The problemsthat we have as a society with using up the raw materials and creating waste is well known at least since the 70's.
One step already aluded in the 80's was to recycle plastic material. The success is less than stellar. It works okay for pure wastes but even relatively small amounts of contaminants make the process unfavourable.
Now we have a new great headline:
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-co8322-biomass-path-environmentally-friendly.html "Using CO₂ and biomass, researchers find path to more environmentally friendly recyclable plastics"
In fact the research is interesting and original. But he labeling is grossly overstating the implications.
* Of course the stuff can be made and remade as long as it is pure. Even in the depolymerization the CO2 just resurfaces, so this is no way to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. At best it can be temporarily stored.
Lignin is a waste product from the paper inustry and it would be good to have a use for that, but this also implicates that we can just go ahead as we do.
The point is: If we want to be more environemntally friendly we need to reduce our consumption, not replace with a bit less harmful products.
@Ponderable
Now we find bottled water like Dasani and most other brands have hundreds of thousands of nanoplastic particles now found to interfere with DNA transfer and such.
I wonder if any of present day water filters can filter out such nano plastics?
@ponderable saidI think the main problem with the environment is yes.we are consuming a lot of raw materials because there's too many of us and the more the population increases the more waste we create.
The problemsthat we have as a society with using up the raw materials and creating waste is well known at least since the 70's.
One step already aluded in the 80's was to recycle plastic material. The success is less than stellar. It works okay for pure wastes but even relatively small amounts of contaminants make the process unfavourable.
Now we have a new great hea ...[text shortened]... onemntally friendly we need to reduce our consumption, not replace with a bit less harmful products.
Also the human race is focused on increasing wealth and prosperity as it always has been.
We have never prioritised need over want.
@venda saidAre we too mayn people, or does each person take too many resources?
I think the main problem with the environment is yes.we are consuming a lot of raw materials because there's too many of us and the more the population increases the more waste we create.
Also the human race is focused on increasing wealth and prosperity as it always has been.
We have never prioritised need over want.
Some soecieties are already shrinking, so this should be good news?
@ponderable saidThe answer is yes,the prosperous take up lots of resourced which aren't really necessary in my opinion.It's a want and need thing as I said
Are we too mayn people, or does each person take too many resources?
Some soecieties are already shrinking, so this should be good news?
Do you need a private car for every member of the family?
Do you need to redecorate a room of your 5 bedroom house every year because you fancy a change in decor?
Do you really need a new phone/television/computer?
Visit to any local tip and you will see perfectly serviceable items being dumped for no other reason than they are old
@venda saidI agree
We have never prioritised need over want.
https://waronwant.org/
It's the route to a lot of our worlds problems.
be great if there was a solution.
Capitalism drives wanting, but communism doesn't look to making everyone comfortable. There must another ideology that satisfies both the desire for everyone to have their needs met (including care for the planet for future generations); and encourages innovation/competition.
I think giving a gold badge to anyone who wins at capitalism would be a great start:
You've banked more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime- you can't bank anymore, but we all solute you: welldone.
In the UK, at least, reducing waste is encouraged and taught in schools, "reduce, reuse, recycle". Perhaps that's the best we can do.
@yo-its-me
I think giving a gold badge to anyone who wins at capitalism would be a great start:
You've banked more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime- you can't bank anymore, but we all solute you: welldone.
Don't think I agree with that.
One problem is making money becomes an obsession with some people.
It's almost like an addiction.They can't stop trying to make the next million
@venda saidWhat if
@yo-its-me
I think giving a gold badge to anyone who wins at capitalism would be a great start:
You've banked more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime- you can't bank anymore, but we all solute you: welldone.
Don't think I agree with that.
One problem is making money becomes an obsession with some people.
It's almost like an addiction.They can't stop trying to make the next million
They can still make it, they just can't bank it in their own bank- maybe they bank it into a social pot and get to be altruistic, or it just overflows in their bank into everyone else's haha
Or maybe there's like a special lounge they get to go in at parliament where someone comes to them with a red book, like the prime minister takes to the king, which has a selection of places the money earned can go and they see how much has gone and where it went- maybe the buzz becomes in choosing where to send the next lot and seeing the benefit from case studies. They'd get to feel real important, the PM bringing a folder to them and rightly so, they're a big part of the change. Maybe they'd like that better then seeing the money get more in a stale account.
@yo-its-me
Or maybe a maximum one can claim for themselves, a billion, ten billion, whatever, and the excess goes right into a public pot?
Now these aholes think they are poor if they 'only' have one hundred billion.....