Plastic bags - are they that bad? Plastic bags - are they that bad? - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Posts 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoWolves View Post
    Not saying the climate isn't changing, or that human activities aren't causing it. Just that CO2 emissions may not be the cause, there are suggestions that it is a following indicator, rather than cause. I'm old enough to remember quite a few times when the whole scientific community went up a blind alley.

    Before you ask, I am not entirely a layman as I graduated in TP and wrote a research piece on tropospheric interferometry. Not saying one way or the other either, just that it's not settled.
    I'm old enough to remember quite a few times when the whole scientific community went up a blind alley
    So am I. Don't the statistics show that in a time of increased manufacturing activity, i.e. 1940 to 1970, the average temperature fell?

    Also, we were being warned of a possible mini ice age in the early 1960's by the scientific community, after the Winter of 1962/1963.

  2. #32

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ladymuck View Post
    I saw that programme. It was really quite interesting.


    It's annoying how different councils have different recycling policies. HWMBO's council accepts foil and has food waste composting. Mine doesn't do either. His doesn't collect glass, mine does.

    Then there's all the crap about the right plastic. And you can't include shredded paper so a lot of my paper waste can't be recycled because I shred most documents before disposal.

    The trouble is, is that there isn't a market for recycled plastic that makes the process economically viable. Recycled plastic isn't as durable as new and costs more to produce. Really the answer to to work out what to use instead of single use plastics. And the simple way to do that is to look at the pre-plastic era, take a few lessons and make improvements.
    If HMG were really concerned about plastic use, the should introduce legislation that required all liquids to be dispensed in glass bottles, as they were in my youth. Even mineral oils were dispensed in bottles in the early days.

  3. #33

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ladymuck View Post
    There are other gases that have a more harmful effect on global warming. Methane is one and there's at least one other but I can't remember at the moment. If we all went meat free and stopped farting, that would help.

    My personal bug bear is the demand to go 'zero-carbon' which is literally impossible. We are made of carbon, we eat carbon, we excrete carbon. There will always need to be a certain level of carbon in the environment in order for it to function. All life cycles rely on there being carbon in various forms.
    and stopped farting
    but then our effluent would still pollute the oceans.

  4. #34

    Double Godlike!

    original PM is a fount of knowledge

    original PM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    We have done this before - but to re-cap.

    1) The earth is a closed eco system (a big one designed for long term use but closed)
    2) A closed eco system can only support so many living things before the balance of the ecosystem collapses.
    3) You can only recycle your tulip so many times before there is nothing left to recycle.
    4) Therefore the only true way of ensuring long term survivability is to have population control.

    So who gets to play god?

  5. #35

    Contractor Among Contractors

    JohntheBike is NOT a disguised employee


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by original PM View Post
    We have done this before - but to re-cap.

    1) The earth is a closed eco system (a big one designed for long term use but closed)
    2) A closed eco system can only support so many living things before the balance of the ecosystem collapses.
    3) You can only recycle your tulip so many times before there is nothing left to recycle.
    4) Therefore the only true way of ensuring long term survivability is to have population control.

    So who gets to play god?
    generally agreed, but the argument then is about sustaining civilisation, not the planet. If all humans became extinct, and we are told there have been near extinction events in the past, then the planet would still survive and another life form would dominate, just as the dinosaurs did before we even existed.

  6. #36

    Double Godlike!

    original PM is a fount of knowledge

    original PM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohntheBike View Post
    generally agreed, but the argument then is about sustaining civilisation, not the planet. If all humans became extinct, and we are told there have been near extinction events in the past, then the planet would still survive and another life form would dominate, just as the dinosaurs did before we even existed.
    Ok - even then given that the sun will go red giant in about 4.5 billion years what we actually need to do to save civilisation is to colonise as many planets as possible so that we no longer rely on just one.

    Although even then we are will still be fighting the heat death or big rip of the universe.

    So what we really need to focus on is ensuring we sue the resources of this planet to ensure that civilisation can continue in areas other than the surface of the earth...

    so yes, not polluting your oceans with plastic bags is probably a good thing..

  7. #37

    Should post faster

    MasterBait has more data than eek

    MasterBait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Путін Хуйло
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    How plastic bags were supposed to help save the planet - BBC News

    "To be as environmentally friendly as a single plastic bag that is being recycled, a paper bag needs to be used at least 3 times while cotton bags need to be reused 131 times to have the same environmental impact".

    Article also points out that plastic bags were designed to be reused. The issue is lazy humans.

    So it seems the only way to save humankind is less humans.....
    It may take more energy and resources to produce a paper or cotton bag, but it take hundreds of years longer to degrade a plastic bag 100% whereas paper and cotton will quickly decay.
    So the whole statement is a bit silly.
    Also the pollution problem is not only plastic shopping bags, but also all other stuff made out plastic including the totally useless packaging around vegetables and fruit for example.
    Слава Україні! Героям слава!

  8. #38

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere is always on top

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    21,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Plastic bags - are they that bad?
    Yes, you turtle strangler.

    Quote Originally Posted by original PM View Post
    We have done this before - but to re-cap.

    1) The earth is a closed eco system (a big one designed for long term use but closed)
    2) A closed eco system can only support so many living things before the balance of the ecosystem collapses.
    3) You can only recycle your tulip so many times before there is nothing left to recycle.
    4) Therefore the only true way of ensuring long term survivability is to have population control.
    Your argument doesn't take into account technology. Take wheat yields for example. Most of the increase in wheat yield has come from greater yield per hectare, which has more than tripled since the 1950s.

    Furthermore, if we can develop controllable fusion (only 20 years away! ), that, coupled with exploitation of resources in the solar system should keep us good for many many centuries.
    Boomers tend to believe in “freedom of speech”, which is a fascist concept used to spread hateful ideas.Given that hate speech is not possible without free speech, any defence of free speech is a form of hate speech. - Titania McGrath

  9. #39

    Still gathering requirements...

    HoofHearted is too good to be a permie


    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Yes, you turtle strangler.
    Euphemism?

  10. #40

    Double Godlike!

    original PM is a fount of knowledge

    original PM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    12,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotAllThere View Post
    Yes, you turtle strangler.


    Your argument doesn't take into account technology. Take wheat yields for example. Most of the increase in wheat yield has come from greater yield per hectare, which has more than tripled since the 1950s.

    Furthermore, if we can develop controllable fusion (only 20 years away! ), that, coupled with exploitation of resources in the solar system should keep us good for many many centuries.
    True - controllable fusion is the future that's for sure - but I would imagine unless it is a technology given to the world for free it will be stifled and probably unobtainable for many people due to the oil companies not being happy about loosing revenue - also as we have an oil based economy there could be some rather large social shifts surrounding that technology.

    And then yes we need to utilise the 'roids etc to get the heavy metals for our batteries etc


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •