of certainty higher than "well, it could have, maybe")

Next, the argument isn't "civilisation is a primary cause because nothing else can explain it", it is that the abundant data to date continues to reasonably support the idea that human activity has been the major cause.

It is of course an inconvenience to the skeptical that there has not been a single or combination of measurable factors that would support a credible alternative explanation.

Based on evidence from research, our current situation is nearly identical to previous events. A build up of events was documented through that research, events we are living through now. This was predicted 75ish years ago and said predictions appear to be unfolding.
Scientific research said each event followed a pattern. 1, 2, 3, sometimes faster, sometimes slower but the pattern maintains.
The pattern is unfolding again 1, 2,....deny the pattern if you wish..in the end the result will be the same.
Sometime in our near future (probably sooner but within 200 years is my guess) this planet will complete a life altering climate shift.
What is imperative is we need to work cleaning up our mess, globally. Nobody that I know is claiming we have not failed being good stewards of the planet.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

...I don't think it's a small or particularly obvious, point. What it is, is commie wealth-distribution. Charge everyone across the board, to use their cars, heat their homes, and buy their groceries. Then give back that money to the poorer half. Ultimately this is going to impact the middle-class the most - they'll get a smaller rebate, but won't have the means to measurably reduce their carbon expenditures.

Pretty amusing you characterize it as "commie wealth-distribution." It's no different than any other tax, which is always at its core a wealth-distribution scheme. Do you characterize all taxes as "commie"?

The middle class usually bears the brunt of most public policy. That's because it is usually the largest segment of society (at least it used to be). But yes, there is a cost to carbon -- that's the whole point of this exercise. Everyone -- all of us -- needs to start paying the cost of this pollution.

Regardless, it is possible to implement a carbon tax which is revenue neutral, and doesn't overly harm the lower and middle classes. Canada is doing it. Most European countries are doing it. It's not rocket science, but it does take some political nards.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Do you mean the last sentence from the abstract? I'd check the paper, but I don't want to drop $36 to read it. If so, it doesn't seem to support your position, just proof that most eco-nuts are hypocritical wankers.

What do you call someone who eats a "100-mile diet ... shop at the overpriced farmer's markets, and eat at the trendiest vegan restaurants and shop eco-consciously." Sure sounds like you were holding up the typical "eco-nut" as the positive example. Or did I miss-read your text.

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Really sounds like a carbon tax will have the intended effect - NOT!

You asked for references regarding the fact that wealthier folks generally use more resources, and have a higher carbon footprint. Not about whether a carbon tax will be effective. If you want references that support the idea that a carbon tax is effective at changing behaviour I can google-search it for you (again).

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Pretty amusing you characterize it as "commie wealth-distribution." It's no different than any other tax, which is always at its core a wealth-distribution scheme. Do you characterize all taxes as "commie

Funny indeed. The term is actually wealth RE-distribution. Doesn't really matter. Either one incorrectly suggests a zero sum game. Different subject, though.

Now, if we had a single-use plastic tax, we could all argue about where that tax money should go. I have no doubt that MY government would throw the money into farcical scams, like they did with the California slow train to nowhere. I wouldn't even mind, though, as long as that helped cure some of the ocean plastic horror. Unfortunately, the plastic source map indicates that all that effort would be a tiny drop in the bucket...
https://theoceancleanup.com/sources/

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by cyan

Funny indeed. The term is actually wealth RE-distribution. Doesn't really matter. Either one incorrectly suggests a zero sum game. Different subject, though.

Now, if we had a single-use plastic tax, we could all argue about where that tax money should go. I have no doubt that MY government would throw the money into farcical scams, like they did with the California slow train to nowhere. I wouldn't even mind, though, as long as that helped cure some of the ocean plastic horror. Unfortunately, the plastic source map indicates that all that effort would be a tiny drop in the bucket...
https://theoceancleanup.com/sources/

Thanks for the site Cyan. Love data visualization. Pretty revealing stuff.

It's certainly interesting to see where the problem areas are, and are not. The highly developed world shows few nasty sources, while the developing world glows bright. I bet this has to do with differing landfill techniques, and the fact that we in the developed world have been shipping our garbage and so-called recycling to these places for the last few decades.

Top 20 Countries That Are Used As Dumping Grounds Of The World's Trash - Atchuup! - Cool Stories Daily

[transmitterdan]

Throughout history it has been the case that greater individual and national wealth results in cleaner air, cleaner water, fewer births (and infant deaths) and less waste entering the environment. Yet there is still a war on wealth. It boggles the mind how much people have to twist the logic pretzel to bypass the obvious.

The wealthier a nation is the better care of the planet they take compared to a poorer people. A wealthier population has more time and resources to invent better solutions to environmental problems. It’s so blindingly obvious but does not fit the required narrative that rich people are evil polluters and poor people represent the great hope for the planet.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Throughout history it has been the case that greater individual and national wealth results in cleaner air, cleaner water, fewer births (and infant deaths) and less waste entering the environment. Yet there is still a war on wealth. It boggles the mind how much people have to twist the logic pretzel to bypass the obvious.

The wealthier a nation is the better care of the planet they take compared to a poorer people. A wealthier population has more time and resources to invent better solutions to environmental problems. It’s so blindingly obvious but does not fit the required narrative that rich people are evil polluters and poor people represent the great hope for the planet.

A good point. Look at the nations with polluted rivers, drinking water, pouring into the oceans of the world. Not found in the developed nations.
I can't deny plastics are a problem. Not so much emissions, warming and cooling has been cyclical since the beginning of time. I can't deny we are making a contribution but nothing like the hype would infer. JMHO

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Throughout history it has been the case that greater individual and national wealth results in cleaner air, cleaner water, fewer births (and infant deaths) and less waste entering the environment. Yet there is still a war on wealth. It boggles the mind how much people have to twist the logic pretzel to bypass the obvious.

The wealthier a nation is the better care of the planet they take compared to a poorer people. A wealthier population has more time and resources to invent better solutions to environmental problems. It’s so blindingly obvious but does not fit the required narrative that rich people are evil polluters and poor people represent the great hope for the planet.

So much wrong there.


Working backwards:

• nobody believes and is saying "poor people represent the great hope for the planet"
• "rich people are evil polluters" - let's drop the 'evil'... and then look at the per-capita CO2 and waste produced by different nations. The rich nations produce more pollution and waste per capita. There's no getting around that.
• "war on wealth" - many recognize a growing divide between the rich and the rest, and that it is creating and will create problems (...except for the wealthy, of course). Let's put that aside; it's a big issue on its own
• "Throughout history it has been the case that greater individual and national wealth results in cleaner air, cleaner water, fewer births (and infant deaths) and less waste entering the environment." Wow, so you skipped history. You've completely ignored what happened on the path to becoming a wealthy nation - (colonization & exploitation, wars, slavery...) and also the ecological messes created, and later fixed or exported. And even today, how much wealth here continues to be created by exploiting and outsourcing our mess to other countries...

So, yay, we have litter-free lawns and cleaner rivers and better air NOW, but you seem to have forgotton how that happened and the price paid (and still being paid) in generating that wealth.


Myths don't make for good arguments.


(Also, whether you intended to or not, you've presented an argument for a massive transfer of wealth to the poorer countries, so that they will be clean non-polluting countries too )

[Mike OReilly]

Yes, wealthier nations handle our effluents better. That's why I said I suspect it has to do with our better landfill techniques. We also have much tougher environmental laws and regulations, thanks to strong and responsive gubbermints.

It is also a fact that developed countries have been dumping our wastes into lesser developed countries for decades. And as for pollution in general, one of the great benefits of shifting so much manufacturing to lower-wage/weaker-environmental-law areas is that we've also shifted a lot of local pollution over there as well.

Wealthier nations use far more of the planet's resources than poorer ones on both a per-capita basis, and in totality. If we want to do our part to reduce our impact on this planet, then the best thing we in the developed world can do is learn to live with less. But I understand this concept is ideologically blasphemous to some here.