Plastic pollution in our seas

[GordMay]

Here’s an interesting & informative article on How an e-waste sting uncovered a shocking betrayal.
“American trash” ➥ https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/4/2...-reclaim-fraud

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Curious do you really believe that taxing cigarettes and alcohol has changed behavior?
I’m not asking you to prove it, that’s silly. But what do you think the change was?
Smoking is way down, and that’s not due to tax or vaping in my opinion, just it started to fall out of fashion and I think the younger generations saw it as something old people did.

I don’t know about drinking, I believe it’s as prevelant as it’s always been?

A quick looks it seems alcohol consumption may have increased.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325135.php#1
Seems also in the US? I haven’t read these, I just found them.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasp.../#29f9d3bc66bc

Not taxes with smoking..
Having to stand in the cold and rain to have a smoke did more to stop the casual smoker..
The hardened 20+ a day are still going strong.
Alcohol is more difficult, people want it off the streets so bars are a must..
But speaking of plastic heres a video about the Times Person of the Year Greta.

https://youtu.be/r8SyoRwV_To

[Exile]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Not taxes with smoking..
Having to stand in the cold and rain to have a smoke did more to stop the casual smoker..
The hardened 20+ a day are still going strong.
Alcohol is more difficult, people want it off the streets so bars are a must..
But speaking of plastic heres a video about the Times Person of the Year Greta.

https://youtu.be/r8SyoRwV_To

Oh no! Someone please tell us why this is a hoax, a right-wing conspiracy, faux news, and not our latest savior's "Pope-Mobile." I'm just afraid of the length of the fall some may suffer from their lofty, exalted positions on the "right" side of history.

Speaking of, "sin taxes" hurt those the most who can least afford them. What else is new? It's based on an assumption that working & poor people don't know what's good for them, and other more educated & "enlightened" people do. But the reality is that everyone knows that cigarettes, booze, drugs, and maybe even soft drinks are bad for you but they opt to consume them anyway. Once again, it's simply the nature of humankind that offends some, as is the very human need to want to feel superior to others, often by citing "studies" which show correlation but not always causation.

Unlike cigs, booze, and other "sins," the potential problem with taxing "carbon" is that it's become as indispensable to human life on the planet as water, and much of it's consumption is non-discretionary -- as least until technology uncovers viable substitutes that is. But maybe carbon taxes can be properly managed by govts so as not to have a disproportionate impact on working people who rely on it to make a living. Unfortunately, there's not much confidence these days that this could be accomplished by govts responsibly, and that perhaps more than the merits of a carbon tax itself are probably the obstacle.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

...Speaking of, "sin taxes" hurt those the most who can least afford them. What else is new? It's based on an assumption that working & poor people don't know what's good for them, and other more educated & "enlightened" people do. But the reality is that everyone knows that cigarettes, booze, drugs, and maybe even soft drinks are bad for you but they opt to consume them anyway. Once again, it's simply the nature of humankind that offends some, as is the very human need to want to feel superior to others, often by citing "studies" which show correlation but not always causation.

That's one perspective on sin taxes Ex. The other is that these habits place an significant burden on the commons. Just as higher risk translates into higher insurance premiums, those partaking in these "sins" pay more to compensate the broader community (again, just like with insurance).

Personally, I think everyone should be free to do just about anything that doesn't cause undue harm on others. This includes ingesting all manner of drugs. But I also think people who do these things need to take responsibility for their actions. But if you're going to engage in these activities, then there should be some way to balance the cost borne by all of us -- the commons. Sin taxes attempt to do this.

Originally Posted by Exile

Unlike cigs, booze, and other "sins," the potential problem with taxing "carbon" is that it's become as indispensable to human life on the planet as water, and much of it's consumption is non-discretionary -- as least until technology uncovers viable substitutes that is.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Water still wins. But I agree with your general point. This is why it drives me nuts when so-called environmentalists fight against pipelines (a particularly Canadian example right now). Unless you're willing to turn off your lights and stop driving (etc.) then pipelines are the best and safest way to deliver oil across continents. The alternatives are far worse.

Originally Posted by Exile

But maybe carbon taxes can be properly managed by govts so as not to have a disproportionate impact on working people who rely on it to make a living. Unfortunately, there's not much confidence these days that this could be accomplished by govts responsibly, and that perhaps more than the merits of a carbon tax itself are probably the obstacle.

Revenue-neutral carbon taxes attempt to do just this Ex. Those who use more carbon pay the most tax. Those who use little get taxed less, going to zero (and government nets zero). It places a cost on high users and producers, which sends them the market message to prioritize efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources. It's not perfect, but many studies, including those from many large energy companies, have concluded carbon taxes are the best way to proceed. (There's me feeling superior again).

[Hardhead]

Here's some irony - as I recall, marketable pollution rights, allowing low-impact energy producers to sell pollution rights to high-impact producers, was first proposed by free market republicans in the 1980's. It achieves the greatest reduction in environmental impact, at the least cost - based on the free market. Back when I was a republican.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... "sin taxes" hurt those the most who can least afford them. What else is new? It's based on an assumption that working & poor people don't know what's good for them, and other more educated & "enlightened" people do. But the reality is that everyone knows that cigarettes, booze, drugs, and maybe even soft drinks are bad for you but they opt to consume them anyway.

Smoking continues to decline in the US. Something's working... Demographically, smoking declines with increasing level of education and/or wealth.

So, yeah, broadly-speaking, it seems clear that the better-informed people are, the less likely they smoke.

Another argument for "sin taxes" is to partially defray the tremendous costs to the public for additional health care and other services that these products impose on the rest of us.

Once again, it's simply the nature of humankind that offends some...

You seem to be offended by optimists and by anyone thinking we can do better.

...the potential problem with taxing "carbon" is that it's become as indispensable to human life on the planet as water, and much of it's consumption is non-discretionary -- as least until technology uncovers viable substitutes that is. But maybe carbon taxes can be properly managed by govts so as not to have a disproportionate impact on working people who rely on it to make a living. Unfortunately, there's not much confidence these days that this could be accomplished by govts responsibly, and that perhaps more than the merits of a carbon tax itself are probably the obstacle.

If not a carbon pricing or trading scheme, then what? How do we kick this addiction to cheap oil?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If not a carbon pricing or trading scheme, then what? How do we kick this addiction to cheap oil?

It might be cheap in the US.. not so cheap here.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If not a carbon pricing or trading scheme, then what? How do we kick this addiction to cheap oil?

Some believe by zero-point energy, tapping the natural cell structure of space. But they say the impact on the wealthy oil conglomerates, and related antiquated industries, would cause massive societal upheaval. It's also potentially dangerous if misused. Best to keep doing what we're doing - everyone's happy at the top. Don't rock the boat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

It might be cheap in the US.. not so cheap here.

It's easy to forget that this isn't just a US site.

So, in your opinion, is European fuel pricing 'right' ? Do you think it influences choices and behaviour?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unlike cigs, booze, and other "sins," the potential problem with taxing "carbon" is that it's become as indispensable to human life on the planet as water, and much of it's consumption is non-discretionary -- as least until technology uncovers viable substitutes that is. But maybe carbon taxes can be properly managed by govts so as not to have a disproportionate impact on working people who rely on it to make a living. Unfortunately, there's not much confidence these days that this could be accomplished by govts responsibly, and that perhaps more than the merits of a carbon tax itself are probably the obstacle.

Technology has been , and is, increasingly delivering such viable C substitutes.
I suspect, you're, at least partly, correct. It's, in part, people's non-confidence in government, that stands in the way of progress, on this (& other) issue(s).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

That's one perspective on sin taxes Ex. The other is that these habits place an significant burden on the commons. Just as higher risk translates into higher insurance premiums, those partaking in these "sins" pay more to compensate the broader community (again, just like with insurance).

Personally, I think everyone should be free to do just about anything that doesn't cause undue harm on others. This includes ingesting all manner of drugs. But if you're going to engage in these activities, then there should be some way to balance the cost borne by all of is -- the commons. Sin taxes attempt to do this.

Sin taxes attempt to do this but there seems to be conflicting evidence whether they really work. In the meantime, it's a highly regressive tax whether they work or not, and where do the tax revenues go? It's been too long to put my hands on the study again, but I do recall -- during the effort in my home state to close down drive-up liquor stores -- that it would require a much higher (and unrealistic) tax to actually influence behavior, i.e. disincentivize the unhealthy activities. Probably on account of the points you previously made about the power of addiction. I think there are other ways to change the "culture" (if you will) surrounding unhealthy activities, like what has occurred in many places like the US re: smoking.

As for the commons argument, I don't necessarily disagree in theory but at this point I have to question how realistic it is. When it comes to our insufferable & dysfunctional debate over health care here in the US, for example, the fact remains that we are all paying for such unhealthy activities whether we like it or not, so whether we should be paying for it seems somewhat moot. Of course it might be "fairer" if those who actually engage in the unhealthy activities pay more for their own health care, but that's also not always realistic either. What I DO know is that all of these efforts to try and impose restraints on some of these behaviors has become extremely divisive, and maybe for that reason alone I tend to be opposed.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Water still wins. But I agree with your general point. This is why it drives me nuts when so-called environmentalists fight against pipelines (a particularly Canadian example right now). Unless you're willing to turn off your lights and stop driving (etc.) then pipelines are the best and safest way to deliver oil across continents. The alternatives are far worse.

Yup, water still wins. I've always been incredulous about the argument against pipelines as well (not that they're spill-free), but I gather it's based on the notion that anything that makes fossil fuels more plentiful (and thus potentially cheaper) is bad. But I don't think this sort of thinking applies very well to a world-wide commodity that has become the basis for the entire world's economy. The debate over carbon taxes is more thoughtful as a potential disincentive than effectively requiring the stuff to be delivered via rail or truck.

Revenue-neutral carbon taxes attempt to do just this Ex. Those who use more carbon pay the most tax. Those who use little get taxed less, going to zero (and government nets zero). It places a cost on high users and producers, which sends them the market message to prioritize efficiency and the development of alternative energy sources. It's not perfect, but many studies, including those from many large energy companies, have concluded carbon taxes are the best way to proceed. (There's me feeling superior again).

Understood. But what about high users who have little discretion in how much they are required to use? Like the so-called "yellow-jacket" rural-based delivery drivers in France who supply Paris with essential food & goods? IOW, the same blue-collar workers who are enabling the affluent, highly educated technocrats like President Macron to pass carbon taxes that impact the delivery drivers disproportionately? I don't think there's any question that as fuel costs increase people look to buy smaller cars and economize, but are the much maligned SUVs, etc. really the crux of the problem? Especially when I believe fuel economy has improved overall, hasn't it? (notwithstanding some of Trump's policies).

Generally speaking, I think people are getting increasingly tired of all the symbolism and signaling that's going on, and for some poor Greta is the poster-child for a lot of the sanctimony, hypocrisy, and of course political division. I think "ordinary" people who can't afford to drive Tesla's or give up their work trucks understand all too well the downsides of fossil fuels, but also resent constantly being told they're either ignorant or "don't care." (not directed at you Mike). This sort of tone-deaf elitism is creating some increasingly serious rifts in the political fabric, and within political parties that used to (and still purport to) represent the interests of working people.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood. But what about high users who have little discretion in how much they are required to use? Like the so-called "yellow-jacket" rural-based delivery drivers in France who supply Paris with essential food & goods? IOW, the same blue-collar workers who are enabling the affluent, highly educated technocrats like President Macron to pass carbon taxes that impact the delivery drivers disproportionately? I don't think there's any question that as fuel costs increase people look to buy smaller cars and economize, but are the much maligned SUVs, etc. really the crux of the problem? Especially when I believe fuel economy has improved overall, hasn't it? (notwithstanding some of Trump's policies).

Generally speaking, I think people are getting increasingly tired of all the symbolism and signaling that's going on, and for some poor Greta is the poster-child for a lot of the sanctimony, hypocrisy, and of course political division. I think "ordinary" people who can't afford to drive Tesla's or give up their work trucks understand all too well the downsides of fossil fuels, but also resent constantly being told they're either ignorant or "don't care." (not directed at you Mike). This sort of tone-deaf elitism is creating some increasingly serious rifts in the political fabric, and within political parties that used to (and still purport to) represent the interests of working people.

I think it has to be admitted though - government could do a tremendous amount towards encouraging more environmentally sound practices. Increasing fuel economy standards would push the free market toward more efficient vehicles, whether fossil fuel or electric. That, in turn, would stimulate the free market toward more efficient production of batteries, electricity, and electricity distribution. All of that, in turn, would contribute to economies of scale - and bring down prices for the end consumer of vehicles and fuel. Just like LED TV's have dropped dramatically in price, over just a few years. Now - everyone has them.

I believe that sort of societal action - is what the vast majority of people who care about the issue want to see happen. Every single one of us is a hypocrite, under close examination, and that's true for young people like Greta too.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's easy to forget that this isn't just a US site.

So, in your opinion, is European fuel pricing 'right' ? Do you think it influences choices and behaviour?

Not really in the middle/upper classes.. and the poorer have the 'Car Freedom' of yesteryear and Hollywood so deeply embedded in their psyche thats what keeps the 2nd hand market strong despite a pretty good public transport system.
The main damage was the 'Diesel' con which started with fuel half the price of petrol then once the numbers of diesels increased the prices matched up.. and the pollution got worse.
Funny how folks will happily pay more for simpler engines and fuel with ******** climate/pollution propaganda.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Smoking continues to decline in the US. Something's working... Demographically, smoking declines with increasing level of education and/or wealth.

Well, I don't have any stats, but smoking seems to still be more prevalent in Europe, as it is (surprisingly) in tobacco-producing state in the US like VA & NC. But I don't think we want to put the ignorant label on our friends in those places. I think there are a lot of reasons for its decline overall in places like the US, incl. perhaps education & wealth. But despite some of the false advertising by tobacco cos. back in the day, I don't think too many needed a lot of "education" that it was bad for you. Heck, my own father started smoking in the 1930s because it was known to be bad for you (and addictive). Again, the nature of humankind and its propensity for risk-taking (and/or rebellion).

So, yeah, broadly-speaking, it seems clear that the better-informed people are, the less likely they smoke.

Maybe so, but best to come up with some evidence to try and objectify that one.

Another argument for "sin taxes" is to partially defray the tremendous costs to the public for additional health care and other services that these products impose on the rest of us.

Oh really? Do you have evidence showing where these tax revenues go and how they have defrayed costs? If the big tobacco settlements to US states in the 1990s are an example, I think you'll be hard pressed.

You seem to be offended by optimists and by anyone thinking we can do better.

I'm not all that given to taking personal offense on most topics, especially when there are thoughtful people involved that I have other, more interesting things in common with (e.g. sailing). But I know that optimists are not the same as idealists who, these days anyway, I find rather vacuous. I may be somewhat of a pessimist and sometimes even a cynic, but I try and be a realist above all else. I think to do otherwise is at best seeing the world as you'd like it to be as opposed to how it is, and at worst a level of personal absorption that's just self-centered and therefore boring.

If not a carbon pricing or trading scheme, then what? How do we kick this addiction to cheap oil?

Our addiction is to oil, whether cheap or otherwise. It's important to accept this, even if you don't happen to like it any more than me or anyone else. We'll continue to become more efficient with it, but with continuing population growth and the huge increases in consumption by countries like China & India, we are ultimately going to have to rely on technology & adaptation to overcome the inevitable increases in overall consumption. Try not to read too much into this or start with scripted accusations & insinuations, it's just a realist's point of view.

[Hardhead]

As far as calling people hypocrites for air travel, I believe most in society believe it's justified for practical reasons, and it can't easily be duplicated. The old cost/benefit analysis. Since we plan on being on the Earth for a long time though - it might actually be worthwhile to invest in high speed rail lines - on highly traveled land transportation routes. There's a lot that could be done - and none of it would be as radical as some would like to claim is necessary.