Feed on

I bet you’d love some musings on that. In a very related matter, I just perused the New York Times today and came across this article from President Kennedy’s granddaughter Tatiana:


It’s hard to see, but they put this column in the category under “Climate.” Just a couple of thoughts. First, obviously any article covering anything resembling “the environment” must be labeled “Climate.” Of course that is self-defeating. Second, it seems a bit funny to categorize this under climate seeing as , in the words of the New York Times, “staggering amounts of NEAR ETERNAL litter …”

It would be fantastic if in a climate article we would be told how much energy and hence CO2 emissions were required to make this plastic, and of course how much would have been emitted had some other substitute for the plastic and packaging been used. It would be fantastic if we were told how much CO2 emissions were created via the disposal and recycling and polluting of this plastic. But what would be even more fantastic is a recognition that by arguing that plastic is eternally going to stay as plastic, that is pretty much a permanent tree (at least without the oxygen byproduct). In other words, we are sequestering, to coin a phrase, staggering amounts of carbon eternally. I think an article would get clicks with the heading, “Humans sequestering staggering amounts of carbon away to mitigate future climate change impacts.”

Maybe we shall take a deeper dive into the specifics of this particular article later on, but for now, do your best to stay of the fishing gear.


Leave a Reply