Day: April 26, 2024

Recycle Or Not

I am one of those ‘tree huggers’ that recycles and have been for decades….but in recent years with so many reports about the useless trend of recycling has got me wondering if I should continue to do so.

There are a bunch of disturbing reports about plastic waste…..

A report released Thursday estimates that countries worldwide are on pace to generate 220 million tonnes of total plastic waste this year, a finding that comes as governments are set to convene in Ottawa, Canada later this month to hash out a binding global treaty to limit the toxic pollution that is inundating waterways and communities across the planet.

The new report from EA – Earth Action (EA) projects that Plastic Overshoot Day—the point at which the amount of plastic waste produced exceeds the capacity of global management systems—will arrive on September 5 this year. Over a third of the total plastic waste created this year will end up in nature, according to the analysis.

On average, each person globally contributes 28 kilograms of plastic pollution per year. Previous research has shown that just 20 companies are responsible for more than half of the world’s total single-use plastic waste.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/plastic-waste-2024

That is a scary amount of waste….but there is always recycling, right?

The most recent article shows me that we all may have been ‘hoodwinked’ by big oil….

The petrochemical industry—including major oil companies like ExxonMobil—knew for decades that recycling was not a sustainable solution to the problem of plastic waste, yet continued to promote it in order to avoid regulation and deceive consumers into continuing to buy and use their products, a report released Thursday by the Center for Climate Integrity reveals.

The report, titled The Fraud of Plastic Recycling: How Big Oil and the Plastics Industry Deceived the Public for Decades and Caused the Plastic Waste Crisis, includes newly disclosed industry documents proving that companies and trade groups knew that plastics could not be recycled indefinitely in the 1980s and 90s even as they launched a massive public relations campaign to sell voters and policymakers on the process.

“This evidence shows that many of the same fossil fuel companies that knew and lied for decades about how their products cause climate change have also known and lied to the public about plastic recycling,” Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) president Richard Wiles said in a statement. “The oil industry’s lies are at the heart of the two most catastrophic pollution crises in human history.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/plastics-industry-lie-recycling

Here is another link to this study….

Explosive new report accuses major corporations of lying for decades: ‘It’s clearly fraud they’re engaged in’

I believe there is a term being thrown around these days….’greenwashing’…..WTF?

Greenwashing is the process of conveying a false impression or misleading information about how a company’s products are environmentally sound. Greenwashing involves making an unsubstantiated claim to deceive consumers into believing that a company’s products are environmentally friendly or have a greater positive environmental impact than they actually do.

In addition, greenwashing may occur when a company attempts to emphasize sustainable aspects of a product to overshadow the company’s involvement in environmentally damaging practices. Performed through the use of environmental imagery, misleading labels, and hiding tradeoffs, greenwashing is a play on the term “whitewashing,” which means using false information to intentionally hide wrongdoing, error, or an unpleasant situation in an attempt to make it seem less bad than it is.

So should we continue to recycle?

“No,” Cirino told Salon. “Even if plastic recycling rates were higher, recycling alone could never come close to solving the serious and wide-ranging health, justice, socio-economic, and environmental crises caused by industries’ continued plastic production and plastic pollution, which go hand in hand.” Cirino argued that, given how plastic production has grown exponentially and its pollution problems have likewise worsened, emphasizing recycling over meaningful solutions is at best irresponsible.

“It’s clear recycling is not enough to solve the plastic pollution crisis,” Cirino concluded. “The fossil fuel industry, governments, and corporations really need to turn off the plastic tap, and the UN Plastics Treaty could be an opportunity to do so on a global level—if member states can come together and form a treaty with real ambition. Ultimately, our world must decide what it values: money or life.”

(salon.com)

A couple of years ago I wrote about recycling here on IST….

Do You Recycle?

Ultimately this is one of those issues that the individual has to decide what is best (pause here for side splitting laughter….like most have no care what happens as long as their Mtn Dew is cold)

Me? My family has already started dialing back the amount of plastic we discard…..we care what happens if you do not then that is your problem.

Be Samrt!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Takes On Trumpism

Does the president have absolute immunity?

That is the question before the US Supreme Court.

The day had many twists and turns….

The “case is submitted.” With those words, Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped up Thursday’s historic testimony about absolute presidential immunity—and whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for actions taken while he was in office, reports CNN. The gist of early coverage is that Trump will be pleased with the eventual outcome, even though he may lose the main thrust of the case. Details:

  • A Trump loss: At least five of the justices seemed likely to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, reports the AP. (Especially given extreme hypotheticals such as having a rival assassinated.)
  • But a Trump win: Both the New York Times and the Washington Post agree the court is on track to reject absolute immunity, but both say the court also seems poised to send the matter back to a lower court for clarification between public and private actions. That would likely delay Trump’s federal trial on charges he tried to subvert the 2020 election for months, perhaps until after this year’s vote—an outcome that would “amount to a victory for Trump,” per Politico. For one thing, he could effectively torpedo the case should he win reelection.
  • Key exchange: “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution there can be no presidency as we know it,” Trump attorney D. John Sauer told the court, per the Wall Street Journal. To which Samuel Alito responded, “My question is whether the very robust form of immunity that you’re advocating is really necessary.”
  • Roberts’ concern: Roberts “clearly believes that the lower courts did not do enough to suss out exactly what is an official act versus a private act,” says CNN legal analyst Paula Reid. “So what they’re setting up here is likely the justices are going to come up with some sort of test, and then send it back down to the lower courts for more litigation.”
  • Decision: Typically, the court would issue its decision in late June or early July, notes the Times, but the justices may speed things up given the circumstances.
  • Irrelevant? Trump’s lawyers have long expected to lose the main argument, according to Rolling Stone. But merely getting the Supreme Court to hear the case in the first place—and thus delay special prosecutor Jack Smith’s case against the former president—was reason enough for celebration, per the story. They were “literally popping champagne” when the court agreed to take the case, the story says.

The Justices asked some key questions….

  • Justice Elena Kagan: Kagan said the framers of the Constitution clearly didn’t want a “monarch” to run the country, CNN reports. “Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch, and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked.
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military … to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked Trump lawyer D. John Sauer. The Washington Post reports that Sauer said immunity was possible. “It would depend on the hypothetical that we can see,” he said. “That could well be an official act. It could.” He gave a similar answer when Kagan presented the hypothetical case of a president who’d ordered a military coup.
  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Barrett took issue with the Trump team’s argument that a former president needs to be impeached and convicted by the Senate before a court can convict them, the AP reports. “There are many other people who are subject to impeachment, including the nine sitting on this bench, and I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that impeachment would have to be the gateway to criminal prosecution for any of the many other officers subject to impeachment,” she said. “So why is the president different when the impeachment clause doesn’t say so?”
  • Justice Neil Gorsuch: Gorsuch asked whether presidents can pardon themselves, noting that the court has “happily” never had to deal with such questions. The New York Times reports that Sauer deflected the question, saying the main concern is that a president should be able to make bold decisions without fearing prosecution.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts: During discussion of what constitutes an official act, Roberts gave the example of a president appointing an ambassador in return for a bribe, asking, “How do you analyze that?” Sauer said it would be up to “the court’s discretion,” per the Post.

If my meager breakdown is not enough then maybe this will help you along….

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24140309/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-jack-smith

This is proving interesting but I think I already know what will come out of this session….how about you?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”