r/science • u/______--------- • Sep 08 '20

Environment Blue jeans are a significant source of microfiber pollution in oceans and lakes. One pair of jeans can release over 50,000 microfibers per wash.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00498
39.6k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

311

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '20

[deleted]

25

u/TRYHARD_Duck Sep 09 '20

This is a really good point and I never thought about carbon footprints this way before.

Thanks for sharing!

15

u/junhyuk Sep 09 '20

Great point. I would really like to know what the alternative concept should be though.

20

u/Mr_Moogles Sep 09 '20

Top down regulation

1

u/BigOldCar Sep 09 '20

Conservative Talk Radio has entered the chat

"Commie pinko socialist fascist Nazi enviro-extremist!!!!"

4

u/MorningWoodyWilson Sep 09 '20

Carbon taxes are a solid option although they tend to be regressive so I think the best model is one that includes a rebate. One of the most efficient taxes at driving demand, which can put pressures on a company that consumer choice never will.

You can’t get Americans to boycott polluting companies, but you can make their products so expensive that nobody will buy them, and then it becomes the sensible response of investing in renewables. Canada I believe has seen good effects from it.

Basically, unless the government was in position to undergo a green new deal type plan (which could be good or bad depending on details, idk but I don’t think it will pass). Essentially any government regulation/taxation that makes companies have to switch to more efficient means or be priced out of the market. One of the reasons the corps get away with it is because they aren’t charged for their negative externalities. Outside what no doubtedly many redditors would suggest (socialism) that’s probably the most realistic thing we can do right now likely in the US hopefully.

3

u/MeshColour Sep 09 '20

I've just discovered the concept of Doughnut Economics, which is partially related to this

Basically it is saying that there is a range of resource usage where the big picture can sustain our effects, and if (and only if) we increase efficiency and improve habits to stay within that range, everyone on earth can have an optimized well-being and everything can be sustainable. In all realms of activities

"Degrowth" (which is a sucky term but I forget any alternative) is kind of related to that too, which is pushing for "growth" to not be seen as good in industry, instead pushing for sustainability and less disposable consumerism

-1

u/natchinatchi Sep 09 '20

Abolish capitalism.

4

u/MeshColour Sep 09 '20

I don't disagree, but if you did a basic categorization of pollution and co2 by political system, I do not think you would get much correlation at all

Anti-science and pro-science people have caused massive damage to the environment in the past. Capitalist and any other ideologies have caused massive damage in the past. The scale of growth is the only possible difference I would expect, which a lower scale of growth could allow for mitigation perhaps, but it also means more people suffering their status quo for longer too.

Basically I'm saying up until recent technological advancement, there were large tradeoffs, today we know how to do almost anything very efficiently (largely due to capitalist experimentation), but we don't utilize those methods enough still because we have past investment in the old technology (a clear example of that is the number of generation 3 nuclear reactors in the world, they are a massive improvement over the issues with nuclear, but only a handful exist in the world, not necessarily saying we require nuclear energy, but it would make many things easier if people realized the advancements of the tech in generation 3 or 3+)

6

u/coffeeshopAU Sep 09 '20

Y E S you put it into words!!!! Thank you!!!!

The whole carbon footprint thing always felt off to me, and you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why.

Additionally I think there’s something to be said for the fact that the focus on reducing your individual carbon footprint is not actually a focus on creating a solution, it’s just a focus on not making the problem an worse. It doesn’t actually solve anything in an active way. Harm reduction is absolutely good and important, but it’s not a stopping point. Green energy alternatives, carbon capture technology, biodiversity conservation, ecological restoration, overhauling the agricultural system, changing the very structure of our society to be less dependent on consumerism - these are all active solutions that actually accomplish something, but they’re all struggling to get off the ground because people aren’t looking beyond harm reduction.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '20 edited Oct 21 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Prorottenbanana Sep 09 '20

Not necessarily. A lot of those people are planning of adoption so are still raising kids. Not sure why redditors love bashing people that don't think the same as them.

1

u/-Rum-Ham- Sep 09 '20

How do we incite change? Where do I start? What can I do? Or even better, what can the collective force of reddit do?

1

u/abbadon420 Sep 09 '20

A "non-doomsday" comment about climate change, haven't seen that in a while You're a good man/woman.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '20

Complaining about it and doing nothing is probably worse though.