95% of plastic in oceans comes from just ten rivers� | Daily Mail Online

So how about instead of banning straws, we work with the rest of the G12 and impose hefty environmental tariffs on these polluters that wind up undercutting our jobs/factories by destroying the environment?

The day we decide to impose an environmental embargo on China the way we do on countries like Iran for nuclear technology, is the day we save the planet.

Like, a carbon tax?



China already imposed a environmental embargo on us, by refusing our plastic garbage. Now we have to figure out what to do with it.

Oh here's the meme's origin.
We aren't the #1 polluter so we shouldn't do shit about pollution.

Get real Herb. We need to let our rivers get as bad as the rest before we do anything about them.







/s

You think making people pay more taxes will prevent pollution?

Maybe if we invest in more biodegradable tech research and make that cheaper than the alternatives we can curtail pollution. The first step to dealing with pollution is accepting that regardless of what taxes or law you enact; pollution will still happen. Taxing me for "creating carbon" will do nothing. Robbing me of my money to save me is a retarded idea.

No, but it has to start somewhere, even if that somewhere is just a token placeholder.



'Biodegradeable' plastic is a pipe dream. Plastic does not biodegrade, because it is not biological. It breaks down into smaller and smaller bits, but those bits are with us forever.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... tname=none

https://soranews24.com/2019/05/27/nara- ... -properly/



No, it will only happen if we continue to see it as acceptable. Even been in a major US city? Garbage everywhere, the smell of urine. Do you see or smell that in Calgary? No, because it's unacceptable.



Worked for smoking.

No, but it has to start somewhere, even if that somewhere is just a token placeholder.

On;y it doesn't work


'Biodegradeable' plastic is a pipe dream. Plastic does not biodegrade, because it is not biological. It breaks down into smaller and smaller bits, but those bits are with us forever.
Re-read my comment. Nowhere did I say "Plastic"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... tname=none

https://soranews24.com/2019/05/27/nara- ... -properly/



No, it will only happen if we continue to see it as acceptable. Even been in a major US city? Garbage everywhere, the smell of urine. Do you see or smell that in Calgary? No, because it's unacceptable.
I smell piss in alley's daily. It's horrid. However, using fines or laws to curtail repundent behavior doesn't work. Otherwise, we'd have no need for prisons, police or parking control


Worked for smoking.
Did it? Smoking is still a thing
Pollution will still happen regardless of how much you charge the average Canadian for existing. Research into inexpensive disposal and into material that can break down if it ends up in water or on land.

I'll just quote this from the other thread. Save myself some time.



Except 'Do nothing' isn't what was said or suggested, is it?

Oh well...let's play the 'how many times do you have to say something before Beave and his crew hear it,' game, again.

From an article in the Financial post:

"There are simple solutions available to us that don�t involve heavy-handed bans. First, we could focus more strictly on limiting how plastics end up in our rivers, lakes and streams. Better recycling programs and stricter littering prohibitions could go a long way to curbing the plastic Canada does contribute. For those single-use products that otherwise end up in landfills, we could follow Sweden�s lead, and incinerate that waste. Doing so creates a power source for local communities, while capturing airborne toxins, limiting toxic runoff, and significantly reducing the volume of waste.

Good public policy should address a real problem and should make a meaningful impact on the said problem. Unfortunately, Trudeau�s proposed single-use plastics ban would have little to no impact on overall ocean waste, while promoting high-impact alternatives, and inflating costs for consumers. All three of these factored together create a fairly toxic policy mix."

So, here in Canada, we're dealing with much less pollution than the hysterics on the left are pulling their hair out about. It appears manageable. The alternative is to increase cost of alternatives by four times and increase air pollution producing the alternatives. It isn't just straws. It would have to be take-out containers, cups, lids, those plastic inlays in Justin's water bottles and on and on. "Single-use plastics."

Giving government "management" powers over a ban would have to produce problems we haven't thought of yet.

What some conservatives are actually saying is do an even better job of cleaning than we've been doing and try to pressure the real perpetrators of the much bigger problem - the 99.09 percent of the problem to smarten up.

Fuck prevention. Punishment is the way.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not but if you are, why couldn't you do both?

Just be smart and inventive in how the prevention/cleanup was done, judicious in the punishment for lawbreakers and in the case of International pressure, diplomatic.

On;y it doesn't work

Nothing 'works' right away, but like I wrote, you have to start somewhere in order to get buy in. In order to do something that actually works, it would have profound ripples in our economy.




It's in the thread title.



Enforcement is what's needed then. I walk around down town Edmonton often. Very little garbage, and only a certain area smells like piss.



Worked for smoking.
Did it? Smoking is still a thing

Not as much as it used to be.



https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82- ... 76-eng.htm



Charging the polluter for pollution (not just the average Canadian, but the industrial person as well) will result in less pollution, and will drive people to actions that cost less and therefore create less pollution. It also has the ability to fund alternatives that don't create the problem trying to be corrected. (Mass transit, for example)

Research, man, research.

Jacking my cost of living up is not an appropriate way to combat pollution.

Why not indeed.

When things are made cheaper more of them ste consimed. When things sre made more expensive less of them are consumed. These straws and plastic bags and coffee stirrers are literally given away for free.

Also isn�t funny how the people who hate government and want less of it think it�s the government�s job to pay for and conduct product research for the plastic industry?

And so also mow apparently laws have no effect on behaviour so I guess we should just now repeal all the laws? I guess all the plastic manufacturing companies and distributors and retailers will just go rogue and keep manufacturing and shipping and stocking out contraband or something ?

Oh, of course.
Top ten shitty rivers are all in Africa or Asia, so it
make perfect sense that whitey should pay extra tax.

After all, being the moral authority will just work out fine.