Why can yogurt pots not be recycled and how many are consumed each day?

Following discussions while on holiday, I'm wondering whether I should go into politics, at least to become involved with the Green party to try and change and influence the world in a physical and actual way, although I'm wondering whether party politics is the most appropriate way to do that. I suppose it's more efficient and effective than writing blog articles, although these need not be mutually exclusive. The advantage, perhaps, is also the time required to compose policy, ideas and approaches to the vision of an environmentally friendly world when probably the Green party has already done a lot of that.

I'm not interested in simply joining a party in order to criticise or bring down current policy. I'm just frustrated with the slow speed of implementation of any so-lled green policy by government. Indeed I have never seen a government that I consider to be philosophically convinced of the need for green policy. Following discussions over the past week while on holiday, I'm wondering whether I should go into politics, at least to become involved with the Green party to try and change and influence the world in a physical and actual way, although I'm wondering whether party politics is the most appropriate way to do that. I suppose it's more efficient and effective than writing blog articles, although these need not be mutually exclusive.

The advantage, perhaps, is also the time required to compose policy, ideas and approaches to the vision of an environmentally friendly world when probably the Green party has already done a lot of that. I'm not interested in simply joining a party in order to criticise or bring down current policy. I'm just frustrated with the slow speed of implementation of any so-called green policy by government, indeed I have never seen a government that I consider to be philosophically convinced of the need for green policy. Some talk about economics, to be the most appropriate way to implement such policies, either through investment incentives, or by clearly stating the economic case for moving to, for instance, green energy production methods.

I baulk at this, since I consider that green policy should be implemented not simply because it's cheaper but because fundamentally and philosophically and ethically it's right. For instance, oil prices have risen over the years because there is less of it in the ground and will continue to rise as supply drops and new costly methods are found to harvest the remaining reserves.

This implies that we will go on using fossil fuels until they run out or until they are so exorbitantly expensive to use and that we will only use solar power for instance once it is economic to do so. I want to show that it is already economic to do so, even though my motivation is that I believe we should already be using solar power on ethical and philosophical grounds because it is environmentally friendly. While there may be arguments against solar panels as they are apparently difficult to recycle, at least they do not consume the earths resources.

These discussions have led to the idea of measuring the total energy usage of various systems and by taking examples of specific items, products and commodities from cradle to grave. For instance, a yoghurt pot. How much does it cost to produce, distribute and recycle in terms of energy usage and monetary cost compared to a locally produced apple. I'm wondering whether in today's world whether even cost is a motivation factor for choice. There seems to be sufficient money for people to choose exotic fruits and products, electronic goods produced in China, far away, rather than to favour locally produced goods.

Money is power, it seems that people are prepared to make and spend their money in such a way as if to say "look at me, I can bring stuff halfway round the world, I'm powerful". Eating pears from round the corner is just not glamorous. This means that economics is a factor only for poor people and currently, Â environmentally friendly production methods are not cheaper because all investment has gone into mass production since the Industrial Revolution. To cite an example of the world on its head, we no longer use the waterways for transport and yet this is the most environmentally friendly way to transport goods.

The lorry has been favoured despite its use of petrol, its need for road use and maintenance, because of its speed. Time is money, but planning and patience can pay. Supply chain management teaches that transport by waterway is not appropriate for all types of goods. Could we, for instance, refrigerate boats to bring our yoghurts to market? Transport by boat is economic for make-to-stock items such as  building materials, animal feed and large bulky items. What economic factors could bring other items off the roads and onto the water, to once again favour the extensive use of canals, so heavily invested in by the Victorians. Certes, they require maintenance just as do roads but at least they do not consume large quantities of petrochemical and quarried products to do so as do roads. Considering once again the humble yoghurt pot, consider what it requires during its cradle to grave life-cycle.

Plastic from the petrochemical industry, press moulding, aluminium and paper for the lid, glue, yogurt production, transport, storage in costly, refrigerated shops and lorries, further transport costs from shop to home, further refrigeration costs in the home and then rubbish collection services involving lorries, roads and infrastructure only to learn that a yogurt pot  cannot be recycled, but can only be burnt or buried. Considering how much yoghurt we eat and even waste each year, does this not make us think that choice is a high price to pay just to satisfy our seeming need to dominate our own environment? Are the arguments to eat locally produced fruit as an alternative sufficiently heard or sufficiently made?

What will it take for people to understand the costs involved to our environment from the choices that they make? What may convince them to do otherwise, economics or ethics? Some talk about economics, to be the most appropriate way to implement such policies, either through investment incentives, or by clearly stating the economic case for moving to, for instance, green energy production methods. I balk at this, since I consider that green policy should be implemented not simply because it's cheaper but because fundamentally and philosophically and ethically it's right.

For instance, oil prices have risen over the years because there is less of it in the ground and will continue to rise as supply drops and new costly methods are found to harvest the remaining reserves. This implies that we will go on using fossil fuels until they run out or until they are so exorbitantly expensive to use and that we will only use solar power once it is economic to do so. I want to show that it is already economic to do so, even though my motivation is that I believe we should already be using solar power on ethical and philosophical grounds because it is environmentally friendly.

While there may be arguments against solar panels as they are apparently difficult to recycle, at least they do not consume the earths resources. These discussions have led to the idea of measuring the total energy usage of various systems and by taking examples of specific items, products and commodities from cradle to grave.

For instance, a yoghurt pot. How much does it cost to produce, distribute and recycle in terms of energy usage and monetary cost compared to a locally produced apple. I'm wondering whether in today's world whether even cost is a motivation factor for choice. There seems to be sufficient money for people to choose exotic fruits and products, electronic goods produced in China, far away, rather than to favour locally produced goods. Money is power, it seems that people are prepared to make and spend their money in such a way as if to say "look at me, I can bring stuff halfway round the world, I'm powerful".

Eating pears from round the corner is just not glamorous. This means that economics is a factor only for poor people and currently, Â environmentally friendly production methods are not cheaper because all investment has gone into mass production since the Industrial Revolution. To cite an example of the world on its head, we no longer use the waterways for transport and yet this is the most environmentally friendly way to transport goods.

The lorry has been favoured despite its use of petrol, its need for road use and maintenance, because of its speed. Time is money, but planning and patience can pay. Supply chain management teaches that transport by waterway is not appropriate for all types of goods. Could we, for instance, refrigerate boats to bring our yogurts to market? Transport by boat is economic for make-to-stock items such as  building materials, animal feed and large bulky items. What economic factors could bring other items off the roads and onto the water, to once again favour the extensive use of canals, so heavily invested in by the Victorians.

Certes, they require maintenance just as do roads but at least they do not consume large quantities of petrochemical and quarried products to do so as do roads. Considering once again the humble yoghurt pot, consider what it requires during its cradle to grave life-cycle. Plastic from the petrochemical industry, press moulding, aluminium and paper for the lid, glue, yoghurt production, transport, storage in costly, refrigerated shops and lorries, further transport costs from shop to home, further refrigeration costs in the home and then rubbish collection services involving lorries, roads and infrastructure only to learn that a yoghurt pot  cannot be recycled, but can only be burnt or buried.

Considering how much yoghurt we eat and even waste each year, does this not make us think that choice is a high price to pay just to satisfy our seeming need to dominate our own environment? Are the arguments to eat locally produced fruit as an alternative sufficiently heard or sufficiently made? What will it take for people to understand the costs involved to our environment from the choices that they make? What may convince them to do otherwise, economics or ethics?