Plastic pollution in our seas

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

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.

No question govt has and should play an important role. But I don't think it's ever been as powerful as basic human self-interest and the economies that such behavior produces. So long as the govt policies are realistic, attainable, and in accord with human behavior, then govt can and will be effective. When it comes to fuel economy standards, what comes to mind are the new 4-cyl "ecodiesels" for pickups & other utility vehicles coming out of Fiat-Chrysler and GM here in the US. (Europe and the rest of the world has been far ahead I think). Initial reports are ~30mpg on the highway for a full-sized, 1/2T pickup. Did this happen as a result of fuel economy standards or because of consumer demand? Probably both to greater or lesser degrees.

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.

To a degree. There's the "do as I say not as I do" crowd who many find particularly grating. Especially since it's usually accompanied by a fair amount of self-righteousness.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by 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.

Didn't work out in California.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Yup, as mentioned earlier, influencing people who are addicted to a substance, or even an activity, is far more challenging. The normal incentives/disincentives approach doesn't work as cleanly. It can still work, but it's more complicated.

This is why I was focusing my comments on balancing the harm equation. People engaging in these practices do place a burden on society. I'm fine with that, but I also think that, just like with differing risk-based insurance costs, these people should be charged more. That's what sin taxes do.

It's not perfect, and some people are hurt disproportionately, but nothing in life is perfect. What's the saying: "Don't let the pursuit of perfect get in the way of the good..." or something like that.

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Yes, you folks in the USA seem to have rather unique public policy and political challenges with regard to healthcare. I won't pretend to understand why. Happily in the rest of the developed world we've got a more direct line between healthcare costs and the public, so it's easier to make the sin tax connection.

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).

As I say, some people will always be disproportionately affected with any broad public policy. And the bottom line is that carbon taxes are supposed to hurt -- that's the incentive that is suppose to drive change. This doesn't mean sin taxes (including carbon taxes) can't be better designed to shelter certain people or sectors. This is what the carbon tax purports to do here in Canada, and so far it seems to be living up to its promise.

Originally Posted by Exile

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'm never very comfortable speaking about how broad groups feel about something. But I think the evidence is clear that there is a growing sense of resentment and anger directed at so-called "elites." This is often the case in revolutions, where the educated and professional classes are the ones shuffled off to the guillotine, or corralled for re-education (ie cultural revolution or Great Purge). It seems to happen time and time again.

Few people are ever bullied or insulted into making a change. People will change behaviour when they must, and especially when they have viable alternatives. I feel we're in a chicken-and-egg space right now with renewables and getting off oil. There's not enough focus on building this technology and infrastructure so as to create sufficient market depth that would allow "ordinary folk" to make the changes.

But it is coming. I just drove most of the way across Canada (in my little Honda Fit, which has been getting 50 mpg since 2008). I've been an electric car skeptic for distance travel; and in Canada and the USA, we have a lot of distance. But on this journey I noticed a real rise in the number of commercial charging stations. Gas stations are adding them rapidly, so now I am a little less skeptical.

Change is possible. We were all once addicted to horses, but we kicked that habit when motor vehicles, and the infrastructure to support them, grew to sufficient levels. We're going through the same change now with oil vs so-called renewables (some of which aren't all that renewable ... but that's another discussion). The point environmentalists are making -- and I agree -- is that we have to start now. It's always going to hurt. It's always going to be hard. And the change will never be perfect. But a journey starts with a single step. So lets all start walking.

[Hardhead]

In fact - I'd go so far as to say this - increase fuel economy standards, to promote free market direction in more fuel efficient vehicles. Cut corporate welfare policies, and instead issue debt for nationwide high speed rail on highly traveled land transportation routes. Roll out a 1980's republican free market policy of marketable pollution rights, and let the free market find the most efficient production of energy. Ban disposable single-use plastics, unless no substitute is available for human health reasons, and let the free market find the cheapest biodegradable substitute. Cancel all existing plastic recycling programs for single-use plastic waste, and revert to landfills. The rest of the world follows and caters to the economic leadership of the massive US consumption markets. China makes millions off the next biodegradable single-use plastic substitute. Problem solved, and new technology makes it better over the years.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

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

So... you didn't read the provided link...

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.

Ask any addict, addictions are really tough to kick. Always gonna be painful. Still worth doing though.

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.

You said "we"! There's hope for you yet.

[Cadence]

I thought this was a Cruiser's Forum, did I miss something? It appears to be about ideologies, political view points, sociology, geo economics, etc. :-) Nothing wrong with people views it just seems more appropriate forums are probably available.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I thought this was a Cruiser's Forum, did I miss something? It appears to be about ideologies, political view points, sociology, geo economics, etc. :-) Nothing wrong with people views it just seems more appropriate forums are probably available.

We're all trying to save the oceans, in a round-about way. Many diverse views.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

We're all trying to save the oceans, in a round-about way. Many diverse views.

Nothing wrong with diverse views. When it become rhetoric between individuals trying to impress people with their profound knowledge, it serves little purpose.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So... you didn't read the provided link...

I didn't challenge you on what the CDC article primarily says, namely that smoking is down in the US. Did the article say that lack of education is the sole or even leading factor? The 4th full para. from the bottom lists a number of factors, incl. lack of education as one.

Ask any addict, addictions are really tough to kick. Always gonna be painful. Still worth doing though.

I don't think "addiction" is really an accurate analogy between smoking/nicotine and "oil". Plenty of smokers can and have "kicked the habit" by quitting smoking, but I don't know too many who can realistically (sorry, bad word) and completely stop using fossil fuels or the products they produce. That's why "water" was a closer (but not quite) fit. Once we can all accept the reality () of the pervasiveness of fossil fuels, I think it will be easier to encourage broader support for ways to reduce its consumption. But that puts us all in the same boat so to speak, with nobody to claim the morally superior high ground. So I can see why analogizing the problem more as a (somewhat) voluntary "addiction" to an "evil" substance such as tobacco would sell better.

You said "we"! There's hope for you yet.

And hope for you too if this means you've come around to the radical notion that opinions divergent from your own may nevertheless be worthwhile to a discussion!

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't work out in California.

Yeah but your talking the land of plenty and cheap fuel..
Here in Europe I will jump on a train Lisbon to Madrid or Paris rather than fly.. less stress.

[tarian]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Nothing wrong with diverse views. When it become rhetoric between individuals trying to impress people with their profound knowledge, it serves little purpose.

Have to agree here , too many windbags giving us their outlook of the world and preaching the preach , we have just spent over 300 years in the industrial revolution using hydrocarbons to maximise our lives, oil is not just used for driving your 4x4, plastics , oils, lubricants , etc etc etc, to stop using hyrdo carbons in the time frame people are bleating on about will send us back to the bronze age.
All those on your boats have a good rummage around and start listing what hydrocarbons were used to built your boat, including the energy used

Petroleum products include transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, asphalt and road oil, and feedstocks for making the chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials that are in nearly everything we
use.

No such think as a carbon neutral person , unless you live in a rainforest and not seen civilisation EVERY.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't think "addiction" is really an accurate analogy between smoking/nicotine and "oil". Plenty of smokers can and have "kicked the habit" by quitting smoking, but I don't know too many who can realistically (sorry, bad word) and completely stop using fossil fuels or the products they produce.

Originally Posted by tarian

No such [thing] as a carbon neutral person , unless you live in a rainforest and not seen civilisation [EVER].

This has never been about quitting fossil fuels altogether, it's about using this valuable, finite, polluting resource BETTER. More wisely. Eg not using them to make plastics that are thrown out after one use, but they linger in the environment for centuries.


(sorry for bringing it back to the thread title)

[tarian]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This has never been about quitting fossil fuels altogether, it's about using this valuable, finite, polluting resource BETTER. More wisely. Eg not using them to make plastics that are thrown out after one use, but they linger in the environment for centuries.


(sorry for bringing it back to the thread title)

Always like the Punctuation police, there like the environmental police holy than holy until you scrutinise them as well

As your one use plastic may take less oil to make to your life plastic bag there is always a compromise, how about your lithium batteries that need material dredged from the seabed destroying habitat and polluting with those massive dredgers with all that diesel it burns and the crew being fed steak from beef from the Amazon rain forest that has been cut down to accommodate all those cows.
My point is single use plastic is just another Bandwagon gimmick made up by those that think there Green but use a coffee pod in the morning , by far worse pollution out there which ALL needs addressing, but will not happen over night nor with our obsession with China and its exports of cheap goods and the Wests obsession with consumerism
including the I phone 11 what was wrong with the I phone 10

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by tarian

Always like the Punctuation police, there like the environmental police holy than holy until you scrutinise them as well

Whatever. Some of us don't see a problem with trying harder and learning stuff.

My point is single use plastic is just another Bandwagon gimmick made up by those that think there Green but use a coffee pod in the morning , by far worse pollution out there which ALL needs addressing, but will not happen over night nor with our obsession with China and its exports of cheap goods and the Wests obsession with consumerism

Yes it all needs addressing.

including the I phone 11 what was wrong with the I phone 10

Nothing was wrong with the iphone 10. Unless you own Apple stock, in which case you want them to put out something shiny and different every year.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't work out in California.

This is a really good point, which might explain some different (international) opinions here regarding a government's green solutions.

The so-called California High Speed Rail is a really good example of a huge government failure that has caused many people to be truly skeptical of a governmen't ability to do something large and green. The fine people who created the Japanese bullet trains and the London-Paris Eurostar are a breed apart from the horribly inept folks that tried to do a similar good thing in California, from Los Angeles to San Francisco. THIS version fails on all promises, as it will be much slower, much less green, and many times the original cost after so many lies and wasted money already. This is without even reaching the two cities in question.

This debacle might sound surprising to outsiders, after all California is THE place where tons of high-technology comes from that the world enjoys. This paradox highlights the stark difference between the ability of private industry and that of big government, at least here in the Golden State.

Perhaps this helps some of the non-US members to understand the disdain that many of us have for big government solutions to our environmental problems...