No one anticipated the effect of plastic bags, and instead of learning from that error we just want to replace it with something else that will likely become a pollutant
Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent.
Not sure if it’s 32x, but yes, you’re broadly right: plastic pollution in the US pales in comparison to that from China. We can get rid of all the single-use plastic we want, but it’ll amount to a hill of beans for the Pacific garbage patch unless China gets its act together.
Seriously, just because the US is not the biggest polluter it doesn't mean we can get a pass. Remember lead by example.
No one anticipated the effect of plastic bags, and instead of learning from that error we just want to replace it with something else that will likely become a pollutant
Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent.
Not sure if it’s 32x, but yes, you’re broadly right: plastic pollution in the US pales in comparison to that from China. We can get rid of all the single-use plastic we want, but it’ll amount to a hill of beans for the Pacific garbage patch unless China gets its act together.
Seriously, just because the US is not the biggest polluter it doesn't mean we can get a pass. Remember lead by example.
No one gets a pass. “Leading it by example” is one of those cliches that rarely work in practice.
My post is really about whether you want to seriously solve the plastics problem or not. If you do, put a massive tax on it. Especially on everything from China with large amounts of plastics in it. The rest is feel-good stuff pretending to solve the problem and feeling virtuous about it.
Exactly. In fact, any solution found by any country or business can be spread to others. So the fact the problem in one country is less severe than in another just means that country might be closer to solving the problem, and showing the way forward for all. Even here in the Philippines plastic bags and straws are being eliminated. There’s awareness and steps, albeit only initial steps, being taken.
Careful: you’re essentially implying that there are no benefits to plastic?
If you’re not implying that — since I assume you were, among other things, using a plastic keyboard to type your response — then exactly what is the trade-off you’re willing to make? More importantly, the trade-off you think others should make?
You are demonstrating extreme bad faith here, so your post doesn't really deserve a polite reply. But here's one anyway: He didn't say anything at all about plastic or its benefits (which is why your post is dishonest).
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual). The other is clearly beneficial, but not enough to justify ubiquitous use (which is why I use reusable bags, and at least demand no double-bags if I screw up and forget). In a larger context, your questions are well worth asking and answering, but they're at best peripherally relevant to this discussion.
Exactly. In fact, any solution found by any country or business can be spread to others. So the fact the problem in one country is less severe than in another just means that country might be closer to solving the problem, and showing the way forward for all. Even here in the Philippines plastic bags and straws are being eliminated. There’s awareness and steps, albeit only initial steps, being taken.
Careful: you’re essentially implying that there are no benefits to plastic?
If you’re not implying that — since I assume you were, among other things, using a plastic keyboard to type your response — then exactly what is the trade-off you’re willing to make? More importantly, the trade-off you think others should make?
You are demonstrating extreme bad faith here, so your post doesn't really deserve a polite reply. But here's one anyway: He didn't say anything at all about plastic or its benefits (which is why your post is dishonest).
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual). The other is clearly beneficial, but not enough to justify ubiquitous use (which is why I use reusable bags, and at least demand no double-bags if I screw up and forget). In a larger context, your questions are well worth asking and answering, but they're at best peripherally relevant to this discussion.
Um.. "peripherally relevant?
Leaving aside your little ad hominem rant, the post @radarthekat was responding to was a response from @crowley to the following post from @"anton zuykov": "Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent."
I don't see the phrase "single-use plastic" anywhere in the post from @"anton zuykov" that motivated the response that motivated @radarthekat's response.
At least, these B-Corpers deserve credit for putting their money and their incorporation where their mouths are.
The (mostly) overpaid ~180 public company CEOs, OTOH, come through like a bunch of unbridled, cynical hypocrites. But here’s a chance for them to redeem themselves: they should take 50% of their salaries + incentives + bonuses, pool it all together to create a worker retraining fund, a fund that will help with all those Americans who have been thrown out of work thanks to their outsourcing and global trade/investment decisions. Then we might consider throwing some respect their way. [...]
Good thoughts.
But we’re more likely to see the second coming or Gene Munster’s Apple TV released before that happens.
The CEO's that signed the document don't appear to be from the larger corporations and I don''t believe they would have that much influence with those companies towards the top of the list. Anybody can propose anything but doing something about it, is hard and only time will tell.
Unilever, which has owned Ben & Jerry's for almost 20 years, is plenty big. Whatever efforts the ice cream brand makes is not reflected in its parent company, so maybe the CEO can advocate that change start from within.
Exactly. In fact, any solution found by any country or business can be spread to others. So the fact the problem in one country is less severe than in another just means that country might be closer to solving the problem, and showing the way forward for all. Even here in the Philippines plastic bags and straws are being eliminated. There’s awareness and steps, albeit only initial steps, being taken.
Careful: you’re essentially implying that there are no benefits to plastic?
If you’re not implying that — since I assume you were, among other things, using a plastic keyboard to type your response — then exactly what is the trade-off you’re willing to make? More importantly, the trade-off you think others should make?
You are demonstrating extreme bad faith here, so your post doesn't really deserve a polite reply. But here's one anyway: He didn't say anything at all about plastic or its benefits (which is why your post is dishonest).
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual). The other is clearly beneficial, but not enough to justify ubiquitous use (which is why I use reusable bags, and at least demand no double-bags if I screw up and forget). In a larger context, your questions are well worth asking and answering, but they're at best peripherally relevant to this discussion.
Um.. "peripherally relevant?
Leaving aside your little ad hominem rant, the post @radarthekat was responding to was a response from @crowley to the following post from @"anton zuykov": "Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent."
I don't see the phrase "single-use plastic" anywhere in the post from @"anton zuykov" that motivated the response that motivated @radarthekat's response.
I'll accept an apology.
Your label is wrong ("ad hominem"). But I'll take your word for it (that you were responding to Zukov's statement), and apologize for the "bad faith" comment. That said... your argument is still bad, as Radar was very clearly discussing single-use plastics (straws and bags), and said nothing at all about "all plastics". In fact, your post is clearly a straw man argument. Also, there is a major distinction between "all plastics" and "all plastic waste" although that gets complex (most products eventually become waste, and recycling can be problematic).
As for "peripherally relevant", that's what they are to the discussion of the "B corp" ad and Apple.
At least, these B-Corpers deserve credit for putting their money and their incorporation where their mouths are.
The (mostly) overpaid ~180 public company CEOs, OTOH, come through like a bunch of unbridled, cynical hypocrites. But here’s a chance for them to redeem themselves: they should take 50% of their salaries + incentives + bonuses, pool it all together to create a worker retraining fund, a fund that will help with all those Americans who have been thrown out of work thanks to their outsourcing and global trade/investment decisions. Then we might consider throwing some respect their way.
Until then, all they’re doing is to spout off on pet projects and preferences using other people’s (in this case, shareholders’) money...
If done voluntarily, sure... I guess so. If proposed as something other than the work of people engaging in peer pressure, then hell no.
Exactly. In fact, any solution found by any country or business can be spread to others. So the fact the problem in one country is less severe than in another just means that country might be closer to solving the problem, and showing the way forward for all. Even here in the Philippines plastic bags and straws are being eliminated. There’s awareness and steps, albeit only initial steps, being taken.
Careful: you’re essentially implying that there are no benefits to plastic?
If you’re not implying that — since I assume you were, among other things, using a plastic keyboard to type your response — then exactly what is the trade-off you’re willing to make? More importantly, the trade-off you think others should make?
You are demonstrating extreme bad faith here, so your post doesn't really deserve a polite reply. But here's one anyway: He didn't say anything at all about plastic or its benefits (which is why your post is dishonest).
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual). The other is clearly beneficial, but not enough to justify ubiquitous use (which is why I use reusable bags, and at least demand no double-bags if I screw up and forget). In a larger context, your questions are well worth asking and answering, but they're at best peripherally relevant to this discussion.
Um.. "peripherally relevant?
Leaving aside your little ad hominem rant, the post @radarthekat was responding to was a response from @crowley to the following post from @"anton zuykov": "Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent."
I don't see the phrase "single-use plastic" anywhere in the post from @"anton zuykov" that motivated the response that motivated @radarthekat's response.
I'll accept an apology.
Your label is wrong ("ad hominem"). But I'll take your word for it (that you were responding to Zukov's statement), and apologize for the "bad faith" comment. That said... your argument is still bad, as Radar was very clearly discussing single-use plastics (straws and bags), and said nothing at all about "all plastics". In fact, your post is clearly a straw man argument. Also, there is a major distinction between "all plastics" and "all plastic waste" although that gets complex (most products eventually become waste, and recycling can be problematic).
As for "peripherally relevant", that's what they are to the discussion of the "B corp" ad and Apple.
He was also explicitly referring to plastics being dumped in the ocean, for which it matters comparatively little if it's a single-use plastic or not. In addition, the discussion had moved on to be more abstract, rather than about specifics. Definitely peripherally relevant.
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual).
Not true. I'll agree that straws in sit down restaurants is weird and wasteful. However, that's not where the "problem" is (the questionable umpteen billion straws a day figure). Presumably the vast majority of plastic straws are deployed by the fast food industry. In that scenario, straws are a solution to a real challenge (namely, how to provide consumers with a cheap, just-durable-enough way to consume a beverage). The solution that industry has settled on (for the most part) is cups make from thick waxed paper, supported by a stiff plastic lid, and accessed with a plastic straw. (I don't know why we aren't up at arms about the plastic lid; that seems to use just as much plastic as the straw.) I do expect/hope that the fast food industry will come up with a better solution to this, but it won't be as simple as just getting rid of plastic straws.
In fact, he is extremely specifically talking about two single-use plastics. The benefits of one, in particular, are nonexistent unless you've just had a major jaw operation (or are similarly unusual).
Not true. I'll agree that straws in sit down restaurants is weird and wasteful. However, that's not where the "problem" is (the questionable umpteen billion straws a day figure). Presumably the vast majority of plastic straws are deployed by the fast food industry. In that scenario, straws are a solution to a real challenge (namely, how to provide consumers with a cheap, just-durable-enough way to consume a beverage). The solution that industry has settled on (for the most part) is cups make from thick waxed paper, supported by a stiff plastic lid, and accessed with a plastic straw. (I don't know why we aren't up at arms about the plastic lid; that seems to use just as much plastic as the straw.) I do expect/hope that the fast food industry will come up with a better solution to this, but it won't be as simple as just getting rid of plastic straws.
does B corp went to Japan to look at their model? they relize live on the only islands must kept it clean, efficient for resource usage. Cut the CEO's salary to start with instead of sale's volume bech marked performance matrix (GM CEO salary is 22 million, compare to Toyota of 2.9 and Honda 1.4 million as example). recycle and make product last longer, (like the cell phone of iphone, instead of xiaomi). Does B corp include any clothing industry? largest impace on environment with fast fashion? Too much talk and I am waiting for them to show me the results that COULD inspiration to their own industry before yap about it.
Comments
My post is really about whether you want to seriously solve the plastics problem or not. If you do, put a massive tax on it. Especially on everything from China with large amounts of plastics in it. The rest is feel-good stuff pretending to solve the problem and feeling virtuous about it.
Leaving aside your little ad hominem rant, the post @radarthekat was responding to was a response from @crowley to the following post from @"anton zuykov": "Yeah..but even if US removes all its plastic pollution, say, from oceans, China alone pollutes 32 TIMES greater than what US could. In other words, when US decides to clean its act, it affects the world by less than 1 percent."
I don't see the phrase "single-use plastic" anywhere in the post from @"anton zuykov" that motivated the response that motivated @radarthekat's response.
I'll accept an apology.
Good thoughts.
But we’re more likely to see the second coming or Gene Munster’s Apple TV released before that happens.