The dispossessed ecologist

[ABC2019]

...
Obviously, and with good reason. The right also has a role of regulation of capitalism for ecological questions. Regulating something does not mean having to trash everything else. I have the impression that this is what the ecologism of the left criticizes that of the right because it is in fact opposed to "economic development".

The approach depicted for the 2 camps is somewhat caricature. "To wreck everything else" or "to oppose de facto economic development" is above all to avoid speaking, that the "regulation" of which you speak is not defined / concerted by all the protagonists concerned of the polluting problem. Perfect example of Anti Democracy if there is one.

On the one hand, there are those few who profit economically from the "polluting stuff", who go out of their way to remain sole masters of decisions / curb their profits and above all ignore that they are not the only concerned by the "thing that pollutes".

except that it is the opposite, when things pollute, it is because they develop on a large scale, and it is precisely because everyone benefits from it and wants it. A typical case is the recent development of cell phones or the Internet. But this is also true for roads, gasoline or industrial agriculture.

[Janic]

except that it is the opposite, when things pollute, it is because they develop on a large scale, and it is precisely because everyone benefits from it and wants it. A typical case is the recent development of cell phones or the Internet. But this is also true for roads, gasoline or industrial agriculture.

exactly the opposite of reality!
Large-scale development is not linked to demand, but to quasi-taxation. When internet communications were paid for communication, their number and duration were limited to the most well-off financially and we then find the Ford process, producing more so that the maximum number of individuals have access to it, not out of necessity, but by flattering the desires of the poorest towards the richest. By releasing unlimited tariffs, these laptops have seen their demand explode and therefore also explode the operation of manufacturers and their profits.
The demand follows the proposal and not the reverse and the proposals have exploded in all areas making their users dependent on their desires and no longer on their needs.

[ABC2019]

the point was not to discuss whether it was voluntary or imposed, but the fact that the big pollution did not come from the small minority who consumed a lot, but from the great majority who consumed little.

[Janic]

ABC2019 »10/05/21, 12:11

the point was not to discuss whether it was voluntary or imposed, but the fact that the big pollution did not come from the small minority who consumed a lot, but from the great majority who consumed little.

that (a minority consumes a lot or a majority consumes little if the final result is the same, it doesn't matter!

[Flytox]

the point was not to discuss whether it was voluntary or imposed, but because the big pollution did not come from the small minority who consumed a lot, but from the vast majority who consumed little.

Well a little anyway ..., it is necessary to comply with the dictates of polluters who operate as if their activity was transparent for the population / biosphere.
The only concession for life that they are ready to do is to pretend to "regulate", rather symbolically, the pollution which is seen a little too much.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The only concession for life that they are ready to do is to pretend to "regulate", rather symbolically, the pollution which is seen a little too much.

And again, only when they have the knife to the throat and after having dragged the "business" for decades. It is as much gained. As for biotopes and people, what do they care!

[ABC2019]

the point was not to discuss whether it was voluntary or imposed, but because the big pollution did not come from the small minority who consumed a lot, but from the vast majority who consumed little.

Well a little anyway ..., it is necessary to comply with the dictates of polluters who operate as if their activity was transparent for the population / biosphere.
The only concession for life that they are ready to do is to pretend to "regulate", rather symbolically, the pollution which is seen a little too much.

yeah I went to a lot of poor countries where there are lots of plastic bags lying around in nature and ending up in rivers and then in the sea, much more than in the West. It is also the result of collective behavior of "simple" people, but who simply do not care. You can always clear yourself up and say it's the fault of others, but collective behavior is what has the most impact.

[Ahmed]

In Western societies, taking charge of nuisances and pollution becomes essential at a certain level, since these consequences would, by their accumulation, harm the very process that causes them (and, icing on the cake, this fight generates abstract value, even if it is often indirectly!). This is what we have also observed in China, with a rather radical turn, but which does not stem there either in any way from virtue, but from the most pragmatic necessity (I place this last adjective, because I know that you like it ).
In the countries which are the losers in international competition, this need is obviously not expressed and the necessary means are lacking, except probably (I have never set foot there!) In tourist areas, for reasons that there is no need to explain. However, there are initiatives by local collectives that are trying to grapple with this problem ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

ABC, globetrotter now announces that he has been to "quite a few poor countries". We believe it, oh why we can believe it .... Me too and what I noticed in India is that on my first trip, people threw everything out of the windows of trains (for example) , were swinging everything in nature but what they were swinging was 100% biodegradable. Bottles were glass and returnable, food was bought and eaten in disposable banana leaf or other containers. When I returned 30 years later, the customs were exactly the same, only the bottles were plastic and the food was served in plastic containers as well, all wrapped in bags of the same material ... of course, their way of life had not changed but its impact was totally different and by taking the train, I could see plastic fires all over the view.

[Flytox]

the point was not to discuss whether it was voluntary or imposed, but because the big pollution did not come from the small minority who consumed a lot, but from the vast majority who consumed little.

Well a little anyway ..., it is necessary to comply with the dictates of polluters who operate as if their activity was transparent for the population / biosphere.
The only concession for life that they are ready to do is to pretend to "regulate", rather symbolically, the pollution which is seen a little too much.

yeah I went to a lot of poor countries where there are lots of plastic bags lying around in nature and ending up in rivers and then in the sea, much more than in the West. It is also the result of collective behavior of "simple" people, but who simply do not care. You can always clear yourself up and say it's the fault of others, but collective behavior is what has the most impact.

Yeah, who could have taught (unbeknownst to themselves) to all these populations that any was disposable without distinction .... apart from the sacrosanct model of Western-style consumer society where everyone only looks after their short-term interests without ever looking at the deleterious interactions with the human and biospheric environment.