Jeff Strickland wrote:
I would like to direct your attention to the '70s, if I may.

OK.

Back then, the problem was paper bags eating up trees at an alarming
rate, so they came up with plastic bags because of ENVIRONMENTAL
concerns -- paper eats trees, eating trees is bad for the environment,
so let's use plastic and save the trees. Not a bad argument as arguments
go, and I generally answered the question, "paper or plastic?" with,
"plastic, please."

Paper resource ONE problem. I don't know the people you associated with
but the first thing any knowledgeable environmentalist back in the 70s
that I remember would have known that most plastic bags came from oil.
Trees were at least renewable. Plastic bags didn't come to save trees,
they are merely cheaper. Stay away from the touchy warm fuzzy feelie granola
types and stay with the more scientifically knowledgeable ones.

It's bad enough that Moore, who led the the sci.env* proposal didn't
listen to me and make the group moderated and elevate talk.environment
for discussion. In his hindsight, he recanted and regretted it.

Now, I am the bad guy again because plastic floats.

Just is. You are going to consume whatever you do on your time on Earth.

Environmentalism comes with a wealth of unintended consequences -- we
save a tree but spoil the water, make electricity from wind but chop up
a bird, (leaping forward a few decades ... ) drive fuel cell cars and
flood the side of the road -- that seem to be worse than the problem we
wanted to remedy when we embarked on the environmentalist agenda.

Garrett Hardin once said you can't just do one thing.


Having said that, it is refreshing to see Vandeman get excited about a
real issue ...

That doesn't let him off the hook.

Reduce follow ups.

--