Controlled Shrinking of Economies a Better Bet to Slow Climate Change Tha

“Convenience” sells… at a cost.

Now if Marketing can only come up with something that has the Convenience of Disposable yet ride the “Green” wave of Recyclables …

Recyclable Aluminum Cups!

 

So here’s a thought!

Put a “carbon cost” or something like that on every product to show consumers how much different products cost the environment to produce …so to speak.

Appliances have Energy Star ratings

Foods have ingredients and nutrition labels - and that has now become a big marketing gimmick - “only 5 ingredients”

 

haha - just thinking. With all the other “Non-GMO” “Organic” this-Free, that-Free labels and badges our food packaging is going to look like a NASCAR car

It is hard to imagine anybody doing a controlled shrinking of anything. The unproven technologies sound like the better bet despite being unlikely also.

Do you adress me? #345879 wasn’t from me.
Sure, why not? Excuse me, I transposed you and sabolina, guess sometimes you both come across the same way.

I’m curious for all the whacking at branches, ever think about the roots of our problems? That’s why I asked for a little constructive feedback.

#345879


@sabolina. From 345891 -“What do you think “waste” isn’t “consumption”? Please explain?”

Didirus my friend, do you understand what this person is raging about here when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption? I can’t make heads or tails out of this sentence in this context.


Why am I not surprised by that.

How the heck does your comment, “when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption” change anything?

Human waste whatever its excuse for happening, is also consuming resources. Or?

Please let me know if you are still confused. Try to compose a better question next and we can try again.

Citizen my friend the constructive feedback from your exchange is you seem to be making lots of mistakes. And when you ask

“How the heck does your comment, “when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption” change anything?”

 

you have to explain why you think this is so if you want people to understand what are trying to say. What is the problem highlighting surplus goods that capitalism generates on the back of production projection in the neo classical belief of ever increasing consumer spending that ends up as waste ???

 

thank you

Excuse me, I transposed you and sabolina, guess sometimes you both come across the same way. - Citizen
@citizenschallengev3 Figured it. No problem.

 

From 345891 -“What do you think “waste” isn’t “consumption”? Please explain?”

Didirus my friend, do you understand what this person is raging about here when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption? I can’t make heads or tails out of this sentence in this context. -sabolina #345913


@sabolina First of all please don’t ask me what citizen is thinking “raging”-sabo about because we don’t use the same brain. We both have our own. Therefore we phisically donth share thougts. If you want clarification ask him (what you did #345941).

I think you sabolina miss somewath the main point and quarrel about formulating definition.

How the heck does your comment, “when the Amazon point is clearly made of waste generated from predicted future consumption” change anything? Human waste whatever its excuse for happening, is also consuming resources. Or? -citizen

I’m curious for all the whacking at branches, ever think about the roots of our problems? That’s why I asked for a little constructive feedback.-citizen


I think this should be the answer to your question though.

If I understand it correctly: The waste problem where products out of ressources are going to waste without using them which leads to using more ressources than needed. Is not a main contributer to climate change and defenitly not the main cause of problem. “A branche instead of the root” to solve something. Changing this and putting in the end ressources more efficiently to use bevore wasting them is indeed something but not everything.
If you want necessarily one single solution to climate change then you have to include a entire bunch of chages to make. Capitalism alone isn’t it, technology alone isn’t it, transportation…, wasting… etc.

you have to explain why you think this is so if you want people to understand what are trying to say.
The surplus is driven by the profit motive.

I’m talking from a physical point of view, you know extracting the resources, manufacturing - that is consumption.

Do you think consumption is only people buying.

What is the problem highlighting surplus goods that capitalism generates on the back of production projection in the neo classical belief of ever increasing consumer spending that ends up as waste ???
I never said highlighting "the surplus of goods" is a problem.

I simply pointed out that our waste is another aspect of our criminal consumption lust.

“Capitalism generates” I hope you’re including Chinese Communists in your definition, considering what we hear about the empty cities they are building, or the famed all around Communist disregard for “environmental protection practices” and nurturing Earth’s resources, it’s driven by people projecting their desired future. Just like the west driving by advertising/propaganda and expectation manufacturing.

Under it all is our incessant gluttony and our oblivious disregard for appreciating and protecting and nurturing our biosphere and Earth’s other resources. Just like that McAfee fella, driven by self-interest and disregard for responsibility, duty and all those noble things that put us above the animals we feel so superior to.

I’m talking from a physical point of view, you know extracting the resources, manufacturing – that is consumption.
Yes, but unlike other natural consumers, human waste is not returned to the earth as potential fertilizer for new consumption, i.e. renewable resource.

Human waste is often is toxic and harmful to the environment. Example; extracting sequestered CO2 from the earth and sowing it the atmosphere.

Here my friend Citizen in 345961 is an example of confusion you generate with your unprofound word selection - human waste interpreted as alluding to human excrements.

Yes, but unlike other natural consumers, human waste is not returned to the earth as potential fertilizer for new consumption, i.e. renewable resource.-write4u
Not on its own, it has to be recycled.
Human waste is often is toxic and harmful to the environment. Example; extracting sequestered CO2 from the earth and sowing it the atmosphere.-w
True, but "toxic and harmful to the environment" doesn't automatical mean to change the atmospheric composition - climatechange.
Example; extracting sequestered CO2 from the earth and sowing it the atmosphere.-w
This is most specificly the "waste" of carbon based energy propelent. "Normal" carbon based waste despite being "toxic and harmful to the environment" doesn't go directly into the atmosphere by itself. Let's not forget the long chained hydrocarbon chains building up plastic have mainly to be burned in order to be released. This is why the energy propelent which gets burned by use, ends up in atmosphere.
The effect of plastics on global warming is mixed. Plastics are generally made from petroleum. If the plastic is incinerated, it increases carbon emissions; if it is placed in a landfill, it becomes a carbon sink,[120] although biodegradable plastics have caused methane emissions.[121] Due to the lightness of plastic versus glass or metal, plastic may reduce energy consumption. For example, packaging beverages in PET plastic rather than glass or metal is estimated to save 52% in transportation energy.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Climate_change

Yes, but unlike other natural consumers, human waste is not returned to the earth as potential fertilizer for new consumption, i.e. renewable resource.-write4u
Not on its own, it has to be recycled.
Yes but who does the recycling?
Human waste is often is toxic and harmful to the environment. Example; extracting sequestered CO2 from the earth and sowing it the atmosphere.-w
True, but “toxic and harmful to the environment” doesn’t automatical mean to change the atmospheric composition – climatechange.
In the case of CO2, the waste products of our industrial fuels, does alter the atmospheric composition - climate change back 2.7 billion years ago

2.7 billion years ago

Artist’s concept of the early Earth billions of years ago. Micrometeorites from 2.7 billion years ago indicate that Earth’s atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide and less nitrogen than today.Feb 2, 2020

Study suggests early Earth’s atmosphere was rich in carbon …more
https://earthsky.org › earth › earth-ancient-atmosphere-car…

Example; extracting sequestered CO2 from the earth and sowing it the atmosphere.-w
This is most specificly the “waste” of carbon based energy propelent. “Normal” carbon based waste despite being “toxic and harmful to the environment” doesn’t go directly into the atmosphere by itself. Let’s not forget the long chained hydrocarbon chains building up plastic have mainly to be burned in order to be released. This is why the energy propellant which gets burned by use, ends up in atmosphere
You're missing the point that this CO2 is not "normal" at all. Sequestered CO2 (oil, coal) was formed 2.7 billion years from excess CO2, deep in the earth, nature's waste storage sites.

Here we find out this stuff is energy rich and relatively cheap to obtain and very profitable. Damn nature’s wisdom and lets just burn this stuff at unnormally high rates while cutting down the forests who were responsible for sequestering the CO2 in the first place.

Feast your eyes on this : ENERGY

107,766,412 Energy used today (MWh), of which:
91,736,855- from non-renewable sources (MWh) !!!
16,228,682- from renewable sources (MWh) ???

675,269,694,779 Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh) !!!

22,102,867 Oil pumped today (barrels)
1,469,854,230,128 Oil left (barrels)
15,329 Days to the end of oil (~42 years)

1,088,208,446,620 Natural Gas left (boe)
57,274 Days to the end of natural gas

4,304,827,445,747 Coal left (boe)
148,442 Days to the end of coal

Anyone who believes these statistic are a reassurance that we will not run out of non-renewable resources is completely misunderstanding the situation. All it means that there is this much left to reintroduce once sequesterd CO2 back into the atmosphere and returning the atmospheric clock back 2.7 billion years.

Noticed the climate forecast for this year?

Yes but who does the recycling? -write4u

In the case of CO2, the waste products of our industrial fuels, does alter the atmospheric composition – climate change back 2.7 billion years ago -write4u

You’re missing the point that this CO2 is not “normal” at all. Sequestered CO2 (oil, coal) was formed 2.7 billion years from excess CO2, deep in the earth, nature’s waste storage sites. -write4yu


We’re talking about two different kind of wastes “waste of carbon based energy propelent(fuel)" (exhaust gases) and “Normal carbon based waste" (the usual garbage made of plastic, carbon based waste in solid form). Thats what products end like unless resycled(by humans eventually). In order to be able to affect the atmosphere composition the waste has to be gaseous. Because the atmosphere is also gaseous. Manufactured solid plastic-products and gas don’t mixing very well.

The gaseous waste (exhaust gases) from carbon-based fuel do indeed change the atmospheric composition, therefore resulting inclimate-change.

 

Here my friend Citizen in 345961 is an example of confusion you generate with your unprofound word selection – human waste interpreted as alluding to human excrements.
I think it's the other way around, you strive for the confusion. This thread is about Shrinking Economies, and wasteful living. If I had mean human excrements, I'd a written excrement, or more likely good ol, poop.

Going though the thread several others also use waste as, well wastage, squandering.

As for the thread itself, it’s devolved into a ball of confusion.

If anyone could clearly explain what’s actually being discussed it would be helpful.

 

Incidentally,

Plastic breakdown products, are being consumed by animals, but they offer no energy, or nutrients to living creatures, only filler. Think it through. This tidbit should not be left out of any discussion about Earth and plastics and the future.

No. I think I am right in the fact that people have interpreted your injection of the term human waste into this as crap.

 

yes, use of resources only for wasteful outcomes. The resources used to make commodities that we will buy with the money that we don’t have, for the things we don’t need, to impress the friends we don’t have. Waste.

 

I wonder if any one here will accept real change that climate action calls for by embracing the activism of XR or the lifestyle change of veganism or the ideology of socialism and communism?

 

thank you

No. I think I am right in the fact that people have interpreted your injection of the term human waste into this as crap.
There you go again speaking for others, of which I must be a minority in your mind (for which I am happy)

 

 

 

… my friend

 

My friend , not speaking for anyone. Why would you say this? It’s an observation. It wasn’t me that interpreted human waste as meaning human excrement in this thread.

 

thank you.

Plastic breakdown products, are being consumed by animals, but they offer no energy, or nutrients to living creatures, only filler. Think it through. This tidbit should not be left out of any discussion about Earth and plastics and the future.
Yes, and the plastic that does not get broken down gets also eaten by animals, but then it just kills them, by clogging their digestive tract.

 

The recent heat wave in north of northern continent shows that something is really happening. Records are routinely broken and not by a little margin.

And we squabble about the way god must be prayen to and about the way women should or should not dress up.

The French Council of State, the highest administrative court, has ordered the French State to take the necessary measures to respect the commitments made in terms of carbon emissions in international agreements.

 

I say it’s Climate Change happening.

And once again

I wonder if any one here will accept real change that climate action calls for by embracing the activism of XR or the lifestyle change of veganism or the ideology of socialism and communism?

 

thank you