The title is a little misleading. Apparently China was importing and reusing plastic from all over, but have decided to stop. So now something else has to be done going forward past a certain time...
The title is a little misleading. Apparently China was importing and reusing plastic from all over, but have decided to stop. So now something else has to be done going forward past a certain time frame.
It's not a little misleading, it's basically clickbait. Even their subheader doesn't support it: "The world’s biggest waste importer is no longer buying. So where’s all that trash going to go?"
It's not a little misleading, it's basically clickbait. Even their subheader doesn't support it: "The world’s biggest waste importer is no longer buying. So where’s all that trash going to go?"
So how's it misleading? It's because of the new policy in China that new ways to handle a cumulative 111 million metric tons of waste by 2030 will have to be found.
So how's it misleading? It's because of the new policy in China that new ways to handle a cumulative 111 million metric tons of waste by 2030 will have to be found.
Not really, it simply means they handed the problem back. Especially the other comment's claim--which you seemingly agree with--is wrong. The subtitle is even less misleading.
Not really, it simply means they handed the problem back. Especially the other comment's claim--which you seemingly agree with--is wrong. The subtitle is even less misleading.
Ideally, at least for me, the title should inform me about what's in the article, not run counter to the point of the article in an attempt to get me to read it by making it seem more interesting...
Ideally, at least for me, the title should inform me about what's in the article, not run counter to the point of the article in an attempt to get me to read it by making it seem more interesting or inflammatory than it really is.
That has never been how titles worked in the press, or even literature for that matter. A title's purpose is to attract, to stand out, to arouse interest. In the beginning they were called...
That has never been how titles worked in the press, or even literature for that matter.
A title's purpose is to attract, to stand out, to arouse interest. In the beginning they were called clickbait only when the author was extensively misleading, inciting, agitating, outright lying--the usual stuff of yellow journalism or tabloids.
Only due to increased sharing via third-parties, e.g., social media and aggregators, this has become more common for the rest of the press.
Although the press itself is mostly at fault for the too often justified sensibility, people often cluster all issues in a single bucket, stripping them of all nuance. Reddit's community depreciated this criticism even, as a lot of people laughably do not even read the articles.
Can we stop title policing and content policing each other? These are the most low-effort posts on Tildes right now. If you find a headline misleading or think it should be in another ~ then just...
Can we stop title policing and content policing each other? These are the most low-effort posts on Tildes right now. If you find a headline misleading or think it should be in another ~ then just don't vote for it and move on. Or bring it up but only as part of a larger discussion on the topic.
Why are there 12 posts from grown ass adults arguing over whether China no longer taking in the world's recyclable plastic is technically them handing the rest of the world a problem?
I should practice what I preach, so I think this is interesting as part of the trend of China deciding to no longer be the dumping ground for the rest of the world. While they have a very authoritarian government, their environmental quality was so bad that the government had to clean up to avoid massive resistance. It's impressive how fast they have moved on this even though there's still a lot of work to do. Where will the waste go next? My guess is Africa.
But then you may do it, right? As far as I'm aware, tildes does not consider link submissions low-effort at all, that's why I'm posting. Not sure what posts you're referring to, but the users...
These are the most low-effort posts on Tildes right now.
But then you may do it, right? As far as I'm aware, tildes does not consider link submissions low-effort at all, that's why I'm posting.
Why are there 12 posts from grown ass adults arguing over whether China no longer taking in the world's recyclable plastic is technically them handing the rest of the world a problem?
Not sure what posts you're referring to, but the users here--also not sure about their age--were arguing about title style conventions, unfortunately, not the content of the article.
China has been having trouble containing the side effects isolated from the public, in particular the emerging middle class, hence the policy changes.
The news serves more as a review of the rest of the world's practices at dumping to realize their recycling rates, and highlights the latest report on how much waste, it is estimated, will be produced in the next decade.
Sorry man, I am not criticizing your post at all. Tildes needs content, I'm all for posting it. I just think it is unfortunate when so many comments (not just in this thread by any means) are...
But then you may do it, right? As far as I'm aware, tildes does not consider link submissions low-effort at all, that's why I'm posting.
Sorry man, I am not criticizing your post at all. Tildes needs content, I'm all for posting it. I just think it is unfortunate when so many comments (not just in this thread by any means) are bringing up weak criticisms of 'sensationalized' titles or questioning whether the link is in the right ~.
I feel like that is exactly what I did though. My intentions definitely were not to make a low effort post. I just wanted to comment on what the article was about for people reading the comments....
Or bring it up but only as part of a larger discussion on the topic.
I feel like that is exactly what I did though. My intentions definitely were not to make a low effort post. I just wanted to comment on what the article was about for people reading the comments. I just thought, this is supposed to be quality discussion. So I brought it up to get the ball rolling on the discussion.
Interesting. What is wrong with people discussing this?
Can we stop title policing and content policing each other?
Or bring it up but only as part of a larger discussion on the topic.
Interesting.
Why are there 12 posts from grown ass adults arguing over whether China no longer taking in the world's recyclable plastic is technically them handing the rest of the world a problem?
What I mean by content policing is questioning whether a link is in the right ~. Like the one about Melania's jacket that sparked a discussion on 'is this news' or the one about LGBT culture in...
Interesting
What I mean by content policing is questioning whether a link is in the right ~. Like the one about Melania's jacket that sparked a discussion on 'is this news' or the one about LGBT culture in Russia where the only comment for a while was questioning whether it should be in ~lgbt. Instead of ~misc
What is wrong with people discussing this?
Tildes is supposed to be a place for substantive discussion, right? Turning it into a debate on title semantics is about the least substantive thing to discuss.
I see. My view is that discussion is discussion. As long as it is civil and not memes/jokes, I don't have a problem with it. These discussions, while not the most substantive, have the potential...
I see. My view is that discussion is discussion. As long as it is civil and not memes/jokes, I don't have a problem with it. These discussions, while not the most substantive, have the potential to inspire real conversation and debate, so the idea of stamping them out wholesale doesn't sit right with me. However, it is certainly a problem when the comments you're referring to are the only things people have to say about a topic.
I see it as a problem because it's off topic. It moves the discussion away from the topic in question to focus on the presentation of the topic. The topic goes largely ignored. Clickbaiting or...
What is wrong with people discussing this?
I see it as a problem because it's off topic. It moves the discussion away from the topic in question to focus on the presentation of the topic. The topic goes largely ignored.
Clickbaiting or even journalist integrity should be their own discussions (and I'm not really saying those are not important). It's just that letting these dominate any post online makes discussion of the content itself secondary to the discussion of its medium.
I would really love some rules/taxes put down against the manufacturing of NEW plastic, so that recycling became a more in-demand option for companies that need plastic. I hate packaging and...
I would really love some rules/taxes put down against the manufacturing of NEW plastic, so that recycling became a more in-demand option for companies that need plastic.
I hate packaging and attempt to buy as little plastic as possible, but it's definitely hard. People seem to be busier and busier, and plastic and styrofoam (which is an environmental disaster) packaging seems to rise with convenience, like pre-shucked corn and pre-sliced melons.
it's easy for me to preach to people about reducing their usage by buying things that aren't packaged in plastic, and using alternatives myself, but I am also have a pretty nice full time job and no children, I enjoy cooking and get some satisfaction from instituting green measures in my life. I realize that it's kind of a high horse to yell down from about not buying things that are convenient when people are working late and need to feed their children and work 2 jobs and things that take up way more time.
Also there's definite benefits to plastic as far as keeping things fresh and sanitary - the community-supported-agriculture farm box program I take part in has a lot more plastic bags involved that I would expect. There's not really a viable alternative to using plastic, even with a company that is super hippie. I'm hoping some of the compost-able plastics will start to take over, but haven't seen too much of it yet.
That'd be the rational system. We should be adopting alternative materials as much as possible. In the end, we still treat plastics as fundamentally disposable and a "free to use" material. Unless...
That'd be the rational system. We should be adopting alternative materials as much as possible.
In the end, we still treat plastics as fundamentally disposable and a "free to use" material. Unless we force our industries to use plastic materials cyclically or as minimally as possible, the problem will only get worse. And it's not a problem that can be fixed quickly.
Some have suggested that all packaging should be traceable to the company who used it in the end, and that by law they should be responsible for collecting these and properly handling it.
But our civilization and economies do not allow for that completely reasonable demand. Our systems work based on treating trash as "other people's problems", so it's impossible to make the proper parties responsible. Too much needs to change.
As someone who's "Reduced, Reused and Recycled" since watching Captain Planet as a kid, the news regarding our trash lately has been terrifying. It's weird spending pretty much a lifetime sorting...
As someone who's "Reduced, Reused and Recycled" since watching Captain Planet as a kid, the news regarding our trash lately has been terrifying. It's weird spending pretty much a lifetime sorting my trash and realizing it's all being buried in another country or drifting in the ocean. Hopefully China's move here will force us to deal with our trash locally and with real solutions.
Off-topic: anyone else reminded of the garbage ball episode of Futurama?
The title is a little misleading. Apparently China was importing and reusing plastic from all over, but have decided to stop. So now something else has to be done going forward past a certain time frame.
Edit - was not qas
It's not a little misleading, it's basically clickbait. Even their subheader doesn't support it: "The world’s biggest waste importer is no longer buying. So where’s all that trash going to go?"
I wanted to be kind of nice about how I said it.
So how's it misleading? It's because of the new policy in China that new ways to handle a cumulative 111 million metric tons of waste by 2030 will have to be found.
The title is written as if it is saying China created the problem. When in reality, China has been handling the problem in a way.
Not really, it simply means they handed the problem back. Especially the other comment's claim--which you seemingly agree with--is wrong. The subtitle is even less misleading.
The article makes that clear, the title doesn't. That was my point.
Yeah, and isn't that how it supposed to be?!
Ideally, at least for me, the title should inform me about what's in the article, not run counter to the point of the article in an attempt to get me to read it by making it seem more interesting or inflammatory than it really is.
That has never been how titles worked in the press, or even literature for that matter.
A title's purpose is to attract, to stand out, to arouse interest. In the beginning they were called clickbait only when the author was extensively misleading, inciting, agitating, outright lying--the usual stuff of yellow journalism or tabloids.
Only due to increased sharing via third-parties, e.g., social media and aggregators, this has become more common for the rest of the press.
Although the press itself is mostly at fault for the too often justified sensibility, people often cluster all issues in a single bucket, stripping them of all nuance. Reddit's community depreciated this criticism even, as a lot of people laughably do not even read the articles.
Which is why I prefaced my statement with
I didn't find it misleading at all.
Can we stop title policing and content policing each other? These are the most low-effort posts on Tildes right now. If you find a headline misleading or think it should be in another ~ then just don't vote for it and move on. Or bring it up but only as part of a larger discussion on the topic.
Why are there 12 posts from grown ass adults arguing over whether China no longer taking in the world's recyclable plastic is technically them handing the rest of the world a problem?
I should practice what I preach, so I think this is interesting as part of the trend of China deciding to no longer be the dumping ground for the rest of the world. While they have a very authoritarian government, their environmental quality was so bad that the government had to clean up to avoid massive resistance. It's impressive how fast they have moved on this even though there's still a lot of work to do. Where will the waste go next? My guess is Africa.
But then you may do it, right? As far as I'm aware, tildes does not consider link submissions low-effort at all, that's why I'm posting.
Not sure what posts you're referring to, but the users here--also not sure about their age--were arguing about title style conventions, unfortunately, not the content of the article.
China has been having trouble containing the side effects isolated from the public, in particular the emerging middle class, hence the policy changes.
The news serves more as a review of the rest of the world's practices at dumping to realize their recycling rates, and highlights the latest report on how much waste, it is estimated, will be produced in the next decade.
Sorry man, I am not criticizing your post at all. Tildes needs content, I'm all for posting it. I just think it is unfortunate when so many comments (not just in this thread by any means) are bringing up weak criticisms of 'sensationalized' titles or questioning whether the link is in the right ~.
I feel like that is exactly what I did though. My intentions definitely were not to make a low effort post. I just wanted to comment on what the article was about for people reading the comments. I just thought, this is supposed to be quality discussion. So I brought it up to get the ball rolling on the discussion.
Interesting.
What is wrong with people discussing this?
What I mean by content policing is questioning whether a link is in the right ~. Like the one about Melania's jacket that sparked a discussion on 'is this news' or the one about LGBT culture in Russia where the only comment for a while was questioning whether it should be in ~lgbt. Instead of ~misc
Tildes is supposed to be a place for substantive discussion, right? Turning it into a debate on title semantics is about the least substantive thing to discuss.
I see. My view is that discussion is discussion. As long as it is civil and not memes/jokes, I don't have a problem with it. These discussions, while not the most substantive, have the potential to inspire real conversation and debate, so the idea of stamping them out wholesale doesn't sit right with me. However, it is certainly a problem when the comments you're referring to are the only things people have to say about a topic.
I see it as a problem because it's off topic. It moves the discussion away from the topic in question to focus on the presentation of the topic. The topic goes largely ignored.
Clickbaiting or even journalist integrity should be their own discussions (and I'm not really saying those are not important). It's just that letting these dominate any post online makes discussion of the content itself secondary to the discussion of its medium.
I would really love some rules/taxes put down against the manufacturing of NEW plastic, so that recycling became a more in-demand option for companies that need plastic.
I hate packaging and attempt to buy as little plastic as possible, but it's definitely hard. People seem to be busier and busier, and plastic and styrofoam (which is an environmental disaster) packaging seems to rise with convenience, like pre-shucked corn and pre-sliced melons.
it's easy for me to preach to people about reducing their usage by buying things that aren't packaged in plastic, and using alternatives myself, but I am also have a pretty nice full time job and no children, I enjoy cooking and get some satisfaction from instituting green measures in my life. I realize that it's kind of a high horse to yell down from about not buying things that are convenient when people are working late and need to feed their children and work 2 jobs and things that take up way more time.
Also there's definite benefits to plastic as far as keeping things fresh and sanitary - the community-supported-agriculture farm box program I take part in has a lot more plastic bags involved that I would expect. There's not really a viable alternative to using plastic, even with a company that is super hippie. I'm hoping some of the compost-able plastics will start to take over, but haven't seen too much of it yet.
That'd be the rational system. We should be adopting alternative materials as much as possible.
In the end, we still treat plastics as fundamentally disposable and a "free to use" material. Unless we force our industries to use plastic materials cyclically or as minimally as possible, the problem will only get worse. And it's not a problem that can be fixed quickly.
Some have suggested that all packaging should be traceable to the company who used it in the end, and that by law they should be responsible for collecting these and properly handling it.
But our civilization and economies do not allow for that completely reasonable demand. Our systems work based on treating trash as "other people's problems", so it's impossible to make the proper parties responsible. Too much needs to change.
As someone who's "Reduced, Reused and Recycled" since watching Captain Planet as a kid, the news regarding our trash lately has been terrifying. It's weird spending pretty much a lifetime sorting my trash and realizing it's all being buried in another country or drifting in the ocean. Hopefully China's move here will force us to deal with our trash locally and with real solutions.
Off-topic: anyone else reminded of the garbage ball episode of Futurama?
We could just shoot all our trash into the sun, right?
Can this plastic waste be incinerated if it's not going to be recycled so it at least takes up less volume in landfills?
I believe it can be, as Japan actually does burn a lot of their trash. I am sure that comes with its own set of issues though