Microplastics in the sea

[Hardhead]

That guy with the pipe & pith helmet has got it figured out. It's being done by certain sides all the time... everyone has to think for themselves.

The whole environmental thing is an really just an ingenious and "elitist" scam designed to bankrupt average people and take their jobs - so they can't pay taxes, for the benefit of... what?

On second thought - I bet there is a long and involved answer the proves I'm naive - so I retract the question. Peace brother.

[Tornadosailing]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

The whole environmental thing is an really just an ingenious and "elitist" scam designed to bankrupt average people and take their jobs - so they can't pay taxes, for the benefit of... what?

Not long, or drawn out. Just ask the people at the top, and they'll tell you what it's about.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

New York congresswoman AOC's chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti speaking about the Green New Deal: "it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all ... we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

[Hardhead]

Thanks - I completely agree some stupidly phrased and isolated quotes from larger contexts can be taken from both sides of the issue. If I understand the basic comforting argument correctly - not to worry, because concerns regarding the environment are all really just an "elitist" plan to make all the rich people poor, and all the poor people rich, and then shove everybody into a 1 world government.

My concern is about the human habitat we live in & leave behind. What should the people of the sovereign United States do - maybe the most powerful country on earth? One of the options is banning non-biodegradable single-use plastic packaging sold in the US - so the capitalistic system (best system of distribution & compensation in the world) can easily proceed to the next best solution - given concerning findings in the environment & obvious trash issues.

Basically, my concern is accumulating plastic trash of the last 40 years - clearly turning into a pervasive eye sore that never gets any better, and breaks down to unseen & un-natural microplastic particles - that are now being found in all of the earth's air we breathe, and the earth's water, on isolated mountaintops, and now, inside the bodies of every living thing on earth. Probably all just harmless fun, that means nothing, but I believe in being conservative on issues of environment & human habitat. That's all basically. Just because AOC, or IPCC makes some stupid quote doesn't change the science, or what my eyes see. Everyone has to think for themselves, and not find a short-cut in analysis because of anyone's quote. I do sincerely respect your point, and I hope I have not mischaracterized anything.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

...climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Does anyone understand what that term actually means? I'm not able to. It seems like its bandied about a lot, without any actual meaning in the air at all - except a highly negative insinuation.

Isn't any municipal garbage collection that charges money to remove garbage really a really re-distribution of wealth? Not everyone puts the same amount of garbage out at the curb. Certainly any taxes to fund government are a re-distribution of wealth. Tarifs are certainly re-distribution of wealth. Medicare benefits are certainly a re-distribution of wealth. Military defense contracts are a re-distribution of wealth. Social Security retirement benefits are a huge re-distribution of wealth. Farm subsidies are a re-distribution of wealth. VA benefits are a re-distribution of wealth. Even private health insurance premiums are a re-distribution of wealth. It sounds terrible - but it doesn't mean anything. What financial transaction is not a re-distribution of wealth?

[Hardhead]

And actually, the entire financial bailout of recent years was a huge re-distribution of wealth. Saved the banks and big business. When they win - they win. When they lose big - they get it all back. Who paid for it - the little people. That one was a whopper.


It was actually class warfare.

[Tornadosailing]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

Does anyone understand what that term actually means? I'm not able to. It seems like its bandied about a lot, without any actual meaning in the air at all - except a highly negative insinuation.

Isn't any municipal garbage collection that charges money to remove garbage really a really re-distribution of wealth? Not everyone puts the same amount of garbage out at the curb. Certainly any taxes to fund government are a re-distribution of wealth. Tarifs are certainly re-distribution of wealth. Medicare benefits are certainly a re-distribution of wealth. Military defense contracts are a re-distribution of wealth. Social Security retirement benefits are a huge re-distribution of wealth. Farm subsidies are a re-distribution of wealth. VA benefits are a re-distribution of wealth. Even private health insurance premiums are a re-distribution of wealth. It sounds terrible - but it doesn't mean anything. What financial transaction is not a re-distribution of wealth?

Municipal services are not a redistribution of wealth. They are services rendered for a fee. Military defense contracts would normally result in hardware being delivered to the military.

What redistribution of wealth refers to is the removal of funds from wealthier citizens and distributing it to less wealthy citizens, usually through a progressive taxation and welfare scheme. However, in more severe cases such as socialism, it can mean expropriation of property such as apartment buildings from their rightful owners, to become government owned tenements for the poor.

This is not the same a fee for service or purchase of a product. In the context of the IPCC author, it would be a heavy tax levied on wealthier countries by any excuse they can find (Climate Change) and distributed to poorer nations. In the context of AOC's chief of staff, the goal is socialism, climate change is simply the mechanism by which they get there.

Of course AOC isn't the only one to use green policy to push socialism. It's a pretty common theme.

We Can’t Beat Climate Change Under Capitalism. Socialism Is the Only Way. - In These Times

[Tornadosailing]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

And actually, the entire financial bailout of recent years was a huge re-distribution of wealth. Saved the banks and big business. When they win - they win. When they lose big - they get it all back. Who paid for it - the little people. That one was a whopper.


It was actually class warfare.

You and I are in 100% agreement with this one.

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by Tornadosailing

What redistribution of wealth refers to is the removal of funds from wealthier citizens and distributing it to less wealthy citizens, usually through a progressive taxation and welfare scheme.

See, that sounds really scary. I definitely don't want to go down that path. Abolishing any tax system at all sounds like it's really the only way to go. We’ve been living in socialist hell, and didn’t even realize it, all of these years. In fact, just about every country on earth has.

The strength of capitalism can certainly handle the pre-planned banning non-biodegradable single-use plastic packaging, at a set date in the future. Capitalism is indisputably the best system in the world for finding economic solutions to problems, at the least cost, and the greatest productivity. In economics, there is a factual existence of “external costs” – and it fully explains the reasoning behind the problem of plastic waste.

I don’t really think socialism has anything to do with this - but a lot of people would like to make it seem like that. In fact, they always say it's inevitable.

[Hardhead]

I should add, I don't give a hoot what AOC says, or doesn't say. We probably agree on that too. Politics is like making sausage.

[barnakiel]

Then again.


Yesterday I read a feature at el Pais (Spain, left wing slant, English edition) by Greenpeace.


I noted plenty of statements on what THEY think will happen, illustrated with a number of images that only remotely illustrated what was being talked about (possibly stock images too).



If we want to tell the general public what is wrong and how to fix it, should we not ourselves aim at higher standards of delivery? I mean - talk facts, not long term forecast, show real images.


I have some sympathy for left wing ideals (as I do for some right wing ones) but I have next to zero sympathy for bad journalism and street preaching.


So we need to take care of the environment, change our policies (and our politicians). Just as much as we need to change how we obtain the facts and figures that form the base of our actions.


barnakiel

[Hardhead]

Here's the deal, as far as I see it. There are all kinds of views on things, and all kinds of people and backgrounds putting them forward. There is a natural human tendency to want to group people, and put a public face on viewpoints. AOC has become a clear bogeyman, and is parsed and quoted extensively. She means nothing to me, and she really means nothing in the scheme of things - just like any other individual person. It’s a sausage factory. The ideas are what counts, and the public faces of the ideas are easy targets. Just because Donald A. Trump makes a preposterous quote, or AOC does, does not color the issues underlying the quote, or everyone standing on the same side. It's a convenient short-cut to dismiss the public face, and discount entire issues. I'm not an advocate of AOC, just like many former Republicans are not advocates of Trump.

To dismiss any action on the environment as an inevitable slide into "socialism" is not accurate, or true. Look at the Republican views of the environment in Nixon's day, and the Clean Water Act – for example. I don't believe any sincerely smart person, at that time, felt it was a slide into socialism - and if they did, they were, in fact, COMPLETELY WRONG. That's just as true today, but - because there is no good defense to ignoring single-use plastic packaging, and it’s visual and environmental concerns – and in a vacuum, almost every person on earth would probably agree we need to proactively work to protect the human habitat we all live in. The vast majority of humans have common human ground on the issue of accumulating plastic trash, in particular.

The "best" and most sound-bite scary argument that can be put forth against that - is it will ruin our way of life, and we will become "socialist' if we do not let the external costs of pollution (clean-up costs, lack of infrastructure to reliably ensure the accumulating single-use plastic trash is safely disposed of, environmental impacts) be ignored.

Given how plastic trash has only been accumulating for 40 years or so - and there is a significant lag time before it breaks down to actual microplastic particles - it would appear we have some inevitable catching up to do, in the quickly worsening matter of growing microplastic contamination. There is a lot in the pipeline... and new disposable plastic is going into the pipeline, faster and faster, every year. It’s actually accelerating, with no end in sight. I’m a conservative. There is probably nothing that can be realistically done for the oceans - as it stands now. What can be easily done, is to reduce the "throw-a-way" plastic in the future - disposable single-use plastic packaging is really unnecessary in the first place. The world got along great before 1980 – and it will get along great without single-use plastic packaging. It’s a big idea, but it’s a huge problem. Capitalism is the greatest economic problem-solver in the world – please argue against it if that’s not the case.

The real problem is - there are billions of sunk dollars in single-use plastic production, and those wealthy entities have a very subtle, and very reliable, public voice in the media. They are bold in using it, and the best argument they have - is that any action to protect the human habitat we all live in is literally un-American, and will lead to subjugation of American values by “socialist” control of the country. That's BS. It’s pure BS. It's an argument that will never be abandoned, because it's the best they have - but it's not true.

Was it “socialist” to ban leaded gasoline? What about asbestos construction in new building codes? What about banning certain tax shelters? What about lead paint? None of that lead to “socialism.” What’s different about non-biodegradable single-use plastic packaging? Nothing – except there is a lot of money behind the media – and it’s well known that 1/3 of the US population has clear pressure points – and socialism is the grand-daddy of them all – but it’s flat-out not true. If it were true, why has the bogeyman of income redistribution “…redistribution of wealth refers to is the removal of funds from wealthier citizens and distributing it to less wealthy citizens, usually through a progressive taxation and welfare scheme.” - not already led to “socialism” in the US? It has not. We’re not a “socialist” country, and no one wants us to be – except a few people who the media absolutely loves to quote. It’s not me, and it’s not you, and it’s not the majority.

[john61ct]

https://qz.com/1689529/nurdles-are-t...-heard-of/amp/

[Hardhead]

If the current party line is maintained - that any environmental concern and cleanup is really a "socialist" plot -- there is a good chance that younger generations will believe socialism is the best way to go.

If we do not show the true flexibility of capitalism - we might just become a "socialist" country in 50 years... Think about that, for just a second-

[Luckyknot]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

If the current party line is maintained - that any environmental concern and cleanup is really a "socialist" plot -- there is a good chance that younger generations will believe socialism is the best way to go.

If we do not show the true flexibility of capitalism - we might just become a "socialist" country in 50 years... Think about that, for just a second-

Socialist, Capitalist, Communist, if we don't change course that whole concept will be the least of our worries. It doesn't matter what anybody is told they are under wrt being a governed and controlled people, what matters is that we come together to ensure the preservation and sustainability of the human race. Perhaps it is really a combination of good ideas from all types of lifestyles that will provide solutions. Only being concerned with the economy or social class or any other singular ideal is not typically how issues are resolved. It requires a hollistic approach collecting ideas from all types to come to a more permanent solution to the things that ail us. Capitalism is great at what it's great at but it certainly isn't the be all end all to problem solving.

[john61ct]

Everyone I know already considers the silly American definition of socialism to be A Good Thing, and a goal worth striving for.

The poorest and especially minority communities are those already hardest hit by all forms of environmental degradation, so halting / reversing those problems are closely intertwined with most other issues of social justice, especially from a global POV where national borders are irrelevant.

Treating each of these issues of inequality separately will not be effective, systemic solutions are required.

And reducing the political leverage of capital over our so-called democracies, especially the prostitution of media and internet for PR/marketing/propaganda

and the authoritarian powers over our lives taken in the name of "wars on X" and "national security", especially the surveillance apparat and lawless impunity of "law enforcement"

have to be foundational to those efforts.