 |
Here's a group you may wish to join: Tips for Recycling and Reusing.
Added: Oops, I just noticed that you posted this there first...never mind...
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
read more and learn to be critical.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It takes more energy to recycle then it does making raw.
The tree thing surprises me and I guess thats good that we are getting more trees. If we planed more trees in cities that would really help the smog problem.
It's law in Reading, PA so I have to.
The key to conservation is just that. To conserve. Your going to run out of stuff eventually.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Concerning deforestation, here is an interesting article. It says, in part, "Applying the formula to UN-collected data released last year, the researchers find that, amid widespread concerns about deforestation, growing stock has in fact expanded over the past 15 years in 22 of the world's 50 countries with most forest. ... Earlier work showed that by the 1980s wooded areas in all major temperate and boreal forests were exanding."(sic)
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It currently costs more and uses more energy to recycle because not enough investment has been made into the processes.
However, the more recycling is hammered home as a good thing, the more people will do it, the better the technologies become, the less it costs and the less energy it will expend.
This will happen smoother by society starting to learn to recycle now instead of being forced into it by shortage of raw materials.
Think of all the effort and production that goes into making a crisp packet. It's ludicrous that a few days after we've carefully forged minerals and elements taken from the ground at vast expense into usable forms, then made them into a consumer item, those usable forms are chucked into a landfill and forgotten about, while your next bag of crisps is made from raw materials again.
It may be "cost effective" but it's also fucking stupid.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Thats great news on the forests. thanks tabhastal.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
All the fuzz about the environment is a bit blown up. It only confronts us with the inefficient way in which we maintain our population and the limits we are bound to with our contemporary technologies.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
the tree thing..."we had more trees now then we did in 1920"
I doubt this very much, globally speaking. And "global" is what counts here. That US' (or, just looked it up, Germany's) forestareas are expanding does in no way compensate for the deforestation of Asian and Southamerican rainforests.
Regarding the original question: Paper & glass, yes, of course. I'm not the biggest participant in the system of the Green Dot, though.
SPVW How is it "blown up" when this confrontation is absolutely needed?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well is this confrontation needed then? Depends on your point of view of course. If you want human population to grow then you certainly need some extra attention and change behavior. But nowadays to be green is hyped it' s just popular to care for the environment but most have absolutely no idea of what kind of limited effects there actions have.
The environment regulates us, not the other way round.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Reduce and Reuse still matter!
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
do you have in the English language also the expression " a droplet on a hot plate" ?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"pissing in the wind"?
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
Ok...I was over at my friends house and he showed me an episode of Penn&Teller B.S. It was on recycling and covered a lot about what we are talking about now.
People here are talking about it if u are interested...
digg.com/educational/Penn_Teller_Bullshit_Recycling
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Shoot and Point edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
lol, that was probably the original title of the song by Bob Dylan right?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Jerry Jeff Walker
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Er, no. To take paper as an example, using recycled compared to new wood:
30-70% less energy
30,000 fewer litres of water per ton
95% reduction in air pollution
The reasons? Nost of that energy and water is needed to turn the wood fibres into pulp. As recycled paper is already pulp, you don't need all that energy and water. In addition, you don't need to do the very polluting chlorine bleaching - you can do the small amount of bleaching required with oxygen. Plus, when paper rots in a landfill, it releases methane - a very potent greenhouse gas. By recycling, you avoid releasing all that methane.
You can (and people do) do the sums for other materials, and the story is always the same - it uses significantly less energy to reuse a material than it does to produce it from raw stock.
Unfortunately this is one of those horrible urban myths that has no basis in fact and does a lot of harm...
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Interesting read.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
trees are one thing, rainforests are another. Rainforests are being clear-cut to make room for farms, and then the wood is sold for construction materials. Don't think just because there are more trees now that logging isn't still a problem.
As for recycling, the simple fact is that if you recycle something it doesn't fill up a landfill. The fact that recycling takes money and energy is nothing new. A lot of things we're recycling aren't even scarce resources, but when you throw away plastic and paper and glass it contributes to a growing waste problem.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@tabhastal,
I heard about that book, seems like a good read.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Take it with a grain of salt, as you should with everything that you yourself do not experience.
IMO, the bottom line with recycling is, if it feels right, do it. But don't stay awake at night worrying that you aren't doing what others think you should.
BTW, it's not a book; just an essay. You can read it in ten minutes. It will take much longer to decide whether you agree with any of it. Click here to download the pdf.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
Recycling, El Nino, Y2K, global warming and Bill Gates taking over the world. Nothing but scare tactics.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
logging has been villainized far too much in the US. its been decades since major clearcutting has taken place, and the logging industry has taken amazing strides to replant stronger trees.
but in Asia, its a whole different story.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I thought this thread said does anyone here bicycle? (Too much Tour de France perhaps)
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Hehe.. I do both. Bicycle and recycle.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@deereyes: But, your region is providing the world with some of the best marijuana ever grown. Good compromise? ;)
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
i try to recyle but im getting there :)
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@deereyes: the larger timber (slow growth or old growth) is only allowed to be cut down by specific cutters who specialize in it, to help control the amount of older timber being cut. the smaller "telephone pole" type is cut down by skidders and other machines. the VAST VAST VAST VAST majority of it, NATIONWIDE, is utilized domestically as actual lumber. if your timber mill went under, i dont know what that says about the logging industry in missouri, but here in washington its forested, gorgeous, and its also how most people on the eastern part make their living.
the quilt pattern (checkerboard) is to allow parts of the forest to regrow alongside the previously standing forest. it is NOT clearcutting.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Matthew Shelley edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
recycling is a waste. re-USING is far better. for the past year, my wife and i sew our own clothes from old clothes and second hands, as well as hundreds of other crafty kind of things, from camera bags to home decor. the major petroleum waste is in the hands of companies mass producing inane wal mart fodder, and the laws put that responsibility onto the shoulders of the consumer. the responsibility of the consumer is to rise above the prepackaged crap we are spoon fed by our mass market media and ensure we ourselves do not leave a bigger footprint than necessary.
EDIT: sorry if i sound mean, im not trying to! i just kinda get defensive when people seem to attack entire industries which people rely on like timber. i grew up in detroit son of a GM employee listening to people talk about the dangers of exhaust, and now i live in washington as a logger till i go to photo school... ugh lol
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Matthew Shelley edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
I only have a trash can on my Mac...
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@deereyes: Too bad about the raids. As a former Federal Agent, I cannot support the continued criminalization of marijuana. Doing so has created the incentive for real criminals to get involved.
Anyway, back on topic. You are right about the situation in Humboldt County. However, globally, the raw amount of forests has been increasing for some time. The problem, IMO, is that we are replacing old growth with young growth. New forests just do not sustain the quality of life that old forests do. I have been in the old growth forests near you, in the virgin rain forests in Mexico, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, and I have 20 odd acres of old growth hardwoods on my farm here in Missouri, and I feel comfortable saying that new growth just does not adequately replace old growth. However, that only speaks to the quality of the biodiversity of new vs old. It does not answer the question of whether household paper recycling helps the "environment" (an inexact and fairly unusable term if there ever was one).
Old growth forests in developed countries are fairly well protected. Almost all of the timber used for paper manufacturing comes from new growth forests. The United Nations is working to protect old growth in undeveloped regions such as Brazil and Indonesia. The problem is that the folks in undeveloped countries are cutting down their trees to make room to grow food and house people. It's easy for those of us in developed countries to point a finger at them and say, "Bad!" But we don't have their problems of food production and housing. We also continue to believe that quality of life is something that can be purchased, so we encourage consumerism; everybody wants more wealth so they can have more things that they believe will make them happier.
Recycling household paper may feel good but I don't believe it does much, if anything, to stop people from cutting down their trees. I also am convinced that recycling processes, as they are done in urban areas, use more resources.
I don't have the answers. But as long as we (the global human species) keep having more babies we are going to continue to have problems. More mouths to feed; more roofs needed over our heads.
Added: BTW, China is actually one of the regions where the amount of trees are increasing. They are still, however, one of the filthiest places I have ever visited (air and water).
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
Referring to the first post, I think only the recycling of a few materials pollute the environement more....As said afterwards, the recycling of paper and also aluminium takes less energy, and pollutes less....
As for the more trees part - i am not sure if that is globally.......There might be more trees, but there aren't more tropical trees....
I think recycling is the thing to do regardless of the questions brought forward.........
Also, it's a good idea to reuse things at home before giving it away for recycling - for example whenever i find a piece of A4 paper with one side printed, i use it to print on the other side....
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Reuse is better than recycling - no argument. And there are important discussions to be had about the efficiency of recycling - for example, is it efficient to put one box of drinks cans in your SUV and drive 10 miles to the recycling point?
However, recycling in general has to be a good thing. I mentioned the figures for paper, but how about the figures for aluminium:
Recycling aluminium uses 95% less energy than refining new aluminium from bauxite.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Some time ago, I started a discussion in the recycling group about making the retailer deal with the trash. That discussion somewhat relates to this one. I believe that one of the best ways to reduce trash is to stop producing much of the packaging that ends up becoming trash. As an individual consumer I don't have any impact. But if we can collectively find ways to make it the retailer's problem, perhaps something positive can happen.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That already happens with some things - for example, under the new WEEE regulations, retailers and manufacturers are obliged to deal with the recycling of electrical and some other kinds of waste.
I own a company that makes electric bikes, and we spend a reasonable amount of money on recycling of batteries, to makes sure the chemicals (especially cadmium) don't go to landfill.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"But if we can collectively find ways to make it the retailer's problem, perhaps something positive can happen"
That's a brilliant idea. You should start some kind of campaign. I think it'd be pretty popular.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I got a pamphlet through the door last night from my local council telling me that I should compost my kitchen waste. They were offering to sell me a compost bin to do it as well. Apparently I can save 40% of my waste from going into landfill if I do it...
Sounds great.. but hang on.. it takes months for waste to break down into compost - years for some of it (like my rabbits' straw). The compost bins are only big enough to take a few weeks' worth of waste. (Less if I put my rabbits' waste into them). I'd end up with a massive row of little daleks full of stinking rotting waste in the garden waiting for it to become compost.
Then when all of this has become compost, what am I supposed to do with it? I've only got a couple of raised beds in my garden. I only need a little bit of compost every now and again if I'm planting something new or have bought a new pot or something. I don't need a production line making hundreds of litres of the blooming stuff that I can't do anything with.
The recycling thing is just a red herring. They're just trying to sell me a stupid (plastic) bin I don't need to make themselves some money.
If they actually wanted this waste to be composted then they'd give me a separate bin for it and take it off and compost it themselves. Then they could sell the compost to people who, unlike me, actually need compost in their gardens.
Rant over. It was nearly relevant as well.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
You should check out Halifax in Nova Scotia, probably the MOST efficient recycling/composting scheme anywhere on the planet...
Read more here.
A few years ago I went to Halifax to do a report on their waste management and recycling programmes for the National Broadcaster in Ireland and was really impressed with what they had achieved there.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Don't buy.
Think about what you are buying .... how much you really need it, how long it will last... where it will end up. Usually when I do that I put the damn thing (all fortified with plastic packaging) back.
Shop at places that sell used things.
Actually I have been sending some of the plastic packaging back to the company... it costs postage but it is worth the pleasure it gives me! So far none of them have sent it back to me.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
yeimaya edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
lame re-cycling in my town (we pay a fee for 2 bins)
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A good point by yeimaya. In fact, the three Rs are pretty much in order of importance, aren't they? Reduce what you buy, Reuse what you can, recycle the rest.
Ideally "the rest" should be as little as possible. That's not to say we shouldn't do it.
StuBramley: Yes, I have loads of compostable stuff - I live in a third floor one bedroom flat. It'd be great if they took it away for composting, but as they don't, it all has to go to landfill.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I suppose that's the plus side of living in the country isn't it? we compost every bit of leftover food that we have, that my dog can't eat, so NO food goes to the garbage. as for recycling, we often reuse plastics for storage.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
There' a lot of disinformation on the web from vested interests who want you to keep consuming as much as possible. Recycling maks total sense - from reusing your plastic bags from the supermarket to taking your empty bottles to the bottle bank.
It all makes perfect and obvious sense for the individual to recycle unless you're a huge corporation with a short term view i.e. how much profit can be made this quarter and will we please the shareholders?
The long term view is vastly more important for the planet, and every little thing we do to re-use and cut down on waste is a contribution.
Or, y'know - screw humaniity and the planet and carry on being wasteful.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
There is partly that - but also lots of people really, really want to believe stories like this. Stories about how global warming is rubbish and recycling is pointless are very popular, I think because if they were true tehn people could carry on driving and consuming as before.
It's wishful thinking, basically.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Ben Cooper edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
I've been recycling since before most of you were born -- 1972. At that time we had to drive about 15 miles to the recycling center, separate the glass by color and take the glossy inserts out of the newspapers.
We've come a long way, baby. I live in Los Angeles and we have multi-use recycling. It all goes into one bin and then gets sorted out at the plant.
It ALWAYS makes sense to reduce, reuse and then recycle. The problems with recycling are:
1. Inappropriate things get put into the recycle bin, which is the primary cause for that 40% waste figure. People, people, you just can't wrap your chicken bones in newspapers and then put that bundle in the recycling bin :o) There are a lot of things that are just garbage and though it's nice that people want to help they create a bigger mess when they contaminate a bin with non-recyclable things.
2. The bigger problem is the lack of a market for the products of recycling. This does not apply to all materials but if there is no one willing to buy the materials they have to be stored, which increases the costs of recycling and leads to the misleading notion that it costs more to recycle than it does to use raw materials.
3. The corallary to #2 is that the recycled materials SELL for such little money, much less than raw materials, that this makes it seem like it costs more to recycle.
4. If we don't recycle we WILL run out of landfill, plain and simple. It is true that there are vast swatches of land that could be used for our trash but it takes fuel to get the stuff there and we all know what THAT costs these days and for the foreseeable future.
5. On a personal note, I don't trust free marketeers to make decisions about our environment.
In India, nothing goes to waste. Though it speaks to the vast poverty, it is also fascinating that people scavange the waste piles and take materials to be reused. For example, used plastic cups get melted down to make plastic parts for other uses. Of course it would be best to not make plastic cups to begin with (can anyone think of anything more wasteful than using plastic (as in lasts forever) so that someone can have a sip of water or wine? But as long as we continue to do so it's a nice little slum-based industry that helps move people out of poverty. We're not there yet but if the economy keeps going south like it has been.....
The notion that we are reforesting at a faster rate than we are cutting down trees is utter bulls**t!! We do not reforest, we create tree farms with single species that do not grow healthy and strong like natural forests do. THAT is NOT reforesting. Though it's better than not replanting what we cut down, it should not be confused with the natural thing. Yes, that is steam coming out of your monitor. Native peoples know how to manage their forests. They cut what they need from one area and then they move away to another area, which allows the forest to regenerate itself.
I've been to Jordan, which used to be covered with trees. In the early years of the 20th century they built a railroad from Damascus to Aqaba and used 90% of the trees to do so. They didn't think to replace those trees and there were too few for self-regeneration so now most of the country is a desert (and there is now only one sickly bi-weekly rail service between Damascus and Amman). Same thing in Africa. Same thing in India. All of the trees have been cut down and few are replaced. The tree cover in India is an especially terrible loss as it is one of the elements that made the monsoons a reliable part of the growing cycle. The monsoons have become unreliable -- too big in some parts, too small in others -- and the loss of tree cover is one of the reasons (along with global climate change).
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Pen and Teller as sources ? Trusting the entertainment industry as sources on what is best to do for the environment ? RIght-wing ones who campaign for Republicans ???
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller:_Bullshit!
This article shows that much of Penn and Teller's 'research' is dubious and outdated on their program about recycling.
Does anyone think about the giant plastic island of soup floating around in the pacific and atlantic oceans as you toss out that shrink wrapped styrofoam meat package, yogurt container or unrecyclable plastic container ? Even if it does take more energy to recycle it - I think it's best to stop making so much plastic.
I would love a law outlawing the production of plastic cups, styrofoam plates, plastic knives, forks and spoons and related items. There is simply no excuse for these products to exist on a planet that is short on resources, overpolluted and facing a population explosion. The only benefit in these products is to the people who manufacture them. Yes, they are 'convenient' but for hundreds of years the world managed to exist without them and they are certainly not 'required'. Not in hospitals, not in running races, not in Kosher establisments - no where. They are an example of our laziness.
Same goes for that matter for paper towels -- what job does a paper towel do that a re-usable sponge or washable rag will not do?
Start complaining to the stores, writing letters and demanding that products are packaged in re-usable and recyclable containers. Do not participate in the madness ... check your head the next time you are tempted to buy plasticware for a party or event. Make it economically unfeasible for these businesses to continue producing these products.
I also agree about the forest issue. Here is another point - even if you plant a tree to replace each one you cut down - the earth's population continues to increase, and with it industry and CO2 production, which forests help control. Also, old growth forest cannot be replaced instantly simply by planting a tree for each one you cut down - it takes hundreds of years for the ecosystems inside an old growth forest to establish themselves, and only a few days to destroy it all. It is also the creatures in the forest who are impacted, unable to reproduce when their habitat is destroyed etc..
Here is another point - even if only 40% of what you recycle is recycled (which is a dubious figure anyhow) ... so what? That is still 40% MORE things being recycled than if you give up toss it all out into the garbage (which goes into the ocean or the skies). It still reduces pollution and saves raw resources and provides jobs for those who run the recycling plants.
And yes, people stop being so lazy. Much of recycling waste is due to people recycling the wrong things in the wrong containers, or mixing garbage with recycling to make it impossible to recycle. Get a clue people. I hope that more schools educate children on proper recycling and that if you see someone tossing garbage into the plastic bottle container at work or in a public park you speak up and call the person on it. Social pressure can work wonders.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Beeboolah [deleted] says:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914910,00.html
Why reinvent the wheel?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I suppose the coal industry loves that Nazi-technology article. Did anyone hear of the new breakthrough in solar cells today thought to make them much more powerful and portable - a far better road to head down IMHO. www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/408/
A good reason to re-invent the wheel is that the coal industry strips the planet of resources and pollutes like crazy, and eventually it will also be depleted as a resource just the same as oil.
Once the sun goes away as a source for solar energy, I don't think any one will be left around to care about developing alternatives to solar!
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
This article at the BBC seems particularly relevant to this discussion:
Living in a world without waste
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@deereyes: "Please don't assume that you know what is going
on in my area unless you come here and look for
yourself. "
and anything i say after that will fall upon deaf ears.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't I supposed to be fried up by the sun long before now. Solar panels require more energy to manufacture than they will produce in their lifespan. All the sheeple should rush out and buy one.
@Firechick. Why are they called resources if we can't use them. Shouldn't we just call coal "the gray stuff sitting in the ground."
I have been spending so much time on Flickr lately (and not driving) that I have some carbon offsets to sell. $200 buys you one day of guilt free driving. Any takers?
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
backonthebus edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
was it the republican party that said we shouldn't be recycling? sounds like them...
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Dear me, where to start, botb?
They are called resources and we are called upon to be good stewarts of those resources -- for the entire life of the planet. In about 5 billion years no one will care because the planet will have died a natural death secondary to our sun going nova.
But in the meantime, what there is is all that there is. It is true that there may be techno fixes along the way but once all the oil is gone, all the coal taken out of the ground, all the forests have been killed and all the rivers have been polluted, that just about does it for homo sapiens -- not to mention the flora and fauna we all share this planet with.
All of that is nothing when compared to the situation with water. All the water there is is truly all the water that there ever will be. It is renewable but also finite and it can become so degraded that the water cycle stops functioning as it has since it was first invented. Alarmingly, once ground water is gone (the stuff that has been sitting around in aquifers for a gazillion years) then we're going to have to rely solely on the water cycle we all learned about in fifth grade. In many places aquifers all over the world are truly threatened with collapse. This is especially critical in Texas. But then I don't much care for Texans since they sent us their reject of a governor so I don't worry too much about them [NOT!].
It is true that early renditions of photovoltaic cells used a lot of energy to manufacture but with economies of scale and better technologies, this is no longer true. Sadly, if we had followed Barry Commoner's advice in the late 70's and applied a Manhattan Project mentality to the problem we would not be worried about the effects that $200 per barrel oil are going to have on our economy. Sigh...
As for the ozone layer -- once we removed CFO's from aerosol sprays starting in the late 70's the degradation has slowed significantly, but not so significantly that you can toss out your sunscreen.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Did I mention I have some old growth forest on my farm? I was cutting brush and grass at the forest edge about an hour ago, right where our baby deer come out in the evening, when I rolled an old, rotting log over. Guess what was under the log? A copperhead snake! I'm still shaking...
Just thought I would share... what were we talking about, again?
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
So, changing our use helped ease the pressure on the ozone layer. We all did a good job. The next good job to do is buy my carbon offsets. Then when the earth corrects itself, as it has been for bilions of years, I'll say you did a good job stopping global warming and have hydrogen offsets to sell you or maybe some wind generation technique you could invest in after we use all the "wind resources". We are all buying someone elses product. Here in Hawaii, a new law requires all new construction homes to have a solar water heater. Most people are stupid enough to believe that this only affects the construction companies. They are not in business to give out freebies. Thay pass the cost on to the home buyer. So now the government is telling you what products you have to have in your home and to beat that they require a product that is more costly and doesn't pollute any less beacause I still use the gas water heater for my breakfast/shower as the sun can't be bothered to rise before 5am and heat my water. At least the communists gave you the house. I'm not buying the "when we're out of oil it's gone" theory either. We've been making synthetic oil and gasoline for at least 15 years. Right now it is cost prohibitive but won't be for much longer. Just ask your mechanic what he or she puts in your car at your next oil change. And the aquifers will continue to replenish themselves like they have been since before man was here. What is it magic water that formed from cooling lava? It got down there when rain filtered through the rock and settled in a void and with all the extra storms caused by the global warming they should fill up faster. While we're at it let's just plug up all the volcanoes as the sulfur dioxide and other gasses cause 100 times the greenhouse gasses of all humans over a given time. What's that? Nature can take care of it self? Man doesn't need to intervene? Then why are we here? We may not survive the next natural correction of the earths atmosphere, but we aren't going to cause it either.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
backonthebus edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
What happened to the acid rain that was destroying us? And to those of you who believe environmentalism is some sort of altruistic pusuit devoid of profit, here is what your beloved government agency the EPA believes you are worth. If you cost one cent more, a bean counter from Washington will show up at your house and shoot you in the head. news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_re_us/value_of_life
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
backonthebus edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
I remember hearing 30 years ago about "Global Freezing", and scientist figuring out ways to melt the polar caps.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Beeboolah [deleted] says:
A good reason to re-invent the wheel is that the coal industry strips the planet of resources and pollutes like crazy, and eventually it will also be depleted as a resource just the same as oil.
That isn't reinventing the wheel though. Whether the coal industry love Time's article or not isn't relevant. It's just an article, did you think we were having a popularity contest or something? Your tone stinks.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=8663848
Nature sucks.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
backonthebus edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Beeboolah [deleted] says:
www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=963687#...
It's childish to solve problems
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Interesting story: "Battle brews over raiders of recycling bins."
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
tabhastal edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Just what we need. More laws trying to update old laws that weren't being enforced. Maybe we shouldn't try to slow our impending extinction.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Kehgleei [deleted] says:
Maybe we should try considering noise pollution more.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes, I recycle. 90%+ of my household "garbage" goes into recycling bins. Glass, paper, aluminum and pastic. I have two paper bins. One for corrugated cardboard, the other for everything else paper (Mixed Paper is what it's called on the bins).
And, just to be picky, but no offense meant to Mathew Shelley, logging is NOT the Number 1 industry in E. Washington. AGRICULTURE is (Farming, you know, Apples).
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
tabhastal - glad you only saw the copperhead and that neither you nor the baby deer had a more intimate encounter with it!
backonthebus - it's hard trying to discuss something with someone who is so willfully uninformed. As they say, denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
Kehgleei - right you are about noise pollution! I recently spent about a month in Cairo, where the noise is defeaning -- 10's of decibels levels higher than most cities, sometimes it's as bad as an airport runway! If the noise doesn't get you the lousy air quality will. Still and all, a city with amazing energy.
Now back to you, baconthebus. It is true that some aquifers are self-regenerating -- if they get the rain they need to do so. But when you combine a increase in population, an increase in use of the water for personal consumption and agriculture use along with a severe and prolonged drought, aquifers can and do collapse. Other aquifers are not self-regenerating as they are comprised primarily of fossil water, which was trapped during the last Ice Age. The percentage or recharge of these types of aquifers is low, about 10%. The Ogallala Aquifer, which is under eight states, is one of these latter types of aquifers and it is being rapidly depleted. Here is an interesting but overly technical Wiki with everything you always wanted to know about aquifers but didn't know to ask.
It is a fact that the Earth has been repairing itself for millions of years but you must remember that most of that time there were neither human beings nor our CO2 generating machines. To openly declare yourself a climate change denier is as bad, in my book, as being a Holocaust denier.
As for the acid rain, it essentially stopped in North America and Europe when we made significant changes in the way that we burn coal. But it's a HUGE problem in China. A quick Google search found several recent articles about the problem. here's just one of them:
Eight out of every 10 rainfalls in Guangzhou, capital of Guangdong Province, last year was classified as acid rain.
May I recommend to you all an excellent book on the issue of global climate change: George Monbiot;s Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning He proposes how to cut our CO2 levels by 90% by 2035 and shows readers why the G8 proposal to cut greenhouses gases 50% by 2050 will be much too little much too late.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Keta Goes Global edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
So you admit to fear-mongering by making statements that you knew were untrue. And cars produce carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide. We do that and the trees and plants thank us for it.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Where to start?
Cars do produce some carbon monoxide - combustion without enough oxygen will do that - but they mostly produce carbon dioxide.
Solar panels do not take more energy to make than they produce - nor do wind turbines. The figures vary on the size and design of the panels or turbine, but typically the energy used to make them is recouped in the first 6 months of a 20-year lifespan.
Synthetic oil? Sure, it's possible. In WWII, the Germans were making synthetic oil from Methane, and in Canada they're turning oil shale into oil. However, both those techniques have problems - firstly you need the fossil fuel to do the conversion - and natural gas isn't exactly going to last for ever either. Secondly, the processes can be very polluting, and that's before you've even burnt the oil that's produced.
The problem is not what happens to the earth - this planet is big and old enough to look after itself. The problem is us - we're rapidly reaching a stage where the earth will be unable to sustain so many people at the levels of lifestyle we've become used to - if it hasn't already passed that stage.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Ben Cooper edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Dear Back,
Your posts are very entertaining and have helped me to learn a lot more about things I care about than I might have had it not been necessary to refute what I know to be utter falsehoods. I can only thank you.
Now, what is it that the trees and plants thank us for? For carbon monoxide? And how exactly do I admit to fear-mongering and making statements I know are not true? If you would actually read my posts you will note that all of my statements are backed by documentation. I'd be delighted to read documentation that supports yours.
Now as to the f-a-c-t-s: Yes, automobiles do emit carbon monoxide, as well as other greenhouse gases, including CO2. Hello!!! The average amount of CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline is 19.4 pounds per gallon, from diesel it's 22.2 pounds per gallon (Source: Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel, "one of four fact sheets to facilitate consistency of assumptions and practices in the calculation of emissions of greenhouse gases from transportation and mobile sources." The authors work for George Bush's Environmental Protection Agency).
Carbon dioxide in proper amounts is a delightful gas and has many wonderful uses, not least of which is that it does keep our plants and trees happy. However, the problem isn't the CO2, it's the VOLUME of CO2 that is produced by human activity. And, something I just learned (thank you again): it isn't the flora that are primarily responsible for absorbing our CO2 production, it's the ocean! Also thanks to you I just found this really cool Carbon Tracker, a project of the Department of Commerce's Earth System Research Laboratory. YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!
Oh and speaking of carbon monoxide: you have some lovely photos but the butts are very telling. May I share some information with you? Each time you take a draw on a cigarette and inhale, two things happen: 1) you bring a bunch of carbon monoxide into your blood stream. CO is 25,000 times stronger than oxygen and it replaces the four oxygen molecules on each red blood cell, which has the effect of 2) making your arteries act like a wide rubber band does when you pull it flat. There's no other way to put this: your brain is starved for oxygen! If you live in a relatively clean environment, your body can process about eight cigarettes per day. After that the negative effects really start to work. (And yes, I am a health care professional and this is not fear mongering but f-a-c-t-s.)
Your friend, KGG
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Keta Goes Global edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Let me just quickly introduce a short simplistic model with regard to the environment etc:
lots of people--> extensive consumption of fuel, land & air --> emission of greenhouse gasses--> rising temperature & change of climate --> melting ice caps, less production of food, more " natural" disasters --> decline of population --> problem solved/ new equilibrium.
Some people could also stop being political wankers and just implement new promising technologies and invest in it which allow us to produce more efficiently.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Sir Demanding edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
 |
SPVW, the people dying in the natural disasters are going to be the people who actually consume the least, and so your "simplistic model" doesn't solve the problem even if it were accurate.
as for backonthebus claiming that cars don't produce carbon dioxide .. i hope that was miscommunication and not ignorance.
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
striatic (a group admin) edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Yes, that' s the sad irony behind it of course. However the symptoms will be on such a large scale that the system will evolve in some new sort of equilibrium on the long run. I do think that countries like China, India and the USA will experience some negative outcomes and they are the biggest polluters nowadays.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
skinjester [deleted] says:
last i heard advanced primates can live in space. have looked forward to doing so for 30 years
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
So...Recycling...
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
More trees maybe, but ecosystems are dying.
Add into this equation, that people are saying that the carbon problem is good for trees. Well, not so. The ecosystems we have that break down and absorb GreenhouseGases - Carbon, methane etc, can only absorb a finite amount. After that saturation, they can't handle anymore and more is left floating around the atmosphere.
And take the Palm Oil problem in SE Asia - Indonesia, Malaysia etc. The land clearing releases massive amounts of Carbon. Then add the burning of the Peat in the ground, adds another 30% of that area's carbon emissions.
And this is for Palm Oil, a very common food additive. and occasional bio-fuel.
As for re-cycling, reuse first - if possible. Then recylce. As recycling increases Scales of Economy kick in and make it more efficient and also cheaper.
Same with using Green Energy, scales of Economy will reduce the cost.
Edit - That George Monbiot bokk is fantastic. Also a brilliant new book lays it out for us ... - climate code red
Originally posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Museum of Dirt edited this topic 18 months ago.
|
|
Fluffz of tha Geenz :) [deleted] says:
Yeah I do :D
Its a scheme run by our county council. Every other week a green bin is collected for plastic, paper, tins, etc and then theres a blue box for glass which is fetched once a month.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Glass House -- Here's the basic formula
REDUCE
1. Try to buy fewer things
2. Try hard to not buy things that are packaged (this is a hard one as there are few products that aren't)
3. Try especially hard to not buy things that are packaged in materials that can't be composted
4. Try hardest of all to buy things that are packaged in materials that can't be recycled
REUSE everything that you bring into your house until it falls apart or your die
RECYCLE what's left (but do it responsibly)
REJOICE in your decision to get off the death march of stuff, to live a simpler, less polluting life and to reduce your personal footprint on Mother Earth.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Yes. We have to where we live. I am use to it now.
Posted 18 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I also heard that some places make you use clear garbage bags so that the trash man can skip any bags without recycling. Wow, nothing like forcing a program on people that doesnt work.
I do agree that we need more wind and solar, I mean, what is keeping us from making the step?
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Nothing like dragging up an argument you lost 7 months ago, is there?
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
These days you get 30p if you return your glass Irn-Bru bottle. How's that for incentive?
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
 Glass maps "I was shocked to hear that 40% of what we recycling gets thrown in the dump."
Yeah, but 60% gets re-used. That's, like, a good thing.
Recycling is such a fundamentally sound policy (both environmentally and economically) that I'm amazed anyone is against it.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@jamalrob, If only us westerners got 30p for returning a glass bottle.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
We get 5 cents in some states (10 cents if you're from Michigan) and I never understood why more states don't do it. Everyone one wins except the morons who don't recycle their shit. Bottle companies make money from people not returning, bums collecting cans make money, government gets cleaner streets and the Earth's resources are recycled more. Yeah. Recycling just makes sense. But don't forget to Reduce and Reuse as well. I would argue those are even more important.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
There is allot if miss-information about recycling out there. some is correct, but allot is not. Re-Use on the other hand only makes sense. Re-use is taking one mans trash and making another mans home better and that always makes sense. My sister runs a non-profit Re-use company in Ohio (lots of low income folks in them there parts) and they are able to take donations from the better off and fix them then re-sell them at a very low price, ie: refers, washers, dryers, computers, furniture, clothes, ect...
Re-use will always make sense..
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Pacdog, yeah i agree with ya man. Reuse is the best way to help the environment. I just dont think recycling is quite perfected yet and still needs more work in its development.
It is a good thing that we are digital now though, really helps the environment if you think about it.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Glass maps, the planned obsolescence inherent in the digital camera business model does not help the environment at all.
Maybe you should think about it.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I also found an article saying we had more trees now then we did in 1920, because people are planting them faster then them being taken down.
Where did you get that from? Who's 'we' here? This definitely does not consider the vanishing forests of South America, does it?
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Mike Bartley, Umm, yes it does. In digitial u can reuse the same memory card over and over. In film u have chemicals and film and other stuff that gets wasted.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It is a good thing that we are digital now though, really helps the environment if you think about it.
Not really, a vast amount of energy goes into manufacturing digital sensors. There is the computers we've all got for image manipulation, my new one has a 750watt PSU! Plus the constant need for hard drives to store our archives, nor has anybody solved long term storage, you need to duplicate, then upgrade every few years to avoid losing your data.
And at the end of the day, what is that you want from a photograph? For me a photograph is not ultimately complete until it has been printed, so it's back to chemicals and paper.
Now I do both, I shoot film and I shoot digital. I'm in no doubt as to which ultimately consumes more energy and hence is the more polluting, the answer is digital.
Oh and you can if you wish reclaim the waste silver from b&w chemicals and turn the waste into lawn fertilizer - so I'm told.
So I did some research and found other articles on the web saying that you shouldnt recycling because the recycling process actually pollutes the earth more then it would be to use raw materials.
Yup you can find all sorts of crap on the web.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
A lot of it is recycled crap...
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The really sad thing about the recycling business is that the bottom has utterly fallen out of it. Until recently a ton of cardboard sold for $250 per tone; now it fetches something like $50 per ton. This deflationary pressure will destroy the industry that has taken 4 decades to develop.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Glass maps "In digitial u can reuse the same memory card over and over."
And batteries (even rechargeable ones) have no effect on the environment? Anything "electronic" is unsustainable. We need clockwork cameras! :)
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It does come down to how the chemicals and materials are recycled or are they thrown in a river? Or stream? The brunt of the effect on our eco system does depend on every single human on the planet. We, as humans, can be pretty messy. Next time you change your oil or your radiator fluid or even your Grease from that meal you just cooked think about your children. Next time your computer gives out and you buy a new one? Don't just throw the old one in the trash! Think about the stuff you throw away and think about where it should really go. Recycle might seem like a shitty deal, but then again your going to dye someday so why bother?
This attitude makes me sick!
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Lazybug you are right - the headline figures on global forest cover are misleading. In Europe and China the forests are now increasing in size (after a long history of deforestation), but in South America and Africa there is still vast deforestation...for a variety of reasons, many mentioned above. This deforestation directly causes nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions - from burning of the trees and the release of carbon that had been locked in the soil. That's in addition, of course, to the loss of ecosystems and destruction of local communities.
That's why everyone should check the timber they buy is from a legal and sustainable source through certification schemes like FSC and PEFC. Buying certified wood is a good thing...it encourages people to look after their forests.
At the end of their life wood products should then be reused if possible...and if not recycled into other products and then, when they can be recycled no more, burnt for energy production.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I should add that it only counts are reuse and recycling if the new product is actually needed. Otherwise you're just expensively re-arranging your waste.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
lost4words [deleted] says:
Apparently people in Britain throw away 30% of all food.
Posted 11 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
