The Environment Thread

[WildPath]

Regardless of how much plastic put in recycling actually gets recycled, throwing something in the recycling is not really the answer. Sure we feel good about it, but its still using petrochemicals and even if recycled is still using energy to turn into new products. We really need to use less plastic. I believe big oil is fine with recycling as it puts the responsibility on the consumer rather than the industry and they can pat themselves on the back saying they are environmentally responsible and defend their industry while tons of plastic ends up in waterways, our food and our bodies.

[Mark F]

10 hours ago, Mark H. said:

https://simplyrecycle.ca/debunking-recycling-myths/#more-2948

there isnt a single fact or statistic in that press release. 

 

here are some facts.

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data

on to the next topic.

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Mark F

[Tracker]

10 hours ago, WildPath said:

Regardless of how much plastic put in recycling actually gets recycled, throwing something in the recycling is not really the answer. Sure we feel good about it, but its still using petrochemicals and even if recycled is still using energy to turn into new products. We really need to use less plastic. I believe big oil is fine with recycling as it puts the responsibility on the consumer rather than the industry and they can pat themselves on the back saying they are environmentally responsible and defend their industry while tons of plastic ends up in waterways, our food and our bodies.

Agreed that recycling is not THE answer- it is part of the answer. Other measures need to be in place- for example, in Europe, one chain of stores has installed equipment that allows people to refill their own containers with shampoo and conditioner for a great deal cheaper. This and other yet to be discovered means will help. but manufacturers have to do their part.

[Mark H.]

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

there isnt a single fact or statistic in that press release. 

 

here are some facts.

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/plastics-material-specific-data

on to the next topic.

 

No facts or statistics?  What is the 80.3% recycling recovery rate?  A random number? 

Why is it always American data that you come up with?  Is that somehow more factual?

I would advise to take a look at recycling here in Manitoba.

Yes, on to the next topic.  

[blue_gold_84]

On 2021-10-10 at 3:21 PM, Mark H. said:

It is beyond stupid to state that our own footprints don"t make a dent. Corporations do not exist in vacuum. 

They sort of do when they get to play by their own rules, don't pay their fair share in taxes, and get ridiculous subsidies within their operating jurisdictions to keep those profits ridiculously high (often to support shareholders who are already very well off). It's not at all dissimilar to oil companies who have contributed to pollution via emissions and destruction of the environment/ecosystems while benefitting from corporate socialism to continue hoarding wealth.

An individual's personal footprint can and should not be ignored and that no doubt speaks to a broader issue regarding our consumption habits, rampant consumerism, poor infrastructure/systems related to recycling, and other societal factors. However, exorbitantly wealthy corporate entities can and should be leading the charge. The top polluters in the world consist of large multinational corporations motivated by nothing more than greed, and in a similar vein to oil companies, they often commit to empty words and promises to be better. But things are only getting worse and are projected to continue worsening into the near future.

https://www.minderoo.org/plastic-waste-makers-index/news/revealed-businesses-and-banks-behind-global-plastic-waste-crisis/

Quote

Twenty companies are the source of half of all single-use plastic thrown away globally. ExxonMobil tops the list – contributing 5.9 million tonnes to global plastic waste – closely followed by US chemicals company Dow and China’s Sinopec. One hundred companies are behind 90 per cent of global single-use plastic production.

Close to 60 per cent of the commercial finance funding single-use production comes from just 20 global banks. A total of US$30 billion of loans from these institutions – including Barclays, HSBC and Bank of America among others – has gone to the sector since 2011.

Twenty asset managers – led by US companies Vanguard Group, BlackRock and Capital Group – hold over US$300 billion worth of shares in the parent companies of single-use plastic polymer producers. Of this, US$10 billion is directly linked to single-use polymer production.

A 30 per cent increase in global throwaway plastic production is projected over the next five years;

This growth in production will lead to an extra three trillion items of throwaway plastic waste by 2025 alone;

Recycled plastic or feedstocks account for no more than 2 per cent of global single-use plastic production, meaning 98 per cent of these plastics are produced from fuels;

Plastic producers score woefully in a best practice assessment of the move to circular-based forms of production necessary in addressing the crisis;

The global economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic pushed down the price of oil, making fossil-fuel-based single-use plastics even more financially attractive.

 

[Mark H.]

Government won't stop large corporations, and they certainly won't stop themselves. The only think that will slow them down is consumers using less of their products.  

Take the whole beanie baby craze as just one example of rampant consumerism - absolutely ridiculous. 

[blue_gold_84]

https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html

Quote

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth's climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper's first author.

"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, "Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

[WildPath]

22 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

https://phys.org/news/2021-10-humans-climate.html

Wrong. The PPC site says so...🙄

 

Quote

It is an undisputed fact that the world’s climate has always changed and will continue to change. Until twelve thousand years ago, much of Canada was under ice, and it is thanks to natural climate change that we can live here today.

There is however no scientific consensus on the theory that CO2 produced by human activity is causing dangerous global warming today or will in the future, and that the world is facing environmental catastrophes unless these emissions are drastically reduced. Many renowned scientists continue to challenge this theory.

 

[blue_gold_84]

14 minutes ago, WildPath said:

Wrong. The PPC site says so...🙄

What an absolute dingbat.

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

What an absolute dingbat.

Are you sure that is not a Sun op-ed?

[JCon]

4 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Are you sure that is not a Sun op-ed?

Anything Post Media, really. 

[WildPath]

You'd have to think Bernier knows better and says BS like that to gather more followers and enrage the ones he already has.. The idea that humans are harming the planet is very convenient to ignore.

I'd love to hear some stories from his time as our foreign affairs minister.

[blue_gold_84]

Speaking of dingbats: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-on-climate-change-the-cbc-has-crossed-the-line-from-news-agency-to-pmo-mouthpiece

It's laughable to see this bitter pile of bones decry the credibility or integrity of anyone else considering he's been batting for big oil and denying climate change for years. 

6 minutes ago, WildPath said:

You'd have to think Bernier knows better and says BS like that to gather more followers and enrage the ones he already has.. The idea that humans are harming the planet is very convenient to ignore.

I'd love to hear some stories from his time as our foreign affairs minister.

Here's a gooder: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124

 

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, WildPath said:

You'd have to think Bernier knows better and says BS like that to gather more followers and enrage the ones he already has.. The idea that humans are harming the planet is very convenient to ignore.

I'd love to hear some stories from his time as our foreign affairs minister.

In the media, this is called "throwing red meat".

[WildPath]

7 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Here's a gooder: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124

Familiar with that one, what I want to know is what isn't known publicly. I don't know if he was as wacky as he is now, but I'd imagine foreign diplomats would have some stories. Similar to the stories they must have after dealing with Trump.

[Tracker]

17 hours ago, WildPath said:

Familiar with that one, what I want to know is what isn't known publicly. I don't know if he was as wacky as he is now, but I'd imagine foreign diplomats would have some stories. Similar to the stories they must have after dealing with Trump.

Quite telling that Harper thought highly enough of Bernier to appoint him to such a prestigious post. 

[blue_gold_84]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/un-emissions-gap-2021-1.6225244

Quote

The United Nations reported Tuesday that fresh pledges by governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions raise hopes but aren't strict enough to avoid catastrophic global warming.

A report by the UN Environment Programme found recent announcements by dozens of countries to aim for "net-zero" emissions by 2050 could limit a global temperature rise to 2.2 degrees Celsius (4 F) by the end of the century.

That's close to the less stringent target set in the Paris climate accord of capping global warming at 2 C (3.6 F) by the end of the century but far from the agreement's most ambitious goal of keeping it to 1.5 C (2.7 F).

The United States, the European Union and dozens of other countries have set net-zero emissions targets. However, the Environment Programme report said the net-zero goals that many governments announced in the run-up to a UN climate summit in Glasgow next week remain vague, with much of the heavy-lifting on emissions cuts pushed beyond 2030.

"Climate change is no longer a future problem. It is a now problem," the program's executive director, Inger Andersen, said.

"To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 C, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions," she said, adding: "The clock is ticking loudly."

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

 

[WildPath]

2 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

 

This is great, but I'd really like to know how much the case cost us taxpayers. Fighting the feds on climate change and marijuana legislation is ridiculous and costly.

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, WildPath said:

This is great, but I'd really like to know how much the case cost us taxpayers. Fighting the feds on climate change and marijuana legislation is ridiculous and costly.

Gotta pretend to throw the rednecks a bone every now and then.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Hertz to buy 100,000 Teslas for its rental fleet by next year

[Colin Unger]

I don't have a problem with a climate tax.  Id just prefer that it was implemented differently. I don't think there should be any additional tax applied to the use of alternative energy like hydro electricity. We should be also subsidizing the use of alternative energy. Like electric vehicles and solar panels ect. Rather than giving it directly back to people.

[WildPath]

6 hours ago, Colin Unger said:

I don't have a problem with a climate tax.  Id just prefer that it was implemented differently. I don't think there should be any additional tax applied to the use of alternative energy like hydro electricity. We should be also subsidizing the use of alternative energy. Like electric vehicles and solar panels ect. Rather than giving it directly back to people.

Are you suggesting that the Canadian carbon tax provides additional tax on hydroelectricity? I'd love to see a source for that.

Most of the revenues are redistributed to individual. This can be seen as indirectly subsidizing alternative energy since you get your share of revenues back regardless of how carbon-intensive your lifestyle is. Use electric vehicles and renewable energy - you don't pay the levy on carbon-based fuels, but still get to keep the payout.

In addition to this, part of the revenues are earmarked directly for subsidizing energy efficiency and reducing carbon output. This is addition to any funding for green energy supplied outside of the system to put a price on carbon. There is already tons of rhetoric about this just being another tax grab on Canadians. I can only imagine how bad it would get if the majority of funds did not end up back in the hands of Canadians directly - more often than not being a net-positive.

[blue_gold_84]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bakx-climate-goals-cop26-canada-1.6221958

Quote

The federal government released its plan for how emissions could be cut in the next decade to meet the original 2030 goal of a 30 per cent reduction compared with 2005 levels. Citing a combination of current policies — such as the escalating carbon tax, the coal phaseout and the Clean Fuel Standard — with industry trends such as energy-efficiency improvements, the country would be able to lower its emissions by about 200 million tonnes.

Home energy retrofits, increasing adoption of electric cars and strengthened methane reductions are also necessary.

Still, considering Canada's past performance, there are many skeptics about how achievable this road map will actually be.

The oil and gas sector is the largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for 26 per cent of total national emissions in 2019, according to Natural Resources Canada. The transport sector is second, contributing 25 per cent of Canada's emissions.

 

[the watcher]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/27/climate-crisis-villains-americas-dirty-dozen

Every time I read articles that reference billions of dollars I like to remind myself that no human has ever or can ever count to a billion. If you could count  each  number in a second ( which you can't) and could count 24 hours a day ( which you can't) it would take 32 years. Whether it's money of the rich and powerful or the spending of governments (The US spends close to 780 billion on its military and have a 22 trillion dollar debt ) these numbers are insane. .It would take 32,000 years to count to a trillion by the above  mentioned method. 

Lol, I almost lost my point. I feel like such a pawn reading articles like this.  The rich and powerful also treat the earth like a pawn. Just  things to use to get more of what they already have.