foo

Another variation of this is when you used Google, and the responses to the post say “Use Google”, or links to lmgtfy.

I recently started getting spam to my dailymotion account.

I’ve been boycotting Amazon (UK) for a few years now. It’s not easy! Sometimes it doesn’t take much longer to source items, but other times it takes way longer. I have limits though, and occasionally I end up caving-in and just using Amazon, but it’s getting rarer all the time. Now I use them once or twice per year. I tried using onbuy for a while, but we got a couple of faulty items from them and their support completely ignored me, so I stopped using them. Generally, here are some of my most common alternatives:

general stuff and gifts: Argos, ebay, etsy
tech: overclockers, ebuyer, scan.co.uk
electronics: John Lewis, AO, Richer Sounds
books/dvds: hive.co.uk, Waterstones, WH Smith
pharma: boots, simpleonlinepharmacy, well
household: Robert Dyas, Dunelm, John Lewis
pets: zooplus
spare parts: buyspares.co.uk

And for a wishlist alternative I use wishlist.com. (edited to fix formatting)

Works in Voyager on Android too.

Reminds me of the start of La Haine.
https://youtu.be/4rD05HsmtIU

Life insurance might not pay out for suicides. If he has family or anyone else mentioned in his policy he may not want to jeopardise that. No idea if that applies to OP’s neighbour, but it’s one potential reason.

Richard? Is that you?

BBC article with more details: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl737zr79o

I agree with all of your points, but the original picture was showing plastic pollution and you went on to compare it with carbon emissions. So when you use a phrase like “total footprint” it’s difficult to interpret that any other way than we must make one problem worse to solve the other.

I don’t see why we can’t have solutions that are low/zero carbon AND don’t result in plastic being dumped in the ocean.

Again, I agree. Rather than blindly reducing energy usage and/or reducing plastic pollution we should be looking towards any solution that works towards holistic sustainable living across the planet.

The only statement that I would debate is: “Glass may have less pollution in the product, but more pollution in the distribution.”

The pollution in the distribution is currently carbon based output from fossil fuels, but it doesn’t have to be. Also, the glass can be efficiently re-used in some cases. In the UK we used to have milk distributed in glass bottles, delivered by people on electric “milk floats”, who collected the empties as they delivered the full ones every day. The bottles didn’t get melted down, just washed and refilled. It seems possible to me that we could get that process to almost zero carbon whilst also using zero plastic.

That’s one example, but a single holistic solution to both carbon output and low waste is probably not possible. To achieve the global sustainability that we all want will take different and innovative solutions in each use case.

I guess the OP’s meme makes sense in some cases and not others, depending on perspective.