Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our biggest ever river catch?

theoceancleanup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 190 posts

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#181

Post by staplers »

tiagod wrote: post #119
staplers wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standing trees will aways be more of a carbon sink than dead flat trees.

Older trees fix less carbon than newer trees. Paper products are essentially made of carbon extracted from the air, and you just plant new trees in the farm afterwards. Plastic, on the other hand, is taking carbon that's already sequestered deep underground and pulling it to the surface, with an obvious net positive carbon footprint. All that said, as far as I remember, trees are not and can not be a very major form…

The amount of utter dismissal of forest ecology and timber industry propaganda is sickening.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#182

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c »

gosub100 wrote: post #179
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad I’m doing my part one straw at a time /s

The anti straw campaign was proof that both sides engage in science denialism.

What is the scientific argument pro-straw beyond "yeah sure it doesn't make any difference, but it sure raised awareness of the plastics in the oceans issue! Don't forget the turtle!"

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#183

Post by scotty79 »

klysm wrote: post #175
scotty79 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still good. Way better than burning it.

That’s leaning into a false dichotomy. Not extracting it in the first is clearly the best option

Of course. However if not making plastic means extracting more to burn to haul around heavier glass then it better to make and landfill plastic.

We are in terrible situation and nothing is simple and even simple stuff is hard to implement and can turn out negative when we implemented.

Things backfire. People are buying plug-in hybrids but then they almost never charge them so material is wasted and de facto ice cars are unnecessarily heavier.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#184

Post by gosub100 »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #182
gosub100 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti straw campaign was proof that both sides engage in science denialism.

What is the scientific argument pro-straw beyond "yeah sure it doesn't make any difference, but it sure raised awareness of the plastics in the oceans issue! Don't forget the turtle!"

Claiming the anti-straw is unscientific doesn't require that I supply a scientific argument to support using one.

Obviously there is demand for them otherwise capitalist fast food chains would have eliminated them long ago to cut costs. I don't think it's hard to see why they are useful.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#185

Post by cvarjas »

amatecha wrote: post #73
aunty_helen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s how it works in Colombia, we separate our rubbish and recycling, put the bags out for the garbage truck in the morning. Homeless “recyclers” come around and pick through your trash looking for plastics they can sell to fund their crack addiction. Sometimes they just take the whole bag down to the river bank, cut it open and sort through the stuff they want discarding the rest on the bank. Next time it rains th…

The western mind can definitely comprehend it. When it's garbage pickup day in my city, sometimes people are going by on bicycles rooting through trash bins (or recycling bins if it's recycling pickup day) and taking anything they can turn in for a recycling deposit. This is in Vancouver, Canada. It's probably not nearly as prevalent as in Colombia, but yeah... And yes, for sure, the root cause is the creation of pla…

It's worth asking to use a bag you've brought. I do that all the time and businesses don't mind at all. Many are actually surprised and think it's a great idea.

For less planned purchases, I find it pretty easy to keep a bag in backpacks, jackets, etc. for ad hoc purchases (or carrying anything generally) to forgo one time use bags. The ones I use for everything are lightweight and foldable, and can easily fit in a pocket.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#186

Post by tiagod »

staplers wrote: post #180
tiagod wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older trees fix less carbon than newer trees. Paper products are essentially made of carbon extracted from the air, and you just plant new trees in the farm afterwards. Plastic, on the other hand, is taking carbon that's already sequestered deep underground and pulling it to the surface, with an obvious net positive carbon footprint. All that said, as far as I remember, trees are not and can not be a very major form…

trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing My god. I may have to leave this website for good. Just cut down all the forests they said! It'll be better for the environment!

You're twisting my words. Trees can't be the solution to our carbon problem, because they have no way to compete with humanity burning millions of years of carbon storage as fuel.

That doesn't mean trees aren't extremely important in countless different ways.

Which also doesn't mean that we shouldn't use wood as a material, if it's produced with principles.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#187

Post by tiagod »

staplers wrote: post #181
tiagod wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older trees fix less carbon than newer trees. Paper products are essentially made of carbon extracted from the air, and you just plant new trees in the farm afterwards. Plastic, on the other hand, is taking carbon that's already sequestered deep underground and pulling it to the surface, with an obvious net positive carbon footprint. All that said, as far as I remember, trees are not and can not be a very major form…

The amount of utter dismissal of forest ecology and timber industry propaganda is sickening.

Care to elaborate?

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#188

Post by shuvuvt5 »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #182
gosub100 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti straw campaign was proof that both sides engage in science denialism.

What is the scientific argument pro-straw beyond "yeah sure it doesn't make any difference, but it sure raised awareness of the plastics in the oceans issue! Don't forget the turtle!"

You mean besides not causing cancer?

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#189

Post by shuvuvt5 »

gosub100 wrote: post #184
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the scientific argument pro-straw beyond "yeah sure it doesn't make any difference, but it sure raised awareness of the plastics in the oceans issue! Don't forget the turtle!"

Claiming the anti-straw is unscientific doesn't require that I supply a scientific argument to support using one. Obviously there is demand for them otherwise capitalist fast food chains would have eliminated them long ago to cut costs. I don't think it's hard to see why they are useful.

I think straws are useful for the same reason take away coffee cup lids are.

The most hilarious outcome of this is the paper straws at places like Starbucks.

Feeding you coffee from a plastic cup through a cancer causing paper straw served to you wrapped in plastic.

Re: Our biggest ever river catch?

#190

Post by staplers »

tiagod wrote: post #186
staplers wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trees are not and can not be a very major form of carbon capturing My god. I may have to leave this website for good. Just cut down all the forests they said! It'll be better for the environment!

You're twisting my words. Trees can't be the solution to our carbon problem, because they have no way to compete with humanity burning millions of years of carbon storage as fuel. That doesn't mean trees aren't extremely important in countless different ways. Which also doesn't mean that we shouldn't use wood as a material, if it's produced with principles.

  if it's produced with principles.
Timber industries have shown for centuries they aren't concerned with carbon capture of forests and actively try to monoculture "regenerating" forests with herbicides which drastically reduces carbon capture.

This documentary gives a good idea into my reasoning on why believing timber propaganda that "trees are better when cut down and regrowing" is false:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDgzOcsNm9g

Post reply on HN