Evil Amazon

[Scot Dutchy]

All this data is very doubtful anyway. Who trusts it only a fool would.

[Scot Dutchy]

America cant even produce good data so how in the hell is India, Indonesia and china going to do it. These are all guestimates.

Even Rainbow in Africa.

[Brian Peacock]

I'd ask you to read the sentence again and forward a point of view or an argument that refutes it if you'd like to discuss this Scot.

[Hermit]

All this data is very doubtful anyway. Who trusts it only a fool would.

Yeah. Right. I too only trust data that shed a favourable light on the Netherlands.

[JimC]

China, for all its totalitarian faults is a fairly organised society, where waste collection systems exist, and are used. Some of the biggest problems in terms of plastic waste dumped in the oceans come from heavily populated, disorganised third world countries. Indonesia and other south-east Asian countries are prime examples - most of the plastic waste on beaches in northern Australia come from Indonesia. From what I've read, there is little waste collection infrastructure, and so a high proportion of waste is not only not recycled, but simply dumped.

I'm not going to be snide or critical, though - poor, overpopulated countries have so many problems that systematic waste collection is probably low on their list. Still an environmental tragedy, though...

And of course western countries like Australia have been asleep at the wheel in terms of re-cycling - we used to simply ship a large proportion of it to China and other Asian countries. Understandably, they are now closing that option, but Australian governments, both State and Federal, have been slow to find alternatives. In Victoria at the moment, one large, dodgy recycling company has been forced into receivership, and the State government is floundering: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/ ... s/11379032

As a result, quite a few councils have been forced to send trucks full of potentially recyclable materials to land-fill.

[Scot Dutchy]

Hermit.
What is wrong with you? That is not a glib remark but of course you have to reply with an insult. Just check your brilliant countries data and examine how it is collected. Do you trust the data? I definitely dont. That is my own personal experience researching world wide data.
The EU is one of the few organisations that collects data in a reasonable form using the same definitions. Eurostat does a pretty good job but it is not perfect.
The international data collecting organisations have to rely on independent countries to collect data. Very few if none collect it themselves.
Why do you think FB data is so sought after?
Most governments rely on surveys, projections and guestimates which for many occasions is sufficient for general work but for massive claims as pollution they fall short. Governments dont tell the truth. Strange that.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:

Though the cynic will baulk at Jim's list above there's nothing which is unreasonable or unachievable there - at least for people in Jim's situation. I think it's important to acknowledge that not everyone is society is in the same position, and while some can do more the opportunities for others can be, and often are, somewhat limited. We've all heard of the idea of 'food deserts' in relation to particularly poor urban areas, where access to fresh food and veg for example is limited by availability and/or by personal economic factors, but people can always do something to limit their adverse impacts on others and the environment if they are given the opportunity and a bit of positive encouragement.

I agree that it is easier in my situation to do some of the things on that list, and that people in poverty, renters, apartment dwellers etc. would find it harder to employ solar power, store rainwater, grow their own food etc. What remains true, however, is that if a greater proportion of people who can make such reasonably simple lifestyle changes do so, then society as a whole benefits from less use of energy and resources.

[Scot Dutchy]

Wishful thinking Jim. Try making the people happy first. It has to come from the people. Not being imposed on them. This includes better services which for many is the brick wall. Also it has to be sustainable. Developing allotments for one year will not help as it has to be a long term plan. Here a length of 5 to 10 years is considered minimum.
Philosophy is another problem. A Dutch group went to set up a sizeable project in New York. It only worked when the produce could be sold. The idea of a cooperative producing free food was totally alien.

[Rum]

There are plenty of food coops in the USA. They aren’t all capitalist monsters who can’t see past a profit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... operatives

[Scot Dutchy]

There are plenty of food coops in the USA. They aren’t all capitalist monsters who can’t see past a profit.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... operatives

Making profits?

[JimC]

Scot Dutchy wrote:

...It has to come from the people. Not being imposed on them...

Well, that is precisely the sorts of things that are on my list - individuals making decisions which, at least in some small way, help the environment. Now, one can go all pessimist, but I prefer to live my life with a feeling that I'm making at least some small contribution. If enough people feel the same way, then progress has been made...

[Scot Dutchy]

I agree with you Jim but only happy people will do that.

[rainbow]

China produces 220 million tonnes a year in waste. The 5.2 tonnes it receives from Europe is just a drop.

Thanks for the cherry-pick special. Now for some context:

China: population (2019) - 1,420,062,022; waste (2006) - 220 million tons; plastic waste/person - 0.12kg/day
United States: population (2019) 329,093,110; waste (2007) - 254 million tons; plastic waste/person - 0.34kg/day

So, while China has 4.3 time the population of the USA it still produces less total waste and a lot less waste per person, which is pretty much what Rainbow alluded to.

Plus a lot of the waste produced by those in the developing world is organic, compostible waste. There is also a high percentage of that waste which is ash due to the reliance on fires for cooking. That can be returned to the soil. Ultimately these fires will be replaced by electricity, hopefully hydro and other renewables, but poor countries are not in a position to do this right now - 'cause they are poor.

[Brian Peacock]

Brian Peacock wrote:

Though the cynic will baulk at Jim's list above there's nothing which is unreasonable or unachievable there - at least for people in Jim's situation. I think it's important to acknowledge that not everyone is society is in the same position, and while some can do more the opportunities for others can be, and often are, somewhat limited. We've all heard of the idea of 'food deserts' in relation to particularly poor urban areas, where access to fresh food and veg for example is limited by availability and/or by personal economic factors, but people can always do something to limit their adverse impacts on others and the environment if they are given the opportunity and a bit of positive encouragement.

I agree that it is easier in my situation to do some of the things on that list, and that people in poverty, renters, apartment dwellers etc. would find it harder to employ solar power, store rainwater, grow their own food etc. What remains true, however, is that if a greater proportion of people who can make such reasonably simple lifestyle changes do so, then society as a whole benefits from less use of energy and resources.

Indeed. And once those who can have started to put their own house in order, so to speak, then with the skills they've gained and the resources they've liberated they can start to think about helping others to do the same - whether that's helping a neighbour install their own solar units or volunteering at a community allotment etc. These ideas scale up as well.

[Brian Peacock]

Wishful thinking Jim. Try making the people happy first. It has to come from the people. Not being imposed on them. This includes better services which for many is the brick wall. Also it has to be sustainable. Developing allotments for one year will not help as it has to be a long term plan. Here a length of 5 to 10 years is considered minimum.
Philosophy is another problem. A Dutch group went to set up a sizeable project in New York. It only worked when the produce could be sold. The idea of a cooperative producing free food was totally alien.

We can't restructure rampant Capitalism out of existence by saying it's pointless to try. That's the story Capitalism wants us to read.