Stinky tap water

[DivineMadman]

1.  Technically it's not an actual government ban.  It's a voluntary agreement among most of the large grocery chains and mall groups and convenience stores to stop giving away single-use plastic bags for free.  Bangkok Post. Maybe there's not much of a difference, except street food vendors and independent mom-and-pop stores aren't covered.   I suppose the government may make the current voluntary agreement law.  

2.  Most of the stores have been selling inexpensive re-usable bags for a while.  Tops, where I shop (hehehe) have been having no-plastic-bag days a few days a month leading up to this and there have been constant announcements about it, usually blaming it on "government policy."  

3.  I'm pretty sure I heard an announcement at Tops that if you wanted the usual a plastic bag the cost would be 1 baht, which they would donate to hospital or something like that.  I haven't observed anyone insisting on plastic, so I don't know how difficult it is get them actually to hand over a plastic bag under from lock-and-key.  Bangkok Post says some stores are offering paper bags instead of plastic.  

 

[anddy]

From stinky (for me non-existent) tap water to plastic bags lol. A comment on that too, from a personal perspective:

I fully agree that plastic bag use is out of control especially in Thailand. The ban on supermarket plastic bags however makes no sense at all FOR MY PERSONAL plastic-life. I have always used those very plastic bags as trash bags. Now, in their absence, I will be forced to purchase plastic trash bags specifically made for the purpose to land in the trash. That is rather ironic to me. The good old supermarket, so-called single-use bag actually had a double use for me. First to carry home my groceries, second as trash bag. Now the trash bags will be truly single use. 

[vinapu]

40 minutes ago, anddy said:

 First to carry home my groceries, second as trash bag. Now the trash bags will be truly single use. 

chances are  we do  more grocery and other shopping than produce  bags full of trash. 

Where I live they sell   apparently     biodegradable trash can bags.  Chance  are they may arrive to Thailand illustrious shores at one point as well.

But you made valid point, plastic bags at the same time polluted our cities and helped to keep them relatively clean and stink-free

[DivineMadman]

4 hours ago, anddy said:

From stinky (for me non-existent) tap water to plastic bags lol. A comment on that too, from a personal perspective:

I fully agree that plastic bag use is out of control especially in Thailand. The ban on supermarket plastic bags however makes no sense at all FOR MY PERSONAL plastic-life. I have always used those very plastic bags as trash bags. Now, in their absence, I will be forced to purchase plastic trash bags specifically made for the purpose to land in the trash. That is rather ironic to me. The good old supermarket, so-called single-use bag actually had a double use for me. First to carry home my groceries, second as trash bag. Now the trash bags will be truly single use. 

Same for me.  But I often ended with extra bags.

I do buy the biodegradable trash bags but I think (but am not sure) they only degrade very very very slowly in landfills.

One reason we got rid of single-use plastic bags where I live in the U.S. is that they don't recycle well.  They gum up the regular plastic recycling machines and have to be separated and burned.  So it might be that consumers will end up using net-net the same number of plastic bags for trash (ideally biodegradable) and the savings is from the "extra" bags.

[spoon]

Malaysia have been implementing this for a while now, and most people here when needed, just pay the rm0.20 charges for the plastic. But i can also see increasing numbers of people who dont take plastic bags if they only buy few items, and even saw some that bring their own reusable bag to shop. And most big stores have switch to the more expensive biodegradable plastic bag too, since we are paying for it, they dont mind switching. Some restaurant and food court even gives discount if you bribg your own container, and the latest effort by government is to ban single used plastic straws. Some place just completely dont give out straws anymore, while some upscale restaurant gave out paper/bamboo straws. Also can see some peoplr carry with them metal straws. 

Whatever government policy in place, its the people habits thats need to be changed. Gov policy can behave as a push, but in the end, there is always ways to broke the rule. 

[vinapu]

30 minutes ago, spoon said:

Whatever government policy in place, its the people habits that's need to be changed. 

often it may be easier that we think. Big drugstore across the street from me  implemented very novel revolutionary idea, instead of charging for the bags they are still giving them for free but not before they ask ' do you need any bag". In the beginning it did not work much  but now it seems from my casual observation perhaps one in 4 or 5 shoppers takes it.

As a bonus it's not unusual that person in question  feels need to explain to the next person " I'm sorry I forgot mine" or something to that effect 

[spoon]

38 minutes ago, vinapu said:

often it may be easier that we think. Big drugstore across the street from me  implemented very novel revolutionary idea, instead of charging for the bags they are still giving them for free but not before they ask ' do you need any bag". In the beginning it did not work much  but now it seems from my casual observation perhaps one in 4 or 5 shoppers takes it.

I think most of the time when im in 7e in both silom and pattaya, they always asked me, usually in thai, if i need a bag or not. Malaysia started with no bags saturdays before they implement countrywide ban. Nowadays, u can have things delivered to your doorstep, and they always use a box to put your stuff in, so itll probably better for the environment as a whole, less trips to the market, and delivery lumped all orders nearby in one trip usually.

[anddy]

6 hours ago, DivineMadman said:

Same for me.  But I often ended with extra bags.

I do buy the biodegradable trash bags but I think (but am not sure) they only degrade very very very slowly in landfills.

One reason we got rid of single-use plastic bags where I live in the U.S. is that they don't recycle well.  They gum up the regular plastic recycling machines and have to be separated and burned.  So it might be that consumers will end up using net-net the same number of plastic bags for trash (ideally biodegradable) and the savings is from the "extra" bags.

actually I wouldn't bother with biodegradable trash bags. As you say, they (hopefully) end up in a landfill and it doesn't really matter if the degrade or not in that endless sea of trash there, plastic and otherwise. The real problem with the much-lamented plastic trash is not the plastic, and the single use supermarket bag (even less so the humble plastic straw, which has attracted an overblown and unproportionate hype), itself, but trash collection and management. In Europe everything is clean and tidy, but the less developed a country is, the less they will have proper trash collection and disposal in landfills (or burning). PLUS a gross lack of education about these issues means people in such countries simply don't care if there is trash all around them. I was shocked to see trash everywhere when traveling to Sulawesi some years ago. THAT is the problem, not the plastic itself. Of course, in the absence of trash collection and education, less plastic also helps to reduce the problem. But it attempts to cure the symptom more than the cause, and unless collection and education are improved the problem will remain.

[a447a]

DivineMadman wrote:

"So you're saying that people who advocate for climate change CAN NEVER BE IN THE PRESENCE OF PLASTIC BOTTLES."

Yes - if they tell us they are passionate about the environment and alternatives are available. They are supposed to be setting the example, afterall. Glass is 100% recyclable. She (or rather, her parents because I don't really blame her for any of this) is no better than those vegans wearing leather shoes. Their excuse was that they bought them before they became vegans and they didn't want to throw them away!  She insisted on sailing, not flying, but presumably did not insist that no plastic be brought aboard.

It's a bit like those school kids who went on strike every Friday. After the strike mum probably picked them up in her petrol driven car and they immediately reached for their phones. Those phones are charged using electricity produced mainly from coal-powered plants. They don't seem to have a problem with that and are apparently not willing to give up their phones to save the environment they are seemingly so passionate about.

"The point is to minimize the use when possible"

"when possible" is the important expression here. Do you really think those "woke" ( how I hate that word!) kids only use their devices in an emergency? That they don't go on instagram, Facebook etc and do not play video games? 

Commitment to a cause requires sacrifices and those kids who refuse to give up their devices should remain quiet.

"Do you know for a fact that she or her team didn't do anything to offset the carbon costs? "

No, I don't but if they did I think we would have heard about it well and truly by now. 

"I bet sometimes she may sit in the car with the engine running."

I would have thought that she would show her commitment to the environment by driving an electric vehicle. Then she could keep the engine running all day long.

Oh, and let's not forget her attempt at deception when she posted that staged photo of herself sitting on the floor of the train, glancing wistfully into the distance. A sad young girl all alone of a train in a foreign country. Poor Greta.

But unfortunately for her the facts soon came out. She deliberately omitted to mention that she had been given a seat in first class where her entourage were already sitting. Oops!

And what about all that luggage just for one person? Goodness knows how much water and detergent would be needed to wash all those clothes! 

She has recently admitted that despite her activism she had achieved nothing. But I disagree. She has managed to scare the shit out of countless young people with her unscientific assertion that the world as we know it will end and there will be a mass extinction of specues - all this in as little as 15 years. This is untrue.

How dare she!

[DivineMadman]

We seem to to have veered off the rails into something about those darn kids and their smartphones and, I guess, vegans.  The world is full of frauds, I guess.  A planet of disappointing people.  Sad indeed.  

I'll just repeat that I don't think climate change activists of any age need to live off-the-grid wearing homespun clothes and cooking with methane made from their own waste, which apparently is the new standard that she or any other environment activist has to meet.  Because the cycle of criticism "I can imagine a more eco-friendly alternative" can go on and on.  Did Greta wear a winter jacket with a polypropylene shell?  Unbelievable!  Does Bill Nye (the Science Guy - scientist, TV personality and activist in the U.S.) drive a car when he should only be riding a bicycle?  Fraud!   The Dalai Lama (another advocate for climate change) flies in jets all over the world and eats meat!  Shame!

How can any green politician actually get elected If - and this seems bonkers to me - he or she can't have a phone or apparently use the internet, because ...  electricity??  

I'm not saying anyone has to like Greta.  I find her tone off-putting and like most zealots and all 15-17 years olds, rather tedious.  But I certainly don't hate her.  I would never give her that power over me.  And I still can respect what she's done to keep climate change in the fore and I hope she keeps at it.  

I take some comfort that maybe I'm not alone in my views and the folks at Time Magazine who thought long and hard about it decided that she's not the horrible creature it seems some people want to say she is.  Once again, just worth maybe meditating for a moment or two on the fact that Time Magazine did recognize her for who she is and what she's done, warts and all, real world and all.  And so do a lot of other people.  Maybe that's just a bit of sanity check?

I think "breathtaking hypocrisy" is a vocal anti-gay minister or politician who is hitting up Grindr at night for gay hookups.  Greta and all the other environmental activists young and old out protesting for climate change but still using their smartphones, maybe occasionally being in the presence of a plastic bottle (!), etc., etc., aren't anything like real hypocrites.

[reader]

I don't think Greta is a running for Miss Congeniality. She wants to scare the shit of us in the same way Act Up activists sought to do 30+ years ago when young men were dying of AIDS in alarming numbers. They didn't want us to like them but they did want  us to listen. To their everlasting credit, many did.

The messenger isn't the problem. History repeatedly reminds us that it was our reluctance to hear the message.

The headlines in the media are frequently dominated by people demonstrating for one cause or another. Whether it's the cost of healthcare, threats to the environment, lack of political freedom or human rights, nuclear proliferation or a myriad of other issues, it's always easier to defend the status quo than to give their arguments their do.

Speaking truth to power is rarely a risk-free activity. It invariably makes the comfortable uncomfortable. 

 

 

[a447a]

Quote

We seem to to have veered off the rails into something about those darn kids and their smartphones and, I guess, vegans

No, we are still well and truly on the rails, as it is those "darn kids" who are following her and it is to them that she is appealing to take action against climate change. They are an intrinsic part of the Greta Thunberg story.

As for vegans, I couldn't care less what people eat  - that's none of my business. It only becomes my business when they storm into a BBQ restaurant and harangue customers, all the while happily parading around in leather Doc Martens.

And I don't think people should go back to basics, spinning their own yarn to make clothes or growing all their own food. That would be impractical -as impractical as say, travelling abroad by boat rather than flying would be.

I'm also not saying they can't use their phones at all. I'm simply saying that if they want to use them for entertainment, please stop talking about the need to save the environment, as by using your phone for such purposes you are adding to greenhouse gases. Make up your mind. Stuck to your principles and if you find that to hard, then stop preaching and telling others how to live their lives. It should never be a case of "do as I say, not as I do."

As for hating Greta, again I couldn't care less about her. I couldn't possibly hate someone I don't know and who I'll never get to meet. She is, and will always be, a total stranger. I do hate the hypocrisy of some activists, like Greta (or her minders) but it's nothing personal.

As for Greta being voted Time's Person of the Year and that magazine deciding "she is not the horrible creature it seems some people want to say she is", they also voted Hitler Person of the Year. The award has nothing at all to do with the winner 's perceived virtue; it recognises the influence, good or bad,  that person has had on others.

I'm just saying that I hate the blatant hypocrisy and the dishonesty her minders have demonstrated. I think that staged photo on the German train did a lot to dent her credibility.

Guys, we are never going to agree on Greta, so let's just agree to disagree. 

But thank god we can have a civilised discussion here without descending into nasty insults.

 

[reader]

Yes, agreed.  But increasing the size of your font doesn't make your argument any more persuasive.

[a447a]

The font size is determined by the Note app on my ipad.

I just copied and pasted.

But I prefer the larger font anyway. It's easier to see when I can't be bothered going to look good my glasses.

[DivineMadman]

10 hours ago, a447a said:

I'm also not saying they can't use their phones at all. I'm simply saying that if they want to use them for entertainment, please stop talking about the need to save the environment, as by using your phone for such purposes you are adding to greenhouse gases. Make up your mind. Stuck to your principles and if you find that to hard, then stop preaching and telling others how to live their lives. It should never be a case of "do as I say, not as I do."

If this is true for young people then it has to be true for people of any age.  Including, of course, the readers of this forum.  Everyone should turn off his computer right now.  

I think it's silly to say that anyone who wants to talk about the need to save the environment has to stop using his or her phones for entertainment - again, if it's true for young people it's true for all.  And if it's true for phones, then it's true for everything else that's using electricity or, manufactured, as phones are.  No more TV.  No more movies.  No more Hornet app.  "No more fun of any kind" as Dean Wormer said in Animal House.  

I think the climate change activists are pointing out that there are very big policy decisions that governments need to make at the macro level.  And with climate change deniers in power, they are saying "Wake up people!  This shit is serious.!"  These important decisions need activists - young and old - to energize and inform the electorate in democracies.  So at this level, the environmental activists are not saying give up your toys.  They are saying, for example, yes, we need electricity, but lets develop renewable resources.  Let's regulate greenhouse emissions. Etc.  So, at the macro level, there's no hypocrisy and no "do as I say, not as I do."  They're talking about big boy policy decisions.

At the micro down-to-earth, level, what the activists are saying is all of us individuals can "do better." Recycle your plastics.  Be aware of the carbon cost of that airplane flight.  Etc.  But you can still live in the world.  They are not saying that every single aspect of someone's life has to be measured by "it is absolutely essential that you use that dollop of electricity," and "you can never be photographed near plastic." So if they didn't actually say that, then we can't really accuse them of "do as I say, not as I do."

And it is wrong to put those words in their mouths.  Human beings with brains that can think and process and draw reasonable standards that don't end up with people having to sit in the dark at night.  (Remember - lights at night = greenhouse gases so have to be turned off if they meet the [silly] new test for activists.  The "absurd" in reductio ad absurdam.)  Societies do that all the time.

There's a reasonable point where environmental activists young and old can still live in the world while still consuming electricity and things, even for entertainment.  That's all anyone is saying.  People don't have to live off the grid.  Just try to do their best on the grid.  

I truly cannot think of any globally-known environmental activist who could possibly meet the new tests that are being proposed here to judge our new generation of activists.  Hmmmmm.  I can't think of any U.S. environmental activists who possibly meet the new tests that are being proposed.   

Dalai Lama.  Massive carbon footprint.  Frequent flier with entourage.   Now he has to be silent on climate change?  Pope Francis - the same.  Silencing him now are we?  All the scientists who are endlessly fighting to raise awareness.  I guess we're silencing them now also because they fly instead of taking a train, watch TV at night, check Facebook on their phones, go to conferences where there might be water in plastic bottle.  

A young (or old) person can do his or her activist stuff and still use a phone, go to a movie, etc.. all without being accused of being a hypocrite.  And the problem if he or she checks TikTok on the phone, goes to a movie, etc., isn't that he or she does that, it's with the attempts to shame them and silence them for doing what is perfectly reasonable and consistent with what they are saying.  

10 hours ago, a447a said:

As for Greta being voted Time's Person of the Year and that magazine deciding "she is not the horrible creature it seems some people want to say she is", they also voted Hitler Person of the Year. The award has nothing at all to do with the winner 's perceived virtue; it recognises the influence, good or bad,  that person has had on others.

Yes, but the actual words they use do make it clear, beyond any doubt, that they do not share the opinion that she's a hypocrite.  So my point still stands.

[reader]

NOTE -- He's not a household name, politician or celebrity, but when Larry Fink talks world leaders and investors listen. With nearly seven trillion dollars under management, Larry Fink heads up the world's largest investment house. In this interview he predicts a major shift in investment capital allocation in response to one of the most significant events in his 40 years of money management: climate change.

Extracted from CNBC

Climate crisis is about to trigger ‘a fundamental reshaping of finance’

• In an annual letter to CEOs published Tuesday, BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink said: “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.
• “But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance,” he added.
• BlackRock’s assets under management totaled almost $7 trillion in the third quarter of 2019.

The chief of the world’s largest money manager believes the intensifying climate crisis will bring about a fundamental reshaping of finance, with a significant reallocation of capital set to take place “sooner than most anticipate.”

In an annual letter to CEOs published Tuesday, BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink said: “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects … But awareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

Fink’s comments come as business leaders, policymakers and investors prepare to travel to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum next week.

The theme at this year’s January get-together, which is often criticized for being out of touch with the real world, has been designated as “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.”

“Climate change is almost invariably the top issue that clients around the world raise with BlackRock. From Europe to Australia, South America to China, Florida to Oregon, investors are asking how they should modify their portfolios,” Fink continued.

“And because capital markets pull future risk forward, we will see changes in capital allocation more quickly than we see changes to the climate itself.”

“In the near future — and sooner than most anticipate — there will be a significant reallocation of capital,” he added.

Alongside 20 other young climate activists, Sweden’s Greta Thunberg has called on all of those attending the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Alps to stop the “madness” of ongoing investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction and “completely divest” from fossil fuels.

In an op-ed for The Guardian, published Friday, Thunberg — who was catapulted to fame for skipping school every Friday to hold a weekly vigil outside Swedish parliament in 2018 — said global leaders must also “end all fossil fuel subsidies.”

“Over the 40 years of my career in finance, I have witnessed a number of financial crises and challenges — the inflation spikes of the 1970s and early 1980s, the Asian currency crisis in 1997, the dot-com bubble, and the global financial crisis,” BlackRock’s Fink said.

“Even when these episodes lasted for many years, they were all, in the broad scheme of things, short-term in nature. Climate change is different.”

“Even if only a fraction of the projected impacts is realized, this is a much more structural, long-term crisis. Companies, investors, and governments must prepare for a significant reallocation of capital,” he added.

Continues with video

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/14/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-says-climate-change-will-soon-reshape-markets.html

[a447a]

"If this is true for young people then it has to be true for people of any age.  Including, of course, the readers of this forum.  Everyone should turn off his computer right now."

No, not at all. Only if they decide to preach to us. Surely they then have an obligation to act in such a way as to remain true to their convictions. But of course that's way too difficult for most  - phones/computers etc are not just used for vital information; they are also a great source of entertainment  - so if you can't make that sacrifice, then don't. Up to you. But please, stop telling me that I should make certain sacrifices when you grant yourself an exemption. That's all I'm saying.

"if it's true for young people it's true for all."

No, it's only true for those who are preaching to us. Others can do what they want. And I don't see what age has to do with it.

I'm not suggesting people go back to the stone age. We agreed, I thought, that "when possible" was the standard.

"Dalai Lama.  Massive carbon footprint.  Frequent flier with entourage.   Now he has to be silent on climate change?  Pope Francis - the same.  Silencing him now are we?  All the scientists who are endlessly fighting to raise awareness."

As I have already said, travelling across the ocean by yacht is impractical. It goes straight back to  "when possible". It's not possible.

"...go to conferences where there might be water in plastic bottle."

If they are attending a conference on climate change then I wouldn't expect to see plastic bottles! 

I leave a very heavy carbon footorint as I've been flying since I was a very young child. And I've just returned from an overseas trip. So I wouldn't dream of getting on my high horse and telling someone they shouldn't fly.

By your reasoning, a vegan activist who fiercely criticises people for eating meat could, theoretically, drop into McDonald's for a hamburger if there were no other restaurant open. I would have thought the honest thing to do would be to go hungry for a while to remain faithful to his/her ideals. If that's too difficult then grab a burger but quit preaching.

Our disagreement on this issue seems to revolve around just how strictly activists should stick to their principles and reflect their beliefs in their behaviour. I set the bar very high and think that the louder someone protests the bigger sacrifice they should be willing to make.

[DivineMadman]

45 minutes ago, a447a said:

"If this is true for young people then it has to be true for people of any age.  Including, of course, the readers of this forum.  Everyone should turn off his computer right now."

No, not at all. Only if they decide to preach to us. Surely they then have an obligation to act in such a way as to remain true to their convictions. But of course that's way too difficult for most  - phones/computers etc are not just used for vital information; they are also a great source of entertainment  - so if you can't make that sacrifice, then don't. Up to you. But please, stop telling me that I should make certain sacrifices when you grant yourself an exemption. That's all I'm saying.

I think the key issue (sticking point) is that I don't think climate change activists are saying that we need to give up smartphones or internet or TV for entertainment.  And I don't think is a logical necessity that any climate change advocate must in his or heart take that position or they're being inconsistent/hypocrites.  

Even if sorting recyclables, no more grocery store plastic bags (or whatever) is a "sacrifice", there is simply no logic or fairness to say that by extension those activists have to make some new additional "sacrifices" that we can come up with that they aren't even advocating.  

So I don't think they're granting themselves an exemption from anything they're actually saying.  And we shouldn't put other words in their mouths and then ding them.  

1 hour ago, a447a said:

I'm not suggesting people go back to the stone age. We agreed, I thought, that "when possible" was the standard.

"Dalai Lama.  Massive carbon footprint.  Frequent flier with entourage.   Now he has to be silent on climate change?  Pope Francis - the same.  Silencing him now are we?  All the scientists who are endlessly fighting to raise awareness."

As I have already said, travelling across the ocean by yacht is impractical. It goes straight back to  "when possible". It's not possible.

As I understand it, little Greta made a promise not to fly.  So when faced with the problem of how to get to the UN, she could have flown - in which case she would have (1) broken a promise and (2) flown in an airplane, each of which would have opened her up to virulent attacks by the haters, plus breaking her promise to herself, or she could go by boat (on a vessel equipped with solar panels to reduce fuel use).  There were absolutely carbon costs to that.  Even incremental carbon costs over flying.  Were those incremental costs outweighed by the extra attention she got for the cause?  Personally, I think so.  Conde Nast Traveler or some similar magazine in it's "2020 Travel Trends" included lower carbon-cost travel, and they cited Greta's sail.  Plus of course there was all that attention for the cause her speech got at the U.N.  So maybe she did get that little bit of incremental awareness for the issue so the costs were outweighed by the benefits.  I think the grown-up real-world adult test for the deicison.  And - by the way - I did some research and, sure enough, the yacht team manager for the trip did state that the carbon costs for the captain' and crew's flights would be offset to keep the voyage carbon neutral.  

So I don't think Greta's sail across the ocean was all that bad.  It was made with carbon costs very much in mind.  At best we can say reasonable minds might differ on the cost/benefit analysis.  That doesn't quite rise to the level criticism she's been subject to.    

1 hour ago, a447a said:

"...go to conferences where there might be water in plastic bottle."

If they are attending a conference on climate change then I wouldn't expect to see plastic bottles! 

But you never know.  My point was that in the real world these situations happen,  we can't just assume them away.  The simple point is that there might a plastic bottle there.   If there is, it doesn't make those attending hypocrites.  Same same Greta.  Obviously an absurd criticism.  Real world situations happen.  

1 hour ago, a447a said:

By your reasoning, a vegan activist who fiercely criticises people for eating meat could, theoretically, drop into McDonald's for a hamburger if there were no other restaurant open. I would have thought the honest thing to do would be to go hungry for a while to remain faithful to his/her ideals. If that's too difficult then grab a burger but quit preaching.

Actually, I don't think I'm saying that at all (no surprise  ).  "Vegan eating meat" does not equal "climate change activist playing Angry Birds on smartphone."  You can still be an advocate for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and developing renewable energy resources and play on the internet, etc.  It's the difference between "reduce" and "minimize".  All people are saying is we should all take reasonable steps to reduce carbon footprints.  No one is saying the each of us must take whatever steps necessary to minimize carbon footprint.  There's a big difference between the two.  Being a vegan and sitting down to a big steak is entirely inconsistent.  

2 hours ago, a447a said:

Our disagreement on this issue seems to revolve around just how strictly activists should stick to their principles and reflect their beliefs in their behaviour. I set the bar very high and think that the louder someone protests the bigger sacrifice they should be willing to make.

But I see a trap that now any really vocal well-know advocate has to make "sacrifices" that they are not even advocating for anyone.  And - and I think this is this the big difference, I think one can be a true believer and use electricity for entertainment. (etc.)   

I see a very famous vocal climate change advocate roughly my age like Bill Nye and I have respect and he inspires me to do better.  And I don't expect him to give up his smartphone or the internet.  I see young people advocating for climate change and I am delighted and inspired.  And I don't expect them to give their smartphones at night.  I think it's unnecessary.  They're not being hypocrites and we should be encouraging them.

***

At a time when in the U.S. you can't criticize the killing of a foreign government official in a third country's territory without being accused of loving and supporting terrorists, it is fun to have a good old fashioned discussion.  Thanks!

[a447a]

I think we have covered this topic pretty comprehensively and our views are well known to each other. 

I love to exchange ideas with people and I'm aware that we can't always agree 100% with one another.  That's life.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it with you.

[10tazione]

biodegradable bags:
Does it make any difference if a bag is biodegradable or not, when it ends up getting burned (and I guess that will most likely happen)?