Greta Thunberg

Rofflay said:
But people saying plastic is better than glass due to the carbon have it all wrong glass is 100% reusable all the time you simply melt and recycle. Now tell me what fumes and pollution etc are given from plastic recycling? It would not surprise me also of there was a big pro plastic lobbying group trying to convince us all that plastic still should be used over glass, When it should be banned in consumer products.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that "Plastic is better then glass"

I am saying that if your only obsession is CO2's, then plastic is better than glass. A very different thing altogether.

For my part, of the top ten things that we should be worried about as regards mankind's adverse impact on the planet and its ecosystems. CO2's probably isn't even on the list.

So yes, for my part I think we should revert to using more glass. But doing so will likely hammer the CO2's figures. So the Greta of this world will get in a strop about it.

The way I see it, glass jars/bottles should be standardised and not producer specific. so that any glass container can be re-used by any manufacturer.

Also, many of the transport issues would be mitigated if we went back to doorstep deliveries for not only liquids like Milk, but also other goods supplied in glass

(IE the Milkman becomes rather more than just a Milkman)

The electric floats (A very good use of EV tech, unlike most others) would make the deliveries and return the empties as a single trip.

But, of course (Like many green things) this would cost more, and in some ways be less convenient.

And for it to really work well it would have to be a national program with a fair old deal of centralised planning involved. which a lot of people would not like, as a matter of principle.
 
Orionaut said:
I am not saying that "Plastic is better then glass"

I am saying that if your only obsession is CO2's, then plastic is better than glass. A very different thing altogether.

For my part, of the top ten things that we should be worried about as regards mankind's adverse impact on the planet and its ecosystems. CO2's probably isn't even on the list.

So yes, for my part I think we should revert to using more glass. But doing so will likely hammer the CO2's figures. So the Greta of this world will get in a strop about it.

The way I see it, glass jars/bottles should be standardised and not producer specific. so that any glass container can be re-used by any manufacturer.

Also, many of the transport issues would be mitigated if we went back to doorstep deliveries for not only liquids like Milk, but also other goods supplied in glass

(IE the Milkman becomes rather more than just a Milkman)

The electric floats (A very good use of EV tech, unlike most others) would make the deliveries and return the empties as a single trip.

But, of course (Like many green things) this would cost more, and in some ways be less convenient.

And for it to really work well it would have to be a national program with a fair old deal of centralised planning involved. which a lot of people would not like, as a matter of principle.
Click to expand...

Agreed but why have they not taken action? Big retail and lobbyism is the reason if the product you sell has a lot of plastic it is best you use some profits to convince the Goverment of the financial loss.

Maybe a top consultancy job after being a minster would sweeten the deal, Thats how it works and why it is and why were too late. They need to ban minsters taking jobs related to groups they had influence and control over in politics and start banning dumb plastics.


Even things as small as a plastic pepper grinder or a plastic coke bottle does my head in, The old glass coke tasted better and if you can not grind your own pepper without the use of plastics then you should not exist, Existing like we do is a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Profits. Large changes mean costs (and less profits). Inertia. Greed.

All of the above.

e: Also shareholders/CEOs. How many shareholders are going to approve of a decision that sees growth take a hit, share price take a hit, in order to be more environmentally friendly?
 
FoxEye said:
Profits. Large changes mean costs (and less profits). Inertia. Greed.

All of the above.

e: Also shareholders/CEOs. How many shareholders are going to approve of a decision that sees growth take a hit, share price take a hit, in order to be more environmentally friendly?
Click to expand...

What annoys me is i love coke, And i buy cans for A taste and B to deny plastic sales. But glass would be so much more superior in taste and i see also about aluminum causing issues too. This should go for all drinks but they say Alunimum in cans causes health issues. So theres three reasons taste, Health and Enviroment on one silly example.


But they refuse to do it... It would make a difference if there was a localized method of glass melting and the localized factory being sent these pure blocks of recycled glass. Plus theres a few jobs to offset the job loss from plastic.
 
Rofflay said:
Agreed but why have they not taken action? Big retail and lobbyism is the reason if the product you sell has a lot of plastic it is best you use some profits to convince the Goverment of the financial loss.

Maybe a top consultancy job after being a minster would sweeten the deal, Thats how it works and why it is and why were too late. They need to ban minsters taking jobs related to groups they had influence and control over in politics and start banning dumb plastics.


Even things as small as a plastic pepper grinder or a plastic coke bottle does my head in, The old glass coke tasted better and if you can not grind your own pepper without the use of plastics then you should not exist, Existing like we do is a disaster.
Click to expand...


It called tragedy of the commons and unfortunately it is actually a very complex problem. (As the Wiki article points out)

Without a degree of "Planned economy" that might actually prove impossible in a modern democratic society, the necessary changes will be very difficult to make.

No individual corporation is going to make the first move because of the risk that the competitive disadvantage of doing so will put them out of business altogether.
 
Angilion said:
Drink cans (and probably other cans) are lined with plastic. Plastic is such an astonishingly useful thing that it's used in almost everything.
Click to expand...


And this is another problem, Aluminium is a wonderful material for recycling. It only takes a fraction of the energy required in its initial creation to melt it down and use it again.

In many ways, it is the next best thing to reusable glass.

But it often has to be lined for food use!

And I cant see how one might get round that without using plastic.

The only consolation is that recycled aluminium food containers would have the plastic liners burned off during the process and therefore it would be rendered harmless. I could live with that.

(IE Not saying NO plastic use, just that plastics should not end up ultimately in the wider environment)
 
jpaul said:
yes - that's what I thought, he implied .. but, listen, he was suggesting a bounty to feed the world ! (... maybe with krill)
Click to expand...

Yes...if we don't poison the sea and we fish in a sustainable manner, there should be more than enough food to feed the Worlds growing population.
 
Last edited:
There are lies, damned lies, and those panda folks ???

I still want to see Attenboroughs workings out ... maybe he is the messiah (and can feed the world with fish), or he's a .... (... or ... isn't that Greta)


https://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/l-2/06-fish-consumption.htm
The contribution of fish proteins to total world animal protein supplies rose from 13.7 percent in 1961 to a peak of 16.0 percent in 1996, before declining to 15.3 percent in 2005. Corresponding figures for the world, excluding China, show an increase from 12.9 percent in 1961 to 15.4 percent in 1989, then declining slightly to 14.7 percent in 2005.
....
Globally, fish provides more than 1.5 billion people with almost 20 percent of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and nearly 3.0 billion people with 15 percent of such protein.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom