TsukubaCody

Drive less/make less small/wasteful trips/plan route/etc.
Use less lights/LED bulbs
Allow house to get warmer in summer/cooler in winter (use less climate control)
Don't print off papers if you can read them online
Eat less meat
Don't drink bottled water
Don't use straws
Use reusable bags
Consolidate orders online (or buy in person on efficient trips)
Take shorter showers
Don't leave the water running while brushing teeth/shaving/washing hands

There are many more things we can do, but many of them political so I leave that off here.

S1997

Lainey

It's just a small effort. I admit if cleaning out a some container that should go into the recycle bin, (think peanut butter jar) is going to take hot water, effort, I'm lax on that one. I'm under the impression that things are supposed to be rinsed out before tossing in recycle bin, roll on deodorant top doesn't remove easily, so that is often tossed in the trash.

I'll keep working on it.

Scooterboy

How about:
Charge the Tesla with solar panels.
Replace the lawn with ground cover vs grass that needs to be mowed.
Build a rain garden and direct all of your downspouts to it.
Use less plastics!
Turn the fricken' lights off in the house when you aren't using them. Sorry, that is a pet peeve!
Plant trees!
Walk or ride a bike to the store in possible.
Stop looking at your cell phone while driving.....oh wait, that is for another thread!

TsukubaCody

Those work, yes.

Don't buy books, walk to your local library and get some.
Don't do food delivery services, the packaging is incredibly wasteful.
Buy bulk spices/grains/etc., using reusable containers.
Use an efficient shower head
Don't get rid of your five year old car because you want something 'nice' if the existing car is reasonably clean & fuel efficient (a car that is already out and about is inherently going to pollute less in the future than making a new car and driving it as much)

NNY S2k

Maybe MLB could schedule more day games rather than so many games under the lights.
Levi

engifineer

This is why I lean so heavily toward corporations. There is practically no reason that everyone in my place of employment could not work 100% remote, with maybe a few in person meetings each week. Yet, most of us drive up to 250 miles per week (that is around 8ish gallons of fuel or around a quarter barrel of oil if my math and internetz skillz are good) just to go back and forth to work. So why not push for companies to use all this cool tech we talk about all the time and reduce the number of cars on the road? Less fuel consumption, less pollution, less traffic for those that still go to a workplace each morning (aka even less pollution due to less cars sitting idling in rush hour traffic), better work life balance, happier employees (The ones that want to work remote anyways), less office space needed, which means less climate controlled area to use MORE energy on, since most of us heat or cool our homes whether we are there are not and would not be sitting in big offices ... I dunno, seems like it would make a pretty nice impact if everyone that could work from home would do so.

I think of lots of other ways day to day. Cities/huge buildings pump a LOT of waste heat out the top, regardless of how efficient they are. Can we find an efficient means of capturing a chunk of that energy? Waste energy from cars rolling over roadways all day long? (Folks are working on that, but the solutions are not cheap or easy to maintain if they fail).

I think a lot of people want that easy button answer, like "drive electric cars!" which alone is not going to do it. I think as a society we need to be creative and look at all the little ways that add up to a big impact.

dlq04

I have a question - anyone know the answer? Why is it so difficult to net the floating plastic island and bring it on shore? Perhaps a section at a time?

jukngene

Mainly because of the sheer size, I assume. From Wikipedea:
Estimates of size
The size of the patch is unknown, as is the precise distribution of debris, because large items readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon.[21] Most debris consists of small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it difficult to accurately detect by aircraft or satellite. Instead, the size of the patch is determined by sampling. Estimates of size range from 700,000 square kilometres (270,000 sq mi) (about the size of Texas) to more than 15,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 sq mi) (about the size of Russia). Such estimates, however, are conjectural given the complexities of sampling and the need to assess findings against other areas. Further, although the size of the patch is determined by a higher-than-normal degree of concentration of pelagic debris, there is no standard for determining the boundary between "normal" and "elevated" levels of pollutants to provide a firm estimate of the affected area.

Net-based surveys are less subjective than direct observations but are limited regarding the area that can be sampled (net apertures 1–2 m and ships typically have to slow down to deploy nets, requiring dedicated ship's time). The plastic debris sampled is determined by net mesh size, with similar mesh sizes required to make meaningful comparisons among studies. Floating debris typically is sampled with a neuston or manta trawl net lined with 0.33 mm mesh. Given the very high level of spatial clumping in marine litter, large numbers of net tows are required to adequately characterize the average abundance of litter at sea. Long-term changes in plastic meso-litter have been reported using surface net tows: in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre in 1999, plastic abundance was 335,000 items/km2 and 5.1 kg/km2, roughly an order of magnitude greater than samples collected in the 1980s. Similar dramatic increases in plastic debris have been reported off Japan. However, caution is needed in interpreting such findings, because of the problems of extreme spatial heterogeneity, and the need to compare samples from equivalent water masses, which is to say that, if an examination of the same parcel of water a week apart is conducted, an order of magnitude change in plastic concentration could be observed.[22]

In August 2009, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography/Project Kaisei SEAPLEX survey mission of the Gyre found that plastic debris was present in 100 consecutive samples taken at varying depths and net sizes along a path of 1,700 miles (2,700 km) through the patch. The survey also confirmed that, although the debris field does contain large pieces, it is on the whole made up of smaller items that increase in concentration toward the gyre's centre, and these 'confetti-like' pieces are clearly visible just beneath the surface. Although many media and advocacy reports have suggested that the patch extends over an area larger than the continental U.S., recent research sponsored by the National Science Foundation suggests the affected area may be much smaller.[22][23][24] Recent data collected from Pacific albatross populations suggest there may be two distinct zones of concentrated debris in the Pacific.[25]

In March 2018, The Ocean Cleanup published a paper summarizing their findings from the Mega- (2015) and Aerial Expedition (2016). In 2015, the organization crossed the Great Pacific garbage patch with 30 vessels, to make observations and take samples with 652 survey nets. They collected a total of 1.2 million pieces, which they counted and categorized into their respective size classes. In order to also account for the larger, but more rare larger debris, they also flew over the patch in 2016 with a C-130 Hercules aircraft, equipped with LiDAR sensors. The findings from the two expeditions, show that the patch is 1.6 million square kilometers and has a concentration of 10–100 kg per square kilometers. They estimate there to be 80,000 metric tons in the patch, with 1.8 trillion plastic pieces, out of which 92% of the mass is to be found in objects larger than 0.5 centimeters.[26][27][28]

tof

Dave: The patch isn't a floating island of plastic as many picture it. It is an area where debris is more concentrated than in other parts of the Pacific. Picture an area 250 acres in size (about 1 sq kilometer) with a thousand bits of trash scattered over it. Size of the patch is the big problem retrieving all that trash. Since there is no commercially viable way to collect and recycle all that plastic, it is up to government bodies to tackle the problem. No comment on the likelihood of that happening, at Bill's request. (BTW, there is a patch in the Atlantic, too. But it doesn't get much publicity.)

TsukubaCody: Drinking straws actually get a bad rap. (No pun intended.) They are a tiny component of America's trash. I very much like straws in my iced drinks. We could all switch to paper straws but they aren't exactly carbon neutral either. Just biodegradable. But here's why I mention drinking straws to begin with. When something like drinking straws get falsely tagged as a major environmental problem, popular commercial and social media hype solutions and governmental bodies respond with solutions that seem reasonable (like banning plastic straws) but that don't do much to address the actual problem. Meanwhile more effective (if less popular) steps that could significantly help address global climate change get overlooked by the general public and by our regulatory and legislative bodies.

Common knowledge in this subject area can be very misleading. For example, plastic bags at the grocery store actually have a smaller carbon footprint than paper or reusable cloth and contribute less to land fill utilization. Also when we put plastic in land fills we are actually sequestering carbon which offsets a bit of that vast amount of carbon we are introducing into the atmosphere. If changes in our behavior are to have a positive effect on the environment, particularly on atmospheric CO2 levels the first step should be sound research (much of which has already been done) followed by public education so people know what helps and what doesn't.

One thing is clear: The less energy you use, the better, if that energy is coming from burning fossil fuels. Walking does less harm than driving. That is unless you drive an electric and get your power from nuclear, solar, hydro, or wind.

Who remembers when our biggest pollution worries were smog and acid rain?