[vamin]

I think you make a good point, but there's a big difference between the amount of waste produced and the amount of waste that makes it into the natural environment, as opposed to a recycling center or dedicated landfill. Just because developed countries are producing more waste does not mean that they are contributing more waste to the bottom of the ocean. (I am not suggesting that we should not all aim to produce less waste and handle what waste we do produce better.)

[wz1000]

The point is that a large amount of waste produced by developed is dumped/exported to developing countries like China, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. And a large amount of waste generated by these countries is done so in the production of goods meant for Western consumption.

[romaniv]

>a large amount of waste generated by these countries is done so in the production of goods meant for Western consumption.

Why does this matter? A factory polluting local lakes and rivers to make goods for export to another state definitely couldn't use this as an excuse. They control the process, so they are responsible for consequences of using that process. So why rules are suddenly different when we talk about countries?

[phs318u]

Because we’ve exported our externalities. Global industry doesn’t choose to manufacture in China because of the great views. Their regulations are effectively non-existent. Those regulations in the West protecting the environment, the community, the workers etc? They have a cost that many consumers are unprepared to bear.

The rules are indeed different.

[jschwartzi]

So other than feeling bad about the things I own and purchase, what can I do, realistically? Give up everything and live entirely off the land?

I'm fully prepared to bear the cost of these things if someone would actually give me a way to pay it.

[phs318u]

Perhaps advocate for changes in the rules, whether that be directly or indirectly (e.g. by supporting propositions that mandate better supply-chain/whole-product-lifecycle accountability). Perhaps make choices that preference those companies with better lifecycle/supply-chains (and if you can't tell which those are, then perhaps advocate for changes in transparency regarding those things).

Change is slow and hard. Throwing up our hands and carrying on with the status quo is a choice not an inevitability. If we each live our lives according to the world we want to live in, and make our personal choices accordingly, then at the very least we'll be able to tell our kids we tried.

[icc97]

The article points out that 89% of sea plastic is the throwaway kind, e.g. cutlery and plastic bottles. It's relatively simple to cut down on these. Switch to using aluminium cans instead of plastic bottles, they're much more likely to be recycled. Then obviously put the can in the recycling. Better yet, use your own water bottle. If you want bottled water get it in crates of glass bottles. Shops will often take the crates back to be washed and reused.

[jackvalentine]

But isn’t most of the sea plastic also from the Yangtze and Ganges rivers?

I try and avoid single use plastic, it seems obscene to me it even exists, but my waste ends up in landfill. To solve ocean plastic we need bin men and landfill in the countries causing it.

The fight against single use plastic in the developed world is just, but a separate issue.

[joe_the_user]

The main thing that needs to happen is the creation of a strong enough political consensus to force a strong limit to the production of unnecessary plastic objects as well as forcing proper disposal of the objects that are produced. This is would require international cooperation.

Obviously, this is far from where the world seems to be heading currently but it's still the only way.

I agree guilt-tripping is fairly useless.

[briandear]

Define “unnecessary.”

[JPGalt]

No you can't do that either. If you are old enough to remember the 80's and 90's, these same people that are whining about plastic now are the ones that forced us to use it because paper bags were killing the trees. Oh fun fact they are also the ones that brought us trans fats as a "safe alternative" to using animal fat.

[always_good]

Well, the real solution is to reuse bags instead of killing trees or creating plastic waste. And people have been saying that forever.

[pbhjpbhj]

Hmm, the problem was not that paper bags inherently kill trees, it was that virgin forest was being destroyed and not replanted in order to make paper products. So the obvious solution of using sustainable forest growth and recycling was rejected (however, maybe by "The Market" - aka refusing to accept responsibility for externalities) presumably because plastics were marginally cheaper.

Market forces just don't work for these things because the negative consequences are decades away and don't necessarily affect the producers/consumers at all.

Your position that people who didn't want rainforest destroying for one-time use bags are responsible for one-time use plastics is way off the mark. Such people use reusable bags from sustainable sources invariably, for example.

When these issues hit the mainstream, and the public don't fully understand the position, then it's easy for the Capitalists to shift to the 'next-worst most profitable' thing rather than shifting to a sustainable production.

[megaremote]

You can change what you purchase. Don't but so much temporary plastic, look for alternatives. Shop at markets where they don't wrap everything in plastic.

[HumanDrivenDev]

The mental acrobatics some people will do to fan the flames of western guilt is incredible. Ignoring the fact that the Asian market is massive, the fact that things are intended for western consumption doesn't mean westerners are somehow complicit in the pollution caused to make them.

[erw1]

I don't think Western-exported goods contribute massively to pollution in Asia. Local consumption drives most of it. You can't really blame disposable chopsticks or plastic bags in the Yellow River on Western consumers.

That being said, I disagree with the spirit of your comment. When ABC corp relocated to underdeveloped country so they can avoid regulatory burden (be it pollution, or labor laws), the end goal is to achieve competitive product pricing back home. A portion of the $$ they save in Asia is passed down to the Western consumer.

Whether you want to feel guilty about it ("they only make 50 cents an hour making my Nikes, outrageous!"), or proud ("they make a whole 50 cents thanks to me!") is up to you I guess, but the link is there.

[RobertRoberts]

You have hit the crux of the matter, it's almost entirely outside our control at the local level. Not using plastic as much has no effect on whether or not an Asian man throws his garbage in the river in China, or if the company contracted to deal with the waste does, but lies about it to us.

What you are proposing ends up as "don't do business with Asian countries because they can't be trusted to deal with the trash properly."

It's really easy to find photos of waterways all over the world, and it's abundantly clear which countries and cultures value clean water ways over cost/time to deal with the garbage. Where it comes from seems to be irrelevant.

[erw1]

I think all cultures value nature to one degree or another. Once developing countries accrete enough wealth, they will probably invest some of it into proper waste disposal. It's hard to justify diverting resources into waste disposal now, when you are still poor and hungry and in the midst of industrialization.

Western societies went through the same process. They polluted heavily through much of the XX century, while building up their own industrial economies, and didn't start cleaning up until the 1970s and 80s.

I am hopeful developing countries follow the same trajectory. China, for example, has been successful at tackling its air pollution. And googling shows that they began rolling out programs to combat river pollution as well. Eventually, we'll get there. Not soon, but eventually.

[exclusiv]

Seriously. The countries with terrible work conditions and poor records with humanitarian rights could care less about pumping trash into the ocean? That should shock nobody. Who are these apologists?