by Jeff Boone
A new science study from researchers at the University of Georgia, published in the Feb. 13 edition of the journal Science, has calculated the amount of plastic garbage going into the oceans, and its source.
The oceans currently receive an astounding 8 million metric tons of plastic garbage per year.
As the graphic below indicates, the 192 countries with coastal access produce a combined 2.5 billion metric tons of solid waste including 275 metric tons of plastic waste. 2.9% of that total plastic waste is making its way to the oceans.
The source of this plastic garbage in the ocean is global plastic waste mismanagement.
BusinessDictionary.com defines waste management as:
“The collection, transportation, and disposal of garbage, sewage, and other waste products. Waste management encompasses management of all processes and resources for proper handling of waste materials, from maintenance of waste transport trucks and dumping facilities to compliance with health codes and environmental regulations.”
Mismanaged waste is simply waste that has been improperly handled. The percentage of mismanaged waste is the primary metric and opportunity for reducing the amount of plastic garbage that ends up in our oceans.
The Wall Street Journal released this graphic that illustrates the source of all the plastic waste based on consumer data and waste-management information covering coastal populations world-wide.
While the overall global picture is alarming, the United States is clearly not a major contributor to the problem. The U.S. ranked 20th by the study estimates; and was responsible for just under 1% of the mismanaged plastic waste.
And when the data are controlled for by either GDP (the economic output/activity of a country), or population, compared to three of the four most populated countries, the US falls much lower on the list of polluting nations with the exception of the waste-per-population ratio of India.
The point I am making here is that with respect to plastic waste making its way to the ocean, the sky is not falling in the United States.
Of course the environmental concerns four our oceans are real, but it is clear that the problem is a global one.
Environmental activists in the US tend to pursue a never-ending demand for greater regulations and restrictions on industry, commerce, and individual freedoms in the name of protecting the environment. But when viewed globally, with respect to mismanaged plastic waste, the US is doing very well. Sure we can always do better – and that will be the expected rebuttal argument from those demanding greater environmental regulations and restrictions – but the key is to not accept extreme demands based on a message of alarmism and extremism when the net benefit is insignificant and/or the negative impacts are material.
For example, a ban on plastic grocery bags might make some of us feel accomplished and good, but in the overall consideration of global plastic waste, and also in consideration of the environmental impacts caused by the production of alternative grocery bags (paper and other material), it is not really an effective policy for improving the global environment. The net benefit is insignificant, and possibly negative.
As with almost everything in life, we need to strike a balance. The US is already leading in global waste management practices. There is work to be done to help protect our environment. Let’s keep it honest and real – focusing on material improvements and not waste time and effort on de minimis environmental pursuits.
The map clearly shows that the environmental zealots would do better to concentrate their efforts in Asia.
Good Sunday morning, Mr. Boone,
“Environmental activists in the US tend to pursue a never-ending demand for greater regulations and restrictions on industry, commerce, and individual freedoms in the name of protecting the environment. But when viewed globally, with respect to mismanaged plastic waste, the US is doing very well. ”
I guess that argument could be used in a number of scenario’s. In America, we don’t castrate tigers to use the animal’s testicles. We don’t rip ivory tusks off the elephants in our zoos. We don’t allow human child trafficking and prostitution to the degree it exists in Thailand. We don’t have as many sweat shops as Ni*e or App*l* has overseas. So your belief is we should go overseas and solve all their sins before looking at the sins committed in CA or even Davis or even our neighborhood, or our own home? My philosophy is do what you can to improve one’s own community, or move someplace else.
I think the point here is related to alarmism, the law of diminishing returns and the Pareto Principle (or the 80/20 rule).
For example, if you wanted to prevent the slaughter of elephants for ivory tusks, or stop child trafficking for prostitution, or eliminate sweat shops, you would be quite ineffective in this things by focusing on US policy.
I think your comment above is more appropriate for the activist. If the activist is compelled to work to solve a particular global problem, then go to where the source of that global problem is.
I know the author and noted a typo:
“Of course the environmental concerns four our oceans are real”
should be
Of course the environmental concerns for our oceans are real
I think the author would agree that he is concerned about more than just four of our oceans.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t [moderator]: edited _____ and _____ the same person? I am quite sure I remember _____ indicating that this is true. So, why do we have ______ writing an article “Overstating the Problem of Global Plastic Waste” under what I assume is his real name ______ and then commenting on that same article using the pseudonym ______ ? This is classic sockpuppet behavior and makes it appear to those unaware that there is another individual supporting his views. I think this is dishonest and should not be tolerated.
[moderator] Re: edits — ‘Outing’ pseudonymous commenters is not allowed. But you are correct. The author of the article has been advised to comment under his real name on his own articles.
I didn’t “out” anyone.
And how do you explain this?:
Frankly
February 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm
darelldd – Pursuits above the line of balance are simply identified as greed.
Our real unemployment rate is at a 40 year high. There are not enough jobs. There are not enough jobs for a number, blah, blah, blah, blah…
[moderator] Frankly will continue to use that log-in for this article, but will log-in with the other user name for any comments on future articles. If you have any further questions about this policy, you can direct them to info@davisvanguard.org or talk to any editorial board member.
Gosh, the world sends it raw materials to China to be made into stuff which gets shipped around the world and we think it’s chinas fault they aren’t cleaning up the worlds manufacturing mess. Go back and look at China’s numbers, figure out the percentage of what they manufacture that comes here and we will know how much we are responsible for.
The reasons stuff is made in China is they can pay low wages, they can pollute without our laws that make it more expensive but cleaner. The only part of manufacturing in China that makes any sense is they ship the crap instead of flying it around the world.
So what is your point? It is lost on me unless you are advocating for US consumers to stop consuming.
The US is dealing well with its domestic waste. So why keep punishing American business and consumers with regulations when the problem is in China?
>> you are advocating for US consumers to stop consuming.
Were it that simple. It isn’t a matter of consuming or not consuming. It is a matter of HOW we consume.
The point I heard: Just because we see the environmental destruction WAAAAY over there in China, does not mean that the US has clean hands. Nor does it mean that any changes we make here would be insignificant. We don’t demand the product that is manufactured in the best way – because that generally costs more. We demand the product that is the cheapest – typically made where there are few, and poorly-enforced environmental regulations. We allow the negative results of that demand to show up on somebody else’s spreadsheet. I call it the WalMart syndrome. The longer we turn a blind eye toward how this stuff is all interconnected, the longer we struggle with finding a solution.
Any claim that we just need to “clean up Asia” is a gross oversimplification of the issue. We can’t have the impossibly cheap consumables that our high standard of living relies on without continuing to externalize the child labor and environmental costs.
It is tiresome to hear that we shouldn’t bother doing anything HERE, because the problem is THERE.
I think the point of the article and data is that it is tiresome to hear that we should be doing more, and more, and more, and more, and more…. in an infinite pursuit of some unattainable nebulous goal of environmental “perfection” when we are doing significantly well in our current and likely progress effectively managing our waste, AND when 99% of the problem is other countries.
We can stop punishing people and business with environmental extremism related to plastic waste and take a more balanced and moderate position… and then focus our efforts on the global trash problem.
How do we focus our efforts on what they do in China?
@Frankly –
Nobody is after environmental perfection. That, of course, does not exist. Using the fact that we can never achieve perfection as a compelling reason to avoid striving for better is certainly the easy way out that saves us money in the short term. And at what expense?
When the US’s good environmental record is used as a reason to ridicule activists who seek even better protection, it should make you wonder why our environmental record is so good. Did our policies happen naturally? With voluntary compliance from the polluters? Or were there fights all along the way – with most of the resistance coming from people who claimed that the US was already doing enough, and that others should be doing more before we put any more restrictions on our own emissions?
Why are we so proud of how well the US is doing – while we shun the very reason that we’re doing so well?
>> How do we focus our efforts on what they do in China?
@ Don
By not creating demand for items that are too cheap to produce without f’ing up the world. As a society, we are quite happy to externalize the costs of the cheap items we buy.
That was the point of this bit:
We used to send all our old, poisonous computer mother boards to the river beds of several Asian countries, too. But Silicon Valley touted their clean, green jobs. Hypocrites.
Don’t we also outsource a good chunk of our garbage to China? I remember watching a documentary that showed these Chinese grandmothers going through truly monumental piles of electronic gadgets, stripping out the valuable metals and then (presumably) the rest would be disposed of. Is this trash being counted in this figure? Because if so, a good chunk of it is coming from the US and other Western nations.
(Sorry–didn’t read through the entire comment thread. Michelle brings up this issue below).
I appreciate you sharing this data, it’s very interesting.
I wonder how much of the problem in China can be attribute to the fact that we ship so much of our plastic there to supposedly be recycled.
I also wonder what the U.S. numbers would look like if we did not have regulations in place.
So what is India doing right that we aren’t doing?
Total plastic waste collected and recycled in India is apparently about 60%. What’s the total in the US?
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/Plastic-waste-time-bomb-ticking-for-India-SC-says/articleshow/19370833.cms
I’m not convinced that we are comparing apples to apples in regard to India.
From http://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Energy/Energy-Recovery/2014-Update-of-Potential-for-Energy-Recovery-from-Municipal-Solid-Waste-and-Non-Recycled-Plastics.pdf
“Plastics represented nearly 11% (39.3 million tons) of the total MSW stream. Of this amount, 2.66 million tons (6.8%) were recycled, 3.9 million tons (9.9%) were converted to energy in waste-to-energy (WTE) plants, 0.27 million tons (0.7%) were used as alternative fuel in cement production, and 32.5 million tons (82.7%) were mixed in the MSW disposed in landfills. The rate of recycling plus energy recovery of plastics increased from 14.3% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2011. An additional source of about 1.9 million tons of NRP is in the form of automotive shredder residue (ASR).“
I’m going to go on a little bit of tangent here…plastic “recycling” is not a environmentally friendly operation. The plastic is often burned, creating awful air pollution. Unlike glass or metal which can be recycled over and over again, plastic can only be “down-cycled” a finite number of times. Scrap plastic that cannot be down-cycled by manufactures just ends up at best in a landfill somewhere or incinerated.
I cannot tell you how irritating I find the plastic bag ban. And I am fully aware it will probably get enacted at the state level. So often I forget to bring my reusable bags, so end up paying for paper bags (wasting trees). When I do bring my reusable bags, I have a special plastic non-cloth bag labeled specifically to put meat in, for health reasons. Do the checkers who are bagging the groceries pay any attention? No. In the meat goes into the cloth bags, sometimes leaking juices. And to top it off, checkers don’t seem to know how to load groceries into the reusable bags. I cannot tell you the number of times either they underload each bag, putting just a few items in each bag. Or they load all the heavy cans into one bag, making it super heavy. Sheeeeesh!
so what it sounds like is that you oppose the plastic bag ban because you find it inconvenient. inconvenient that you have not yet completely re-programmed yourself in six months to change your habits. at some point, bringing reusable bags will become habit. moreover, inconvenient because you have yet to come up with a system that lets checkers know that you have a specific request for the handling of meat. again, i suspect that given time, you will find that sweet spot.
“i suspect that given time, you will find that sweet spot.”
Don’t bet on it! I’m still irritated with the current light bulbs now, that do not give off sufficient light as the old ones used to. I am still irritated by the super-insulated homes these days, that do not allow fresh air in the house. I am still irritated at the environmentally friendly appliances and soaps that do not clean my clothes or dishes as well as they used to. I’ll end my list there. LOL
Hmmmm…..I’m overjoyed with my LED bulbs throughout the house that give much better light than the old ones. I love my whole house fan, which I can run as needed for fresh air circulation. And I really like our quiet dishwasher and clothes washer which both use very little water and energy, and the clothes and the dishes are as clean as before. And did I mention I just bought an electric car? Which is stuffed with reusable bags?
LED bulbs had little to do with the push to eliminate incandescent bulbs in another irrational “environmental” pursuit… especially considering the mercury problem disposing of fluorescent light bulbs. LED bulbs were being developed as a better product and would likely have the same or similar product development and market growth trajectory.
Again proof that the invisible hand of capitalism takes care of many problems if only we can get incompetent government to stop pushing bonehead regulations.
Anon wrote:
> I’m still irritated with the current light bulbs now, that do not
> give off sufficient light as the old ones used to.
Next time you are in Sacramento swing by Costco (the Woodland Costco has the bulbs at a higher price since they don’t have the SMUD instant rebate) and pick up a three pack of the 60W replacement LED bulbs (that use less than 13W but put out more light than a standard 60W) I’m sure you will be impressed the LED lights last so long and use so much less energy they will pay fro themselves.
P.S. I’m still irritated with the bag ban since just today I stopped by Nugget for a gallon of milk on my bike (planning to ride home with one hand) and saw a couple other things I needed but will have to make another trip since I can’t just get a triple plastic bag to put over the handlebars like I used to (the paper bags with handles don’t work when you put them over the handlebars and tear at the first bump)…
You can still buy incandesent bulbs, they are just not easy to find. I deal with my well insulated house by opening windows to let fresh air in. My house is so well insulated this time of year I open the window to let in some heat. I have a new dishwasher and front loading clothes washer that uses a fraction of the soap and water the old ones did and do an amazing job getting stuff clean. I tend to like the things I’m used to and I’ve had a looong time. My previous washer was a 1972 Maytag which I found much easier to load and unload but the new set do an amazing job and I no longer hand wash anything. Consumer reports objective testing gives the new washer dryers high marks.
Regarding plastic bags, when I buy meat they always ask me if I want them to put it in a plastic bag, no charge, same as there is no charge for plastic bags for produce. Instead of ten cents for paper bags, I think they should be free and plastic bags should be available for a penny a piece. Then the folks who hate the ban won’t hate it so much and the people committed to Reuseable bags will bring reusable bags.
You can carry about twice as much from the store to your car with plastic verses paper. The second paper bag broke and spilled my contents over the parking lot (second time since the plastic bag ban) and now I do all my grocery and hardware and lumber shopping in Woodland.
I don’t think the bag banners really know how much damage they have caused from their irrational pursuits. Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they just want to win no matter the negative impacts.
>> Again proof that the invisible hand of capitalism takes care of many problems if only we can get incompetent government to stop pushing bonehead regulations <<
That invisible hand would have us pumping raw sewage into our rivers and lakes if not for those pesky regulations. Some countries are still doing it – because they have no regulations, and they wish to become as financially strong as our country. And hey – that’s how WE started! As long as we don’t internalize the cost of environmental destruction, that invisible hand will find higher profits in polluting the commons.
I’d love it if we didn’t have regulations…. if capitalists found joy in long-term financial stability and health. Sadly, to avoid being slapped upside the head by that invisible hand, it appears that we need those regulations.
Anon wrote: “Do the checkers who are bagging the groceries pay any attention? No. In the meat goes into the cloth bags, sometimes leaking juices.”
Try shopping at the old Nugget not the Gucci Nugget. I love their staff. The Gucci Nugget is busier & maybe the staff get rushed, but they’re a very good store, too. Or try shopping at the Co-Op, they will respect your reusable bags. Unless you are shopping at somewhere like Safeway, then you have more to worry about than your meat leaking. At Safeway, determine if the butcher dept. is giving a true “purchase by” date. Also find out if they are mixing old meat in with your new meat, if you are buying hamburger meat.
Safeway will give out courtesy plastic bags for meats. I just had a checker offer me one the other day.
MODERATOR: I mistakenly clicked on the “Report Comment” button when I meant to hit “Reply,” so please disregard.
Anon
There is a very simple way to have your bags packed the way you like them. Simply ask. I have yet not found a bagger at any of the stores in town including Nugget, Safeway, Whole Foods, or the Co-op who will not fill the bags according to my direction. This is really not that onerous.
This above statement from a New York Article about the study made me wonder what other factors they are basing their conclusions on. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/science/earth/plastic-ocean-waste-levels-going-up-study-says.html?_r=0
China is a huge producer of plastic, but does the study take into account which countries are consuming the plastic China produces?
So you are blaming the US again because China does not hold to strong enough manufacturing regulations? I don’t know what the breakdown is between Chinese consumption-based mismanaged waste and industrial mismanaged waste, but I suspect they are both much, much worse than the US… much, much worse.
And I fail to understand how your point can even be actionable. Yes we consume. And yes the products we consume come from other polluting countries. But what the heck does banning plastic grocery bags have to do with that?
I think those US folk on environmental crusades should just take a chill pill and either admit that the US is doing well and stop with the extreme demands for more and more and more regulations that punish people and business… and/or instead work to demand changes to global trade agreements to encourage these other countries to clean up their act.
I’m on my way out, so I can’t address your entire point, but plastic bags (and how the manufacture them) are only one part of the plastic problem. If you have any doubts about this take a look at the stomach of dead birds, that live on island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, that starved to death because their stomachs were filled with bits of undigestible plastic that they eat thinking it was food.
I’m no fan of birds or other wildlife dying from consuming human waste products. But you ban plastic shopping bags and what about all the other plastic waste? And how do you know that the plastic is from the US since the US is only responsible for 1% of it?
Just ask an oceanographer. http://www.adrift.org.au
The irony is rich and thick today…..
I don’t believe the US consumer demands cheap s**t. It think advertising creates the demand for cheap shit that we don’t need. Without advertising Walmart and their ilk would go out of business. While I ignore advertising as need very little when I do buy something I find there is little alternative to buying cheap. Consumers don’t have the option of buying a well made stuff that is durable and repairable. I read recently that 90% of products manufactured take six weeks to reach the dump. it’s a sad state of affairs that our economy depends on citizens becoming consumers. IMHO consumer products should be well made, durable, made primarily in the country where they will be used, not designed to fall apart or be obsolete and priced accordingly. We would buy less, waste less, put much less in the waste stream and be happier with owning reliable stuff that’s worth maintaining.
the time will come when we will have to manufacture foods closer to home. In a world with finite resources, we cannot continue to make plastic toys $1.29. It is not sustainable. Maybe that’s how we want to use our oil and gas reserves now but that will change and we will have a healthier economy eventually.
“We would buy less, waste less, put much less in the waste stream and be happier with owning reliable stuff that’s worth maintaining”
Wow ! Think how much less waste we would create if we all were to follow this philosophy. Yes, I also believe that we should consume less…..far less. Frankly frequently likes to talk about “American exceptionalism”. Well here is an area in which I would truly like to see us excel and lead by example. I would like to see us not as the leader of consumption, but as the leader in responsible stewardship. Now if we were to achieve that, I also would be happy to acknowledge this country as exceptional.
The marketing folks will tell you that they just make it easier for consumers to fulfill their already ingrained desires. Personally I don’t think consumer demand OR marketing alone can be blamed for this. It is a combination. Regardless where it starts, it is the consumer that can stop it. But they don’t.
>> Consumers don’t have the option of buying a well made stuff that is durable and repairable. <<
Only in a few instances is this accurate. Unless you’re speaking only of some “non necessities” where cheap cr*p is the only option. For everything we even remotely “need,” there is a high-quality option available. Consumers don’t often have the option of buying CHEAP well made stuff that is durable. The good stuff costs money. And when the good stuff is compared to the cheap stuff, the cheap stuff generally wins. Consumers aren’t willing to spend what it costs for that type of product. Because it would mean that they’d have to do without some other product. We’d be forced to decide what is really important to own. Would we choose a wooden, hand-made dining chair that will last for generations? Or a new 65″ flat-panel TV that’ll last a few years until the standard is 85″… plus six plastic dining chairs? When a manufacturer sets out to build something as it “should be” (durable and all that) we hear that it is “only for rich people.” or that it is no good because “the poor can’t afford it.” We tend to complain about things that are expensive (we’re being ripped off! I can get that on Amazon for $3 less!). When given the choice, the average consumer chooses cheap over durable. And here we are… finding that what is available most readily is exactly what we’ve asked for: Cheap product.
I realize this post probably won’t get read because cow is two day old but…
I have bought some of that expensive stuff and it is disappointing, I find it is made for rich people who apparently want an excessive number of bells nd whistles. What I would like is the option of simpler products that are well made and meant to be repairable and last many years. I have a Miele oven and microwave oven combination. They are complicated to use and rather frustrating. They have features I will never use. Their manuals and customer service are not good. If the Germans can’t write good manuals, I fear we are doomed to learn how to use things by poking buttons until something happens.
I really believe there is demand for simple quality that isn’t being fulfilled. We have thermostats that require a manual that is entirely too complicated. Why isn’t there an option for one that goes on and off that is priced accordingly? How about electronics? Why do our phones have to be obsolete after three years? Why so we have to put up with updates that make features we love non-functional? Why can’t we buy a simple durable phone that the service providers will support for five years?
We are at the mercy of the manufacturers and the products they choose to produce. Our option is to choose from what is available and what is available is new new new with features features features. They can’t market and sell things they don’t make and they don’t make basic quality….that I can find.
Good article Jeff
And yes, I think we can give ourselves a pat on the back, we are doing relatively well (but not quite as well as Europe) in taking care of plastic waste, keeping most of it from getting in to the ocean–and it seems to me (and I would contend) that this has much to do with good waste regulation; i.e. if we didn’t have good waste regulations we would be about as bad off as east Asia.
China and much of east Asia has just entered the maturation phase in industrialization; and environmental laws and regulations have been recently developed and are still in development, particularly with regard to air pollution, also water pollution; both of which are extremely severe in China–the Chinese and east Asians don’t want to live in a filthy environment any more than Europeans or Americans, I’m sure we’ll see their levels of air & water pollution start to drop significantly over the next couple of decades as better environmental laws and regulations kick in.
tribeUSA – I agree with you. The US has benefited from years of regulatory progress and other progress. I know a guy that works for HP as their Director of Sustainability. The company spends millions to help deal with the disposal of the products they sell. Part of this is because HP sells to government agencies and government demands recycling and disposal standards. Part of this is because of the marketing and PR benefits the company gets… especially considering the risk for fall-out from reports of bad environmental stewardship.
I am not recommending we roll back the clock. I am recommending that the environmental activists stop making the case that the US is in need of more extreme regulations.
As you write, we can give ourselves a pat on the back.
And your point about Europe… I don’t have the time now, but much of Europe lags the US in mismanged waste per GDP and population. Just reflect on that for a moment. We do a better job that Europe on average for managing our waste for every unit of economic production and for every person. Why are we not celebrating that? Why instead are we banning plastic grocery bags because environmental extremists keep sounding alarms.
>> I am not recommending we roll back the clock. I am recommending that the environmental activists stop making the case that the US is in need of more extreme regulations. <<
Of course this same recommendation has been made to the "activists" at every step along the way to where we are today, patting ourselves on the back. Should we have stopped five years ago and patted ourselves on the back? 20 years ago? 50? 100? When is the back-patting good enough? We would not be in this celebrated "good" state today if we stopped promoting environmental controls whenever somebody who no longer wanted to pay for environmental stewardship decided that we were "good enough."
There has to be a balance here. We aren't "bad" until such a time when we are "good" and can just rest on our laurels. This is not a process on which an off switch can be thrown once we reach "good enough."
Yes, let's celebrate our accomplishments… and keep them coming so we can celebrate again. Nobody celebrates mediocrity, nor stagnant progress. We have this to celebrate BECAUSE some people cared enough to get us here, and kept pushing back against those who claimed we were already "good enough."
well said. Thank you.
darelldd – Pursuits above the line of balance are simply identified as greed.
Our real unemployment rate is at a 40 year high. There are not enough jobs. There are not enough jobs for a number of reasons, but one BIG reason is that the cost of starting and growing a business in the US and especially CA has skyrocketed. And a BIG reasons that the cost of starting and growing a business in the US and CA is the incremental march of government regulations making it more complicated, more restrictive and more costly to start and grow business.
But here we are today with top-shelf waste management and a relatively pristine environment. We have effectively cleaned up our act.
The point is to recommend that you and other people on the extreme end of environmentalism stop being so greedy in your pursuits. There is no slippery slope unless we go backwards in regulations. I am not advocating that. I am advocating that you and other start finding something else as your cause. If you want it to be environmental pursuits, then focus on the real problem… helping other countries adopt US practices.
The US is doing fine in terms of environmental achievement and regulation. What we need now is an emphasis on making our economic ecosystem healthy again.
You know and most everyone else knows that the ban on plastic bags does absolutely nothing to help the environment. It was an environmentalist lifestyle choice that was pushed on everyone else. This is just one example of the type of thing we need to just stop doing.
>> I am advocating that you and other start finding something else as your cause. <<
1. It was not too long ago that you suggested that I stop advocating for proper bicycle infrastructure because we’ve already gone far enough. That I should find something else as my “cause.” Your appreciation of the status quo in these two areas is noted.
>> If you want it to be environmental pursuits, then focus on the real problem… helping other countries adopt US practices. <<
2. It may well be that I put more effort into fixing the global problem than you put into pointing out how the US should stagnate in the area of environmental protection. Clearly you have no idea what it is I do toward that goal, or any others I have. I suggest that you stick to doing your thing. I’m not looking for guidance on what needs to be fixed here. All I know for sure is that holding still is going backwards.
>> one BIG reason is that the cost of starting and growing a business in the US and especially CA has skyrocketed. And a BIG reasons that the cost of starting and growing a business in the US and CA is the incremental march of government regulations making it more complicated, more restrictive and more costly to start and grow business. <<
On this we agree. And I experience it first hand. And what I advocate for is not the problem here in the least. I’m afraid you are barking up the wrong tree.
I am very intrigued with your agreement on the economic challenges from over-regulation and your disagreement that we should slow or halt the development of new business-punishing environmental regulation. That is a nuanced two-lane path that is separated to the point that you could never walk the middle.
Frankly wrote:
>> Pursuits above the line of balance are simply identified as greed <<
Wait. So capitalism is defined as greed?
When in your career did you reach the point where you could pay for a roof over your head and food on the table? Plus, apparently, a computer and an internet connection? After that point, have you been greedy in asking for more compensation? Have you ever purchased a faster computer? A newer car? Have you ever pursued a higher-paying position, or asked for a raise? That’s all defined as greed? Seems a bit harder to dismiss anything as “greed,” yes?
Much of what we do here in America is unsustainable. So we’re starting off well above that “line of balance” as far as our economy is concerned, and well below it as far as and our environment is concerned. Do you drive a gasoline car? Where does that fit on the line of balance?
There are few things more subjective than where that “line of balance” is, I guess. And if everything globally were stagnant – or in balance – (pollution, economy, population, etc), I guess we could all agree on a balance line. But last I checked, things change – sometimes rapidly. Sometimes incrementally. And if we just draw the line and stop innovating, we are moving backwards.
Good stuff darelldd.
You are right there in my wheelhouse of interest, questions, debate, etc..
On the topic of balance… I agree it is subjective.
This article was meant to simply point out that very good progress has been made on the environment and so we might be tipping too far out of balance by treating it as some crisis.
There are tradeoffs for every decisions in life. And for government policy, those tradeoffs can be profound.
Today capital is cheap… never been cheaper in our rather short history of industrialization. Yet GDP growth is stagnant. Business starts are down. Companies are sitting on piles of cash and doing nothing with it except when they invest it overseas.
Where are the alarmists on this? Where are the alarmists that our market-driven economy is faltering and sputtering and growing little except in the lack of sustainability?
I don’t know your age, but I am on the back-end of my working life. I worked my way up from living paycheck-to-paycheck to greater prosperity because the economy was expanding and I had opportunities that I took advantage of.
But now many people my age having already attained their financial security… many of them retired of semi-retired… can only sound alarms on the environment. They say we need MORE regulations, not less. They say that the natural world is at great risk and our children will not be able to enjoy it unless we take drastic action right now.
Well, these are largely false alarms at this time as the data show.
The 90/10 rule… that the last 10% of perfection can cost 90% of the total… is absolutely the case here. The cost of continuing to pursue an extreme environmental policy in light of evidence of such progress and achievement is horrendous… it is unnecessary.
I see the US as being in much more in trouble from the lack of economic sustainability rather than a lack of environmental sustainability. And if you disagree with this point, then we will just have to agree to disagree… and hope we both can be happy with our kids moving in and living with us because they can no longer achieve the good life that you and were fortunate enough to capture before so many older people found meaning and identity in environmental activism instead of starting and growing business.
And yes, their air and water and dirt will be cleaner, and that is a good thing. But then they might not really care so much about those things as they cannot effectively launch to a good financially independent life.
When I go to sleep at night and cast a worried thought for our kids, it is not worry about the environment. It is worry about their economic future and the economic future of the US… and related to that, the ability of the US to defend itself from all those that wish to do it harm.
I think US environmentalists are out of balance with respect to the real and future state of the human condition… just as industrialists and capitalists were out of balance in the past.
tribeUSA
I agree with your points. Particularly when you state “I’m sure we’ll see their levels of air & water pollution start to drop significantly over the next couple of decades as better environmental laws and regulations kick in.”
Perhaps they will do much better when they adopt the environmental laws and regulations such as the ones in force in the US that Frankly seems to find so onerous, even though they are the basis for the good performance that he seems to be touting.
Feeling accomplished and good can be a positive thing. It makes people happier and satisfied that they are doing something positive in their life.
DavisBurns: “Consumers don’t have the option of buying a well made stuff that is durable and repairable. I read recently that 90% of products manufactured take six weeks to reach the dump. it’s a sad state of affairs that our economy depends on citizens becoming consumers. IMHO consumer products should be well made, durable, made primarily in the country where they will be used, not designed to fall apart or be obsolete and priced accordingly. We would buy less, waste less, put much less in the waste stream and be happier with owning reliable stuff that’s worth maintaining.”
Oh brother, do I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. It is very difficult to find quality products these days. Everything, and I mean just about everything has cheap plastic components that do not last. I would much rather spend more on a product that lasts longer, then purchase cheap products more often. I was talking to an appliance repairman not that long ago. According to him, refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers that used to last 20 – 25 years now only last 10 – 12 years. We are becoming too much of a disposable society. I understand the business reasons behind it, but as a consumer I hate it. Secondly, much of the stuff we import from China is inferior and sometimes not even up to our standards and has proven unsafe. Remember the poison beads?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=0
From http://www.businesspundit.com/10-toxic-toys-that-kids-actually-played-with/
“In 2007, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled millions of toys — mostly originating from China — believed to contain dangerous levels of lead in their paint. The biggest offenders were these wooden Thomas and Friends railway toys. Thankfully, the miniature vehicles, buildings and railway set parts were soon withdrawn from sale.“
You would be shocked to know that we really HAVENT eliminated the use of lead in paint and other products in the US. My husband worked for Cal Trans for awhile. He was charged with testing for lead in the work place. What he found was that lead is harmful to humans down to one part per billion. In essence any measurable lead is harmful to humans yet lead in paint is not outlawed. The consumer products safety commision regulation limits the amount of lead allowed in paint to .006% (for things kids may come in contact with). When he ran tests for lead in paint he found varying levels of lead in “lead free” paint up to 40%. The law doesn’t apply to your cars, appliances and garden furniture and lots of other things. After that experience, I will believe it’s lead free if I send it to a lab to be tested.
A massive fire erupts after a train carrying more than 100 tankers of crude oil derails in West Virginia.
Think we need the Keystone Pipeline for more than the jobs!
I think we need to leave that oil in the ground for future generations. If you think our culture will endure, we owe it to future generations to leave them some fossil fuel reserves. We can do so much with alternative fuels, we should use them when we can. Humans respond well to new challenges. If we limit the fossil fuel we can use, it doesn’t have to be an economic disaster. It can result in new and innovative ways of doing things, some of which are already proven technologies. It is only if you believe we are going to flame out that we can justify the freed of using this diminishing resource in our lifetimes and telling future generations to live with our greed. Even then it’s wrong to destroy the land to hasten our demise.
I have read the pipeline will result in 23 permanent jobs