More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:20 am

I don't know why they don't use the same material they use for the compostable bags. But otherwise I agree with Gordo. A lot of fussing about a minimal cause of the issue. I say move away from plastic soda and drink bottles. They produce lots more pollution it seems. Go back to canned drinks only.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:32 am

I think there's a reason we went to plastics, and it wasn't "Let's kill oceans."

It's because they were the lightest, and most economical material, from top to bottom.

These businesses, uncheked, found the most cost effective material for their product... the one that was going to cost the least to produce, transport, and sell. Other materials are going to kill trees, use more fossil fuels to export, or use more materials overall (thicker, reusable plastic bags).

SO, in this case, we've traded using plastic bags in Ohio to producing more internal combustion exhaust to haul the new thing around.

Net loss.

Every little thing DOES NOT help.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 35601
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

More proof

Postby TheCatt » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:10 am

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Fine, but it's so close to zero, relatively, to be effectively nothing.

Yeah, this is terrible logic. I'm going with every bit helps.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Thick bags, transported over and over, weight a shitload more, and will burn more fuel. Much less the shitload of more plastic it takes to make them, versus a tiny BB of plastic that makes a disposable bag

Give me data.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:19 am

2>1. The math checks out.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:56 am

GORDON wrote:Source of the post I think there's a reason we went to plastics, and it wasn't "Let's kill oceans."

It was "let's save trees". Because people are stupid.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:02 am

Vince wrote:Source of the post
GORDON wrote:Source of the post I think there's a reason we went to plastics, and it wasn't "Let's kill oceans."

It was "let's save trees". Because people are stupid.


That may have been the official story, but I'd still bet a dollar that plastic bags were way cheaper.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:08 am

GORDON wrote:Source of the post
Vince wrote:Source of the post
GORDON wrote:Source of the post I think there's a reason we went to plastics, and it wasn't "Let's kill oceans."

It was "let's save trees". Because people are stupid.


That may have been the official story, but I'd still bet a dollar that plastic bags were way cheaper.

I'm sure they were. Around this time was when they started to reduce to timber industries' leases to cut on public land. The 90's had a pretty significant rise in the price of wood and wood products. So it stands to reason that the plastic would be cheaper in a few ways.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:17 am

A little light research is suggesting paper/cotton bags are WAY worse in overall carbon usage. It stands to reason that the more energy a thing requires to produce, then it's going to cost more to produce.

We had those light little plastic bags for a reason, they were the cheapest, most efficient thing. Anything else is more expensive, and it stands to reason it takes more resources and energy to produce.

Furthermore, none of the studies I have found have addressed the energy cost of hauling 10 bags to and from the store every month, which weigh at least 100x more than the single-use bags. More weight = more fuel burned to move. I don't see it addressed in any "environmental impact" studies. They all stop at "amount of landfill space saved (almost zero because those bags are so small), and cost to produce.

Yes, improper disposal is bad for the environment, but evidence has been posted in this thread time and again that overall, this is NOT A NORTH AMERICA PROBLEM. Again, banning bags in Ohio is doing more harm than good. Every little thing does not help.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 43089
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

More proof

Postby Leisher » Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:37 pm

There's no silver bullet fix that will cure everything. We can't just say "let's no longer use __________" and pollution ends. So steps like this one are more than nothing, but you're right in that each one is a small percentage.

If they really want to fix the issue they need to go after drink manufacturers and end their plastic usage. That would put a pretty big dent into the issue. Much, much bigger than plastic bags, which have a convenience factor like lunches, garbage bags, kitty litter, etc. Drink bottles are thicker, heavier, get used once, etc.

And yes, they shouldn't be making the new bags out of plastic or what's the point?

The stuff above was based upon Gordon's last comment on the previous page. I didn't see the next page of posts yet, so here's my response to the rest:

GORDON wrote:Source of the post A little light research is suggesting paper/cotton bags are WAY worse in overall carbon usage. It stands to reason that the more energy a thing requires to produce, then it's going to cost more to produce.

We had those light little plastic bags for a reason, they were the cheapest, most efficient thing. Anything else is more expensive, and it stands to reason it takes more resources and energy to produce.


Yep, but you're talking about production of one bag that, theoretically should last years versus a single use product. Unless you're taking that into account, your calculations are wrong or misleading.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Furthermore, none of the studies I have found have addressed the energy cost of hauling 10 bags to and from the store every month, which weigh at least 100x more than the single-use bags. More weight = more fuel burned to move. I don't see it addressed in any "environmental impact" studies. They all stop at "amount of landfill space saved (almost zero because those bags are so small), and cost to produce.



Are you seriously suggesting that someone putting a couple canvas bags into their car to drive to the store will result in more environmental harm than the improper disposal of plastic bags? If so, I would strongly disagree.

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Yes, improper disposal is bad for the environment, but evidence has been posted in this thread time and again that overall, this is NOT A NORTH AMERICA PROBLEM. Again, banning bags in Ohio is doing more harm than good. Every little thing does not help.


North America contributes, but the people leaning on the gas pedal to our doom definitely is NOT North America. True. However, we can set the example and force our corporations to make the changes needed internationally. Plus, someone has to get the ball rolling on this stuff. Governments won't move on it as they're unwilling to do anything that might cause them to lose position on the world stage or affect their economy. Corporations will mostly avoid doing anything because they're run by greedy, short sighted fucks who only care about getting bigger yachts to impress their gold digging whore of a mistress.

The changes in bags and straws are dumb little steps, but they're steps. Hopefully people will demand more, and as Vince and I have pointed out, perhaps it'll be enough to force drink manufacturers to make a change?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:52 am

Guesstimates:

A million people, six reusable bags each. Two trips to the grocery store per month, 12 million bags being transported.

Each bag weighs 50 (or whatever) times more than a single use.

I'm saying the transport of 144 million bags is going to burn a shitload more fuel to transport than do lightweight disposables.

And the reusables take a shitload more energy to.produce, and for that reason alone you need to reuse them 20-80 and times just to make up that comparison alone, not even accounting for cost of transport.

People generally overestimate their individual impact on the environment, when 7 ocean freighters, or cruise ships, produce as much emissions as EVERY CAR IN NORTH AMERICA. And that just boats. Then you have every bit of industry on land, each using much more energy than any individual.

YOU CANNOT PERSONALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, no matter how.much you compost, or.how many electric cars you buy. You.may already realize your own impact is miniscule, but it's so.much more miniscule that it might as well be impossible to measure.

Even the environmentalists I'm in contact with know this... As we're shilling glass-over-plastic (this aquarium is brought to you by *major glass producer*), they all.know shipping costs of heavier glass kill any environmental helpfulness.

Because we have good waste disposal in NA. Heavier, less efficient products make things worse until we stop transporting with diesel.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:59 am

If you turn around and buy small plastic garbage bags for your home to replace the bags you used from the grocer, I'm not sure you saved anything.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:09 pm

Exactly right. Now, I reuse the disposables for.kitty litter, not to mention when Will needs a packed lunch for a.field trip that can be disposed of.after. When " single " use bags are no longer an option, I'm not sure what I'll.use. probably something I bought.

Killing bags isn't about the environment, it's 100% about profit. They used to buy and transport lightweight disposal bags. Now they got.their customers to take over that cost with bags that costs more to transport... And the company is no longer paying for it.... All in the guise of saving turtles. It's actually a brilliant move.
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 43089
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

More proof

Postby Leisher » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:13 pm

I haven't responded because honestly, we're going in circles.

So let's try this tactic...

1. Do you believe humans are having a negative impact on the environment and should fix it? (You don't have to take it as far as "we'll kill the world in 10 years!", but take it farther than seeing litter in a park left by assholes.)

1a. If yes, then please consider the current political climate and how the top 2 polluters refuse to do shit. As the 3rd largest, or 2nd depending on the list, polluter what changes would you accept?

1b. If no, really?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 35601
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

More proof

Postby TheCatt » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:16 pm

1. Yes

1a. I'm willing to do something, but not be vegan.
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 43089
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

More proof

Postby Leisher » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:18 pm

I was more aiming that at Gordon and Vince, but I do agree with both of your answers.
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder

User avatar
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 35601
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

More proof

Postby TheCatt » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:19 pm

Leisher wrote:Source of the post I was more aiming that at Gordon and Vince, but I do agree with both of your answers.

I know, but I'm here and have 10 minutes til my conference call,so I'm responding :)
It's not me, it's someone else.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:06 am

Leisher wrote:Source of the post I haven't responded because honestly, we're going in circles.

So let's try this tactic...

1. Do you believe humans are having a negative impact on the environment and should fix it? (You don't have to take it as far as "we'll kill the world in 10 years!", but take it farther than seeing litter in a park left by assholes.)

1a. If yes, then please consider the current political climate and how the top 2 polluters refuse to do shit. As the 3rd largest, or 2nd depending on the list, polluter what changes would you accept?

1b. If no, really?

I think man does have an impact, and that we have a responsibility as good stewards of the planet. I have a couple of problems when things come up out of the environmental movement.

The biggest issue for me is that the the green movement has been largely co-opted and overrun with communists, socialists, and those generally looking to end the capitalist system; specifically, the US capitalist system (as crony capitalist as it currently is). Just do a search on "green is the new red" and you'll see this isn't a new concern. Van Jones proclaimed himself a communist in the 90's and was made the "green jobs czar" by Obama in 2009. AOC's CoS recently told a group that AOC's green new deal wasn't primarily about the environment at all but as a "as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing". So when I read a story about how bad something is on the environment, they have a high hurdle to cross to convince me to begin with. Another indicator for me is a group advocating the banning of coal power while adamant against nuclear power. These aren't serious people with honest intentions.

Another issue I have when being told by greenies that we must do something is that often their solutions are not well thought out and often hurt the environment themselves. It's been pointed out here that the whole reason we're using plastic bags now at all was because greenies were crying about the deforestation which ended the paper grocery bag. Remember years ago when that Exxon tanker spilled all the crude oil in Alaska? Going back an monitoring the recovery it was found that the areas we left alone recovered faster than where we cleaned up. Crude oil slicks occur naturally all the time. Nature can handle those. We went in and blasted the beaches with scalding hot water to help break down the crude to speed up the process. In doing so we wiped out the micro-organisms that make up the bottom of the ecosystem on those beaches and about doubled the recovery time compared to the beaches we left alone.

So in closing, the political climate is part of the reason I'm reluctant to embrace some of these "fixes". I need to feel confident that it's driven by the environment and not political goals. Also, the issue being addressed needs to rise to the level that a solution's benefit that will offset the often missed unintentional consequences of said solution.

And get rid of the commies.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 45612
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

More proof

Postby GORDON » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:40 pm

There are 4 or 5 points that make up my argument, each of them leading to, and supporting, the next. I've been lumping each of them into single posts, and my argument is probably muddled and not being communicated well. I will list each of my arguments and observations one by one, and those who disagree with my overall argument can agree or disagree point by point, and then I will go to my next point, and we'll see where we end up. If no one addresses an individual point, I will not waste my time by proceeding.

Argument 1: I will use Kroger for a single example, as they publicly are phasing out "single use" plastic bags. So my first question is: does it make economic sense for Kroger to shift the burden of providing bags to the customer?
Fuuuuuuck YOU.

User avatar
Vince
Posts: 8266
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

More proof "environmentalists" are fill of shit

Postby Vince » Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:42 pm

GORDON wrote:Argument 1: I will use Kroger for a single example, as they publicly are phasing out "single use" plastic bags. So my first question is: does it make economic sense for Kroger to shift the burden of providing bags to the customer?

I think John Huntsman Sr. was the only businessman I know of that would make business decisions strictly on moral grounds even when it hurt him.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren

User avatar
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 43089
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

More proof

Postby Leisher » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:51 pm

GORDON wrote:Source of the post Argument 1: I will use Kroger for a single example, as they publicly are phasing out "single use" plastic bags. So my first question is: does it make economic sense for Kroger to shift the burden of providing bags to the customer?


Absolutely. Moving to reusable bags they can charge consumers for means revenue from what was previously a loss and a PR win.

Am I allowed to rebuttal where you're going with this now or do I have to wait until you make your case or ask your next question?
“I'm proud to introduce our new head coach, Mike Tomlin”
― Dan Snyder


Return to “Internet Links”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests