Yes sir, one can always count on good 'ol Sam to get a thread cooking! SDMB ought to pay Sam a stipend or something as resident provocateur.
Why I focus on America is because I live here and this is the only country I have any real first-hand experience with. However, I’m sure our multi-national, global corporations would be most happy to get the rest of the world on board using as many disposal products as possible.
But Sam, it does sound like you’re saying waste and pollution are good and next to godliness (remember “Greed is Good” from Wall Street?) - as long as wealth and more products are being created and we make some token effort to atone for our environmental sins? Is this correct?
Since I never claimed that it wasn’t, no thanks are in order. In fact, I specifically said that the U.S. creates a lot of pollution because it creates a lot of wealth. But if you’re trying to determine if the U.S. is making the same kinds of efforts as other countries, isn’t it useful to look at how much pollution the U.S. causes in relation to the amount of goods it produces? Just saying “It’s the world’s largest polluter!” is kind of beside the point, isn’t it? If the U.S. created 10 times the amount of stuff as the next biggest country, how could it possibly avoid NOT being the world’s biggest polluter? Unless everything it did was ten times cleaner?
Well, not only is that an ad-hominem shot in a forum where it doesn’t belong (what’s new?), but it’s especially ironic coming right after you attempted to blast me for something I didn’t say.
Nothing wrong with that at all. I was taking exception to your thread title, “Screw the Planet, I’m an American!”, which certainly implies that Americans are somehow worse than everyone else. They’re not. For example, Canada uses more energy per capita than the U.S. does. China is using 55% of the entire world supply of concrete. Brazil is razing its rainforests. Have you seen the smokestack emission rates in Russia? Even the EU has serious environmental problems. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is actually operating quite cleanly. So I don’t think the tone of your OP was warranted. That doesn’t mean you can’t work to improve things - there’s always room for improvement. You should just try doing it without the anti-American cheap shots. As a bonus, you might actually get your political opponents to listen to you.
I’m not sure what this means. You mean ‘disposable products’? Are multi-national corporations pushing disposable products? Are disposable products always worse than the alternative? Just what is your beef here? Or is it just, “Corporations bad!”?
WTF? Waste and pollution are good? How did you read that into my post? And here’s another piece of advice: Sprinking political debates with quotes from movies is not a winning tactic. It makes your argument look shallow. Gordon Gekko is not a real person. He’s a fictional representation of Oliver Stone’s perception of what Wall Street traders are like. Quoting him in this debate is about as relevant as quoting Giordi LaForge in a thread about the scientific hurdles facing nuclear fusion.
You guys really have to stop jerking your knees. It trivializes whatever it is you are trying to say.
Car’s ??? Cars last twice as long as they use to and are one of the most recycled products made.
Not sure what the evil is with a small disposable scrubber. Some genius managed to put a wad of toilet paper on the end of a stick with a little cleaner on it. I’ve been doing it for years.
The thread title = the title of the referenced column. You can write to the author of the column and take that beef up with him.
Disposable products make more profit for a corporation than non-disposable, reusable products because consumers have to keep buying replacements/refills. In the aggregate, they use more resources to manufacture over time than reusable products do. Those refills come from a finite supply. Even recyclable products take energy to break them down. Lastly, not everyone recycles (witness most highways here where cans and plastic bottles litter the side of the road) and our landfills are overflowing with garbage. We don’t need MORE garbage. That is my beef.
From this statement where you acknowledge we create a lot of waste but then go on to play this off against the amount of wealth and products we create. The act of creating more does not in any way justify (make good) creating more waste, particularly when the only real motive for doing so is profit. <shrug>:
One, I’m not trying to “win” anything. Two, sometimes a movie quote is apropos and I will not hesitate to use one when I think it fits the situation…
Well, you see, I assumed, apologetics nonwithstanding, that the world’s BIGGEST polluter is not one of the “cleanest countries around.”
Oxymoron, anyone?
Bzzzt! Any irony here is coming straight out of your semantic cannon. And your Jr Mod-cum-victim act is getting mighty tiresome – got a complain? Report it.
Now, there’s irony for you! Just how many times how you “found” WMDs, Sam?
[QUOTE=Magiver]
Car’s ??? Cars last twice as long as they use to and are one of the most recycled products made.
QUOTE]
Yup but give it a few years.
Right now, most garage repairs consist of finding the bad module and replacing it. Sometimes it takes several tries but eventually they hit on the correct one.
redfury: theres a big difference between being a country with high pollution, and being a clean country.
Pollution is whats produced, being a clean country is how much that pollution gets in the way of general living.
So America, in theory, could both be the biggest polluter AND the cleanest country. Seems like an oxymoron on the surface, but in reality it isnt.
That’s not the point. Whether the US produces 10x the amount of stuff with 5x or 15x the amount of pollution, it is still pollution and it is still pollution that, as the caretaker species of the planet, we should be doing our utmost to minimise.
You take exception with the OP’s sentiment but with greater wealth should come greater responsibility. Taking care of the planet is a luxury the US can afford.
No idea what you’re talking about but picking up trash from the street to remove to a landfill is merely cosmetic. The processes used to produce that trash is what is damaging.
The concept of extended producer responsibility, or product stewardship, is growing quickly in Europe. There’s already an agressive program regarding packaging called the Green Dot. There are a couple of groups working on it here in the US as well - the Product Stewardship Institute is the one I’m most familiar with.
The basic idea is that the producers of goods need to take some responsibility for the environmental impacts of their goods. That’s not the default - the costs of managing some environmental impacts, especially trash disposal,tend to fall to government entities. Governments then have to raise taxes to be able to pay these costs, which spreads the burden out over everyone regardless of their environmental choices.
I agree that the producers have to take responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products, but I strongly believe that some of that cost burden needs to fall to the consumers who choose to purchase those products.
There are a number of ways to equalize this. I’m most familiar with waste management, so that’s where I’m going to focus.
-You can charge an advance recovery fee (ARF) at the point of sale, a separate charge that is designated to finance the recovery system for the product at the end of its useful life.
-There’s also cost internalization, where the cost of the product includes the cost of managing it at end of life - the manufacturers are then responsible for funding the recovery systems.
The idea for both of these approaches is that the people who choose to purchase itmes whose disposal is problematic - either in terms of creating a lot of waste, or creating hazardous waste - ultimately pay the price for managing those products. I personally like the cost internalization, because I believe that it encourages manufacturers to make their products as low-impact as possible so that they can offer a lower prices to consumers.
There’s a national dialogue right now regarding the management of end-of-life electronics - the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative has been working for a couple of years on developing a national strategy. It’s an interesting multi-stakeholder, consensus-based process, although developing the structure of an ARF system that will morph into a partial cost internalization system has the project in a sort of limbo at this time.
On re-read, I can only assume you are trying to say that because I am involved, as a consumer, in the process of polluting the world, I should have no interest in seeing that pollution minimised. Why not?
Industrial safety for example. If you can run an unsafe factory and get society at large to pick up the cost of the care for those injured in it you can increase your profit. This used to be the way US industry worked but big bad government regulations are gradually bringing it to an end here. So jobs are being sent away to places where you can still injure people in your plant.
Industrial waste for another. If you can dump your trash in the rivers and on the countryside and get society at large to pay for the clean up you can increase your profit. Same scenario as above with safety.
Trashing the environment, injuring people by unsafe working conditions are just ways to make succeeding generations pay for our “good life.”
“Time has got a little bill-get wise while yet you may,
For the debit side’s increasing in a most alarming way;
The things you have no right to do, the things you should have done,
They’re all put down; it’s up to you to pay for every one.
So eat, drink, and be merry, have a good time if you will,
But God help you when the time comes, and you
Foot the bill.”
Wow, Red Fury…The first hit on your link is a statement by Leonardo DiCaprio. Call me crazy, but I find his credentials a little lacking in regards to knowledge about polution. Got anything more scientific?
So, you’re mounting a defence of your nation’s atrocious pollution record - I assume that’s what you are attempting to do, it is not obvious - by calling on an individual you have never met (and one about whose activism, or lack of, on pollution matters you know nothing about) on a different continent to lead the fight to clear up our mess.
With a bit of work, my friend, you could one day make CEO.
Thanks for an informative post in the midst of a sea of diatribe.
I suppose the next big revolution will be the disposable toilet plunger. I mean, think of all the armadas of germs that inhabit that baby after one good unclogging session. I’m gonna have nightmares tonight thinking about all the marching bacilli emanating from the plunger, the toilet brush, the hair in the shower drain…eugghghghghgh…
