|
On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote:
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland）
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.)
so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God.
Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
|
On November 14 2019 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote:
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland）
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.)
so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit).
Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling.
We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game.
A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that.
When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
|
|
|
On November 14 2019 23:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote:
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland）
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.)
so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit). Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling. We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game. A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that. When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is.
It's not personal man, you can relax. Just to flesh out the situation your posting seems to reflect you're unfamiliar with a bit...
US plastic recycling is a sham for example. A large portion of the stuff people are putting in their recycling bins is literally just making them feel better about doing nothing (worse than nothing really).
The Guardian showed that it's just being dumped into other poor countries, landfills, burned, and stockpiled (basically becoming unpoliced landfills).
(citation summary) A Guardian investigation reveals that cities around the country are no longer recycling many types of plastic dropped into recycling bins. Instead, they are being landfilled, burned or stockpiled. From Los Angeles to Florida to the Arizona desert, officials say, vast quantities of plastic are now no better than garbage.
“All these years I have been feeling like I’m doing something responsible,” said Pai, clearly dumbstruck as she walked away with a full bag. “The truth hurts.”
Analysis of US export records shows that the equivalent of 19,000 shipping containers of plastic recycling per month, once exported abroad, is now stranded at home. This is enough plastic to fill 250 Olympic swimming pools each month.
The China ban revealed an uncomfortable truth about plastic recycling, Skye said: much of this plastic was never possible to recycle at all.
“[China] would just pull out the items that were actually recyclable and burn or throw away the rest,” he said. “China has subsidized the recycling industry for many years in a way that distorted our views.”
www.theguardian.com
There was a VICE video that covered the same stuff at a different facility for those that prefer A/V
+ Show Spoiler +
A report about Germany recently showed a similar situation with people shocked to find out so much of their recyclables weren't being recycled and their #1 slot was basically a lie The vast majority of the recycling they were legally mandated to sort themselves was just being tossed in incinerators or shipped to poorer countries.
|
On November 15 2019 00:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 23:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 14 2019 23:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote:
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland）
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.)
so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. Must be frustrating to have westerners using eastern countries as dumpsters and calling it "recycling" while simultaneously complaining that those countries aren't disposing of it properly (which was why/how the capitalists are making their living often smuggling in contaminated trash for profit). Name one fucking instance we said they're not doing enough. Name one fucking instance that we called it recycling. We said that China doesn't have as strict as regulatory laws as the US and EU in regards to where and how they dump their waste. We never said they had none whatsoever. We also said that we send it over to the countries who agreed to take it but it has become abundantly clear that those countries don't have the means to dispose of it properly, so it is a zero sum game. A lot of nations jumped ahead of their western counterparts once they adopted the tech and improved it to make their lives better. Rail is best in China and Japan and the EU. The amount of co2 reduction is better in China and Japan and the EU to some degrees. We've acknowledged that. When you get to the point where you understand the carbon footprint involved with creating, using, disposing, and recycling any material, you'll understand what while it may seem like a lot is being done, not much really is. He is not completely wrong on the recycling as trash thing, communities in NA want high diversion numbers so they put more and more into their recycling and to keep costs down for end users many of the "MRFs"( Material recycling Facilities, but really should be called commingled separating facilities since no actual recycling happens at these) used a practice called "salting" where they would add a certain % of trash to the bails so it would still meet the standards that China set. Where he gets confused is capitalism's roll. Capitalism is why China accepted it like that. They could get more product, make more money, get their few richer by accepting shittier and shittier bales. Then capitalism is also why they chose to just take the high value pieces and burn the rest, again for more profit. As usual socialism was no where to be found in China. The bad part in the west was partly capitalism if the MRF was a private entity which is common especially in the states and they wanted to turn a profit. But this was also common practice in Publicly owned MRFs. The reason was not profit but rather more warm and fuzzy's from bigger recycling numbers (often this is called wishcycling where people put things into recycling that can't actually be recycled because they wish it could, big problem with the industry) and more happy voters from keeping the costs down to them. When Chinese sword came out and China decided to make the requirements of the bales from really dirty to 100% clean the west was in trouble. The industry had been for lack of better word lying about the performance of the programs, saying we diverted x% when we knew a lot of that was not actual recycling, and that recycling was way cheaper than it actually is, since China was not recycling the materials like they said they were (but we knew they were not, we just like the price and out of sight out of mind) and were just burning it. China realizing that the cost to their environment and cost of fixing the problems all this garbage was making was not worth the money that they were getting for taking it. Also the commodity values of more valuable plastic and OCC tanked. So it might also be capitalism, is some strange way that is forcing people to look at the actual problems with consumption instead of pretending like it isn't an issue and they can recycle it all.
I remember you talking about this in the US pol thread a long while back. And I understand everything you mentioned here. What you're talking about is why we have paper straws. There was a pesticide being developed that ate plastics over time but I haven't read or seen anything about it. But to your point, the capitalism of shipping to poorer countries and leaving it up to them to figure out what to do with it is what I was saying; they don't know how to properly dispose of it. They do exactly what you said. Now that there is gaining outcry for everyone to actually do something to stop the practice and attempt some kind of waste management/mitigation, things are looking bad for developed nations because we didn't invest in the means to actually do something about it. Now the costs are too high and people don't want to take the leap. So they find other smaller, achievable goals and that placates the people for the time being.
|
|
|
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
|
|
|
On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books.
Probably be more effective sending billionaires up there and dropping them off until we're out of billionaires.
|
On November 15 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books. If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now!
That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem.
Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
|
|
|
On November 15 2019 02:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books. If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now! That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem. Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet.
You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
|
On November 15 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 02:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 15 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books. If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now! That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem. Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet. You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish.
When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
|
On November 15 2019 07:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2019 02:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 15 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books. If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now! That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem. Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet. You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish. When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500.
I honestly thought you were joking, I don't think I should indulge this any more. It's not the biggest incinerator in the galaxy either...
|
|
|
On November 15 2019 08:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2019 07:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 15 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 15 2019 02:28 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 15 2019 01:54 JimmiC wrote:On November 15 2019 01:41 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I propose we use some of the Starships Musk is building and just load it all with trash and shoot it into space towards the sun or wherever. It's a win-win in my books. If it gets cheap enough, I don't doubt that we will treat space as a giant landfill the same way we have rivers and oceans in the past, and sadly in some parts of the world still do. My only fear would be that like we have with the ocean we figure out that there are some pretty major consequences to it. And cleaning up space sounds a lot harder than even the ocean, which seems impossible right now! That's why I said to towards the sun or some distant location. Doesn't have to be confined to LEO or anywhere close. Besides, space is vast. As long as we have the trajectory aimed away from the earth outwards, we should be fine. If we do start to trash space because of LEO debris or we start burying stuff on the moon (which sounds...stupid) then we'll have a problem. Or we can do what GH suggests and send everyone that is making this possible to space and die here with the planet. You're right, using SpaceX to throw garbage into space is totally not absurdly foolish. When you have the biggest incinerator in the galaxy...not really. It's all a matter of how much we can send, how often, and how cost effective it is. We're running out of places to dump our shit, so might as well think outside the box a bit. Unless you'd prefer eating with your hands or using wooden utensils like it's 1500. Well I think Metal utensils work fine. As for fast food I think some sort of deposit system on reusable ones or people bringing their own would probably work. However all the single use plastic talk whether its bags or straws really misses the mark. The much bigger issue is the packaging on everything and general consumption. For the garbage to space I could see it be considered for super dangerous hazardous waste like nuclear, people still really are not sure on how to properly handle it and decommission a old site. Start there and then as you said depending on costs other things but for now it is so wildly expensive it would not be considered. And with most recycling logistics is really your enemy, there is often a place that handles the material well, but you have to take into account the dollar cost and also the cost to the environment by getting it there. My guess is a rocket launch is pretty awful for the environment but I have back up for that. Quite often in my line of business we find a material that is recyclable in a large center, like carpet underlay for example but when we math it all out either the money, or the carbon cost of transporting is too high to justify doing it. Or our amount while large to us, is small on the real scale. We are trying to up the cost of landfilling material to make the equation make sense more often, but that is not popular and does not move the needle as fast as we would like either. In countries where people have choice some of these things are much harder then in say China where the government can just force the change, and if people disagree they just jail or "reeducate them". The big issue there is rarely in human history have we had dictators that actually make decisions based on what is good for the people. So we have the slow changing democracies where most people choose what is best for themselves in the short term and use the excuse of they are just one person and can't make a big difference. Or we have the dictatorship where that person is making the decision for millions (or billion in China's case) but they are making what is best for them also. I think I would place my money on the democracies outperforming the dictatorships in the long term. But either way it is a massive hill to climb.
That's been my entire point. The carbon footprint is too large to think that anything radical is going to make a difference over a slow and measured response. The space thing was just an idea to show that with the technology we have available, that shouldn't be ruled out.
The bringing your own supplies to fast food restaurants to eat has health code violations written all over it so I don't see that happening unless they do hard plastic everything and force recycle them/reuse and sterilize the hell out of it. They do it in restaurants but we're talking a massive scale in fast food where it's just easier to dispose of it after consumption than storing, cleaning (where's that water coming from?), and making sure it's all sterile for people to use.
As to the part about China and other countries forcing change, I agree with that paragraph. But I don't see it working in some democracies because of intentional undereducated populations voting against their best interests. So we'll need a mix of forcing change (paris climate accord along with penalties for nations that don't meet it) as well as voters voting what is the most pressing change that needs to be tackled immediately. It's a balancing act.
|
|
|
On November 14 2019 22:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2019 19:45 chuchuchu wrote:
sry for my shit English first.
but in fact ,China has related laws.Good natural conditions and national policy are the reasons,Related companies can get a lot of investment from the Centre Government and other industries, just like the development of Tesla.
About $50 billion has been invested in tree planting（Green space growth） to improve the environment since 2000,and China has been the country with the largest increase in green vegetation(always the First), and it is often several times as many as the second.（Indian，because of Reclamation farmland）
The issue of environmental pollution is related to economic and technological development. For a long time in the past decades, China has been committed to the development of industry，in order to improve the standard of living of the people.
In the past, countries such as Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom have experienced such pollution. Do you remember that London is called fog city?
You can't judge China by the standards of Western developed countries. because the West had lived through such difficult days. Especially the environmental protection technology is a cutting-edge technology that has long been blocked.
You think China is the biggest polluter, but you have not said that China is also the most populous country（1.4billion） in the world. The Chinese add up to the whole of Europe plus North America, plus Japan. Almost equal to the population of developed countries in the world.
I know the famous Swedish girl.
But in China, students support the protection of the environment through tree planting activities organized by the government, schools, and student groups themselves(China has a tree planting festival).Instead of stopping meaningful school learning, take to the streets to protest.
Speech can't change the world.
From the perspective of per-person, China is a low-pollution country, lower than the lowest EU country.
Moreover, China has long dealt with garbage from all over the world for decades, because in developed countries, and they are not willing to deal with it.But China willing to,such polluted garbage can make money,because China is soo poor,and China want to have more trade by helping developed nations deal with garbage .China has now refused to accept the garbage, so the problem of garbage is difficult to deal with in EU and US, now the garbage disposal has turned to Indonesia and Vietnam or maybe India.
The pollution in China is changing. This is obvious to all. As a person who has traveled all over China, the areas that were once heavily polluted have indeed changed.
But indeed, what you say is very important, the environment often requires people to sacrifice.But most people in China may not want to sacrifice for this because of poverty.
For example, a heavy industry enterprise may have jobs of tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of people. Many developed countries are reluctant to have these companies, so they have entered China.They certainly know that pollution is serious, but China does need it (it seems to be a kind of deception, but it is also a deal.)
so if they want to feed their kids,the government have to keep the enterprise exist. Or hundreds of millions of workers will have no source of income.
The rest of the developed countries are cutting-edge technology industries, which are relatively less polluting in these areas, but it still shows that the EU and Americans are several times more pollutants than the Chinese.
The same problem is that India has brought about great pollution and disease problems. So when you accuse the Chinese government, the Chinese look to their neighbors, Vietnam and India, and thank God. Im not accusing China, im pointing out fact. And as you mention China is not the only one doing it, they just are the one most talked about because they are the biggest and have the most economic power. You are also right that they are at a different stage than the West, the hope is that rather than follow the mistakes they would learn from them and do something different. The point that really frustrates me is that the "need" to do this to feed their people. I call bullshit, not now, now they have a lot of billionaires, how about instead of making the relative few rich off the environment and backs of the poor through cheap labor they spread some of that wealth around? How about instead of vanity projects that are also terrible for the environment, such as the worlds largest bridge, they build proper waste management systems. This is why I get so frustrated when people on the left fall all over themselves to talk about the greatness of China, they are not socialists, have not been for decades. They are a command capitalist economy who cares more about wealth and power for the few than betterment of all their people. They are basically all that is wrong with the west with the added awfulness of being way behind in environmental rules and have all the awful human rights abuses of dictatorships. China can and should do better. Edit: I should add China is not alone in the can and should do better department. Almost every country can and should do better, but the ones with more wealth have no excuse not to be, and the developing countries need to look to the mistakes that countries further along made and not repeat them. It is a global problem that will take a global solution.
I think most of what you said is completely correct.
However, I still want to explain in more detail why it is difficult for China to do better.
First of all, I think most people overestimate the authority of China's central government. In fact, in the history of China as a whole, China's domestic politics is often the entanglement between the central government and local governments. Therefore, after China's reform and opening up, the central government chose to centralize the local finances to the central government in Beijing, so as to improve the ability to control local governments. In fact, even in recent years, local governments and the central government have had a lot of contradictions.
There are two main reasons for that. But I want to talk about the political system in China actually operates.
Although China has different political parties, in fact all political parties are also ruling parties. Although many people think that the Chinese Communist Party has absolute control, it is necessary to explain that scientists,writers, judges, lawyers and high Technical talents（democratic parties）, and other social backbones, often belong to other parties. For example, the Chinese teacher group, the Jiu San Society (a democratic party)has a very large influence.
China’s political system can be divided into the (Communist Party as the main body) the multi-party Coalition government, the political consultation system (including many non-partisan people, businessmen, film workers, etc.), as well as the people’s congress (which is elected by local residents). (From the community to the city, to the provinces, and finally to the country).
So even from the outside world, Chinese politics seems to be very stable, such as a piece of iron. I think the main reason is that in Chinese culture, there is a tradition of maintaining the authority of the central government to ensure the credibility of the government. Usually,the fierce quarrel in the West often does not appear in the Supreme Council (National People's Congress). In fact, some previous meetings(before NPC) often have very intense quarrels.
Therefore, the things presented in the Supreme Council are not actuallyselective, because these policies must be approved by the academic community, the political circles, and the private sector. Otherwise, the meaningless policies will make people lose confidence in the government.
However, there is a counterexample: the Three Gorges Project. This hydropower project has been widely criticized in China, especially in the scientific community, intellectuals (such as teachers, lawyers, the scientific community, etc.). However, the central government still hopes to vigorously promote this project, and there have been many differences in the Chinese Communist Party. At the National People's Congress, the overwhelming majority of people abstained from voting. The rest of the people also had a lot of negative votes, but the project still passed with a slight advantage.
(A very interesting thing is that the ironic article about that appeared in many national-level exams in China，in order to against the Three Gorges Hydropower Project.
This policy has led to a city with a long history(maybe more than 1000years) of being submerged under water, and a large number of residents have been displaced (fortunately, that place is not far from my hometown.So I experienced this incident personally and heard a lot of different opinions. Most local residents are very satisfied with the government subsidies because it is a huge fortune. People in other surrounding areas, although envious of huge subsidies, also criticized the government's policy is not good.).
However, it is hard to believe that the groups supporting the Three Gorges water conservancy project are mainly the industrial groups and most ordinary people.
Because the background of the Three Gorges Project is the lack of large-scale power in China, even though I have settled in Shanghai at the time, schools and residential areas still have more than once（Half a day or more)a week of power outages.
The people are eager to use inexhaustible power. The Three Gorges Project and the subsequent corresponding projects have made China gradually get rid of the lack of power, and now the government is vigorously managing illegal thermal power plants. (pollution exceeds the corresponding standard)
Can the Chinese government do better on this matter? The reality is often cruel and ruthless. They can't at all.
There was no technology to develop solar energy or wind power. Even today, it is unable to meet the huge power needs. China's own nuclear power technology can't support the country's power, and because of the technological blockade of advanced western countries and the Chernobyl accident, all walks of life in China are very cautious about nuclear power development. Thermal power generation has no resources to respond (because China's shortage of oil, most coal-fired power plants use coal, and China's coal often contains too much sulfide, not good coal).
We are returning to the topic just now. We talked about China having a lot of billionaires, but China is a country with an area comparable to that of Europe and a population comparable to all developed countries.
Billionaires are often from the advanced science industry, the real estate industry, and the Internet industry. The places where these rich people were are developed areas of China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.These places have been well managed. For example, the Suzhou River in Shanghai was heavily polluted, but it has now reached a state of non-polluting.
However, in other parts of China with a large population, because of the geographical conditions and education level (and customs), those billionaires are not willing to invest because China has no inheritance tax.
Government officials have to do this based on their promotion and the lives of local people. They have better condition than before. Of course, there are many legal restrictions today, but they also limit their development. However, many poor areas prefer to confront the government to reach the government to issue cash, and are not willing to use the government's infrastructure to work (yes, most people do not have formal jobs, PS. Extremely poor areas). Think about it, how much money the Chinese government has invested in building infrastructure and hope to drive development in remote areas. They have the best roads in the world, the best high-speed rail, the most complete power, the most advanced Internet, and even they can use 4G to play mobile games in the mountains (China has more than half of the world's 4G base stations).
Most areas are not purely for economic reasons. Because in addition to the development of basic industries, they have nothing to develop, no relative education, medical care.
In addition, the Chinese government does hope that these billionaires can help underdeveloped regions, even the Chinese government and state-controlled enterprises have invested huge amounts of money.
But just as Hong Kong is for mainland China. These merchants who tend to be Western capitalism are the guarantee of the vitality of the Chinese market and the interface of opening up to the outside world, because almost all Western advanced countries (including South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India, etc.) refuse to conduct business or activity with companies with official Chinese background. (Of course they are completely correct.)
These rich people are also the main members of the Chinese political consultation system. In other words, the outside world often thinks that the Communist Party’s own Chinese politics,but infcat China politics is actually the overall politics of all industries.
The central government does have considerable authority, but it also means that they can't interfere with the market all the time. If the central government can't stay out of the way(Maintain absolute neutrality and silence)in the vast majority of things, in most cases, the authority of the central government will be greatly Impact.
In addition, the absolute authority of the central government usually means that the central government is constantly making compromises to all walks of life.
So they can't do anything about these rich people, because everything in the rich is legal.
This is also why many people in China are very supportive of President Xi Jinping.
China's rural population of more than 500 million people is a staunch supporter of the Communist Party, and (more than half of the 800 million urban population )ordinary workers are staunch supporters too.
There is only one reason. The Chinese Communist Party is the only group that is willing to use the Constitution to protect them and even fight for their interests.
By this way, the Communist Party of China has absolute leadership over Chinese politics.
But CCP is also a huge organization, and it is equally difficult to achieve unity on most things.(Because they come from different places, from different industries.)
Elites often want to gain higher status and rights in the state system. And Chinese government officials are very special. On the one hand, they are elected by the parliament. On the one hand, because candidates must have corresponding political achievements, there are often only several candidates.
In China, the most important contradiction that needs to be resolved is the mutual restraint between the government, business, academia and the three elite groups.
So sometimes I feel that it is ridiculous to claim that some senior Chinese officials have earned huge amounts of wealth.
Because Chinese government officials are often the top elites in China, they may be able to earn more if they don't become government officials.
This is related to Chinese culture because officials need to be accountable to the government and the people. So many people have difficulty understanding why trump can become the president of the United States. He has not even had a good experience in managing a city.
In China, a provincial-level senior official has more experience and better political performance than the prime minister or president of any member state of the European Union.
The EU officials, in my opinion, are totally incapable of doing any effective measures against the EU.In contrast to officials of the Chinese central government, they are extremely lacking in management experience in a multi-ethnic, multicultural mixed region.
So this is why the Chinese government and government officials have been criticized for a long time, but China is getting better and better in such criticism.
Therefore, in China, many problems are often not economic or political issues. In the end, they are almost all caused by social problems and their own culture（and Geographical environmental factors）.
I think this is a kind of sorrow, because the Chinese are used to this situation and are keen on it. But what is confusing is that it is difficult to prove that there is something wrong with this, except that the feat of individual heroism cannot be accomplished.
But in general, whether China can do it or why.
China should do better and must do better. But for the Chinese, perhaps they are more eager to be under the same conditions as the Western countries, rather than treating China as a whole, and letting a Chinese only gain half of the pollution rights of Westerners.
addition：It's not that the rich in China don't want to contribute to the society, but they prefer to invest money in combating desertification, improving basic education in poor areas, improving the utilization rate of urban resources (such as urban transportation system), and more efficient and intelligent garbage collection and treatment system.
Because it's easy to feel frustrated to improve the economic level of remote areas. And often do not get any effect and return. For businessmen, this is an unacceptable waste.
Therefore, it has to be funded by the government, but the government can only invest in infrastructure construction and education funds (few high-level teacher groups are willing to enter remote areas, including the central and western regions which are not local central cities).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
