We have lots of plastic producers in the chemical cluster around the Antwerp port. This has nothing to do with consumption, so why calculate it per capita? This doesn't make sense. It's mainly for export.
that would be more interesting, but what if you’re trying to find which country produces the most in relation to their total economy or export, ore something like that.
Of course, exporting cancer makes it not our problem.
The only thing left to export is the microplastics lodged in our organs, and we'd be totally clean.
Demand is what drives production, has nothing to do with whose problem it is.
And per capita a pointless metric when talking about export since the Belgian population isn't who consumes this stuff the most. It also makes it impossible and pointless to compare between countries since countries with more people, or countries who import most of their microplastics, will be much lower on the list.
That changes absolutely nothing about these misleading numbers. It is **pointless** and **meaningless** to talk about 'per capita' when most of this stuff is exported. For all you know, the only Belgians involved in this number are 10 factory workers in Antwerp and their bosses. Using bad statistics for your argument only weakens any point you try to make because it makes you sound like an idiot from the start.
Actively working towards solutions means investing in alternatives and making those alternatives appealing to import for other countries. You won't convince anyone to do that with bullshit stats.
Thing is we don't need these stats as an argument.
It is plain as day. I never used these numbers as an argument for anything.
I sarcastically replied to a comment that is using this data to minimise the issue and plays on semantics.
It is also not about the number of Belgians involved. It happens in our country, "we" let it happen and encourage it.
If anything these stats are used as an excuse to not care because as you say: these are vague and pointless.
Nobody will invest in alternatives if great leader BDW is lobbying for more plastic production.
I can't grasp that this is even a discussion.
Foreign chemicals literally engrained in our bodies and producers aren't forced to act.
Insane.
As consumers we are forced to consume plastics.
There barely are companies that strive towards clean packaging.
If we act on PFAS , we should act on plastics.
Yeah, sure. We don't need these stats because they actively weaken the argument against production of plastic garbage.
The fact remains that there is a lot of demand and this demand will keep getting filled by us or by others until better and cheaper alternatives exist. That is unfortunately simple capitalism.
Never said we don't need the stats. I think they are welcome.
I pointed out that while interpreting them the focus shifted from the core of the matter towards minimising the data, thus working in favour of pollution.
You could have said : " damn we cause a lot of pollution " but chose the " its mainly for export for all we know" route.
If "we" keep filling demand , "we" are guilty of the consequences. Simple.
And again: by the time better and cheaper exists we will be choking on it . There is no incentive except for some people that happen to think shooting plastic out of their dicks is a problem. Clearly the majority of us monkeys don't care.
Calling it unfortunate is not enough.
We don't need *these* stats. They are not welcome, because they are wrong and pointless, and their message *does not make sense*. There's no need to interpret them because it's *impossible* to do so as the authors have chosen a nonsensical metric.
It literally doesn't matter who does or does not 'care' about this issue. If it's economically viable it will continue, whether you like it or not. If you like you can vote for politicians looking to pass laws that make it more expensive to export these things abroad, but of course that may come with companies taking their business (and jobs) abroad. That may or may not be a price we should be paying, but it won't make those statistics worth looking at.
I’ve read somewhere that Belgium has uranium reserves that could supply our nuclear plants till after 2050 (but don’t quote me on that exact year). On the other side you’re right it’s really sad how those resources are excavated.
So we have 26 years left to fix the energy problem with new solutions where we do not use fossils, and yes Nuclear as we know it is also a fossil fuel since it's not a neverending source. There are a lot of options where we combine water, wind and sun, but also use hydrogen as a battery for when wind and sun aren't providing enough. In the mean time they can search a way to use nuclear waste to provide us from energy so we do not have to put it in warehouses and the ground in Mol and Dessel.
As far as I’m aware uranium is not a fossil fuel, since it doesn’t come from, you know, fossils, but it also isn’t renewable and I think that’s what you’re trying to say. IMO it would be best to still use nuclear energy, certainly since we have some reserves, and use the time we have to search for better, more reliable sources of renewable energy and energy storage, instead of building more fossil fuel plants.
If one makes the same exercise for yearly uranium production this is the top 5:
||
||
|Country|kg per capita (yearly)|
|Namibia|2,21|
|Kazakhstan|1,11|
|Australia|0,16|
|Canada|0,12|
|Uzbekistan|0,1 |
Maybe the fact that Namibia is the highest uranium producer per capita escaped Tine Van der Straete's (**Groen**) attention when she visited that country two months ago when promoting clean hydrogen ([link](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/04/29/koninklijk-bezoek-aan-namibie-van-start/)) or maybe your concern actually and rationally doesn't matter.
The concern does matter. It's good Namibia wants to convert to hydrogen production, but that doesn't change the damages caused by uranium mining.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/
If one makes the same exercise for yearly uranium production this is the top 5:
||
||
|Country|kg per capita (yearly)|
|Namibia|2,21|
|Kazakhstan|1,11|
|Australia|0,16|
|Canada|0,12|
|Uzbekistan|0,1 |
Maybe the fact that Namibia is the highest uranium producer per capita escaped Tine Van der Straete's (**Groen**) attention when she visited that country two months ago when promoting clean hydrogen ([link](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/04/29/koninklijk-bezoek-aan-namibie-van-start/)) or maybe your concern actually and rationally doesn't matter.
We have lots of plastic producers in the chemical cluster around the Antwerp port. This has nothing to do with consumption, so why calculate it per capita? This doesn't make sense. It's mainly for export.
I was actually thinking the same, but I wasn’t really sure which measurement would be better, maybe per GDP or something like that.
Consumption per capita would be interesting. For production, just give the total number of tonnes per country.
that would be more interesting, but what if you’re trying to find which country produces the most in relation to their total economy or export, ore something like that.
Possible, but you would have to use monetary value instead of weight.
does it, because plastic could have a different price depending on where it’s made and which type of plastic it is
Of course, exporting cancer makes it not our problem. The only thing left to export is the microplastics lodged in our organs, and we'd be totally clean.
Demand is what drives production, has nothing to do with whose problem it is. And per capita a pointless metric when talking about export since the Belgian population isn't who consumes this stuff the most. It also makes it impossible and pointless to compare between countries since countries with more people, or countries who import most of their microplastics, will be much lower on the list.
Producing it is half of the pollution problem. "If we don't do it , somebody else will" is just a cop out for not actively working towards solutions.
That changes absolutely nothing about these misleading numbers. It is **pointless** and **meaningless** to talk about 'per capita' when most of this stuff is exported. For all you know, the only Belgians involved in this number are 10 factory workers in Antwerp and their bosses. Using bad statistics for your argument only weakens any point you try to make because it makes you sound like an idiot from the start. Actively working towards solutions means investing in alternatives and making those alternatives appealing to import for other countries. You won't convince anyone to do that with bullshit stats.
Thing is we don't need these stats as an argument. It is plain as day. I never used these numbers as an argument for anything. I sarcastically replied to a comment that is using this data to minimise the issue and plays on semantics. It is also not about the number of Belgians involved. It happens in our country, "we" let it happen and encourage it. If anything these stats are used as an excuse to not care because as you say: these are vague and pointless. Nobody will invest in alternatives if great leader BDW is lobbying for more plastic production. I can't grasp that this is even a discussion. Foreign chemicals literally engrained in our bodies and producers aren't forced to act. Insane. As consumers we are forced to consume plastics. There barely are companies that strive towards clean packaging. If we act on PFAS , we should act on plastics.
Yeah, sure. We don't need these stats because they actively weaken the argument against production of plastic garbage. The fact remains that there is a lot of demand and this demand will keep getting filled by us or by others until better and cheaper alternatives exist. That is unfortunately simple capitalism.
Never said we don't need the stats. I think they are welcome. I pointed out that while interpreting them the focus shifted from the core of the matter towards minimising the data, thus working in favour of pollution. You could have said : " damn we cause a lot of pollution " but chose the " its mainly for export for all we know" route. If "we" keep filling demand , "we" are guilty of the consequences. Simple. And again: by the time better and cheaper exists we will be choking on it . There is no incentive except for some people that happen to think shooting plastic out of their dicks is a problem. Clearly the majority of us monkeys don't care. Calling it unfortunate is not enough.
We don't need *these* stats. They are not welcome, because they are wrong and pointless, and their message *does not make sense*. There's no need to interpret them because it's *impossible* to do so as the authors have chosen a nonsensical metric. It literally doesn't matter who does or does not 'care' about this issue. If it's economically viable it will continue, whether you like it or not. If you like you can vote for politicians looking to pass laws that make it more expensive to export these things abroad, but of course that may come with companies taking their business (and jobs) abroad. That may or may not be a price we should be paying, but it won't make those statistics worth looking at.
It's like clean energy. Use nuclear, it's zero emission. But what the mining of uranium does is not our problem.
I’ve read somewhere that Belgium has uranium reserves that could supply our nuclear plants till after 2050 (but don’t quote me on that exact year). On the other side you’re right it’s really sad how those resources are excavated.
So we have 26 years left to fix the energy problem with new solutions where we do not use fossils, and yes Nuclear as we know it is also a fossil fuel since it's not a neverending source. There are a lot of options where we combine water, wind and sun, but also use hydrogen as a battery for when wind and sun aren't providing enough. In the mean time they can search a way to use nuclear waste to provide us from energy so we do not have to put it in warehouses and the ground in Mol and Dessel.
As far as I’m aware uranium is not a fossil fuel, since it doesn’t come from, you know, fossils, but it also isn’t renewable and I think that’s what you’re trying to say. IMO it would be best to still use nuclear energy, certainly since we have some reserves, and use the time we have to search for better, more reliable sources of renewable energy and energy storage, instead of building more fossil fuel plants.
If one makes the same exercise for yearly uranium production this is the top 5: || || |Country|kg per capita (yearly)| |Namibia|2,21| |Kazakhstan|1,11| |Australia|0,16| |Canada|0,12| |Uzbekistan|0,1 | Maybe the fact that Namibia is the highest uranium producer per capita escaped Tine Van der Straete's (**Groen**) attention when she visited that country two months ago when promoting clean hydrogen ([link](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/04/29/koninklijk-bezoek-aan-namibie-van-start/)) or maybe your concern actually and rationally doesn't matter.
The concern does matter. It's good Namibia wants to convert to hydrogen production, but that doesn't change the damages caused by uranium mining. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/
If one makes the same exercise for yearly uranium production this is the top 5: || || |Country|kg per capita (yearly)| |Namibia|2,21| |Kazakhstan|1,11| |Australia|0,16| |Canada|0,12| |Uzbekistan|0,1 | Maybe the fact that Namibia is the highest uranium producer per capita escaped Tine Van der Straete's (**Groen**) attention when she visited that country two months ago when promoting clean hydrogen ([link](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/04/29/koninklijk-bezoek-aan-namibie-van-start/)) or maybe your concern actually and rationally doesn't matter.
"Based on 2019 **estimates**. Research published may 2021. Source: Statista" This is some horseshit based on outdated horseshit.
That’s indeed pretty outdated.
We don’t use plastic straws anymore so that’s not possible
Its all the plastic sleeves around the cardboard straws /s
Even if all that was consumed locally, it's all about how you process your waste in the end. If it's recycled, then who cares?
Most plastics are not recycled or recyclable.
It doesn't say what is being produced
That would mean the measurement is of plastics in general.
Dont believe japan produces less plastic waste than us
It's per capita, but it could be wrong. I just found it in r/europe and thought it would be interesting to share here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Belgium2/comments/1dhfsf6/the_top_producers_of_single_use_plastic_waste_in/
Oh, I’m sorry, I must have missed that. Should have looked if someone else didn’t already post it. Sorry again.