From December, in the New York Times.

https://archive.is/1xu3n

(Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.")

There are 12 questions. I'm doing about 8 of the recommendations already. Example: "buying fewer things." The only thing I could buy less of - maybe - is food. The few other things I buy are necessities, aside from maybe the second-hand books I buy for little relatives.

What was interesting was that while the author mentioned, BEFORE the quiz, how other online lists of recommendations might include not having children, that wasn't included in the quiz.

(My guess is that while he certainly wanted to make everyone aware of that choice, neither he or anyone else wants to promote it too loudly for fear of backlash - especially from those poor young people for whom parenthood is the only accomplishment in their lives. But then, why not phrase it as "have fewer children," when so many kids are still unplanned anyway?)

Aside from that, at the end, you DO get to see the actions that are most recommended by scientists. Though I would think that another somewhat important action - not in the quiz - would be "search for non-plastic packaging when buying goods." The first rule, after all, has always been "reduce," not "recycle."

On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:55:13 UTC, Lenona wrote:
> From December, in the New York Times.
>
> https://archive.is/1xu3n
>
> (Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.")
>
> There are 12 questions. I'm doing about 8 of the recommendations already. Example: "buying fewer things." The only thing I could buy less of - maybe - is food. The few other things I buy are necessities, aside from maybe the second-hand books I buy for little relatives.
>
> What was interesting was that while the author mentioned, BEFORE the quiz, how other online lists of recommendations might include not having children, that wasn't included in the quiz.
>
> (My guess is that while he certainly wanted to make everyone aware of that choice, neither he or anyone else wants to promote it too loudly for fear of backlash - especially from those poor young people for whom parenthood is the only accomplishment in their lives. But then, why not phrase it as "have fewer children," when so many kids are still unplanned anyway?)
>
> Aside from that, at the end, you DO get to see the actions that are most recommended by scientists. Though I would think that another somewhat important action - not in the quiz - would be "search for non-plastic packaging when buying goods." The first rule, after all, has always been "reduce," not "recycle."

There's an argument made, perhaps untruthfully,
that plastic packaging has less "carbon footprint"
than other packaging. Read here for instance.
<https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsat.3504_10.x>

But filling the habitable dimensions of Earth with
waste plastic, from microscopic size upward,
has other drawbacks. Probably.

One or more sci fi stories imagine that some microbe
learns to eat the stuff, which turns out bad for humans
who rely on it. In real life, you also get cats or dogs or
rodents chewing on things. If any of those critters
are in your home.

You may be able to get foods with no packaging at all,
in that you bring your own, probably cleaned, containers
to a grocer to be filled while you wait - or self-service.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> writes:
>On Tuesday, 7 February 2023 at 17:55:13 UTC, Lenona wrote:
>> From December, in the New York Times.=20
>>=20
>> https://archive.is/1xu3n=20
>>=20
>> (Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.")=
>=20
>>=20
>> There are 12 questions. I'm doing about 8 of the recommendations already.=
> Example: "buying fewer things." The only thing I could buy less of - maybe=
> - is food. The few other things I buy are necessities, aside from maybe th=
>e second-hand books I buy for little relatives.=20
>>=20
>> What was interesting was that while the author mentioned, BEFORE the quiz=
>, how other online lists of recommendations might include not having childr=
>en, that wasn't included in the quiz.=20
>>=20
>> (My guess is that while he certainly wanted to make everyone aware of tha=
>t choice, neither he or anyone else wants to promote it too loudly for fear=
> of backlash - especially from those poor young people for whom parenthood =
>is the only accomplishment in their lives. But then, why not phrase it as "=
>have fewer children," when so many kids are still unplanned anyway?)=20
>>=20
>> Aside from that, at the end, you DO get to see the actions that are most =
>recommended by scientists. Though I would think that another somewhat impor=
>tant action - not in the quiz - would be "search for non-plastic packaging =
>when buying goods." The first rule, after all, has always been "reduce," no=
>t "recycle."
>
>There's an argument made, perhaps untruthfully,=20
>that plastic packaging has less "carbon footprint"
>than other packaging. Read here for instance.
><https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsat.3504_10.x>

This is an advertisement by a company that makes "climate
friendly" packaging materials, not a study or rigourously
designed research.

The author writes, when discussing cardboard:

"This [making paper] involves the use of an enormous amount of energy and
then, when the cardboard decomposes, carbon dioxide is released back into
the atmosphere, contributing to rising global temperatures."

While mostly factually accurate, the final clause is incorrect, as the carbon released
from the decomposing cardboard wasn't derived from geologically sequestered
carbon. In that sense it is carbon neutral. The same reasoning applies to cow burps.

And, the energy used to harvest the tree, turn it into paperboard, and subsequently
into cardboard can easily be produced from renewable sources which makes
the resulting box carbon neutral.

Any form of plastic derived from geologically sequestered carbon
cannot ever be "carbon neutral" or even "carbon friendly" leaving
aside the concerns about plastics in the environment.

In article <80c5628d-7bf1-4345-95c7-f2c5b0b5813en@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>You may be able to get foods with no packaging at all,
>in that you bring your own, probably cleaned, containers
>to a grocer to be filled while you wait - or self-service.

Irradiated food takes longer to decay, so perhaps each grocery
could be provided with their own supply of Cobalt 60. Just blast
the food with a few million rems and it should take a while for
microbes to recolonized.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <80c5628d-7bf1-4345-95c7-f2c5b0b5813en@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>There's an argument made, perhaps untruthfully,
>that plastic packaging has less "carbon footprint"
>than other packaging. Read here for instance.
><https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsat.3504_10.x>
>
>But filling the habitable dimensions of Earth with
>waste plastic, from microscopic size upward,
>has other drawbacks. Probably.

Several years ago, there was some discussion of a thermal
depolymerization process to deal with all kinds of organic
wastes. Turns the bulk of it into fuels and chemical
feedstocks. I'm not sure what the current state of that is.

>One or more sci fi stories imagine that some microbe
>learns to eat the stuff ...

Mutant 59!

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:12:42 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> There's an argument made, perhaps untruthfully,
> that plastic packaging has less "carbon footprint"
> than other packaging.

I wouldn't know about that, but it sure has less of a carbon footprint
than burning fuel made from the same oil instead would have had.

The bans on plastic are for reasons unrelated to the greenhouse
effect - the problems caused by microplastics for marine life and
so on.

John Savard

On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 00:13:48 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 12:12:42 PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > There's an argument made, perhaps untruthfully,
> > that plastic packaging has less "carbon footprint"
> > than other packaging.
> I wouldn't know about that, but it sure has less of a carbon footprint
> than burning fuel made from the same oil instead would have had.
>
> The bans on plastic are for reasons unrelated to the greenhouse
> effect - the problems caused by microplastics for marine life and
> so on.

However, plastic is liable to end up getting incinerated
anyway - unless it escapes to lie around in the environment
like we were discussing.

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-5, Lenona wrote:
> From December, in the New York Times.
>
> https://archive.is/1xu3n
>
> (Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.") \

For what it's worth, here are the questions, the correct answer, and the share of Americans who got it right.

Buying fewer things Small 50%
Lowering the room temperature Small 48%
Installing heat pumps Moderate 39%
Using energy-efficient appliances Small 35%
Car-pooling Small 34%
Recycling Small 33%
Eating a vegetarian diet Moderate 26%
Living car-free Large 24%
Eating organic food Moderate 23%
Using renewable electricity Large 22%
Avoiding a long flight Large 13%
Eating a vegan diet Large 6%

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-5, Ross Presser wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-5, Lenona wrote:
> > From December, in the New York Times.
> >
> > https://archive.is/1xu3n
> >
> > (Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.") \
>
> For what it's worth, here are the questions, the correct answer, and the share of Americans who got it right.
>
> Buying fewer things Small 50%
> Lowering the room temperature Small 48%
> Installing heat pumps Moderate 39%
> Using energy-efficient appliances Small 35%
> Car-pooling Small 34%
> Recycling Small 33%
> Eating a vegetarian diet Moderate 26%
> Living car-free Large 24%
> Eating organic food Moderate 23%
> Using renewable electricity Large 22%
> Avoiding a long flight Large 13%
> Eating a vegan diet Large 6%

THANK you, so much!

It's interesting to see that the more important a certain action is, the less likely Americans are to recognize it as such.

But I'm pretty sure I got at least half of the answers right. (I didn't write down my guesses.)

Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-5, Ross Presser wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-5, Lenona wrote:
>> > From December, in the New York Times.
>> >
>> > https://archive.is/1xu3n
>> >
>> > (Unfortunately, you can't see the "share of Americans who got it right.") \
>>
>> For what it's worth, here are the questions, the correct answer, and the share of Americans who got it right.
>>
>> Buying fewer things Small 50%
>> Lowering the room temperature Small 48%
>> Installing heat pumps Moderate 39%
>> Using energy-efficient appliances Small 35%
>> Car-pooling Small 34%
>> Recycling Small 33%
>> Eating a vegetarian diet Moderate 26%
>> Living car-free Large 24%
>> Eating organic food Moderate 23%
>> Using renewable electricity Large 22%
>> Avoiding a long flight Large 13%
>> Eating a vegan diet Large 6%
>
>
>THANK you, so much!
>
>It's interesting to see that the more important a certain action is, the less likely Americans are to recognize it as such.
>
Generally because actions that have large effects require corresponding
large sacrifices (reduced consumption, less mobility).