The case for recycling

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force, and forgive me if I don't for one second believe that if that force wasn't there then things would work out anyway - this clearly isn't so when you look at uncontrolled waters.

This isn't an issue which can be trivialized - when there is no control these things happen - and yes, it can destroy one of the worlds's greatest resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you answer the question please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sovereign coastal states have territorial waters expanding 12 nautical miles from their shoreline where they have complete control, they have an economic line expanding 200 nautical miles beyond that - the state has claim to all economic resources within that area and their regulation - all outside that are international waters which are attempted governed by a series of global agreements - ships sailing in these waters are under the jurisdiction of their flag - except for a few cases where any state can exact law.

Should also be noted that there are many disputes on the economic borders in many, many cases.


And what on earth is the point of your question?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force, and forgive me if I don't for one second believe that if that force wasn't there then things would work out anyway - this clearly isn't so when you look at uncontrolled waters.

This isn't an issue which can be trivialized - when there is no control these things happen - and yes, it can destroy one of the worlds's greatest resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there is no control because no one owns the ocean. If someone did, there would be control.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Recycling paper is just stupid from what I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may actually be *bad* for the environment, from a greenhouse gas perspective.

Trees are carbon sinks. But young trees suck up a LOT more carbon than old trees. When trees are harvested, new trees are planted. The carbon in those old trees is then "locked up" in wood products (trees in a forrest can still re-release their carbon if they (e.g.) burn in a forrest fire, while things like houses and furniture don't really burn that frequently). And paper in a landfill is pretty dang locked up - it's got a very low probability of burning and re-releasing it's carbon back into the atmosphere.

When you recycle paper, you're reducing the rate at which trees are cut down and replanted. You're slowing down the carbon sinking process.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my biology teacher told me when I was a freshman in college that trees release about as much carbon when they decompose as (editthey collect when they were living. I would assume the same is true of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Carbon released into the ground doesn't do anything.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
And what on earth is the point of your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just answer it?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what on earth is the point of your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just answer it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered it, learn to read.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, and there is no control because no one owns the ocean. If someone did, there would be control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck on winning world war 3, 4 and possible 5 with that goal.

[Jamougha]

Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military can't even do that effectively.

[tame_deuces]

You will have to ask these other people, apparently they have an idea.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would want to own the ocean? I mean how would you exert your supposed ownership rights? States with coastguard and military have no incentiveto do that effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what on earth is the point of your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you just answer it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered it, learn to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You explained who *controlls* *some* of the ocean, which isn't wnat I asked.

Since you "don't get" the point, let me ask you this: you related stories of corporate destruction in "uncontrolled" waters (despite government regulation saying such activity is not allowed!). How much did you see in "controlled" waters? And by controlled, I mean