Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember back when environmental movements are more about education and about developing safer products i.e removing lead/MTBE from gasoline, getting rid of DDT, reducing emissions in new cars, and phrasing out CFCs both hairspray products and refrigerants based on CFCs and replacing them with non CFC alternatives. Changes that are not very noticeable to the end consumer if at all. Therefore I supported them back then or at least in the 20th century.
But today it appears its nothing but coercive legislation after coercive legislation. The best example being the widespread movement on plastic bags but its success is not really measured in getting rid of the polythane bags themselves but in changing customer behavior as a whole. And for the first time ever even how much a store must charge for something they used to comp. We don't even see them doing this with water during a drought.
Despite the fact that plastic litter continues to increase at a even greater rate than before such movements became the fad, based on many scientific evidence i.e the UK environmental report, SFDPW, etc or that it never really cut back on litter these "environmentalists" base their success by seeing people penalized for not living their version of a "green" lifestyle.
Of all the argument they use, wouldn't it make better sense to, develop environmentally safe replacement materials on all applications of plastic use not just a certain use of plastic, and gradually phase out polythene and plastic film use? As well as use of plastic straws, some cornstarch straws contain no plastic but are unnoticable to the average user.
We did the same thing with refrigerant and CFCs the past few decades without forcing people to sweat or taking away hairspray. And vehicle emissions are almost emission free compared to few decades ago making anti idling ordinances a waste of time. With fuel this expensive I am sure most people would not idle unless absolutely necessary. Interestingly it was never proposed in most places back when vehicles really belched stinky smoke while idling.
It appears these days its all about looking green than science. And its a very strong image to get, essentially politicians these days act like teenagers who think they must jump aboard these fads to please the world.
Thats what I mean by coercion for customers to live a "Green Lifestyle" and forcefully making stores penalize shoppers for not doing what these groups want them to do. Something that was unheard of in the past, we still don't pay for water at restaurants even during a drought. This is what I call coercive social engineering.
I heard that in Australia(where some states have a ban on polytane but no mandatory fee for alternatives, some supermarkets are stuck between shareholders and those dressed as turtles pushing them to charge their customers, as well as angry customers who ask why they take advantage of this by nickle and diming customers. Coles eventually gave out their replacement bags free but are under intense pressure to charge for them. Interestingly all these supermarkets allow roll plastic bags in the aisles to flow freely, won't it make better sense to use paper or carry them in a clean basket until the checkout than have the cashier use cornstarch bags to bag them instead. rather than having customers double or triple roll bag items with plastic to prevent spills into their cloth bag or paper bag or car seat?
If poor countries can use cornstarch instead of poly to package their groceries both in the aisles and at checkout there is no reason others cannot. Trader Joes in the US has cheapest groceries yet they had been phrasing out plastics from their stores since the last decade and only use paper bags.
Store bags are also the best tools to keep all those other plastic scrap that comes with our products from flying away from the garbage bin/truck during collection. Since the ordinances roadside trash from garbage trucks had quadrupled. So has a 400% increase in use of plastic for waste containment purposes. Google street views and environmental litter audits shows this is true.
Why there isn't a movement to develop compostable products and gradually phase out plastic and Styrofoam just as we did with CFCs? Eventually R12-R22 prices would be higher and R410 would be more affordable. And HVAC companies would mostly use R410.
Idling can be reduced via technology, though vehicle emissions are already very clean.
On the same concept if its well developed eventually more and more straws, bags, packaging in the food industry would be compostable and non plastic so restaurants and stores would opt for them as they are more practical for use and would be cheaper than the products they replace.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 12-31-2018 at 08:39 PM..
I remember back when environmental movements are more about education and about developing safer products i.e removing lead/MTBE from gasoline, getting rid of DDT, reducing emissions in new cars, and phrasing out CFCs both hairspray products and refrigerants based on CFCs and replacing them with non CFC alternatives. Changes that are not very noticeable to the end consumer if at all. Therefore I supported them back then or at least in the 20th century.
We can call measures like this trying to effect "the supply side."
Quote:
But today it appears its nothing but coercive legislation after coercive legislation. The best example being the widespread movement on plastic bags but its success is not really measured in getting rid of the polythane bags themselves but in changing customer behavior as a whole. And for the first time ever even how much a store must charge for something they used to comp. We don't even see them doing this with water during a drought ...
Things like this would be trying to effect "the demand side."
If you want a cleaner environment, you need to effect both the supply of some bad material/chemical/whatever, as well as the demand for the same things. Probably the supply side was done first because it was easier, since it mostly affected the behavior of companies and other large institutions, which are relatively sparse in number compared to the numbers of consumers. Once all those were done the focus shifted to changing consumer behavior - that is, the demand for the "bad" things.
Think of diets: To some extent you can tell food companies to stop putting trans fat and other really harmful things in food, but at some point you get to a point of diminishing return, and things become more difficult to ban because they're so common. Then the point is to try to change peoples' behavior by trying to get them to stop eating these bad things in the first place. Telling the food companies to stop doing something is "the supply side." Then, trying to get people to change their eating habits is "the demand side." In order to be effective at reducing whatever it is you want to reduce, you need to try to affect both the demand and supply sides.
The fall of communism did not vanquish its sympathizers. They could no longer come out and defend Mao, Casto and yes, Stalin in the open. They needed a new home and in the environmental movement, they found one. It had all the elements they loved. It was anti-corporate, anti-capitalism and central to them was the concept of a command economy and central control. That's how we ended up with Washington regulating water flow in our toilets and banning light bulbs Washington deemed undesirable.
It was not lost on the would-be masters of the planet that the poorest people use the least amount of resources and are the easiest to control...
...and convincing people in the middle to accept austerity and willingly relinquish their share of the world's resources (and therefore their personal power) is a tough sell, but the insatiable greed of the elite knows no bounds and they found a way to cash out at our expense through the modern environmentalism movement.
I remember back when environmental movements are more about education and about developing safer products i.e removing lead/MTBE from gasoline, getting rid of DDT, reducing emissions in new cars, and phrasing out CFCs both hairspray products and refrigerants based on CFCs and replacing them with non CFC alternatives. Changes that are not very noticeable to the end consumer if at all. Therefore I supported them back then or at least in the 20th century.
But today it appears its nothing but coercive legislation after coercive legislation. The best example being the widespread movement on plastic bags but its success is not really measured in getting rid of the polythane bags themselves but in changing customer behavior as a whole. And for the first time ever even how much a store must charge for something they used to comp. We don't even see them doing this with water during a drought.
Despite the fact that plastic litter continues to increase at a even greater rate than before such movements became the fad, based on many scientific evidence i.e the UK environmental report, SFDPW, etc or that it never really cut back on litter these "environmentalists" base their success by seeing people penalized for not living their version of a "green" lifestyle.
Of all the argument they use, wouldn't it make better sense to, develop environmentally safe replacement materials on all applications of plastic use not just a certain use of plastic, and gradually phase out polythene and plastic film use? As well as use of plastic straws, some cornstarch straws contain no plastic but are unnoticable to the average user.
We did the same thing with refrigerant and CFCs the past few decades without forcing people to sweat or taking away hairspray. And vehicle emissions are almost emission free compared to few decades ago making anti idling ordinances a waste of time. With fuel this expensive I am sure most people would not idle unless absolutely necessary. Interestingly it was never proposed in most places back when vehicles really belched stinky smoke while idling.
It appears these days its all about looking green than science. And its a very strong image to get, essentially politicians these days act like teenagers who think they must jump aboard these fads to please the world.
What utopia is this? I’ve got a 1990 Western Star ten wheeler with a low compression 290 Cummins. Belches black smoke fully loaded with hay. Or my 94 Ford F-350 long bed diesel, I let that thing idle. Burns less fuel than shutting down or restarting. I use old engine oil to heat my shop. And I demand plastic to haul my groceries.
Thats what I mean by coercion for customers to live a "Green Lifestyle" and forcefully making stores penalize shoppers for not doing what these groups want them to do. Something that was unheard of in the past, we still don't pay for water at restaurants even during a drought. This is what I call coercive social engineering.
I heard that in Australia(where some states have a ban on polytane but no mandatory fee for alternatives, some supermarkets are stuck between shareholders and those dressed as turtles pushing them to charge their customers, as well as angry customers who ask why they take advantage of this by nickle and diming customers. Coles eventually gave out their replacement bags free but are under intense pressure to charge for them. Interestingly all these supermarkets allow roll plastic bags in the aisles to flow freely, won't it make better sense to use paper or carry them in a clean basket until the checkout than have the cashier use cornstarch bags to bag them instead. rather than having customers double or triple roll bag items with plastic to prevent spills into their cloth bag or paper bag or car seat?
If poor countries can use cornstarch instead of poly to package their groceries both in the aisles and at checkout there is no reason others cannot. Trader Joes in the US has cheapest groceries yet they had been phrasing out plastics from their stores since the last decade and only use paper bags.
Store bags are also the best tools to keep all those other plastic scrap that comes with our products from flying away from the garbage bin/truck during collection. Since the ordinances roadside trash from garbage trucks had quadrupled. So has a 400% increase in use of plastic for waste containment purposes. Google street views and environmental litter audits shows this is true.
Why there isn't a movement to develop compostable products and gradually phase out plastic and Styrofoam just as we did with CFCs? Eventually R12-R22 prices would be higher and R410 would be more affordable. And HVAC companies would mostly use R410.
Idling can be reduced via technology, though vehicle emissions are already very clean.
On the same concept if its well developed eventually more and more straws, bags, packaging in the food industry would be compostable and non plastic so restaurants and stores would opt for them as they are more practical for use and would be cheaper than the products they replace.
I'm not sure I understand the issue with bringing your own bag. You ask for an alternative to plastic bags and I provided something you can do today. Nor do I understand why you would need to double or triple roll items in plastic before placing them in a cloth bag??? My area banned plastic bags years ago and also charges 10 cents for any bag. People pay, bring their own bag, or just don't use a bag. You can also purchase re-usable mesh bags for vegetables. As for water, I live in a dry state so water is only given upon request as are straws (the straw one is new). Styrofoam is not used in my area. I guess I just live in a 'greener' locale than you.
People may not like change but people can get used to it. You call it coercion but nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Just because something was unheard of in the past does not mean it should not be done. Flying in an airplane was unheard of in the past. Seat belts in cars were unheard of before the 70's or 80's. Regardless, I simply do not understand what you issue is here. Cheers.
Environmentalism is now run by the money grubbing AGW crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
The fall of communism did not vanquish its sympathizers. They could no longer come out and defend Mao, Casto and yes, Stalin in the open. They needed a new home and in the environmental movement, they found one. It had all the elements they loved. It was anti-corporate, anti-capitalism and central to them was the concept of a command economy and central control. That's how we ended up with Washington regulating water flow in our toilets and banning light bulbs Washington deemed undesirable.
Totally true, early and poor quality low flow toilets take multiple flushes, which negates any water saving, also low flow toilets are hazardous to the sewer system would result in using more water to unclog them.
Low-flow toilets cause a stink in SF - SFGate
A better design is to allow low flow for number one but a three gallon flush for number 2. It would still conserve water as most flushes are number one's but it also have a big flush to help push the solid matter out for number 2 thus wash down the sewer system. Thus Eliminating large amount of water and bleach use to unclog the sewers. Though water saving toilets are totally unnecessary around the great lakes area.
Also whats scary is for some reason this new form of "communism" are being embraced today at an alarming rate even by the otherwise the pro capitalist or anti communist nations or governments in the world. Apparently these groups gain global power via the UN and repeatedly cutting and pasting various forms of exaggerated, false, and unscientific sources to get politicians brainwashed to give in, in order to make themselves look good to the progressive International community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
Every trap needs bait...
It was not lost on the would-be masters of the planet that the poorest people use the least amount of resources and are the easiest to control...
...and convincing people in the middle to accept austerity and willingly relinquish their share of the world's resources (and therefore their personal power) is a tough sell, but the insatiable greed of the elite knows no bounds and they found a way to cash out at our expense through the modern environmentalism movement.
Very true, the California drought is a great example of this, they would allow environmentalists to continue to release large amounts of water, and to forbid new reservoir or even drain existing ones, they will continue to allow almond farming and water harvesting for out of state commerce, and runaway construction projects but would threaten the general population who use a sesame seed of water into not flushing their toilets.
Last edited by citizensadvocate; 01-01-2019 at 05:40 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
