That's a result of Tokyo and the other biggest cities only separating into recyclable bottles, non-recyclable or non-burnable material (i.e. inorganics) and all the rest which is as you say incinerated.
They also have some, if not the most clean burning incenerators in the world, and they use the waste material for construction and land reclamation.
Burning plastics at very high temperatures is far more environmentally friendly than sending them to landfills or attempting to recycle them.
Nevertheless they are known for excess packaging and obviously my arguments about standardization still apply to Japan as much as anyone else.
Yes, but the main issue is how mixed the materials are in our consumables. Mixed recycling is basically bullshit. We should have more standardized packaging and more categories of separation strictly enforced. Japan does this pretty well.
You could opt in to pay extra for sorting if you can afford it sure.
And emissions need to be better taxed, and illegal dumping and discharge into rivers and such a jailable crime with big fines for businesses with accountability going right up the chain to investors.
Tax windfall for Canadian government, maybe? Business still has to do business to stay in business. So as long as Canadians benefit, not sure it matters if they're "Trump supported" does it?
So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.
It would be the end of "bullshit jobs" and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers' market.
You'll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.
Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.
Immigrants probably wouldn't get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.
I don't think there's a meaningful difference. If you're a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you're of working age. No exceptions.
It's not the only progressive policy that's needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there's a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That's the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.
This is why universal* basic is the proper way. We're heading toward a world where there will never be enough existing jobs for everyone who wants to work, let alone those who can't work, and finally the smallest cohort, those who don't want to "work" at all.
The administrative burden of means testing so many people is absurd. And when you do and they fail then what?
People who are against looking after the unemployed rarely say the quiet part out loud. That they don't care about homelessness, disease, violent crime, or whatever, since they can isolate themselves away from it. The law works for them, and so does the system, so they're safe. So let the peasants who refuse to tow the line figure it out on their own.
It doesn't. But "needing" itself is an undefined term without consciousness - definition itself is a product of conscious experience.
The point is that there is no fact of a universe existing without something that can know facts. It's necessarily tautological, after all we cannot know not existing.
Were we not, the universe could not be as we know it. Whether or not it exists at all without us cannot matter, because mattering itself cannot be defined without a definer, nor can existence itself be verified without a verifier.
That which "just is" could be absolutely anything at any time.
In other words, Maybe the big bang happened some 13.8 billion years ago and over all this time events transpired until the first consciousnesses came online. Suddenly the universe knows being. Then one day you come online, somewhere around the age of 5 or 6.
Or... That is just what it looks like to you and in reality someone preprogrammed the simulation and switched it on and you came into existence at the moment of your oldest memory. All that history is true only in the sense that it's what the simulation shows you. But 13.8 billion years never really happened.
That's basically how it is, and it doesn't need to be an external simulation. Those 13.8 billion years had nothing in them to experience, to remember, or to document concepts like duration, and years are a relational measurement we invented.
Us. Conscious creatures humans or otherwise. We are the genesis of "point".
By analogy, what's the point of a sun, or a planet, being a thing? It just is, right? A mechanism of nature.
Maybe we are do, but it's undeniable that we experience reality. Experience is the only thing they can have a point, by definition. This is simply axiomatic.
There is no knowing a universe without knowers, so whether something just is, absent is, is a nonsense question. Sense to whom, after all?
It's a cool axiom though. I mean if there's nothing conscious to know the universe exists, like, so what? A universe needs life to matter to that life. Intrinsic mattering makes no sense. Things have to matter to other things that have the capacity to want or need. But without consciousness, those things might as well be like calculations in a computer.
That's a result of Tokyo and the other biggest cities only separating into recyclable bottles, non-recyclable or non-burnable material (i.e. inorganics) and all the rest which is as you say incinerated.
They also have some, if not the most clean burning incenerators in the world, and they use the waste material for construction and land reclamation.
Burning plastics at very high temperatures is far more environmentally friendly than sending them to landfills or attempting to recycle them.
Nevertheless they are known for excess packaging and obviously my arguments about standardization still apply to Japan as much as anyone else.