Microplastics in the sea

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Identifying as an environmentalist doesn't make it so, and identifying as a conservative certainly doesn't mean you're not an environmentalist. Only if you rely on worn out labels, personalize such terms in stereotypical fashion, and have agendas other than the issue at hand. Either that or you know little about what you think. Try not to use these threads to expound on your own personal & political biases. I seriously doubt anyone's interested.

Touched a nerve there, I guess



Beyond overt politicization, there's always the reliable ad hominems, of course.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Touched a nerve there, I guess



Beyond overt politicization, there's always the reliable ad hominems, of course.

You have anything thoughtful or constructive to offer to the thread discussion ?

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

Certainly wasn't always like that. The U.S. Clean Air & Water Acts were enacted by bipartisan legislatures and signed into law by a Republican president (Nixon).

Think about that.

That might be Nixon's best legacy. Any environmental issue sure is a lot different now, politically, than it must have been in Nixon's day. The current attitude seems to be that anything designed to protect the environment is portrayed as a zero sum socialized attack on profits, freedom & jobs, and it will upset the beautiful apple cart. It's become a branded identity issue between the parties, and I guess in that way, it has been "politicized."

It doesn't seem it was "politicized" in the same way in Nixon's day. I honestly wonder how that happened. Was it a grass roots thing - did the people themselves do it? Did the money behind the media do it? Crazy stuff.

[Hardhead]

Suppose you're an "X," and your job was extremely well paying, but found to be damaging the world-wide environment in some unprecedented way? Would you accept it as normal that you may have to bite the bullet, change jobs, get re-trained, and then go back to the same high paying salary you had before? Do you think that be fair?

What if you're a single-use plastics investor - would that be fair? Of course not - silly to even suggest it. Don't even bring it up. What are you, an environmentalist?

[Marc1]

Plastic pollution of oceans is a large scale problem and as such needs large scale solutions and not political grandstanding.

However nothing escapes politicians who by nature turn anything that is of interest to the public into an argument to sway voters to their quarters and assure another term in office with perks and cushions. Definition of politicizing.
Of course not only politicians politicize. Best ever example of politicize a subject of general interest, namely environmental issues, is the taking over of the green party by the defunct communist party.

But back to plastic ... the only way to end the cycle of plastic is not recycling it into yet more plastic but to burn it as fuel.
A relatively new invention, the pyrolysis (pyro = fire, lysis = division) heats plastic in the absence of oxygen, turning it into a gas that can then be distilled into a liquid with similar, actually better qualities than diesel derived from oil.

https://youtu.be/qPIHJRIpLRk

There are several manufacturers of this machines and many are operating all over the world. The technology is simple and there are a few youtube videos showing how to build one in your backyard.
https://youtu.be/cQdGTritwwc

You would think the authorities would buy one to place in every waste depot and start cranking out oil to get rid of plastic?
Not so. The issue is politicized once more and the more vocal, once more win the day. Plastic to oil? Not in my backyard ...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...are-they-right

So will pyrolysis be the solution to plastics? Not perfect, but the best chance we have to eliminate plastics. Fumes? depends of the quality of the build, beats plastics and microplastics hands down.

Will it be adopted in large scale? Probably not. It earns more votes to institute a method of "Return and earn" like in NSW Australia were the local mafia ... sorry government decided to charge the bottlers a large levy to fund the collection of bottles cans and plastics, that netts the government a few hundred millions yet redistributes 15 to the locals who turned into "bin bandits" turning the recycling bins upside down to pick up the promised few cents per can or bottle.

Solution to plastic pollution? Not for a minute. No one knows what happens to what is collected with such an expensive method and a lot of it, just like the content of our "recycling" bins, turns up in landfills anyway.

Only private enterprise will make plastic to oil work, and they will have to find a way to avoid the greens and the associated morons who will find any excuse to lampoon what they don't understand or what they believe will reap them acolites for their cause ... whatever it is.

Meantime government around the world load ships with plastic waste and send them to asia for disposal, yet the operators finds that they can cut the fuel bill by half if they simply dump the load halfway and turn back.

Plastic pollution is overshadowed by so called climate change, that sucks all available resources turning them over to multi billionaires who pretend to help a non existing problem whilst pocketing the lot. Plastic pollution is an orphan and climate change protects the culprits by omission.

There are many other REAL environmental issues that could be solved with a fraction of the money that is wasted on renewables subsidies and other idiotic quest and plinking at windmills like throwing billions to the pacific islands to "combat climate change"

Rather sad really. I would really like to live long enough to see people dragged in front of courts and charged with fraud, the fraud of global warming.

[barnakiel]

In fact, it would be that easy to stop our (Western) contribution to the problem : STOP SELLING GOODS WRAPPED AND WRAPPED AND WRAPPED IN LAYERS AND LAYERS of blister packages, films, and in plastic bottles.


Yes. Milk can be sold in glass bottles as can be water. Yes. Oil can be sold in bottles or metal cans. Not every pen drive needs a blister 10x the size of the product - we could just as well buy individual items from a wholesale box.


etc.


Why it is not done is because the owners of the businesses make more money as is. And businesses pay the politicians who make the regulations to keep things as they are. So that their wealthy sponsors can make even more money.


Everybody happy - EXCEPT the fish in the sea.


What a disappointing and depressive vision of what we are. Maslow was wrong, Greene is right! ;-(


https://alldayprogress.com/48-laws-power-list-summary



b.

[Fi2010]

Thought “we” the people are in charge, not the wealthy elite or politicians. Want change then make it happen. Luckily for all of us there’s a few people fighting to bring attention to the issue. Maybe this will eventually wake up “we” the people to do something about the plastic problem.

The Ocean Clean Up organization has had some recent success removing plastic from the ocean. Great drone video as well: https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheOceanCleanup/posts/

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Marc1

The issue is politicized once more and the more vocal, once more win the day.
...

Rather sad really. I would really like to live long enough to see people dragged in front of courts and charged with fraud, the fraud of global warming.

I really don't think it's the most vocal that win the day -- it's actually those who make the issue the most hostile & unpleasant to talk about, and the most "controversial," that win the day. That's been the case for the past 15 years, at least, IMO. It's a strategy.

It's much more pleasant to avoid any tagged subject entirely, for if you do not - you incur the cultivated wrath of 1/3 of the US population. Climate change discussion = wrath played up by popular media. Banning non-biodegradable single-use plastics = wrath played up by popular media. (if it ever got there) Any environmental issue at all = wrath played up by popular media. Perhaps, it's not wrath per se - it's just the practical effect.

When the common human interest news of unseen & un-natural microplastic particles now being found in all of the earth's air we breathe, and the earth's water, and now, inside the bodies of every living thing on earth is "important breaking news" on the magazine Wired, or National Geographic magazine - it's essentially buried - because unless it's on the front page of the New York Times, or the Washington Post, it can't be a real, important, attention grabbing issue for most average people. Even if they would never read the publication - it's the litmus test of importance.

Because of the MONEY INVESTED behind the conglomerate owners of major media, the real issues of plastic pollution will always (and will be forever) conspicuously absent from major media. For many people, until the issue is front-page news - it just can't be that important - otherwise it would be there on the front pages. There are greed and "financial justification" reasons why it is not - not human interest reasons. For future generations, shouldn't the issue be treated as important? Hell no - it will cut profits for powerful conglomerates, and those riding their coattails that are making a ton of money off of it. Best not go there.. even if the problem would actually be simply solved by correctly working capitalism.

The strategy is to not discuss it - because if it's discussed, the vast majority of humans would agree what needs to be done. Hostility, wrath, and mocking responses are the cultivated defenses to any issue of preserving environment.

[Tornadosailing]

Just think how great it would be if all the Billions of dollars spent annually on the non-problem climate change would be spent on the actual problem of plastic waste.

Of course the problem with that is there's no money in it for political donors, and no power in it for politicians. And the worst problem of all, once it's cleaned up, it's cleaned up. People can actually go to the beach and see an absence of trash. There's no perpetual boogie man to allow them to extract cash and power from the masses.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

Just think how great it would be if all the Billions of dollars spent annually on the non-problem climate change would be spent on the actual problem of plastic waste.

Of course the problem with that is there's no money in it for political donors, and no power in it for politicians. And the worst problem of all, once it's cleaned up, it's cleaned up. People can actually go to the beach and see an absence of trash. There's no perpetual boogie man to allow them to extract cash and power from the masses.

I'm sorry, that's BS. First, not that much is actually being spent on "climate change" itself. Second, we have many ongoing environmental problems, extending back before CC was on the public's radar, and the people who oppose action on CC are pretty much the same people who have opposed action on those other ecological problems as well.

Our clean beaches? The trash was sent overseas. Out of sight - out of mind, right?

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Suppose you're an "X," and your job was extremely well paying, but found to be damaging the world-wide environment in some unprecedented way? Would you accept it as normal that you may have to bite the bullet, change jobs, get re-trained, and then go back to the same high paying salary you had before? Do you think that be fair?

What if you're a single-use plastics investor - would that be fair? Of course not - silly to even suggest it. Don't even bring it up. What are you, an environmentalist?

My kids would **never** work in a polluting industry, any more than tobacco or selling sub-prime mortgages.

People are much more aware of how immoral most business activity is, and seek to avoid it, even if it means making less money.

Being a Greenie is something to be proud of.

Why do you think the oil industry has such labor shortages, have to pay much higher salaries?

While jobs in the non-profit sector are very popular, get a lot of volunteers.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

Just think how great it would be if all the Billions of dollars spent annually on the non-problem climate change would be spent on the actual problem of plastic waste.

What are the Billions of dollars being spent annually on the non-problem climate change?

Honest question - is that just a repeated media buzz-line, or can someone actually, specifically, identify the Billions of dollars of cost being spent by someone? Who?

[Tornadosailing]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

What are the Billions of dollars being spent annually on the non-problem climate change?

Honest question - is that just a repeated media buzz-line, or can someone actually, specifically, identify the Billions of dollars of cost being spent by someone? Who?

"Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:"

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/clima.../issue_summary

[Hardhead]

Yep - that's a problem. We can't trust our own government now. They are working against us it seems. Thanks for posting this - we need to expose it for what it is.

[Tornadosailing]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Yep - that's a problem. We can't trust our own government now. They are working against us it seems. Thanks for posting this - we need to expose it for what it is.

If you want to see how bad it is, have a look at Tony Heller's YouTube channel. Unlike most, he doesn't try to re-do the science. He merely points out where they changed the data to fit the narrative using their own charts and data, and includes many historical news articles to back up the fact that the data has been changed.

If CC was real, they wouldn't have to manipulate the data. The data would support their theory, but instead they change any data that disagrees with them. They cool the past and warm the present, and not surprisingly, they adjust the data to correspond to CO2 levels, fitting the data to their theory.