Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInTranslation
I am sorry I haven't been giving much attention to your response on this thread lately, I have been too (emontionally) occupied with other things these days. Here is my perspective on this chopsticks issue:
I don't consider myself as a frequent dine-out person. Once a month, we go shopping at a nearby mall and have lunch at its food court (Sarku Japan and Master Wok are our favorites). A few times a year, we go on a long distance trip, get some fast food (Panda Express) at connecting airports (times two for round-trips). We occasionally go to outdoor celebrations of public holidays (July 4th, Mid-autumn etc.) and buy fast-food from road-side food trucks. Most of these places provide single-use chopsticks (SUCs). That amounts to ~10-15 SUCs consumed by me annually (not including those consumed in sit-down restaurants, which I am hoping to convince them to switch to reusable ones). Multiply that number by 1.3 billion, you would estimate ~15 billion pairs consumed in China annually (the real number is 45 billion, likely because I am a below-average SUC user). You may have noticed that many migrant workers having boxed lunch near construction sites in many Chinese cities, they often use SUC as well. Unlike those sit-down restaurants, it is much more difficult for them to switch to reusable ones due to the nature of the business.
|
Wow that was a weak argument. It's not at all difficult to use re-usable chopsticks. It's not like switching is even a major issue. Sure it'll account to changes amongst many people, but it's not because the number of people affected is high, that there is individual difficulty in making the change. The need for trees in the west far outweighs the most minute inconvenience in having to bring plastic chopstick from work at the end of the day. Even you can see that much.
Quote:
|
I hope you can see that a simple ban of the SUC industry is, in fact, not as simple as you thought it was. Unless you can really eliminate the consumption, there will always be need for the supply.
|
The only reason I see you would oppose a ban on the industry is because you're willing to say absolutely anything in the world to be an apologist for the CCP. It's such a simple and sensible ban that would hardly affect anyone significantly yet can prove to have much needed environmental benefits. You have no reason to purposefully put the giant obstacle of attacking the consumer side of it, when it's just common sense that the supply side is A LOT easier to tackle. You have the choice of a few factories vs. everyone that uses SUC in China and abroad. I don't even need to tell you how the former is feasible while the other isn't.
Quote:
I told you of several alternative ways to tackle this problem.
(1) Encouraging production of SUC from bamboos. The Chinese government has passed tax laws to do so, and its positive effect is very obvious.
|
You know that wouldn't be as efficient as banning the practice outright. Plus using bamboo would have too much of an opportunity cost, hence why the market decided not to use it. Plus, it's still wasteful. Again, trimming the weeds for your patriotism.
Quote:
|
(2) Discouraging the use of SUC altogether by taxation. The tax incentive has already been started, although it is unclear at the moment how much effect it will have. Stay tuned.
|
According to you, taxes have only kicked in for exports, leaving almost untouched the biggest market. Plus you know it very well that it wouldn't be as effective as banning the supply outright.
Quote:
|
(3) Making more efficient use of the timber resources, by using only scraps to make SUCs. After all, the wood consumed by the SUC industry is only ~1% of the total wood consumption in China; thus, it is possible to use scraps exclusively. Regulation on its production is needed. Although it may encounter some resistence, because of the associated cost increase and profit margin decrease, I think it is absolutely necessary. The actual enforcement of the law might be another problem.
|
Again, this is a waste of time (as well as a waste of energy - burning together scrap wood for individual pairs)
Quote:
|
(4) Recycle, recycle, recycle. I must admit that recycling is not a concept well held by normal Chinese people. If the "waste" can be sold for money, people might keep them: such as newspapers, aluminum cans. Otherwise, they usually end up as trash (SUC's likely fate after its single use). The most important thing to tackle this part is through education, plant the idea of recycling deep into everyone's head.
|
Only if you're naive enough to rely on the general public's virtue which has constantly proven slow and ineffective in matters for the environment.
Quote:
|
(5) There is a growing desert on the west. In that part of China, reforestation is the priority (there weren't many trees left for cutting down anyway). Timber industry in those areas is next to non-existent. Most of the wood consumed now are from the northeastern region. We should learn from the desert on the west, and develop a wood industry which is sustainable, and environment friendly.
|
I went over this already, re-forestation is a cosmetic inefficient solution to de forestation. Instead of having so much efforts and waiting for reforestation, let's not cut down the forest so hastily when an alternative is so easy.
Quote:
|
Also, it's very easy to find arguments both in support of and against the SUC industry on Google. Most of them are in Chinese, perhaps because China is the most affected country. I learned a lot from reading all these debates. SUC will eventually exit from our daily lives, I just don't think its imminent banning is practical or even necessary.
|
Basically, it's fair to say that all the hard-searched solutions you have brought are not nearly as reliable or effective as banning the supply. Your arguments on not to ban the practice are very weak compared to the need for the environment in China which makes one wonder why are you trying so hard? Is it that IMPOSSIBLE for your precious CCP to be responsible in any way? Is it so hard to believe that they could solve the problem so easily yet they don't want to? If you ask me to change either a few people (factories) or 1.3 billion people, I'll see the few people as a much more hopeful cause. Not seeing that requires utmost blindness.
Quote:
|
That's it. Feel free to disagree and hold on to your idea of root digging. I won't comment on this further.
|
Of course you won't, you're completely out of far fetched arguments against one that is so down to earth, simple and free of ideology-born bias.
Linear Mode
