NOT Just the Garbage Patch

[Pegu Club]

Originally Posted by S/V Adeline

Having spent far more time in retail than I care to remember, I can tell you this: we live in a society who, for the most part, doesn't want to purchase something that isn't *new*. I have literally dealt with those who require an item be opened to verify fit/function/compatibility or whatever, then refuse to purchase that item ^^insisting on the same item in a sealed package^^
Literally had a salesman do this to me yesterday for my water pump">raw water pump impeller. *HE* opened the package to verify I don't even remember what, then resealed it, put it back, and got me another one (identical) and stated here, this one hasn't been opened. I honestly didn't have words...

I hear ya, having done a lot of years in retail. We had customers at the bicycle shop I ran in Central Connecticut that would not buy inner tubes that were out of their box, brand new at a discount no less. We back in the day used to do bulk purchases of common items that we could sell for less, but customers truly felt we were foisting factory seconds on them, so we went back to individually packaged product that had a higher price, and those same folk happily spent more of their money on the same thing.

Fair winds,

[Mike OReilly]

Interesting discussion. Almost all of our environmental problems could be solved, or significantly mitigated, if we all just lived a little smaller; if we all used less, and embraced the notion of enough. But this is not something our consumer capitalist ideologies allow.

Of course, one of the great pluses of the current Covid-19 pandemnic can be seen in the many examples of Nature recovering from our constant abuses. From cleaner water to recovering flora and fauna to improved air quality, the signed of Homo Sapiens taking a (forced) break is easy to see.

It's heartening to see, and it's one of the lasting lessons I dearly hope our civilization can learn from this pandemic. But I'm not very hopeful.

[billgewater]

The problem is not restricted to purchased items at the super market or hardware shop. Much of our clothing and furniture contain heaps of synthetics.

Then what about all the plastic boats? What happens to all that polyester, epoxies, paint products and glass fibers at the end of the boat's ultimate useful life? Nylon fishing lines? Halyards, synthetic shrouds, mooring lines, sail cloth, used tyres etc. None of us are innocent. We are all deeply dependent and complicit.

What seems apparent is that nature has not evolved means of recycling many of these materials - except for some products that break down in sunlight. But wouldn't it be interesting if some bug evolved that just ate plastics! If only all plastics were biodegradable. Or if alternatives were found.

Deforestation, depletion of fish stocks, animal and plant extinction, global warming, lack of recycling programs, the ubiquitous use of plastics, the clear inability to sensibly address pandemics, the increasing social, educational and wealth disparities in and between many countries ... plus.

Sadly, I believe that it's largely a matter of economics. i.e. the cost of recycling along with the pressure from plastics and other waste materials producers to continue their industries. However economics is often stunningly short sighted and these economic considerations vary from country to country. Make hay while the sun shines. In Wales each house has 4 recycling bins (as I recall). In Australia many places have only one domestic bin. The economics must be very different, or the social conscience.

Does not sound good does it? One thing that is ultra clear in this era of the reduction in the number of rational leaders and effectiveness of democracies alongside the growth in number and power of authoritarian rulers, we collectively have not got the political or moral will to effectively address any of these matters. We could all proffer some suggestions as to why things are as they are: - Greed, bombastic grandstanding, selfishness, need to make a living, materials innovation, maintaining our living standards, out of sight - out of mind, the continued promotion of "growth at all costs" etc. Clearly these override the underlying scenario. We are all heading for the deep Malthusian poo.

Even for an individual trying their best it must be disappointing to see that most folk just don't give a rat's a_ _e. What a legacy to leave to our children.
(A yachtsman may willingly clean up a beach because they believe it is the correct thing to do. Just the same as a suburban householder cleans up their own backyard. But if the collected materials can't be recycled, then basically the problem remains. It just goes into polluting landfill or the ocean.)

However, all is not lost! In Roy Scranton's short book "Learning to Die in the Anthropocene" ISBN 978 0 87286 669 0 (last digit 0 for paperback or 6 for ebook) he rather stunningly promotes that things will be resolved by war. We certainly don't seem to be moving away from that possibility. Cheerful stuff.
Where is the UN in all this? (You know: that body where the powerful countries have a veto; where many countries simply ignore the UN findings. That body that has no real means of bringing the naughty ones to heel.)
Must do more sailing.

[redhead]

That is the single most depressing post I have ever read. I choose to live with other thoughts. Mine are no less valid than those I just read. Sorry you feel that way.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by billgewater

However, all is not lost! In Roy Scranton's short book "Learning to Die in the Anthropocene" ISBN 978 0 87286 669 0 (last digit 0 for paperback or 6 for ebook) he rather stunningly promotes that things will be resolved by war.

Anyone that accepts the nonsense concept of "anthropocene" is not worth reading or listening too

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Anyone that accepts the nonsense concept of "anthropocene" is not worth reading or listening too

As isn't anyone who denies the existence of the observable, documented 15,000-year-old phenomena of 'modern' man's what-appears-at-this-time-to-be-collectively negative continued and accelerating signature on the geosphere that 'anthropocene' is the definition of...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

As isn't anyone who denies the existence of the observable, documented 15,000-year-old phenomena of 'modern' man's what-appears-at-this-time-to-be-collectively negative continued and accelerating signature on the geosphere that 'anthropocene' is the definition of...

Unlike you, I know what a geological epoch is. I was taught that way back in Stage 1 Geology at university.

What stratigraphic series will be observable as the "anthropocene" boundary in a few hundred thousand years time?

And 15,000 years? So the start of your supposed "anthropocene" actually pre-dates the start of the Holocene? Interesting! That's not what the biologist Stormer and chemist Crutzen meant when they coined the term (and what special expertise a biologist and chemist have concerning geology or man's signature on the geosphere is moot.)


Actually none of the scientific illiterates who popularise the term can even agree on when it started. Some say the start of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, some say 1945 with the first atomic bombs, some say 1950 based on such garbage as Mann's hockeystick graph. You're the first one I've ever seen who says 15,000 years ago.

[NorthernMac]

I’m all for polluting less, as long as the efforts and government force used to do it is based on facts and logic, vs feelings and virtue


Al la the great straw scam

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kTrECOS4fzU

Personally I think the real difference we could make would be with our wallets, don’t buy chinese or Indian products until they clean up their act, be loud on social media about your feelings about the countries who have zero care for the environment.

I’d say that would stand a better chance at making a difference

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Unlike you, I know what a geological epoch is. I was taught that way back in Stage 1 Geology at university.

What stratigraphic series will be observable as the "anthropocene" boundary in a few hundred thousand years time?

And 15,000 years? So the start of your supposed "anthropocene" actually pre-dates the start of the Holocene? Interesting! That's not what the biologist Stormer and chemist Crutzen meant when they coined the term (and what special expertise a biologist and chemist have concerning geology or man's signature on the geosphere is moot.)


Actually none of the scientific illiterates who popularise the term can even agree on when it started. Some say the start of the industrial revolution in the early 1800s, some say 1945 with the first atomic bombs, some say 1950 based on such garbage as Mann's hockeystick graph. You're the first one I've ever seen who says 15,000 years ago.

As is well known from your 'arguments' and 'contributions' to numerous global warming and similar-type threads, your opinion and bias almost always seem to cloud your perceptions.

Not really sure how much of that long-ago Stage 1 university class on geology stuck, because the divisions and names of geological periods have always been somewhat arbitrary and subject to revision, as more information is discovered, more theories are accepted and different disciplines are incorporated into the field. Any comparison of geology textbooks from different periods in time will support this.

The very fact that you don't seem to be able to comprehend that man's (and life in general's) effect of the geosphere is very signifigant indeed, or that a deep understanding of the geosphere cannot be had without the study of chemistry, succintly illustrates exactly how much your opinion of this is "worth reading or listening too".

If you'd actually paid attention to any of the numerous popular or scientific literature on it (or apparently anything else on the subject), you'd know that the 'agricultural revolution' was the real beginning of man's recognizable imprint on the geosphere, at least with the technology we have now, though with technological development we may find that there are other signatures that go back as far as 40-60K years, concurrent with the evolution of the 'modern' human brain.

As for the 'stratigraphic series' that "will be observable as the "anthropocene" boundary in a few hundred thousand years time", in no particular order;
glacial deposit fluctuations, carbon isotope signatures, soil structure, reef migration and growth-rate variation, coccolithopore and foraminifera distribution and population changes, mining and other land-use type features (such as monoculture, both floral and faunal), the list goes on and on.

Quite interesting that you don't seem to realize that, geologically speaking, there is really no difference in now and 15,000 years ago.

One of the things that will make the Anthropocene so striking is the abruptness of it's onset, which could only be rivaled by a large asteroid strike or a super-volcano eruption (>1000 Km3). Wouldn't be hard to imagine the future (extraterrestrial?) geologists scratching their heads in search of the crater or impact zone, until they bring their version of a biologist (to examine the preponderance of a single species or three), or a chemist (to explain the existance and ubiquity of a non-naturally occured element [plastic]).

But I think it's just better to follow your advice that your opinion on this subject from here out is "not worth reading or listening too".

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

Personally I think the real difference we could make would be with our wallets, don’t buy chinese or Indian products until they clean up their act, be loud on social media about your feelings about the countries who have zero care for the environment.

I’d say that would stand a better chance at making a difference

Agreed on the wallet approach, but the answer is simply to buy LESS. It doesn't really matter where it is made. The problem is that we produce too much garbage.

Consuming less of everything, regardless of where it is made, would be best way to make a difference.

As far as the anthropocene concept, it simply recognizes that with the arrival of Homo Sapiens, and most particularly with our civilizations, the planet has undergone significant and clearly identifiable alterations. As with past epochs, this can be measured in significant alteration of the biosphere, along with measurable changes at the geological level.

Whether you assign this as another epoch equivalent to previous ones is as much an artificial creations as, well, the previous ones. We've organized geological time in a manner than brings understanding to events and evolution of the planet. The anthropocene concept does this just as meaningfully as all others.

[Lake-Effect]

Whether one agrees or not with the label 'anthropocene', it's pretty clear that we are leaving an imprint of ourselves on the planet that is massive and not benign.

Cruisers are already conditioned to be self-reliant and to get by on less, and to recognize the beauty of unspoilt nature... but based on the conversations we have here on CF, I don't have much hope that the cruising demographic will lead the way to improvements. The last nail in the coffin for me was when some CF'ers were blaming plastic beads in shampoo on the consumer. Sure you might appeal to someone if your product looks "pearly", but no-one ever asked for plastic beads in their shampoo, and if consumers knew they were in there, they would have rejected the idea.

Or pretending that eliminating plastic straws is a pointless exercise, or that other countries are the problem, while dismissing our own massive per-capita footprint, or that we outsourced our dirty manufacturing and garbage to the countries that are now being vilified.

Anyone notice how, in the midst of a pandemic, the global oil industry still had time for a price war which crippled the West's oil suppliers and related businesses far more than the pandemic did?

The pandemic IS an opportunity to accelerate a transition to cleaner and more sustainable ways of doing things. Most people noticed how nicer cities became and how wildlife seemed to perk up when there were fewer cars on the road and many industries were temporarily shut down. If support money is going to be flung out, it makes sense to use it to ramp up cleaner industries and cleaner renewable energy, instead of just propping up the same old polluters. The cleaner industries provide better jobs too, btw.

But we probably won't. So maybe the only positive effect of COVID-19 as far as the planet is concerned, besides the pollution reduction from lockdowns, will be to hit hardest the people who most oppose making changes for the better, and who have downplayed the pandemic's seriousness. Nature's revenge, basically.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Whether one agrees or not with the label 'anthropocene', it's pretty clear that we are leaving an imprint of ourselves on the planet that is massive and not benign.

Cruisers are already conditioned to be self-reliant and to get by on less, and to recognize the beauty of unspoilt nature... but based on the conversations we have here on CF, I don't have much hope that the cruising demographic will lead the way to improvements. The last nail in the coffin for me was when some CF'ers were blaming plastic beads in shampoo on the consumer. Sure you might appeal to someone if your product looks "pearly", but no-one ever asked for plastic beads in their shampoo, and if consumers knew they were in there, they would have rejected the idea.

Or pretending that eliminating plastic straws is a pointless exercise, or that other countries are the problem, while dismissing our own massive per-capita footprint, or that we outsourced our dirty manufacturing and garbage to the countries that are now being vilified.

Anyone notice how, in the midst of a pandemic, the global oil industry still had time for a price war which crippled the West's oil suppliers and related businesses far more than the pandemic did?

The pandemic IS an opportunity to accelerate a transition to cleaner and more sustainable ways of doing things. Most people noticed how nicer cities became and how wildlife seemed to perk up when there were fewer cars on the road and many industries were temporarily shut down. If support money is going to be flung out, it makes sense to use it to ramp up cleaner industries and cleaner renewable energy, instead of just propping up the same old polluters. The cleaner industries provide better jobs too, btw.

But we probably won't. So maybe the only positive effect of COVID-19 as far as the planet is concerned, besides the pollution reduction from lockdowns, will be to hit hardest the people who most oppose making changes for the better, and who have downplayed the pandemic's seriousness. Nature's revenge, basically.

Speaking of nature, I think the idea that we can change the weather and entire earth by using a paper straw or bringing our own bag, while meaning good, it’s a bit hubris

Personally I’d be cool with my local cafe being able to go back to using washable utensils without the threat of government violence, and folks being given the choice to not burn through masks and rubber gloves by the pallet load.


I say let people make up their own minds, the free market works REALLY well, you want to carry your own metal straw with you, that’s cool, but don’t try to force me to use crappy pointless paper straws or wear a silly mask, if things make sense and work humans will do them without sending men with guns to try to force them. Heck most folks if given a choice and better option would opt for less plastic wrap on packages, less of a pain to open the package and if I can take my trash out less, less work for me. I think, as with most things, free market and a good economy are the answer, there is a very large tie between care of the environment and income, it’s hard to scream at the mom to recycle that item, when her main concern is if she has enough money to feed her kids and still make rent.

[barnakiel]

Whether ICS and / or IUGS accept or reject the term is irrelevant. Maybe indeed the term is not adequate as some say. Why blame whole humanity for deeds of the few. The vote was scheduled for 2021 and I too would prefer a term like Amazoncene (from Mr. Bezzos' company, NOT the river) or iPhonecene (from Mr. Jobs' company).



Consummercene and Capitalcene are two other notable candidates (I mean it, check the web).



But should we spend time disagreeing on what term to coin or not, or should we rather look around, at what is going on right here in front of us?


There has been such a rapid loss of flora and fauna in our immediate neighbourhoods, in just one human life-span. Such devastation of landscape. Such deterioration of air and water quality. Such noise and light pollution.



In many places we are running out of natural potable water. I never bought bottled water as a kid. Now I am not even touching tap water.


etc.


I mean, rally. Whatever term we apply to the situation, it does not change this situation.


Is a god or some Martians responsible, rather than the industry and the people? Fine.


Whoever and whatever is responsible for this change (I assume you agree there has been a change, and not a good one) my point is that our governments are not doing what we want, are not doing enough, and at times are doing the opposite of what makes best sense in the long view (= protect and restore the environment).

So, whatever we (we, the people) are doing is simply not enough, never will be. We are swimming against a tide that is faster than we can ever swim, and too broad to cross.

b.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

There has been such a rapid loss of flora and fauna in our immediate neighbourhoods, in just one human life-span. Such devastation of landscape. Such deterioration of air and water quality. Such noise and light pollution.

Some of that is just part of the cycle of the climate, climates change, even without humans, I mean look at the carbon footprint of a volcano

I think many overestimate how much control us little bipeds have over the entire earth.

But I get it feels better to think we have control over things even when we don’t.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

In many places we are running out of natural potable water. I never bought bottled water as a kid. Now I am not even touching tap water.

Huh? I have my water tested, both my very productive well on my property, and taps at the dock, waters just fine.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Whoever and whatever is responsible for this change (I assume you agree there has been a change, and not a good one) my point is that our governments are not doing what we want, are not doing enough, and at times are doing the opposite of what makes best sense in the long view (= protect and restore the environment).

So, whatever we (we, the people) are doing is simply not enough, never will be. We are swimming against a tide that is faster than we can ever swim, and too broad to cross.

b.

Well cold kills more humans than heat, so in some ways that’s good, we use less energy in warm climates than cool, heck my northern property burns through kerosine/diesel/jet-A at a good rate in the winter.

Per the gov, why do you need to send people with guns?

If it’s evident and people choose to change, they will change, free market sees no politics and is about the most cold hard fact based system out there, not to mention much faster to act than the rusty gears of politics.

With my northern property, if you had a better way to heat my house in the winter, you’d have customers to the end of time.

I have great insulation, great windows, high efficiency heat, reason is first and foremost I like confront and to spend less on energy, it happens that also means less pollution. Same with my cars, if given a choice between a Vette with 450hp, one gets 30MPG and the other gets 15MPG, but both perform the same and are as well built, everyone is going to take the 30MPG one, if not for the environment for the extra range and less $$ at the pump.

Quit asking unoriginal people with guns to solve problems with force, it won’t be your government who makes things better, it’ll be inventors like Elon musk, investors like you who buy the better products, and voices and wallets like yours to loudly denounce dirty counties like china

Historically government is WAAAY better at MAKING problems than solving them.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

Some of that is just part of the cycle of the climate, climates change, even without humans, I mean look at the carbon footprint of a volcano


(...)

Yes.


But now we have that volcano AND the humans doing the nasty thing all at once.


There is very little or nothing we can do to stop a volcano.


But there is (potentially only) quite a lot we could do to stop the governments act as the industry wants.


Off course, we would have to pay for such a change (by the simple token of paying more for environment-sustainable products).


And this is where the change stops. Some cannot afford more expensive products, others do not want more expensive products. Nearly everybody wants more, and cheaper, products.


Meanwhile, elsewhere, in a galaxy far far away:


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpNdUMeX...name=4096x4096
https://i1.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-c...-by-gender.png


We cannot afford more expensive products? Really?


Clearly, we can. We simply do not care about the environment.



barnakiel