Just watched Drowning in Plastic on BBC. Frightening viewing. I'm no greenie but this has opened my eyes. I have only eaten lobster once but shall not be doing so again.
Printable View
Just watched Drowning in Plastic on BBC. Frightening viewing. I'm no greenie but this has opened my eyes. I have only eaten lobster once but shall not be doing so again.
I too am now very aware of the masses of plastic affecting our health. I now try to:
- purchase groceries in non-plastic packaging
- Avoid drinking from plastic water bottles
- Limit intake of fish to twice per week
I have also noticed a visible increase in countryside walkers and runners chucking their plastic rubbish and not disposing of it in a bin.
How nice to enjoy the countryside and then litter it for somebody else to pick up.
Not to mention the impact of washing man made fabrics - especially fleeces - which release millions of micro-fibres into the food chain to bio-accumulate. (Up to 700,000 microfibres per wash!!!)
Either don't use fleece or polyester (difficult!) or get a "Guppyfriend". This is a bag which reduces mechanical breakdown of the fibres and filters them. It's not heap, but it does have the benefit of making your clothes last longer.....
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by stumpy
Most modern carpets are also made from polypropylene yarn, another plastic.
why would it be a problem if most modern carpets were made from a type of yarn that has plastic in it?
Because over time, fibres are released through vacuuming, wear and tear etc. They are then breathed in, get into the water supply etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by benshep
The end result is that more plastic gets into our bodies and food. No doubt contributing to the fall in fertility rates and possibly other conditions.
So where do you start? take a look around you everything is plastic, the lap top, the plastics used on cars is increasing
https://www.plasticstoday.com/automo...63791493722019
Vinyl flooring is plastic, vast amounts of pipe are plastic,Buckles/fasteners on your cloths and sacs are plastic your water bottles are mostly plastic your compass is plastic, your pen is plastic, your phone is plastic the window/dooor frames in your house are probably plastic and so on and so on.
Realistically the damage is well and truly done and only nature itself can reverse the damage, hence the changing climate which is all part of evolution and will ultimately destroy the prime perpetrators that are destroying our planet and of course that really means mankind is in the process of orchestrating it own destruction.
my point is that you have to identify the priority problems and focus on solving those. it doesn't help anyone to just say that if something has plastic in it it must be bad. so, ban micro-beads and pointless single-use plastics that become litter and leak out of the proper recycling and waste management system into nature. yes, put policies in place to address avoidable over-use of hard-to-recycle plastic in food packaging.
but what are you going to do about plastic fibres in carpets and is that really one of the priority issues?
plastic itself is not bad. it's what we as humans do with it - how much we consume and discard irresponsibly - that is causing the problem. carpets don't strike me as the worst offenders.
Start at the beginning maybe http://chej.org/2013/05/06/the-vinyl...-in-the-world/
Think of how many houses and cars have plastic fibre carpets (most of them). Vinyl is probably better as the fibres are not released very easily. Carpets on the other hand...Quote:
Originally Posted by benshep
Wool is available in abundance but more expensive. As always, our need for cheaper alternatives comes at the cost of our health and planet.
Sheep and hence wool has it`s own problems https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/h...ntl/index.html
What course of action are you advocating JohnK?
JohnK, with regard to the CNN article you posted a link to above, which suggests sheep and beef farming should be cut to combat climate change, i thought this link might provide a reasoned and evidenced-based view on the subject. https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...omborg-2018-11
It highlights how the arguments in the mainstream media and from mainstream commentators or lobbyists tend to be mis-leading and inaccurate. For example, "In a developed-country setting, the reality is that going entirely vegetarian for the rest of your life means reducing your emissions by about 2%."
in terms of wool, i'm not convinced by an argument or proposition that it is a major environmental or ecological problem that should be tackled. for a start, it is an alternative to materials that contain plastic fibres (such as fleeces)!
Whilst it would be comforting to think that my own meat eating is not responsible for any significant global warming, I would take ANYTHING Bjorn Lomborg says with a massive dose of salt! He is well known as a climate change naysayer hiding behind seemingly credible scientific credentials. However, much of what he publishes as "evidence" lies somewhere between misinterpretation and downright nonsense! For example:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...e-and-poverty/
I once read a study that said that sheep wool dust is actually beneficial to the lungs - something to do with bacteria that is on it.
Regardless, I would think that a natural material would be a healthier alternative to plastic fibres.
The work he presents is the work of large teams of the world’s best economists and a number of Nobel laureates. People should not dismiss it because of their ideological pre-dispositions and their wish to believe that the climate is the only issue worth trying to solve - as opposed to other problems where eevery pound spent can achieve more good for the world e.g. poverty, infant mortality, child nutrition, affordable energy and healthcare for the developing world, education, immunisation, eradication of tuberculosis, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by stumpy
I wouldn't (and nor would most people who advocate needing to do something to stop catastrophic future climate change) suggest that is the only issue worth trying to solve. Solving these more immediate issues and taking steps to ensure a climatically stable future are not mutually exclusive by any means, even if the long term prognosis means their impact is of an ultimately lower scale.
As individuals, the biggest contribution we can make to reducing the risk of climate change is stopping unnecessary air travel, eating a lot less meat, travelling in petrol/diesel cars a lot more responsibly and not wasting energy. None of this prevents us helping with other issues facing mankind. In fact, it's quite the reverse - people who care about their impact on the climate for the sake of future generations are also far more likely to want to help current generations. Yes, there is the fact that developing nations will need more energy, resources etc and that COULD have a negative effect on efforts elsewhere to reduce GHG emissions, but the developed works should be using it's technological know-how and economic muscle to ensure this development is done in an equitable but ultimately less harmful way than our own.
I wonder how those hundreds, possibly thousands, of delegates and press that are attending the summit in Poland got there.
Shanks's Pony?
Embrace salt-moderated thorium reactors.
Quadruple the price of meat whilst subsidising vegetable production.
Develop hydrogen fuel cell technology for cars and homes.
Make it mandatory for all public buildings and new homes to have solar panel roofs and ground source heat pumps.
Make biodegradable plastic packaging mandatory
Wheeze:
That would be harsh amd unfair on the poorest. Why should the world's poorest be artificially priced out of eating meat while the world's richest can afford to?
and to the extent any of those measures involved public funding (e.g. renewable energy technology mandated on public buildings) it would not be putting public resources to their most productive use (however you sensibly measure the desired outcomes with regard to soci-economic goals).
And who will most feel the pain of the increased cost of packaging or lose the benefit of pakaging? The poorest.
In my opinion it's not a good idea to aim for the 'green' option at all costs. A rounded cost/benefit assessment has to inform the debate otherwise the proposed solutions would do unintended harm in certain ways and/or fail to achieve as much good as could be achieved through better thought-out policies.
Whats harsher? taking simple actions like those above or prevaricating and the poorest drown in rising sea levels and toxic waste?
In terms of energy production, I've never fathomed why this country (above all others) isn't seriously developing tidal energy technology. Surely an infinite supply of energy for a tidal island nation.
Or just go nuclear.
Too expensive/ complicated both to install and to maintainQuote:
Originally Posted by Travs
Not sure we can just discount the idea based on that... let's face it, it will probably be 50 years before any such scheme was installed, and who knows what leaps forward technology will have made in that time.
At present all of the tech advances are in wind, 8MW turbines with 15MW to come, easier to install and maintainQuote:
Originally Posted by Travs
Either way, the precautionary principle should be used. There's a million reasons/excuses to prevaricate, blame others and remain cragfast through inertia, but most of us can easily do a lot more than we are. The reality is that the overwhelming majority are just too lazy, blinkered and/or selfish to do so. Our collective intransigence and desire to find excuses for non-action are what will do for our grandchildren and our global neighbours.
Quite so Stumpy. Change is the hardest thing for us to do. We constantly need to re-engineer what we take for granted.
One thing is for sure, when it comes to plastic, we cannot continue as we are.
If only the taking of simple actions like those would prevent rising sea levels and toxic waste. But they won’t. While we all should do what we can as individuals, and we can all do more, it won’t be enough to solve these complex problems. Public resources and policies need to prioritise the interventions that will do the most good for every pound they cost to implement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Tosh Ben. Come on, this has the same urgency as a war. Mincing around with weasel words like 'prioritise interventions' is just going to end up with eternal handwringing. This needs decisive action.
To be honest I reckon it is to late and the damage is irreversible, nature itself will save the planet by wiping out the element that is doing the most damage, which is of course the human race.
In a nutshell Homo sapiens will cease to exist in their current form and evolve into a species that can exist in whatever environment is prevailing on our planet in the future.
Its nothing new it has been happening since the dawn of time and is called EVOLUTION and we are too small a part of nature to reverse evolution on our own.
For my part I find the whole climate change and the general evolution thing to be both exciting and intriguing.
At the end of the day I try to do my best for the environment that we currently live in, but I don't kid myself that I/we can stop or reverse evolution.
The planet is in no danger whatsoever. It will still be spinning its way around the sun way after we're gone as a species - whether that is in a few generations or a few hundred. Any ideas we have about 'saving' the world out of some altruistic misbelief are actually all about self-preservation. Not in itself a bad thing mind you as that really is the nub of our own existence!
Yeah, it's an interesting time. First we had to rule our cave, then our tribe, then our nation and now the world. One of the positives about globalisation is that we now feel we fully embrace the world.
As an ultimately acquisitive species, it's a challenge to wonder what's next.
Has anyone mentioned brown paper bags?
Or
Biodegradable plastic?
Just a simple thought 😂🤣
It's the cost of manufacture Stagger - they reckon we'd baulk at an extra fe pence on each shop.....
Morrisons have started doing paper bags again for loose veg which is a start. Still selling prepacked in plastic though.....🙄Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Biodegradable plastic can take a lot of time to decompose and often breaks down to inorganic materials. Compostable plastic is better in that respect though more expensive to produce and as it is less stable, has fewer uses. Even if we use either of these materials, we are still encouraging single use consumption. Better to replace, reduce and reuse
The Morrison’s bags do have that little unnecessary waxed window though, a nightmare is put through a water based recycling process as it’s unlikely to breakdown and so will ultimately go to landfill, but that said it is good to see and is step in the right directionQuote:
Originally Posted by PeteS
Just take your own multi use containers into the shops and use them, you could even ask the butchery staff etc to weigh and place whatever it is you wish to purchase in your container and price it up and tell them why.
Morrisons to ban plastic for fruit and veg.
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...mpression=true