12 ms·

Being an effective environmentalist can often feel like being a bad one

78 points by aSig 4y ago

_petronius 4y ago
Although "environmentally friendly" is not strictly equal to "minimum possible GHG footprint". The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  The point is to reuse for ages a tough plastic bag rather than use single use bags.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    I have 5 reusable bags that I've used for a few years. That means I've used them maybe 100 times. Now they're starting to fall apart, and soon I'll need new ones. I wonder, since they're much heavier and clearly use a lot more plastic, whether I would have used less plastic with the disposable ones.
    - liminvorous 4y ago
      The breakeven point seems to be around 50-100 uses depending on the exact kind of reusable bag, so you’re probably winning: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
      - leereeves 4y ago
        I never would have imagined the environmental impact of cotton bags was that high. It would take me several lifetimes to get 7000 uses.
        ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        This very similar to the "if you wash recycling in water heated via coal burn generated electricity then it creates CO2" argument. Okay, let's stop burning coal then, because we use electricity for a lot more things than just recycling. Similarly, if cotton is that bad for the environment, maybe we need to fix that generally rather than just switch to disposable plastic bags for this one minor use case? https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton
    - rini17 4y ago
      Nobody does napkin math anymore? One use bag is about 2-10 grams of plastic. 100x that is 200 grams to 1kg.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        The math is easy, but I don't have a tiny scale or specs on the weight of either bags. Where did you get 2-10 grams?
        rini17 4y ago
        In stores we have selfservice weighting scales for fruits and veggies that print the barcode. There's an option "with one-use bag/without bag" and the one-use bag option subtracts 2 grams.
    - Jill_the_Pill 4y ago
      They do make cloth reusables
      - dqv 4y ago
        The cloth reusables are a little more harsh on the environment for initial acquisition, but I like that if they get holes, I can patch them. I'm not sure how feasible that is with the thicker plastic bags, and a cursory search doesn't bring anything up, but it's worth looking into patching the plastic bags.
        em-bee 4y ago
        duct tape, but now we need to take into account the environmental impact of that. though the biggest problem with reusable plastic bags is the weakness of the handles. i'd rarely get more than a dozen uses out of a plastic bag before the handle rips. and that is not as easily to fix because of the stresses involved. also, i feel the math is off, because cloth bags are a lot stronger and they get uses that no plastic bag is even designed for. so the reality is that even if i use plastic bags for shopping, i'd have a cloth bag anyways for other needs. and if i have it already, then using it more comes with zero additional impact. plastic bags only have less impact on the environment than the cloth bags that i don't already own.
        Jill_the_Pill 4y ago
        Well ok, in the "already have it" vein, how about just taking stuff home in the boxes that the store receives its goods in? Ours has a pile near the registers. Then we break them down and use them as sheet mulch.
        nyokodo 4y ago
        > if i have it already, then using it more comes with zero additional impact. Except using it more means more wear and tear which means replacing it sooner. So unfortunately it doesn’t make the math easier.
- jrajav 4y ago
  I also wondered this - initially I saw that the chart linked had a "Lifecycle Analysis" and so I nodded and went on my way thinking that disposal had been accounted for. I'm glad you brought it up, because upon looking at the study the chart is based on, it seems hopelessly optimistic - it accounts for several end-of-life scenarios but they are all 'good' disposals performed after plastic collection, like recycling or incineration. Zero accounting for accidental or incompetent sending to landfills, which indeed seems the main issue with plastic bags. (The study is also specific to Denmark, where perhaps disposal programs are more reliable than they are in the US.) https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
- gruez 4y ago
  >The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time. What you described is a non-issue if the bag is disposed of properly. Presumably you, as a environmentalist can be relied upon to do that.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    Could you elaborate on what proper disposal looks like?
    - gruez 4y ago
      landfill (properly engineered and regulated[1]) or incineration. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-258 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I...
      - akomtu 4y ago
        In the future there will be an acid-like substance used to safely dissolve almost anything, except maybe metals and stones.
        hutzlibu 4y ago
        We already have them since quite a while, also to dissolve most metals and stones. But producing them in the required quantities would be kind of out of proportion to use it for garbage disposal. And disposing garbage in acid means still having lots of garbage basins with acid. You might want to check out some chemistry.
      - b3morales 4y ago
        Interesting, thanks.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    that's only true if every plastic bag user disposes of the bags properly. part of the problem of using plastic bags is that it increases the demand. i specifically ask for less plastic bags in the produce section in order to teach the sales person that it is not necessary to have each item individually wrapped as is the custom here. i want them to apply that to other customers and so reduce the use of bags even more.
- copirate 4y ago
  The linked chart about grocery bags[1] is not only about GHG footprint: > Environmental impact is measured over a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) across the following metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation, particulate matter, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, resource depletion (fossil), resource depletion (abiotic), and water resource depletion. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
simple-thoughts 4y ago
An “effective environmentalism” might be a good meme to attempt a rebrand of nuclear, microwaves, and factory farming. But there’s nothing about how to prevent effective environmentalism from becoming performative just like how the author notes environmentalism has.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Factory farming does not get to be put in there, eating animals is very expensive ecologically. Only agriculture.
  - simple-thoughts 4y ago
    Factory farming animals is specifically mentioned in the article as causing less environmental damage than organic or cage free methods. Whether true or not doesn’t prevent effective environmentalism from becoming as performative as environmentalism.
    - kurupt213 4y ago
      It makes sense that it is true since it’s the most cost effective way - required resources are generally tied directly to cost
    - waffle_ss 4y ago
      It's specifically very wrong. It links to this study for that claim: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 Which only looks at greenhouse gas emissions (and only then compares grass feeding to grain feeding), and does NOT consider the effects to local groundwater, surface water, or air quality from CAFOs. Here's a CDC resource that goes into depth about the swathe of negative effects on local resources CAFOs create: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh... Besides things like frequent manure spills that pollute surface and groundwater, children living near these CAFOs have elevated rates of asthma. The piece is very focused on greenhouse gases and the benefits of "economies of scale" but doesn't say a peep about the meltdown of our consolidated food supply when the pandemic subjected it to supply shocks.
seasox 4y ago
Don‘t think about microwave vs. stove. Instead, do the following: 1. stop buying meat 2. stop eating meat 3. stop buying dairy-based products 4. stop eating dairy-based products 5. stop eating eggs, honey, fish 6. use public transport, if possible 7. don‘t fly, if possible Congrats, you now are an environmentalist.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Let's say you could convince an extra 10% of the world to follow those rules, and that it doesn't cause a rebound effect (as per the Jevons paradox). How much extra time would that buy us before an unstoppable climate catastrophe?
  - chrisamiller 4y ago
    There is already an unstoppable climate catastrophe happening. Many of the effects are already baked in for the next 50-100 years and it will disproportionately affect the poor. What we can still control is how bad it is. (An increase 1.5 degrees C looks a hell of a lot different than 4 degrees C). That's still very much a fight worth fighting. When people ask if we should do this or that, the answer should be "yes". These rules are fine - we should eat less meat, we should drive and fly less, etc. We should also do more systemic things, like investing heavily in battery tech and solar and wind and even fusion longshots. We should regulate the hell out of emissions, and use the proceeds from taxes and fines to help mitigate the effects on the poor. Getting to net zero carbon is going to be hard but it has to happen.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      Okay, perhaps I should have asked "How many lives do you think would be saved this century compared to the default scenario where an extra 10% of the world aren't convinced to follow those rules?".
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      And rhetoric like your last paragraph is just going to produce backlash and make the problem worse. "The rules are fine", and net zero "has" to happen". So in your mind there's no room for argument and the objective is sacred. So how many guns are you willing to put to peoples' heads to get them to change their diets? To get them to stop flying? Driving in particular is required for many peoples' livelihoods, particularly those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. IMO, the truly "hard" part of getting to net zero is getting people like you to realize you're not going to force your proposed solutions onto the rest of the world. You're going to have to team up with people you don't like. You know why Texas, the oil/petrochemical capital of the US, has so much wind power? It isn't because an army of environmentalists descended on the state house shouting slogans and waving signs, it isn't to save the environment, it isn't to stop climate change. It's because wind energy is cheap in Texas, something that appeals to even the most coal-rolling, roundup-spraying, green-lawn-in-the-desert Texan. If you want to save the environment, drop the moralizing and meet people where they are. Until that happens environmentalism is just going to produce backlash, that allow the environmental movements feel even more superior and do things to produce even more backlash, until the price of meat, power, transportation and housing goes up so much that you get a backlash that undoes any short-term progress that was made.
dbingham 4y ago
This is what happens when you optimize for only a single variable. And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us. Creating a sustainable environment is a systems problem and carbon is just one of many variables in that system. Yes, it's a really important one and in many ways it is the most pressing. But biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services are close seconds, and if you optimize your eating for carbon in the way the author is describing you inevitably end up doing more net harm by undercutting those other two. Further, a lot of the "data" she's linking is completely with out method or context. And method and context can make a huge difference in these sorts of lifecycle analyses. They are fraught with pitfalls. It's one of the reasons it's been so fucking hard to pin down exactly what the most environmental behavior is. And this whole mess is one of the prime motivators behind my current effort to write an open academic publishing platform [1] that would allow review to be crowdsourced so that we can open and centralize the whole literature. Because then we actually could get a complete picture of what the best current answer to these questions is with out having to go through secondary sources like this which inevitably cherry pick studies, data, and lack context. [1] https://blog.peer-review.io/we-might-have-a-way-to-fix-scientific-publishing https://blog.peer-review.io/we-might-have-a-way-to-fix-scien...
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  What do you anticipate the effect of GPT3 will be in the reviewing process?
  - dbingham 4y ago
    I honestly have no idea. I don't think I know nearly enough about GPT3 to hazard a guess. I could imagine using natural language processing as part of looking at generating an automated Q&A algorithm or attempting to automate literature reviews in some way, but in the review process? Someone I was talking to the other day was suggesting using sentiment analysis during the review process as a kind of tone grammarly aid to help people write constructive reviews, which is interesting. But I think that's different from GPT3. Judging from your bio, I would guess you have much strong ideas about that answer to that question than I do. What are your thoughts?
jeffbee 4y ago
Two that I hear constantly: rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophes when they prevent the effective use of cities to house people in energy-efficient buildings with low demand for transportation. Protecting rooftop solar with "solar access rights" is something that some find superficially green but is actually ruinous.
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  What is the problem with urban gardening? On a rooftop, greenery would help with the heat, and I find it difficult to believe that greenery in a space which otherwise has none would be an "ecological catastrophe".
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    There isn't anything wrong with urban gardening itself. The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything. Greenery and open space are both good and important, and gardening is a fine hobby. But urban gardens don't feed anyone and if there is a choice between housing people in an existing city, or protecting an existing garden from shadows, we should choose the housing every time. Same thing goes for rooftop solar power: it's fine, but protecting it is not important.
    - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.
    - matkoniecz 4y ago
      > The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything OK. But how it makes > rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophe claim true?
      - jeffbee 4y ago
prmoustache 4y ago
The author confuse being environmentalist with trying to reduce her carbon footprint. Environment is not all about carbon footprint. Reducing...or rather not increasing as much global warming doesn't help reducing the 7th continent or the micro plastics/graphene/whatever life threatening microscopic waste we are sending in the environment.
hotz 4y ago
The climate's been changing since the world came into being. Stop trying to play God and think you can control nature. Fear mongering. Look how miserable western countries are with their eco warrior solutions.
xor99 4y ago
Some of the arguments seem misplaced via bad assumptions. This is exactly the approach that will alienate trad thinkers who need to be convinced in order for any effective action to be taken. Here are the issues I had: - Highly processed food, including fake meat, could be extremely bad for you. The point is we just don't know yet as there isn't good data. - Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) and social (digital-gov tight controls over movement, work, and access to resources) reasons. Just look at covid era China. Large groups of people displaced into under resourced cities ends badly. -Nuclear is great until you get something like Ukraine where its used as a stick against the rest of Europe. Thyroid cancer rates in western europe would spike as a result of a critical incident. Or ofc Fukashima and Chernobyl. I'm totally pro nuclear but not mentioning its failures is a bad take and I don't believe the figures about nuclear related deaths.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  > Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) Sure they have the potential for this, but only if we don’t take these problems into account and mitigate them. Take particulates for example (and noise, which you didn’t mention but is also an issue); a lot is from cars. If we assume that every city resident will have and frequently use a car, then sure that becomes an issue. But if we provide viable alternatives to driving and make them as or more convenient than driving, much less of an issue.
  - xor99 4y ago
    True, but the potential must be possible given existing resources and political systems and not inhuman or utopian. EVs are possible and not utopian for the most part and so you are right. Although the energy crisis will heavily impact manufacture of EVs. Another point: fertility drops massively in cities and this is an environmental concern as you need labour to transition industries at scale (e.g. nuclear plants, solar, wind, biomanufacture). Low birth rate dense cities are a recipe for disaster in terms of sufficient labour for a green transition. The list of issues with the authors "I'm a misunderstood future hero" viewpoint goes on and on imo.
timlod 4y ago
I find this questionable. Sure, the type of food is more important than where it comes from - IF you eat meat. This argument effectively states that you can stop making environmentalist choices once you have avoided the biggest offenders. Now, if you really care about moving towards a more environmentally friendly world, you'll not stop there. You'll first want to change your diet to be plant-based, but then also want to make sure that those plant-based foods you buy are best-in-class (environmentally speaking), i.e. lead to healthier soil and less microplastics. Beyond the environmental aspect, I'd also suggest looking at what impact your choices have along social and economical axes.
xnx 4y ago
You can't make decisions about "environmentalism" if you haven't decided on your goals. Reduce greenhouse gases? Reduce solid waste and microplastics? Reduce animal suffering? Preserve biodiversity and habitat? Give the social appearance of being "green"? My imperfect personal tactic is to consume less of everything. Refuse -> Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
The issue with environmentalism is that we are all the victims of multi decades PR campaigns crafted to deflect people attention from what’s really polluting towards meaningless things. People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production, oil companies, global manufacturing and shipping and construction.
- gruez 4y ago
  >People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent. Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? Sure, people bitch about how it's impossible to repair their iphones or macbooks, but even if you had to replace them every other year, the amount of trash they generate in relation to everything else is absolutely minuscule. >It’s a conscientious strategy. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. In that sense your actions have a direct impact on greenhouse emissions. Sure, you unplugging your electronics isn't going to single-handedly stop global warming, but that's because no one is single-handedly causing global warming either. Also, you can literally buy a PV system for your house which would cut your emissions to zero. >oil companies see above, also electric cars. >global manufacturing and shipping and construction Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. However, this source[1] says that shipping is responsible for 2.5% of global emissions, which isn't very significant. [1] https://www.ukri.org/news/shipping-industry-reduces-carbon-emissions-with-space-technology/ https://www.ukri.org/news/shipping-industry-reduces-carbon-e...
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    > Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? No it’s not an issue that’s my point. What people sort is rarely recycled anyway. That’s why it’s a shame. > But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. Yes but what individual consumes is far less relevant than how this electricity is produced especially when you compare domestic consumption to industrial consumption. It’s far more impactful to lobby for the end of coal power plants than switch off your electronic. > see above, also electric cars. Yes, it’s finally coming quite slowly but for decades oil was heavily subsidised. > Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. I’m not against anything. There are huge gain to be made in both shipping and manufacturing. Investments are far too low because they are not mandated. That’s my point. The most significant gains are at an institutional or corporate level. Most of the debate surrounding individual behaviour is a distraction.
photochemsyn 4y ago
These kind of articles usually have a summary buried in them, this might be it: > "Lab-grown meat, dense cities, and nuclear energy need a rebrand. These need to be some of the new emblems of a sustainable path forward." 1) Lab-grown meat is nowhere near commercialization. At best we have plant-based meat substitutes that have similar nutritional profiles (high protein) to meat that can be produced at scale. 2) Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. That per-human land area might be a bit less for vegetarians, but I doubt it's that big of a factor. 3) Nuclear energy is still quite expensive relative to wind/solar/storage, and that won't change because nuclear's catastrophic failure potential requires over-engineering and high-security, plus the uranium ore and cooling water requirements can be problematic.
- rkallos 4y ago
  > Dense cities don't really matter that much Are you sure? My understanding is that people who live in dense cities rely less on automobiles, have their waste treated more efficiently, and consume less energy per capita in order to enjoy clean air and water. Those factors are more important than the land mass required to feed someone.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Depends on grandparent's definition of dense and city. You need density but you don't need tokyo, you don't need high rise and you certainly don't need lab grown meat or vertical farms. You can pack a lot of people into a 3km^2 circle at fairly moderate density when you're not wasting 500m^2 (8 parking spaces @ 40m^2 then roads, misc infrastructure and setbacks) per person forcing them to own cars. A well connected walkable rural town full of 3 story fourplexes and 2 story cottages all clustered within 1km around a main street and train station is completely fine. A walkable city which is almost all under 8 stories and where large portions of the population live in row houses or five over ones is fine. Houston or Phoenix is not fine.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  >>Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. People use much less resources per unit of quality of life when they live in dense cities. Density provides massively more productivity with a given amount of natural resource consumption.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I support the use of plastic for many packaging tasks. The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts. Still support plastic bag and straw 'bans' though. One small factor to add to the mix is giving less money and power to fossil fuel producers, which I think has an outsize effect. So I'd like to see most plastics move towards non-fossil feedstocks and better recycling. Luckily, Extended Producer Responsibility laws lead to both less packaging, less harmful packaging and more recycling of packaging by putting the cost of disposal onto the people with the ability to make systematic change. The people pushing the "all regulations backfire" line are just anti-regulation because they know they can foist the costs onto other people. If they'd lie about climate change then they've kind of blown their trust with me. I agree environmentalalsim should be data driven, in both identifying problems and potential solutions. I believe that the meme that it's not is an obvious political fabrication by genuinely bad people.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts. Only when the minimal amount is used. Clamshell packaging is almost always incredibly wasteful and could be replaced by less weight of cardboard. Plastic jars and similar could often be bags or pouches. etc.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yep, which EPR covers. For example, British milk sellers mostly use the same shared milk container, with different labels. They figured out how to lower the cost, because they were paying for it. They get really in depth in the specific amounts of dye to use in lids etc. to maximise recycling. https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/hdpe-milk-bottle-research-and-development https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/hdpe-milk-bottle-resear... None of that needed specific regulations, just assigning the costs to the people responsible.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      There's still inertia and favouring of status quo even in that example. Milk bags have been in use in some places for decades, pack better, are lighter and use less plastic than a bottle lid. Other places do not use them for no particular reason.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

78 points by aSig 4y ago

Although "environmentally friendly" is not strictly equal to "minimum possible GHG footprint". The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time.

AstralStorm 4y ago
The point is to reuse for ages a tough plastic bag rather than use single use bags.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I have 5 reusable bags that I've used for a few years. That means I've used them maybe 100 times. Now they're starting to fall apart, and soon I'll need new ones. I wonder, since they're much heavier and clearly use a lot more plastic, whether I would have used less plastic with the disposable ones.
  - liminvorous 4y ago
    The breakeven point seems to be around 50-100 uses depending on the exact kind of reusable bag, so you’re probably winning: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...
    - leereeves 4y ago
      I never would have imagined the environmental impact of cotton bags was that high. It would take me several lifetimes to get 7000 uses.
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        This very similar to the "if you wash recycling in water heated via coal burn generated electricity then it creates CO2" argument. Okay, let's stop burning coal then, because we use electricity for a lot more things than just recycling. Similarly, if cotton is that bad for the environment, maybe we need to fix that generally rather than just switch to disposable plastic bags for this one minor use case? https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/cotton
  - rini17 4y ago
    Nobody does napkin math anymore? One use bag is about 2-10 grams of plastic. 100x that is 200 grams to 1kg.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      The math is easy, but I don't have a tiny scale or specs on the weight of either bags. Where did you get 2-10 grams?
      - rini17 4y ago
        In stores we have selfservice weighting scales for fruits and veggies that print the barcode. There's an option "with one-use bag/without bag" and the one-use bag option subtracts 2 grams.
  - Jill_the_Pill 4y ago
    They do make cloth reusables
    - dqv 4y ago
      The cloth reusables are a little more harsh on the environment for initial acquisition, but I like that if they get holes, I can patch them. I'm not sure how feasible that is with the thicker plastic bags, and a cursory search doesn't bring anything up, but it's worth looking into patching the plastic bags.
      - em-bee 4y ago
        duct tape, but now we need to take into account the environmental impact of that. though the biggest problem with reusable plastic bags is the weakness of the handles. i'd rarely get more than a dozen uses out of a plastic bag before the handle rips. and that is not as easily to fix because of the stresses involved. also, i feel the math is off, because cloth bags are a lot stronger and they get uses that no plastic bag is even designed for. so the reality is that even if i use plastic bags for shopping, i'd have a cloth bag anyways for other needs. and if i have it already, then using it more comes with zero additional impact. plastic bags only have less impact on the environment than the cloth bags that i don't already own.
        Jill_the_Pill 4y ago
        Well ok, in the "already have it" vein, how about just taking stuff home in the boxes that the store receives its goods in? Ours has a pile near the registers. Then we break them down and use them as sheet mulch.
        nyokodo 4y ago
        > if i have it already, then using it more comes with zero additional impact. Except using it more means more wear and tear which means replacing it sooner. So unfortunately it doesn’t make the math easier.
jrajav 4y ago
I also wondered this - initially I saw that the chart linked had a "Lifecycle Analysis" and so I nodded and went on my way thinking that disposal had been accounted for. I'm glad you brought it up, because upon looking at the study the chart is based on, it seems hopelessly optimistic - it accounts for several end-of-life scenarios but they are all 'good' disposals performed after plastic collection, like recycling or incineration. Zero accounting for accidental or incompetent sending to landfills, which indeed seems the main issue with plastic bags. (The study is also specific to Denmark, where perhaps disposal programs are more reliable than they are in the US.) https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...
gruez 4y ago
>The plastic bag may have a lower carbon footprint, but it isn't going to biodegrade as quickly, and may end up turning into microplastics that persist for a long time. What you described is a non-issue if the bag is disposed of properly. Presumably you, as a environmentalist can be relied upon to do that.
- b3morales 4y ago
  Could you elaborate on what proper disposal looks like?
  - gruez 4y ago
    landfill (properly engineered and regulated[1]) or incineration. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-258 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I...
    - akomtu 4y ago
      In the future there will be an acid-like substance used to safely dissolve almost anything, except maybe metals and stones.
      - hutzlibu 4y ago
        We already have them since quite a while, also to dissolve most metals and stones. But producing them in the required quantities would be kind of out of proportion to use it for garbage disposal. And disposing garbage in acid means still having lots of garbage basins with acid. You might want to check out some chemistry.
    - b3morales 4y ago
      Interesting, thanks.
- em-bee 4y ago
  that's only true if every plastic bag user disposes of the bags properly. part of the problem of using plastic bags is that it increases the demand. i specifically ask for less plastic bags in the produce section in order to teach the sales person that it is not necessary to have each item individually wrapped as is the custom here. i want them to apply that to other customers and so reduce the use of bags even more.
copirate 4y ago
The linked chart about grocery bags[1] is not only about GHG footprint: > Environmental impact is measured over a full life-cycle analysis (LCA) across the following metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer effects), human toxicity (non-cancer effects), photochemical ozone formation, ionizing radiation, particulate matter, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, marine eutrophication, ecosystem toxicity, resource depletion (fossil), resource depletion (abiotic), and water resource depletion. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental-impact https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/grocery-bag-environmental...

simple-thoughts 4y ago

An “effective environmentalism” might be a good meme to attempt a rebrand of nuclear, microwaves, and factory farming. But there’s nothing about how to prevent effective environmentalism from becoming performative just like how the author notes environmentalism has.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Factory farming does not get to be put in there, eating animals is very expensive ecologically. Only agriculture.
- simple-thoughts 4y ago
  Factory farming animals is specifically mentioned in the article as causing less environmental damage than organic or cage free methods. Whether true or not doesn’t prevent effective environmentalism from becoming as performative as environmentalism.
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    It makes sense that it is true since it’s the most cost effective way - required resources are generally tied directly to cost
  - waffle_ss 4y ago
    It's specifically very wrong. It links to this study for that claim: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5 Which only looks at greenhouse gas emissions (and only then compares grass feeding to grain feeding), and does NOT consider the effects to local groundwater, surface water, or air quality from CAFOs. Here's a CDC resource that goes into depth about the swathe of negative effects on local resources CAFOs create: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh... Besides things like frequent manure spills that pollute surface and groundwater, children living near these CAFOs have elevated rates of asthma. The piece is very focused on greenhouse gases and the benefits of "economies of scale" but doesn't say a peep about the meltdown of our consolidated food supply when the pandemic subjected it to supply shocks.

seasox 4y ago

Don‘t think about microwave vs. stove. Instead, do the following: 1. stop buying meat 2. stop eating meat 3. stop buying dairy-based products 4. stop eating dairy-based products 5. stop eating eggs, honey, fish 6. use public transport, if possible 7. don‘t fly, if possible Congrats, you now are an environmentalist.

dane-pgp 4y ago
Let's say you could convince an extra 10% of the world to follow those rules, and that it doesn't cause a rebound effect (as per the Jevons paradox). How much extra time would that buy us before an unstoppable climate catastrophe?
- chrisamiller 4y ago
  There is already an unstoppable climate catastrophe happening. Many of the effects are already baked in for the next 50-100 years and it will disproportionately affect the poor. What we can still control is how bad it is. (An increase 1.5 degrees C looks a hell of a lot different than 4 degrees C). That's still very much a fight worth fighting. When people ask if we should do this or that, the answer should be "yes". These rules are fine - we should eat less meat, we should drive and fly less, etc. We should also do more systemic things, like investing heavily in battery tech and solar and wind and even fusion longshots. We should regulate the hell out of emissions, and use the proceeds from taxes and fines to help mitigate the effects on the poor. Getting to net zero carbon is going to be hard but it has to happen.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    Okay, perhaps I should have asked "How many lives do you think would be saved this century compared to the default scenario where an extra 10% of the world aren't convinced to follow those rules?".
  - scottLobster 4y ago
    And rhetoric like your last paragraph is just going to produce backlash and make the problem worse. "The rules are fine", and net zero "has" to happen". So in your mind there's no room for argument and the objective is sacred. So how many guns are you willing to put to peoples' heads to get them to change their diets? To get them to stop flying? Driving in particular is required for many peoples' livelihoods, particularly those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. IMO, the truly "hard" part of getting to net zero is getting people like you to realize you're not going to force your proposed solutions onto the rest of the world. You're going to have to team up with people you don't like. You know why Texas, the oil/petrochemical capital of the US, has so much wind power? It isn't because an army of environmentalists descended on the state house shouting slogans and waving signs, it isn't to save the environment, it isn't to stop climate change. It's because wind energy is cheap in Texas, something that appeals to even the most coal-rolling, roundup-spraying, green-lawn-in-the-desert Texan. If you want to save the environment, drop the moralizing and meet people where they are. Until that happens environmentalism is just going to produce backlash, that allow the environmental movements feel even more superior and do things to produce even more backlash, until the price of meat, power, transportation and housing goes up so much that you get a backlash that undoes any short-term progress that was made.

dbingham 4y ago

This is what happens when you optimize for only a single variable. And the end result won't be what you want it to be. It doesn't do us any good to stop climate change if the ecosystem still collapses out from under us. Creating a sustainable environment is a systems problem and carbon is just one of many variables in that system. Yes, it's a really important one and in many ways it is the most pressing. But biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services are close seconds, and if you optimize your eating for carbon in the way the author is describing you inevitably end up doing more net harm by undercutting those other two. Further, a lot of the "data" she's linking is completely with out method or context. And method and context can make a huge difference in these sorts of lifecycle analyses. They are fraught with pitfalls. It's one of the reasons it's been so fucking hard to pin down exactly what the most environmental behavior is. And this whole mess is one of the prime motivators behind my current effort to write an open academic publishing platform [1] that would allow review to be crowdsourced so that we can open and centralize the whole literature. Because then we actually could get a complete picture of what the best current answer to these questions is with out having to go through secondary sources like this which inevitably cherry pick studies, data, and lack context. [1] https://blog.peer-review.io/we-might-have-a-way-to-fix-scientific-publishing https://blog.peer-review.io/we-might-have-a-way-to-fix-scien...

dr_dshiv 4y ago
What do you anticipate the effect of GPT3 will be in the reviewing process?
- dbingham 4y ago
  I honestly have no idea. I don't think I know nearly enough about GPT3 to hazard a guess. I could imagine using natural language processing as part of looking at generating an automated Q&A algorithm or attempting to automate literature reviews in some way, but in the review process? Someone I was talking to the other day was suggesting using sentiment analysis during the review process as a kind of tone grammarly aid to help people write constructive reviews, which is interesting. But I think that's different from GPT3. Judging from your bio, I would guess you have much strong ideas about that answer to that question than I do. What are your thoughts?

jeffbee 4y ago

Two that I hear constantly: rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophes when they prevent the effective use of cities to house people in energy-efficient buildings with low demand for transportation. Protecting rooftop solar with "solar access rights" is something that some find superficially green but is actually ruinous.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago
What is the problem with urban gardening? On a rooftop, greenery would help with the heat, and I find it difficult to believe that greenery in a space which otherwise has none would be an "ecological catastrophe".
- jeffbee 4y ago
  There isn't anything wrong with urban gardening itself. The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything. Greenery and open space are both good and important, and gardening is a fine hobby. But urban gardens don't feed anyone and if there is a choice between housing people in an existing city, or protecting an existing garden from shadows, we should choose the housing every time. Same thing goes for rooftop solar power: it's fine, but protecting it is not important.
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    > The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything OK. But how it makes > rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophe claim true?
    - jeffbee 4y ago

prmoustache 4y ago

The author confuse being environmentalist with trying to reduce her carbon footprint. Environment is not all about carbon footprint. Reducing...or rather not increasing as much global warming doesn't help reducing the 7th continent or the micro plastics/graphene/whatever life threatening microscopic waste we are sending in the environment.

hotz 4y ago

The climate's been changing since the world came into being. Stop trying to play God and think you can control nature. Fear mongering. Look how miserable western countries are with their eco warrior solutions.

xor99 4y ago

Some of the arguments seem misplaced via bad assumptions. This is exactly the approach that will alienate trad thinkers who need to be convinced in order for any effective action to be taken. Here are the issues I had: - Highly processed food, including fake meat, could be extremely bad for you. The point is we just don't know yet as there isn't good data. - Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) and social (digital-gov tight controls over movement, work, and access to resources) reasons. Just look at covid era China. Large groups of people displaced into under resourced cities ends badly. -Nuclear is great until you get something like Ukraine where its used as a stick against the rest of Europe. Thyroid cancer rates in western europe would spike as a result of a critical incident. Or ofc Fukashima and Chernobyl. I'm totally pro nuclear but not mentioning its failures is a bad take and I don't believe the figures about nuclear related deaths.

ryukafalz 4y ago
> Dense cities have the potential to be inhumane and not worth living in for various health (e.g. particulates, aerosols, nitrogen, disease) Sure they have the potential for this, but only if we don’t take these problems into account and mitigate them. Take particulates for example (and noise, which you didn’t mention but is also an issue); a lot is from cars. If we assume that every city resident will have and frequently use a car, then sure that becomes an issue. But if we provide viable alternatives to driving and make them as or more convenient than driving, much less of an issue.
- xor99 4y ago
  True, but the potential must be possible given existing resources and political systems and not inhuman or utopian. EVs are possible and not utopian for the most part and so you are right. Although the energy crisis will heavily impact manufacture of EVs. Another point: fertility drops massively in cities and this is an environmental concern as you need labour to transition industries at scale (e.g. nuclear plants, solar, wind, biomanufacture). Low birth rate dense cities are a recipe for disaster in terms of sufficient labour for a green transition. The list of issues with the authors "I'm a misunderstood future hero" viewpoint goes on and on imo.

timlod 4y ago

I find this questionable. Sure, the type of food is more important than where it comes from - IF you eat meat. This argument effectively states that you can stop making environmentalist choices once you have avoided the biggest offenders. Now, if you really care about moving towards a more environmentally friendly world, you'll not stop there. You'll first want to change your diet to be plant-based, but then also want to make sure that those plant-based foods you buy are best-in-class (environmentally speaking), i.e. lead to healthier soil and less microplastics. Beyond the environmental aspect, I'd also suggest looking at what impact your choices have along social and economical axes.

xnx 4y ago

You can't make decisions about "environmentalism" if you haven't decided on your goals. Reduce greenhouse gases? Reduce solid waste and microplastics? Reduce animal suffering? Preserve biodiversity and habitat? Give the social appearance of being "green"? My imperfect personal tactic is to consume less of everything. Refuse -> Reduce -> Reuse -> Recycle

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

The issue with environmentalism is that we are all the victims of multi decades PR campaigns crafted to deflect people attention from what’s really polluting towards meaningless things. People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production, oil companies, global manufacturing and shipping and construction.

gruez 4y ago
>People are angry their neighbours don’t properly sort their trash while recycling is a shame. Meanwhile planned obsolescence is prevalent. Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? Sure, people bitch about how it's impossible to repair their iphones or macbooks, but even if you had to replace them every other year, the amount of trash they generate in relation to everything else is absolutely minuscule. >It’s a conscientious strategy. Making people feel guilty about their very small impact prevent them looking at the real culprits: electricity production But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. In that sense your actions have a direct impact on greenhouse emissions. Sure, you unplugging your electronics isn't going to single-handedly stop global warming, but that's because no one is single-handedly causing global warming either. Also, you can literally buy a PV system for your house which would cut your emissions to zero. >oil companies see above, also electric cars. >global manufacturing and shipping and construction Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. However, this source[1] says that shipping is responsible for 2.5% of global emissions, which isn't very significant. [1] https://www.ukri.org/news/shipping-industry-reduces-carbon-emissions-with-space-technology/ https://www.ukri.org/news/shipping-industry-reduces-carbon-e...
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > Is this seriously an issue compared to trash in general? No it’s not an issue that’s my point. What people sort is rarely recycled anyway. That’s why it’s a shame. > But every kilowatt that you don't consume is a kilowatt that's not being generated by the electric grid. Yes but what individual consumes is far less relevant than how this electricity is produced especially when you compare domestic consumption to industrial consumption. It’s far more impactful to lobby for the end of coal power plants than switch off your electronic. > see above, also electric cars. Yes, it’s finally coming quite slowly but for decades oil was heavily subsidised. > Well the goods you buy has to be manufactured somewhere, so presumably you're against the shipping rather than the manufacturing aspect. I’m not against anything. There are huge gain to be made in both shipping and manufacturing. Investments are far too low because they are not mandated. That’s my point. The most significant gains are at an institutional or corporate level. Most of the debate surrounding individual behaviour is a distraction.

photochemsyn 4y ago

These kind of articles usually have a summary buried in them, this might be it: > "Lab-grown meat, dense cities, and nuclear energy need a rebrand. These need to be some of the new emblems of a sustainable path forward." 1) Lab-grown meat is nowhere near commercialization. At best we have plant-based meat substitutes that have similar nutritional profiles (high protein) to meat that can be produced at scale. 2) Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. That per-human land area might be a bit less for vegetarians, but I doubt it's that big of a factor. 3) Nuclear energy is still quite expensive relative to wind/solar/storage, and that won't change because nuclear's catastrophic failure potential requires over-engineering and high-security, plus the uranium ore and cooling water requirements can be problematic.

rkallos 4y ago
> Dense cities don't really matter that much Are you sure? My understanding is that people who live in dense cities rely less on automobiles, have their waste treated more efficiently, and consume less energy per capita in order to enjoy clean air and water. Those factors are more important than the land mass required to feed someone.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Depends on grandparent's definition of dense and city. You need density but you don't need tokyo, you don't need high rise and you certainly don't need lab grown meat or vertical farms. You can pack a lot of people into a 3km^2 circle at fairly moderate density when you're not wasting 500m^2 (8 parking spaces @ 40m^2 then roads, misc infrastructure and setbacks) per person forcing them to own cars. A well connected walkable rural town full of 3 story fourplexes and 2 story cottages all clustered within 1km around a main street and train station is completely fine. A walkable city which is almost all under 8 stories and where large portions of the population live in row houses or five over ones is fine. Houston or Phoenix is not fine.
ETH_start 4y ago
>>Dense cities don't really matter that much, as each human requires a similar amount of arable land to grow the food they need each year. People use much less resources per unit of quality of life when they live in dense cities. Density provides massively more productivity with a given amount of natural resource consumption.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I support the use of plastic for many packaging tasks. The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts. Still support plastic bag and straw 'bans' though. One small factor to add to the mix is giving less money and power to fossil fuel producers, which I think has an outsize effect. So I'd like to see most plastics move towards non-fossil feedstocks and better recycling. Luckily, Extended Producer Responsibility laws lead to both less packaging, less harmful packaging and more recycling of packaging by putting the cost of disposal onto the people with the ability to make systematic change. The people pushing the "all regulations backfire" line are just anti-regulation because they know they can foist the costs onto other people. If they'd lie about climate change then they've kind of blown their trust with me. I agree environmentalalsim should be data driven, in both identifying problems and potential solutions. I believe that the meme that it's not is an obvious political fabrication by genuinely bad people.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> The lighter weight helps offset the other environmental impacts. Only when the minimal amount is used. Clamshell packaging is almost always incredibly wasteful and could be replaced by less weight of cardboard. Plastic jars and similar could often be bags or pouches. etc.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yep, which EPR covers. For example, British milk sellers mostly use the same shared milk container, with different labels. They figured out how to lower the cost, because they were paying for it. They get really in depth in the specific amounts of dye to use in lids etc. to maximise recycling. https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/hdpe-milk-bottle-research-and-development https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/hdpe-milk-bottle-resear... None of that needed specific regulations, just assigning the costs to the people responsible.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    There's still inertia and favouring of status quo even in that example. Milk bags have been in use in some places for decades, pack better, are lighter and use less plastic than a bottle lid. Other places do not use them for no particular reason.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]