Packaging, Waste, and Malthusian Discussion

[zikzak]

Straws are for children. Drink your beverages like an adult.

[microbet]

@boredsocial

So if you want to change the world you need to harness individual humans selfishness to push them to do what you want them to do. Humans aren’t just evil or anything, but once you realize that most people’s conscience is a defense attorney desperately trying to find a way to justify whatever is best for them (and what’s best for them is measured in doses of various brain chemicals) in the immediate term the whole world makes a lot more sense. That’s considered normal. If you can’t relate to that you’re probably some version of neurodivergent. Sorry I don’t make the rules.

Slavery was abolished. Women can own property. People don’t dump their oil down the drain here anymore. People barely even smoke in public around here even where it is legal anymore. None of these things would ever have happened if people didn’t want them to happen. The government did not see 100% of people opposed to these things and then just impose laws on them to make change happen. People’s attitudes and values changed first.

[jmakin]

I mean, I remember when indoor smoking bans went into effect in CA, there was definitely backlash and we needed an extended multi-million dollar ad campaign to stigmatize smoking so much that people don’t do it in public anymore, I really doubt people’s attitudes about that specific thing changed first.

[microbet]

But, the magical thinkers expect the government to look on a world full of people happily driving F450 double diesel trucks drinking out of three plastic straws at a time and look at the fat and happy businesses supplying those needs and then to just pass legislation that makes everything better.

[JonnyA]

Public opinion had definitely already been changing long before the bans and that is the only reason the government went ahead with them. If bars were losing tons of business by enforcing them, they wouldn’t have done it. Yes, there were people bitching about it, but they were the minority. Most people were happy to have smoke-free bars.

I remember in NYC a few bars started trying random ways to get around the law (and a few that just didn’t enforce them). Those experiments didn’t last long as most people didn’t want to go to bars that still allowed smoking.

[microbet]

@jmakin

I mean, I remember when indoor smoking bans went into effect in CA, there was definitely backlash and we needed an extended multi-million dollar ad campaign to stigmatize smoking so much that people don’t do it in public anymore, I really doubt people’s attitudes about that specific thing changed first.

Well, that’s wrong imo. A lot of people wanted less smoking around. The majority? Probably. Regardless, it was a lot of people. Some people opposed the restrictions and protested. A majority? I don’t think even close to a majority. A lot? Sure. But, those laws were not thrust onto a population where 100% of people didn’t want them. People wanting to not be around smoking happened before the laws. Everyone? No. But a lot of people.

[jmakin]

much fewer than now though. it’s practically everyone now, even me as an ex-smoker. the govt totally did that, which was my point

[microbet]

My point was that people changing must come first. And it did. I’m not suggesting that laws changing after that have no impact.

[jmakin]

ok i probably misunderstood what you were saying, my bad

[jmakin]

my dad was running a nightclub/restaurant when that ban went into effect, and a lot of people were very worried in the industry that it would kill off their business completely. Later on he laughed and said “I don’t know why we didnt realize people would just smoke outside instead.”

[microbet]

@simplicitus

Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, Brazilian, Iranian, and US industrial and energy policy matter about million times more than US consumer behavior.

This is also another version of “I’m not doing anything unless everyone else does something.” The emmissions per person in the US is double what it is in China and 8 times what it is in India. The US may not be responsible for more emissions than China, but an American is more responsible than a Chinese person.

And obviously your actions, in whatever form, have more impact on US policy than they do on Chinese policy, so writing letters to Xi and Modi and the like can not be serious thinking.

Now, going to India and building a renewable energy power plant? That would be a way to have a big impact and probably more than you can accomplish in the US, but it’s a lot bigger ask than…passing on a straw…or turning down your AC…or choosing a more efficient car…or turning down your heat…or buying less disposable junk…or not having a huge house built…or fixing something you can fix instead of replacing it…etc. You could have the environmental footprint of the average Chinese person very easily in the US and, if you wanted to try hard, even the footprint of the average Indian.

[jmakin]

see the issue i have with the personal responsibility stuff, is to reduce your carbon impact you basically have to completely withdraw from society - even our smartphones are enormously wasteful, datacenters use massive amounts of energy, there’s the packaging on all of our goods, etc. I’m not against doing what you can but calling someone a coal roller who is ambivalent about it anymore seems a bit much.

I’m not in control of any of this stuff.

[microbet]

You could buy half as much stuff and it might improve your life. That’s packaging. Look around you. You see people in that 5000 square foot house with 3 air conditioners when it’s not even that hot in Newport? That’s a lot more energy than your phone is using. Half the footprint of the average American is not hard. (per capita emissions in Denmark are less than half of that in the US and they aren’t uncomfortable)

Being indifferent about this is one thing, but being reactionary about it and going around telling people that what they do doesn’t matter is what the coal rollers are doing.

[VoteForSocialists]

i love seafood, and i went digging for what you are bringing up. i think you are referring to 80% of microplastics originating on land, that’s the only thing that tracks from the wiki (i know i know incomplete source). which would make sense, but it also talks about biggest microplastics contributors being from tires, road markings, and synthetic apparel fibers. which also sounds plausible, a lot of outdoor debris can bypass or make it through waste collection and treatment and go directly into bodies of water. but it also means that plastic bags breaking down on their own are a smaller problem than feared.

fwiw, there was a local report last year about the effect of chemicals in car tires on salmon fry. it’s extremely deadly. they found correlation of salmon fry deaths and a specific compound additive to rubber which makes tires last longer. the proposed mitigation is having biofilter systems for highway water runoff. probably impossible to do it on all roads, but perhaps feasible to protect waterways that have declining salmon counts.

i am not sure i completely understand some claims that plastic lives longer in the ocean than on land. salt and water are pretty deadly to all sorts of materials. floating debris also gets hit with the destruction of sunlight and temperature changes. there’s even more interesting articles about certain algae and bacteria growing on floating plastic in the ocean, which isn’t to say they will break down plastics faster, but our understanding of how they affect aquatic life is likely >90% incomplete, and <10% understood.

lost fishing nets are a huge problem for fishing industries though. if you believe the seaspiracy documentary, the damage comparable to what bycatch does to ecosystems.

[FuncrusherPlus]

Reducing your personal consumption and individual recycling absolutely matters.

It’s the greatest example we can set for younger people.

If you’ve stopped giving a fuck then just say that.