
Ocean cleaning device succeeds in removing plastic for the first time - lelf
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/tech/ocean-cleanup-catching-plastic-scn-trnd/index.html
======
mrtrombone
This has been an interesting discussion but I am surprised at the high level
of criticism towards the project. There seems to be two primary critiques of
the project:

1\. This should not be an area of focus - There are better climate change
opportunities to put money towards

2\. The project is ineffective and introduces a lot of other environmental
problems

For the first point it seems like people are arguing as if it is a binary
problem. It isn’t - The threat of climate change / environmental damage is an
incredibly complex one that will not be fixed by a single technology / focus/
policy change. For me the questions are a. ’Are existing plastics in our ocean
a problem? (yes) b. If someone is passionate about this should they have a
crack at improving things? (yes) This is not consuming all the worlds
available financing for environmental action so I don’t think wasted
resourcing is a particularly good argument. Several commentators also talk
about focusing on other ‘lower’ hanging fruit but this is not an objective
measure - For a team made up of excellent engineers, oceanographers, fluid
dynamics experts etc this may be a lower hanging fruit than trying to
implement large scale policy change.

For the second point it comes down to the motivations of the team and their
capacity and capability to improve the product. I would presume the team are
incredibly passionate about improving the environment and so things like
danger to floating marine life, use of diesel in boats etc would absolutely be
something they are aware of and actively looking to mitigate. The fact this is
(at least) the third iteration demonstrates they are working to improve on
what they know is a currently flawed solution - This is development cycle!

This is not to say that critique is bad. Hopefully the team are humble enough
to absorb the critique and continue to iterate on their solution to resolve
the real issues raised but as long as there is a continued focus on the goal
of environmental cleanup and good governance surrounding this I think this is
a fantastic project and hopefully it is joined by many more ambitious
activities.

~~~
joe_the_user
I would add that people have noted that the Pacific Garbage Patch is large and
has a low density of plastic. I assume that ocean also has a relatively low
density of fish altogether but industrial fishing is able to catch a pretty
large proportion of these at this point (with beneficial and problem
consequences). With plastic not trying to flee and fish moving, it doesn't
seems a-priori impossible to create a device that would just skim a large
portion of the plastic off.

Of course, unless the world's nation change their policies, this will be moot
and environmental destruction generally will accelerate given our present
politics. But shitting on this particular project hardly seems a useful way to
force this absolutely necessary general change.

~~~
itcrowd
The threat, some argue, with the Ocean Cleanup is not so much to
"traditional", underwater fish, but rather to an obscure floating type of
species known as the neuston [1]. Marine biologists are warning about the
impact of the OC on this species because so little is understood of their
value to marine life.

[1] The entry is very short on Wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleuston#Neuston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleuston#Neuston)

~~~
gisely
The Ocean Cleanup's analysis of neuston:
[https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/the-ocean-cleanup-and-
th...](https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/the-ocean-cleanup-and-the-neuston/)

------
gizmo
Unfortunately the approaches taken by Ocean Cleanup make no sense. What Ocean
Cleanup is doing isn't new, they're trying strategies that have previously
been tried and found to be uneconomical/ineffective. This startup has received
a lot of flak from experts for a reason: they're big on hype but haven't
produced any results. Sending big diesel powered boats into the sea to collect
a few thousand pounds of plastic is a joke.

If the goal is to capture a gigantic amount of plastic cheaply, just place
nets where polluted rivers in southeast Asia meet the sea. Those rivers carry
all the plastic waste from the cities to the sea, so that's where the focus
should be. But cleaning the rivers in poor parts of the world isn't a sexy hi-
tech problem that results in TED talks. So Ocean Cleanup will continue to make
more solar-powered autonomous boondoggles and they will accomplish nothing.

~~~
ehnto
If we stopped producing all plastic right now, the oceans would still be full
of plastic. Even if we treat the source we'll still need to clean up. The
damage has already been done. It won't go away on it's own over time.

~~~
gizmo
It's much cheaper to prevent plastic reaching the ocean than cleaning it up
after, so that's where the focus should be. It's not a matter of the damage
"already been done". All additional plastic that ends up in the ocean is still
bad. Estimates are that 10% of all plastics produced annually ends up in the
ocean, about 10 million tonnes annually. That's a staggering amount.

The great pacific garbage patch -- as mentioned in the article -- is twice the
size of Texas, but the garbage density is low: only 4 parts per m3. And only
5% of the garbage is at the surface (10 meters deep or so). That's what makes
the cleanup fiendishly difficult. So let's focus on the low hanging fruit
first.

~~~
titzer
> so that's where the focus should be.

See this a lot. You are using your own limited attention span to argue that
others shouldn't be doing the work they are doing because you can only think
about one problem at a time. There are 7.7 billion people on this Earth damn
it, we can and should work on multiple different parts of a problem at once.
The garbage which is in the oceans needs to extracted (and extracted _now_ ,
before it gets ground into microplastics), and as others have mentioned, other
people are working on catching runoff waste at river sources.

I never really understood people who shout from the sidelines that people who
are actually working their asses off on the problem are doing it wrong. Have a
little more respect.

~~~
hanniabu
Not to mention that there are other projects focus on stopping garbage
creation at the source of consumers with creating garbage collection and
processing programs in these 3rd world areas.

------
OscarCunningham
These comments are full of arguments where one person suggests a course of
action and another person replies that the alternatives are worse (plastic vs
paper, wild fish vs farmed, cleaning up plastic vs cutting carbon). It's
impossible for anyone to fully foresee the environmental consequences of the
products they buy. This is the reason why the only solutions to these problems
is for our governments to impose Pigovian taxes for harms to the environment
(and equal subsidies for helps to the environment). Then all the consequences
of our choices filter back to us in monetary terms. No other method is capable
of weighing all the different factors.

------
hourislate
These Cleaning Devices should be placed at the mouth of these 10 rivers. It
would prevent 90% of all Ocean plastic.

[https://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-
comes-...](https://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-comes-from-
just-10-rivers/a-41581484)

~~~
comicjk
I think that article is based on outdated information. More recently people
have started to look at plastic released on the open sea through fishing, and
found it to be bigger than all land-based sources.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-f...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/dumped-
fishing-gear-is-biggest-plastic-polluter-in-ocean-finds-report)

~~~
adaml_623
Sorry I think you've misread that article. Gear from fishing is "estimated to
make up 10% of ocean plastic pollution".

70% of large things. 10% of total.

~~~
keanzu
Well that's some confusing reporting. The title is "Dumped fishing gear is
biggest plastic polluter in ocean, finds report" yet does go on to say 10%.

Greenpeace: "Ghost gear makes up an estimated 10% of the plastic waste in our
oceans, but represents a much higher proportion of large plastics found
floating at the surface."

[https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/8248/ghost-
gear-t...](https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/8248/ghost-gear-the-
abandoned-fishing-nets-haunting-our-oceans/)

------
spaceandshit
Joe Rogan recently talked to the organization's founder for a second time, and
discussed some of these things.

[https://youtu.be/whRVyywTov4](https://youtu.be/whRVyywTov4)

~~~
lsh
that was a good watch actually, recommended

~~~
bagacrap
Meh, I thought Joe failed to ask any tough (but obvious) questions, like for
an economic comparison between collection and prevention. The technologically
easiest and no doubt cheapest solution is to tax plastic production. Ideally
this would help shift us towards greener alternatives (corn based, silica
based, paper based, reusables, etc). The revenues can go towards cleanup. I
bet we could spend less money to get the same amount of used plastic if we
simply paid Kuala Lumpur for their trash. Sounds a bit ludicrous but better
than converting the world's waterways into a conveyor belt for trash.

We simply don't have the political will though. So that will fail and so will
this.

~~~
radicsge
Why do you expecting that they should solve every problem in the world? It is
really parallel (collection until prevention).

They really put down something on the table, pitched for their idea and
delivered it. You can go ahead and execute your dream as well.

------
jacknews
Fantastic news, but how effective is it?

EG, It might be more effective to catch the plastic at source, and put these
barriers on river mouths. Especially in Asia, which seems to be aa major
'contributor'. Though perhaps there's also a 'great Atlantic garbage patch'

~~~
esotericn
The same company also has exactly those barriers at major polluting rivers.

~~~
ocschwar
Initially it looked like their idea was only feasible in river mouths and not
the open ocean. Definitely more efficient to put them in rivers, but now it
looks like the ocean is fair game too.

------
Steuard
Last I heard, there were serious concerns that these cleanup devices would
wind up absolutely devastating ocean ecosystems that naturally form in the
same places that plastic piles up:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/ocean-
cl...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/ocean-cleanup-
project-could-destroy-neuston/580693/)

I got this link from a Twitter thread last fall:
[https://twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1179861389575245824](https://twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1179861389575245824)
The Ocean Cleanup folks responded (there's a link in the thread), and the
author who raised concerns responded in turn (also linked). To my eye, it
seems like there are some pretty wide open scientific questions about the
impacted ecosystems, and I'm not at all convinced that the Ocean Cleanup folks
have demonstrated sufficient care about those uncertainties and concerns.

~~~
radicsge
Since the plastic is breaking down (these patches would disappear without
supply) and I guess you yourself also doesn't want to pollute the ocean with
new plastic not sure why is this an issue.

Or do you suggest to continue to pollute the ocean?

------
trekrich
Five Asian Countries Dump More Plastic Into Oceans Than Anyone Else Combined:
How You Can Help

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung/2018/04/21/five-
asi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahleung/2018/04/21/five-asian-
countries-dump-more-plastic-than-anyone-else-combined-how-you-can-help/)

more focus needs to be placed here. Everyone can do their bit. But they need
to do more.

~~~
newguy1234
The same guy in the article is also making a device that cleans river water
before it goes into the ocean. I think it is a good idea overall.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZArQMFhQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZArQMFhQ4)

------
Reedx
Cleanup is good, but are there efforts in identifying and cutting off the
major inputs? That should be step 1 to have the biggest impact.

As long as there are are literal dump trucks of trash being emptied straight
into rivers...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeDY3I841q0)

...it feels like we're spinning our wheels in almost comical fashion.

~~~
bagacrap
Yes the same startup is trying to collect trash at the mouths of rivers. But
even that is not far enough upstream. The problem must be tackled before the
trash gets into the river. But how do you convince a developing country to
invest in waste disposal infrastructure that has no economic benefit to them?
Politics is much harder than tech.

This startup might as well be funded by the petroleum industry. If they can
convince the lay person that "we're on it" ie that someone else is solving the
plastic issue, and individual consumers can go back to using as much plastic
as they wish, it will be a terrific investment.

------
Aunche
Rather than remove plastic from the ocean, wouldn't it be easier and better
for the environment to just build landfills in developing countries.

~~~
gizmo
Contrary to public perception, landfills are the most environmentally friendly
way to dispose of most types of garbage. The challenge is to get the garbage
to the landfill.

~~~
hanniabu
This also assumes that the landfill is properly prepared. An unlined pit
leaching chemicals into underground wells isn't that great.

------
ggregoire
They also built a solar-powered plastics interceptor boat to clean at the
source.

[https://theoceancleanup.com/rivers](https://theoceancleanup.com/rivers)

------
aj7
Meaningless without metrics such as energy cost per kg removed, etc. Do we
have adequate means to reuse or dispose of the waste acquired? Does it have
value that improves the metrics, or are there additional costs once the boat
comes in? This technology is more useful once we have eliminated the waste
SUPPLY, I suspect.

~~~
radicsge
You are forgetting the damage that the plastic is doing for the wildlife /
fishes.

The plastic is breaking down to the size that is impossible to capture. This
project is needed yesterday already.

------
philshem
Here’s an interesting 2019 New Yorker article about Ocean Cleanup

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/04/a-grand-
plan-t...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/04/a-grand-plan-to-
clean-the-great-pacific-garbage-patch)

------
popopje
An interesting article re wildlife that lives at the ocean's surface and
drifts around in the same way that plastic does and how this may affect it
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/ocean-
cl...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/ocean-cleanup-
project-could-destroy-neuston/580693/) plus their response
[https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/the-ocean-cleanup-and-
th...](https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/the-ocean-cleanup-and-the-neuston/)

------
ourlordcaffeine
The ocean cleanup device is absolutely terrible for floating marine life.

~~~
mcv
Is there evidence for that? I've seen people claim this, but I haven't seen
any supporting evidence for it.

The ocean is big. At the moment, the ocean cleanup is still small. I'd suggest
investigating the impact, rather than claiming there is impact without
evidence. If it turns out the cure (cleanup) is worse than the disease
(plastic), then it makes sense to stop the ocean cleanup. Until then, let's
continue and see what this will accomplish.

~~~
ourlordcaffeine
It's been pointed out by experts in the field of floating marine life[1] [2].
Boyan has not been very co-operative with the scientists raising these
concerns.

The current impact is small, but they plan to have loads of these constantly
operating - that will cause huge impact.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/rebeccarhelm/status/1179861389575245824?...](https://twitter.com/rebeccarhelm/status/1179861389575245824?lang=en)

[2] [http://www.deepseanews.com/2019/02/the-ocean-cleanup-
struggl...](http://www.deepseanews.com/2019/02/the-ocean-cleanup-struggles-to-
prove-it-will-not-harm-sea-life/)

~~~
mcv
I'm no expert on this issue, but it seems to me that the question here is not
merely whether the ocean cleanup will harm marine life, but also whether _not_
cleaning up the ocean will harm marine life. They're not there for something
inconsequential, they're there to clean up the plastic, which many people
assume is harmful for marine life.

So the question isn't whether the cleanup is harmful, but whether it's more
harmful than the alternatives, including not cleaning up.

And since both parties point out how little we know about this, I would expect
the answer to this question to be: we have no idea. So that's something that
needs to be tested: how much of various kind of life is there before the
cleanup, and how much is there after an area has been cleaned up?

Until that is done, we can have no idea how big the impact will be, and in
which direction that impact will be. Maybe neuston life will survive the
cleanup. Maybe it will recover quickly. Maybe it won't. There might even be
organisms that have adapted to the presence of plastic; what do we do with
that?

In any case, suggesting that cleaning up plastic from the oceans is going to
be a disaster seems to me just as presumptuous as assuming that any particular
method of cleaning is going to be totally perfect. It needs to be a process of
discovery. Cooperation with the scientific community is absolutely vital. But
doing nothing doesn't sound like a good option here.

------
_0ffh
Boyan Slat was on the Joe Rogan Experience about a month ago. If you're
interested in the topic, I recommend you watch (or listen to) it!

------
remote_phone
We need a law that bans all single use plastic. We should only allow one or
two forms of plastic that are guaranteed recyclable and make everything else
compostable.

~~~
egdod
We, as in the United States? Or we, as in every country in the world but
mostly the third world?

The first one would be comparatively easy but would do almost no good. The
second one would actually help, if it weren’t impossible, but it is.

~~~
mcv
We, as in humanity, I'd assume. Of course that means we need laws in every
country, or a binding international agreement or something. In any case, "we",
as in "everybody", need to quit using non-degradable plastic wrappers and
bags.

------
arkitaip
The fact that it can catch microplastics is very impressive.

~~~
gus_massa
The article and the press release has no numbers, so it's difficult to
estimate how much miroplastic they got. My guess is that the holes in the net
are too big to catch microplastic unless it gets stranded with other bigger
plastic of plants.

Also, this sentence of the article doesn't make sense:

> _The system 's success in capturing microplastics came as a welcome surprise
> since microplastics tend to fall to the ocean floor rather than float on the
> surface, according to the press release. Since microplasitcs tend to sink,
> Ocean Cleanup focused on large pieces of plastic._

The plastic float or sink according to it's density, not it's size.

~~~
ridgeguy
There will be a size below which fluid turbulence determines particle motion
rather than particle density. This minimum size will increase for particles
with rough surfaces or high shape drag coefficients, or both.

In air, this size is ~ 10µm diameter [1]. In seawater, it should be
considerably larger because Reynold's number.

[1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/airborne-
pa...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/airborne-particle)

~~~
gus_massa
If it goes to the top or to the bottom is decided by the density. The
difference between the density at the top of the ocean and at the bottom is
very small 1.020 g/cm3 vs 1.050 g/cm3 . So it's very difficult to find a
plastic that is in between
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#Thermophysical_proper...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater#Thermophysical_properties_of_seawater)

I agree that the size is important for the viscosity drag. This is the reason
why the centrifuges are use in the lab to separate cells of blood or very
small precipitates in solution.

This can explain why a sibling comment says that suspending within 5 meters of
the surface. If the plastic "wants" to float, but the waves mix the top few
meters and it is so small that the drag don't allow it to reach the surface
before the next wave mix it again.

But to go to the bottom of the ocean, the plastic needs a higher density.

------
JetBen
Already got the next assignment for this kid once he's done with this project
- get rid of space junk. =)

------
ykevinator
This is great. Doers versus talkers,nice to see a doer get a win

------
spodek
Let's keep in mind that prevention -- less production -- reduces pollution
more than cleaning after it's there.

Regulation can help, which results from popular support. Bans and other
legislation in cities and nations around the world are resulting from people
voicing and acting against plastic and pollution, but we're barely started.

When enough of us act as consumers not to buy polluting products, producers
will respond to products not selling by producing less.

I would have thought I couldn't do much until I started avoiding packaged
food. A few years' practice led to me filling only one load of garbage per
year in 2019, 2018, and 2017 [http://joshuaspodek.com/avoiding-food-
packaging-2](http://joshuaspodek.com/avoiding-food-packaging-2) \-- while
saving money and time and increasing meals with friends and family and meeting
my farmers. Those in food deserts or who had less time asked me to teach them
to do it since it helped them.

Food packaging is only one source of plastic. We can avoid other junk too,
particularly relevant after Christmas. Anecdotally, here in Manhattan, piles
of garbage around discarded pine trees look larger, overflowing with
packaging.

~~~
Iv
The first source of oceans plastic is fishing nets. Ground based sources of
oceanic plastic are coastal cities. Rivers in developed countries carry very
little plastic to the sea. Actually a fistful of rivers in poor population
basin account for most of the inland sources of oceanic plastic.

Your own trash is very unlikely to end up in the ocean.

~~~
spodek
> The first source of oceans plastic is fishing nets

So apply what I wrote and you get: eat less fish.

Since this is HN, people will talk about pros and cons of eating fish, but
there's only one reason people create fishing nets. If people consume less of
things that damage the environment, we will produce less of it and therefore
damage less of it. If some populations have to eat it, most can still eat
less. I last ate fish in 1990.

~~~
gfodor
An aside: why do those advocating for ways to improve the environment continue
to land themselves in a place where their final answer to a problem is
"simple: people should just do X instead of Y." These are not solutions,
unless you explain how you are going to shift the behavior of billions of
people to a point where it makes a real, sustainable difference. Nearly any
other approach is more feasible to solving problems. If you _are_ going to say
such a thing, to be taken seriously you must articulate how you can re-align
incentives to cause such a behavior change to happen at a large scale enough
to move the needle. Your own experience doing so also does not move that
argument forward in any way.

A system where people still consume as much fish as they please, and our
technological and governmental structures lead to downstream processes that
mitigate the environmental impact of that situation may not be a globally
maximal solution compared to a world where we end fish consumption. But it
does have one nice attribute: it may actually be possible to achieve.
Personally, I do hold out hope for an even better solution, where we get to
consume the foods we love but they are created without the need for animals to
live and die to give it to us.

~~~
umvi
There's at least one way to get people to eat less meat/fish:

Make plant based alternatives cheaper than the real thing. I would definitely
buy impossible meat if it were cheaper than real beef. As it stands it is
several times more expensive than real beef. Same for impossible fish (if such
a thing were to exist).

If impossible fish sticks taste nearly identical to real fish sticks, but it's
cheaper and plant-based, why _wouldn 't_ your average consumer buy impossible
fish sticks for their kids?

~~~
soperj
Lots of fish sticks are made from tilapia, which are plant feeding fresh water
fish. They're basically impossible fish sticks.

------
jacquesm
It's absolutely sickening how in the food department of a supermarket it has
become pretty much impossible to avoid plastic packaging. _Everything_ that I
could buy in paper wrappings only a few years ago is now wrapped in plastic.
Even things like apples and sliced cheese now come with plastic attached in
some way or other.

Never mind the stuff in plastic clamshells that doesn't need packaging at all.
(Scissors for instance)

~~~
konschubert
If you live in a developed country, you can be quite confident that your
plastic rubbish won’t reach the ocean on human time scales.

It’s almost a non-issue, especially considering the existential threat that is
climate change.

(The climate impact of plastic packaging is negligible)

~~~
rockinghigh
Even in landfills, plastics pollute water and soil via phthalates and
Bisphenol A.

[https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-
stories/story/plastic...](https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-
stories/story/plastic-planet-how-tiny-plastic-particles-are-polluting-our-
soil)

~~~
peteradio
I don't see anywhere in the linked article making your claim.

~~~
Wald76
It’s there:

> Chemical effects are especially problematic at the decomposition stage.
> Additives such as phthalates and Bisphenol A (widely known as BPA) leach out
> of plastic particles. These additives are known for their hormonal effects
> and can disrupt the hormone system of vertebrates and invertebrates alike.
> In addition, nano-sized particles may cause inflammation, traverse cellular
> barriers, and even cross highly selective membranes such as the blood-brain
> barrier or the placenta. Within the cell, they can trigger changes in gene
> expression and biochemical reactions, among other things.

~~~
peteradio
"Even in landfills" per OPs claim. I don't see that claim being made in your
selection there.

~~~
philliphaydon
Decomposition... would occur... in landfill...

~~~
peteradio
Landfills... are lined... so.. they don't... leach... into... groundwater..

------
dang
Url changed from [https://www.ecowatch.com/ocean-cleaning-device-
plastic-26408...](https://www.ecowatch.com/ocean-cleaning-device-
plastic-2640832397.html), which points to this.

------
walrus01
And how much fuel was required to tow it out to the great pacific garbage
patch and back again? The support vessel in the photo looks quite large. The
daily operating cost for an offshore support vessel of that size is
significant.

~~~
neuronic
This HAS to be a troll post. This thing goes out and attempts to clean first
world luxury pollution while 10 cruise liners with gullible tourists drive
past it but the clean up vessel is the one where we have to bring attention to
its pollution??

Before we axe this lets axe useless and shitty cruise liners first.

~~~
bagacrap
This HAS to be a troll post. The cost of cleanup should not exceed the benefit
of cleanup, or it is definitionally not cleanup. The societal benefit of
cruise ships is not measured in improvements to the environment, so it's
harder to make a direct comparison and say if they're worth it overall.

In any case, these are totally orthogonal operations. Both should be
optimized.

------
sharcerer
Is banning plastic from packaging really beneficial or not?

Came across this 2 days back.
[https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/121521275667838566...](https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/1215212756678385664)

------
syshum
This is an example of Environmental Action vs Environmental Talk

Innovation and actions are var more valuable than lecturing everyone and
demanding governments to use taxation and violence to solve the problem.

~~~
ocschwar
2nd law of thermodynamics: it's always cheaper to avoid a mess than it is to
clean it up. Ergo, better to use the political route.

~~~
syshum
While yes it is cheaper to avoid the mess, innovation can lead to avoiding the
mess

I do not believe that the "political route" of taxation and violence is the
best way to "avoid the mess", in fact I believe that will only prolong and
increase the mess and do nothing to avoid it.

Governments are ineffective and inefficient, all government solutions are
based on threats of violence, and we know from centuries of history violence
is not the solution to any problem, thus government is not the solution to any
problem

GOVERNMENT: If you think your problems are bad, just wait until you see our
solutions

~~~
ocschwar
> I do not believe that the "political route" of taxation and violence is the
> best way to "avoid the mess"

The reason I have clean water in my tap is that the eco-fascist goons of the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority guard the Quabbin Reservoir with all
the zealotry you'd expect of the Commonwealth. So, taxation and violence. And
it's cheaper than forcing every resident of Massachusetts to buy a home water
filter.

------
unexaminedlife
If it gets bad enough future generations will outlaw non-biodegradable
products. So it's also in the best interest of producers to help in these
matters.

In fact, this is a little off topic, but there are 2 things that may coincide
here. Exorbitant salaries of executives at most if not all of those same
companies that play a huge role in the devastation should redirect that money
to fixing some of the environmental issues their companies are exacerbating.

If those companies aren't putting enough into offsetting the problems they're
causing to the environment they shouldn't be paying their executives so much
money. Redirect that money to the planet.

I'd go so far to say financial companies may not play a huge role directly,
but certainly play an enormous role indirectly. They should be paying that
same penalty (re: executive salaries / profits) based on their portfolio of
companies.

