Sure politicians are not qualified, but they are supposed to be surrounded by qualified people and they do pay vast amounts of money to experts. and agencies I don't think the problem is qualification per se. The problem is that ideology rules over science.
You mean alleged experts. I have seen a lot of "consultants" during my working live to know not many of them are real experts. As long as you speak loudly and with some arrogance they quickly think you are an expert. Just another kind of politicians
And yes ideology seems to rule big time. But they seem to overlook one thing. The whole "renewable" scene is just shifting the problem to delay the inevitable.
Rails don’t move like that. That’s an optical illusion brought about by using a telephoto lens
Sure politicians are not qualified, but they are supposed to be surrounded by qualified people and they do pay vast amounts of money to experts and agencies. I don't think the problem is qualification per se. The problem is that ideology rules over science.
Sure politicians are not qualified, but they are supposed to be surrounded by qualified people and they do pay vast amounts of money to experts. and agencies I don't think the problem is qualification per se. The problem is that ideology rules over science.
You mean alleged experts. I have seen a lot of "consultants" during my working live to know not many of them are real experts. As long as you speak loudly and with some arrogance they quickly think you are an expert. Just another kind of politicians
And yes ideology seems to rule big time. But they seem to overlook one thing. The whole "renewable" scene is just shifting the problem to delay the inevitable. The demise of the human race. With all the production of solar panels, windmills and batteries we are still plundering the earth, and it will run out someday. They should put more effort in reducing over consumption and stopping population growth. But hey that is not economically viable.
But that is just my 2 cents worthYou really need to read up on the realist side of global warming and climate change. Not the leftist "impending doom tomorrow, we are already late" or the right wing denialist. On every measure, humanity is doing better than yesterday, less people in poverty and the growth rate is dropping. Do you want less people in the planet, the best way to do it is to lift people from poverty and educate them. There has been so much bullshit about climate change, and it is an industry, selling you this.
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag? And that's what they sell you as green. Think about it for a minute.
My point is that there is no lack of good engineers and potential real experts. They are available. The fact they are not listened to is another matter.
It's again not a matter of qualification. It's just the fact that politicians will order reports from people with an expected content. If the content matches the expectations, it gets published and acted upon, otherwise it gets right down into the trash. That happens all the time.
They do not order reports to help them decide. They decide first, and then order reports that will back up their decisions. And then all it requires to appear relevant is some nice titles, the name of a "reputable" agency, and so on. The content of such reports never get "peer-reviewed" before being even "used".
Politicians in particular, but most people in general, do not like being told that there is no "quick" fix and no easy-to-implement solution to a problem they are having. Since here the proper answers almost always imply "it's very complex, it's going to take a very long time, you can't approach it with simplistic solutions and the effects of relevant actions may not be apparent for a century or more", anyone who will claim otherwise will be favored even if it's just pure bullshit.
Then the ideology is another layer of issues.
In particular, there's something "odd" in believing that whatever mess we have made meddling with our environment is going to be taken care of with even more human meddling.
You really need to read up on the realist side of global warming and climate change. Not the leftist "impending doom tomorrow, we are already late" or the right wing denialist. On every measure, humanity is doing better than yesterday, less people in poverty and the growth rate is dropping. Do you want less people in the planet, the best way to do it is to lift people from poverty and educate them. There has been so much bullshit about climate change, and it is an industry, selling you this.
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag? And that's what they sell you as green. Think about it for a minute.
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
According to a UK government report, to be more eco-friendly than a plastic bag, a cotton bag would have to be used 173 times.
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
The factor of 20,000 applies to organic cotton bags in particular. It comes from a Danish government study. As the study explains, the very unfavorable multiple is driven by the impact on ozone depletion.
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf.
The mechanisim by which cotton production impacts the ozone layer so heavily is not explained in the published study. This page discusses it, and states that electricity required for irrigation is the bad guy -- and that the electricity is assumed to be produced from natural gas, which in turn is pumped through its pipelines with ozone-damaging Halon additives.
https://medium.com/@parkpoomkomet/breaking-down-the-danish-study-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-grocery-carrier-bags-b8c97eb6c8fb
Conventional, non-organic cotton bags "only" need to be reused 7100 times, based on the ozone impact. Based on climate change impact, they need to be reused 52 times, a more reasonable number.
I have no idea how to weigh climate change advantages vs. ozone depletion disadvantages, and what the respective impact of shopping bags is relative to other causes.
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
It's related to the carbon and water footprint. Cotton plants take a lot of water. Though as I recall the number is 1000 times or something? should be easy to find out with your favourite search engine.
Ahhh.... plastic shopping bags!!! You just pushed my most current hot button issue. Just two months ago, grocery shopping bags become illegal in my State - no plastic bags at all. Even paper bags is permitted only for small stores under 1500 sq feet (or 2500, forgot which).
This kinds of dumb decisions are what I and perhaps others called "single dimension thinking". Making decision with just a single variable limit is going to be a bad decision.
Can you imagine using a grocery bag for say for just a few times without washing it? The left over soil from veggies/fruit, condensation from frozen items, leaked meat juice, fruit juice from skin blemishes, and even bugs caught between crevices of fresh veggie leaf inevitably collect in the bag. The bag quickly turns into a bio-hazard unsuitable to carry food or anything else.
Ahhh.... plastic shopping bags!!! You just pushed my most current hot button issue. Just two months ago, grocery shopping bags become illegal in my State - no plastic bags at all. Even paper bags is permitted only for small stores under 1500 sq feet (or 2500, forgot which).
This kinds of dumb decisions are what I and perhaps others called "single dimension thinking". Making decision with just a single variable limit is going to be a bad decision.
Can you imagine using a grocery bag for say for just a few times without washing it? The left over soil from veggies/fruit, condensation from frozen items, leaked meat juice, fruit juice from skin blemishes, and even bugs caught between crevices of fresh veggie leaf inevitably collect in the bag. The bag quickly turns into a bio-hazard unsuitable to carry food or anything else.
Massive portions of the planet already did this. I've had no issues with filthy bags from dirty produce or leaking packages. Perhaps the problem is not the bag?
Ahhh.... plastic shopping bags!!! You just pushed my most current hot button issue. Just two months ago, grocery shopping bags become illegal in my State - no plastic bags at all. Even paper bags is permitted only for small stores under 1500 sq feet (or 2500, forgot which).
This kinds of dumb decisions are what I and perhaps others called "single dimension thinking". Making decision with just a single variable limit is going to be a bad decision.
Can you imagine using a grocery bag for say for just a few times without washing it? The left over soil from veggies/fruit, condensation from frozen items, leaked meat juice, fruit juice from skin blemishes, and even bugs caught between crevices of fresh veggie leaf inevitably collect in the bag. The bag quickly turns into a bio-hazard unsuitable to carry food or anything else.
Massive portions of the planet already did this. I've had no issues with filthy bags from dirty produce or leaking packages. Perhaps the problem is not the bag?
Don't care who else may be doing it. I just don't like runny meat juice favored bread...
...
This is a non-issue. My produce doesn't drip everywhere, perhaps buy something properly packaged and learn to pack better.
That's weird that "organic" cotton is environmentally worse than "conventional" cotton. One would think that with the use of pesticides and whatever they use during growth to keep the crop healthy it would be far worse. This assuming that with "organic" they mean "bio" and thus grow the crops without pesticides and with the use of insects or whatever natural stuff they use to keep the crop healthy.
Well then put all your nice fresh unwashed veg in a bag of its own and wash the bag with less water than you use to clean your windscreen from time to time..
My meat doesn't drip everywhere. My bread does not get soaked by items it shouldn't be near. My frozen stuff doesn't thaw. And all this without using 20 bags every shop. It always astounds me to see the waste when I'm over there.
Can you imagine using a grocery bag forsay forjust a few times without washing it? The left over soil from veggies/fruit, condensation from frozen items, leaked meat juice, fruit juice from skin blemishes, and even bugs caught between crevices of fresh veggie leaf inevitably collect in the bag. The bag quickly turns into a bio-hazard unsuitable to carry food or anything else.
Can you imagine using a grocery bag forsay forjust a few times without washing it? The left over soil from veggies/fruit, condensation from frozen items, leaked meat juice, fruit juice from skin blemishes, and even bugs caught between crevices of fresh veggie leaf inevitably collect in the bag. The bag quickly turns into a bio-hazard unsuitable to carry food or anything else.Yes, I reuse plastic grocery bags, as many times as it is possible. Although my main grocery bag is a blue IKEA big yellow bag.
Drippy stuff usually comes packaged here.
Sure politicians are not qualified, but they are supposed to be surrounded by qualified people and they do pay vast amounts of money to experts. and agencies I don't think the problem is qualification per se. The problem is that ideology rules over science.
You mean alleged experts. I have seen a lot of "consultants" during my working live to know not many of them are real experts. As long as you speak loudly and with some arrogance they quickly think you are an expert. Just another kind of politicians
And yes ideology seems to rule big time. But they seem to overlook one thing. The whole "renewable" scene is just shifting the problem to delay the inevitable. The demise of the human race. With all the production of solar panels, windmills and batteries we are still plundering the earth, and it will run out someday. They should put more effort in reducing over consumption and stopping population growth. But hey that is not economically viable.
But that is just my 2 cents worth
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
The factor of 20,000 applies to organic cotton bags in particular. It comes from a Danish government study. As the study explains, the very unfavorable multiple is driven by the impact on ozone depletion.
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf.
The mechanisim by which cotton production impacts the ozone layer so heavily is not explained in the published study. This page discusses it, and states that electricity required for irrigation is the bad guy -- and that the electricity is assumed to be produced from natural gas, which in turn is pumped through its pipelines with ozone-damaging Halon additives.
https://medium.com/@parkpoomkomet/breaking-down-the-danish-study-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-grocery-carrier-bags-b8c97eb6c8fb
Conventional, non-organic cotton bags "only" need to be reused 7100 times, based on the ozone impact. Based on climate change impact, they need to be reused 52 times, a more reasonable number.
I have no idea how to weigh climate change advantages vs. ozone depletion disadvantages, and what the respective impact of shopping bags is relative to other causes.
[...]
Did you know for example, that the "renewable and green" cotton shopping bag needs to be used for something like 20000 times to have the same environmental impact than the single use plastic bag?
[...]
No, really? How is that number derived?
The factor of 20,000 applies to organic cotton bags in particular. It comes from a Danish government study. As the study explains, the very unfavorable multiple is driven by the impact on ozone depletion.
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf.
The mechanisim by which cotton production impacts the ozone layer so heavily is not explained in the published study. This page discusses it, and states that electricity required for irrigation is the bad guy -- and that the electricity is assumed to be produced from natural gas, which in turn is pumped through its pipelines with ozone-damaging Halon additives.
https://medium.com/@parkpoomkomet/breaking-down-the-danish-study-on-the-environmental-impacts-of-grocery-carrier-bags-b8c97eb6c8fb
Conventional, non-organic cotton bags "only" need to be reused 7100 times, based on the ozone impact. Based on climate change impact, they need to be reused 52 times, a more reasonable number.
I have no idea how to weigh climate change advantages vs. ozone depletion disadvantages, and what the respective impact of shopping bags is relative to other causes.
That's weird that "organic" cotton is environmentally worse than "conventional" cotton. One would think that with the use of pesticides and whatever they use during growth to keep the crop healthy it would be far worse. This assuming that with "organic" they mean "bio" and thus grow the crops without pesticides and with the use of insects or whatever natural stuff they use to keep the crop healthy.