The Environment
Discussion
Right, not a thread about climate change or the rights and wrongs of Kyoto and all that. Just wondered what the general feeling was on here regarding general environmental issues? What concerns you? What are you doing in your own small way, or are you a total cynic?
Stuff that I'm becoming more interested in :-
Recycling - from waste reduction/landfill viewpoint
Clean energy* - less pollution and energy security
Deforestation - I like trees, stop chopping them down!
Trouble is, if I voice those concerns in general conversation, someone calls me a hypocrite becuase I have a car! Can't help but think the debate has too become polarised. The normal bloke in the street views anything environmental as tree hugging stealth tax econutterism, whilst the perception from "our" side is that to be concerned about the environment, you have to eat nothing but lentils** and chain yourself to an SUV. There must be a balance, surely? I'm no econutter, but I can see the merit in clean energy, waste reduction, recycling, car sharing, encouraging walking/cycling instead of two minute trips in the car and so on. The moderate viewpoint seems to get drowned out - both sides are guilty in my view.
What say you?
[small]*Including nuclear[/small]
[small]**I like lentils[/small]
Stuff that I'm becoming more interested in :-
Recycling - from waste reduction/landfill viewpoint
Clean energy* - less pollution and energy security
Deforestation - I like trees, stop chopping them down!
Trouble is, if I voice those concerns in general conversation, someone calls me a hypocrite becuase I have a car! Can't help but think the debate has too become polarised. The normal bloke in the street views anything environmental as tree hugging stealth tax econutterism, whilst the perception from "our" side is that to be concerned about the environment, you have to eat nothing but lentils** and chain yourself to an SUV. There must be a balance, surely? I'm no econutter, but I can see the merit in clean energy, waste reduction, recycling, car sharing, encouraging walking/cycling instead of two minute trips in the car and so on. The moderate viewpoint seems to get drowned out - both sides are guilty in my view.
What say you?
[small]*Including nuclear[/small]
[small]**I like lentils[/small]
OK, here's a try at responding in the spirit of the original post as it's sorely tempting to let rip.
Recycling is obviously a good idea if it saves on costs and/or the resources are scarce, but there's rarely any energy audit published for the kind of schemes local authorities are introducing to meet Tone's EU sponsored targets, and the processes used to recycle are often 'enough' to offset any potential gains.
Clean energy, that's also nice to think about but whatever form you think of, the equipment to generate it had to me made and the raw meterials for that transported from A to B to C etc etc, and there's lots of ways of defining 'clean'.
In real terms we're here on this dodgy but amazing planet for a limited amount of time, during which it recycles us nicely on a regular basis.
Recycling is obviously a good idea if it saves on costs and/or the resources are scarce, but there's rarely any energy audit published for the kind of schemes local authorities are introducing to meet Tone's EU sponsored targets, and the processes used to recycle are often 'enough' to offset any potential gains.
Clean energy, that's also nice to think about but whatever form you think of, the equipment to generate it had to me made and the raw meterials for that transported from A to B to C etc etc, and there's lots of ways of defining 'clean'.
In real terms we're here on this dodgy but amazing planet for a limited amount of time, during which it recycles us nicely on a regular basis.
turbobloke said:
Recycling is obviously a good idea if it saves on costs and/or the resources are scarce, but there's rarely any energy audit published for the kind of schemes local authorities are introducing to meet Tone's EU sponsored targets, and the processes used to recycle are often 'enough' to offset any potential gains.
Exactly, energy efficiency is too often over looked in the manufacture and use of products and in the design of so called earth saving measures unless there is a financial gain.
syo-leaf/10-spider-plant/spider-plant-LEB-0833.jpg)
I have no problem with being friendly to the enironment, but I'm f
d if I'm going to impair my standard of living by doing it. Businesses (especially industry) should take the lead as anything you or I do is insignificant compared to that.
As to the big issues, I was always quite cynical but now it's pretty much total. I don't believe anything anyone says anymore. They are all exaggerating unproven claims beyond all recognition.
d if I'm going to impair my standard of living by doing it. Businesses (especially industry) should take the lead as anything you or I do is insignificant compared to that. As to the big issues, I was always quite cynical but now it's pretty much total. I don't believe anything anyone says anymore. They are all exaggerating unproven claims beyond all recognition.
There needs to be more education and research to define consistently the costs (including cost of pollutant controls) of various means of producing energy. Reusable sources are good, but you have to grow an awful lot of stuff to get enough to use for fuel and power. Burning stuff isn't quite so good as breaking it down or cooking it, then gassifying (reacting with steam and a catalyst) to make various fuels. This way is more efficient and less polluting.
As far as recycling, my impression is that it contributes very little benefit because people don't actually do it. Environmental efforts need to consider the cost of convenience, because this is the way people really behave and it's an obstacle we really have to contend with. Things that require a cultural change seem less successful because people are basically lazy.
Speaking of trash, mining technology has the means of separating metals and limestone from the coal. Maybe some day, there will be a means of mining the landfill: cooking the stuff until it's a sludge of organic and inorganic matter and using chemical separation. Of course there have to be loads of scubbers and separation technology to get out all the toxic chlorinated, sulfur, etc compounds. It would be good to find a way to process the garbage the way people really create and dispose of it.
Wouldn't it be great to find something to do with waste nuclear radiation?
As far as recycling, my impression is that it contributes very little benefit because people don't actually do it. Environmental efforts need to consider the cost of convenience, because this is the way people really behave and it's an obstacle we really have to contend with. Things that require a cultural change seem less successful because people are basically lazy.
Speaking of trash, mining technology has the means of separating metals and limestone from the coal. Maybe some day, there will be a means of mining the landfill: cooking the stuff until it's a sludge of organic and inorganic matter and using chemical separation. Of course there have to be loads of scubbers and separation technology to get out all the toxic chlorinated, sulfur, etc compounds. It would be good to find a way to process the garbage the way people really create and dispose of it.
Wouldn't it be great to find something to do with waste nuclear radiation?
I'm pro Nuclear and anti consumerism.
The lefties seem to be anti nuclear and pro consumerism.
I think the former would help the environment considerably.
What does this mean in practice?
I think that use of your car makes bugger all difference to the environment, so I think you should be free to use it as much as you like.
I think that buying a new car every year is very bad for the environment, so unless it's worn beyond use, I think you should hang on to it a bit longer.
Scientifically, environmentalism isn't very popular, even though everyone wants to make a difference.
The lefties seem to be anti nuclear and pro consumerism.
I think the former would help the environment considerably.
What does this mean in practice?
I think that use of your car makes bugger all difference to the environment, so I think you should be free to use it as much as you like.
I think that buying a new car every year is very bad for the environment, so unless it's worn beyond use, I think you should hang on to it a bit longer.
Scientifically, environmentalism isn't very popular, even though everyone wants to make a difference.
V8 Archie said:
I have no problem with being friendly to the enironment, but I'm f
As to the big issues, I was always quite cynical but now it's pretty much total. I don't believe anything anyone says anymore. They are all exaggerating unproven claims beyond all recognition.
You are correct. Environmental initiatives seem to look only at part of the problem and a small portion of the responsibility. Industry is a much greater polluter than are individuals. Especially in mining and manufacturing, which are actually more polluting than powergeneration. Frankly, if industry produces more waste material and more waste heat, then it's inefficient than if it had managed to do the same production with less waste. So it's in their competitive best interest to try to become more efficient. The problem is that the short term research and development for new methods is expensive and may require government subsidising and legislation to get companies to do the additional (short term) work for producing the same product for the same demand. If it costs too much in the short term, they may fear that they will not recover from the additional cost-- unless everyone else is made to do it. Maybe people would be willing to pay taxes for such subsidies to clean up industry if some other concession were made to them, as individuals. Like lowering the various fees for driving in the first place.
Other individual initiatives need to take into consideration the cost in terms of time and money. If it costs too much in terms of that, people can't reasonably be expected to do it, and another solution needs to be addressed. It's pointless to have some screaming green culture that creates animosity and alienates people for being "evil car owners". The fact is that their solution is inadequate and that's why people aren't doing it. Back to the drawing board for all of them.
dilbert said:
I'm pro Nuclear and anti consumerism.
The lefties seem to be anti nuclear and pro consumerism.
I think the former would help the environment considerably.
What does this mean in practice?
I think that use of your car makes bugger all difference to the environment, so I think you should be free to use it as much as you like.
I think that buying a new car every year is very bad for the environment, so unless it's worn beyond use, I think you should hang on to it a bit longer.
Scientifically, environmentalism isn't very popular, even though everyone wants to make a difference.
Reverse the centralisation model
For example milk in West Wales travels to Gloucester to be packaged with plastic, then sent back again to the supermarkets. The food mile argument.
How many blockaded fuel depots did it take to reach vapour in the tanks.
Waiting round the corner are the WEEEeeee brigade. Expect warehouses full of white goods with nobody claiming responsibility for cost of disposal. A tax waiting to happen, illegal dumping has already been knee-jerk legislated, your new telly will be rfid tagged. business opportunity for someone, the recycling kit costs about 12m and does have wheels
I recycle what I can, then whatever the council will take, but I will comment that as the collection/resell cost ratio of material varies, so does the items they will recycle. The most profitable business in South Wales is a having hole in the ground, contracts are worth millions and can be operated by one man.
For example milk in West Wales travels to Gloucester to be packaged with plastic, then sent back again to the supermarkets. The food mile argument.
How many blockaded fuel depots did it take to reach vapour in the tanks.
Waiting round the corner are the WEEEeeee brigade. Expect warehouses full of white goods with nobody claiming responsibility for cost of disposal. A tax waiting to happen, illegal dumping has already been knee-jerk legislated, your new telly will be rfid tagged. business opportunity for someone, the recycling kit costs about 12m and does have wheels
I recycle what I can, then whatever the council will take, but I will comment that as the collection/resell cost ratio of material varies, so does the items they will recycle. The most profitable business in South Wales is a having hole in the ground, contracts are worth millions and can be operated by one man.
V8 Archie said:
If I actually believed that the stuff wasn't thrown in the same lorry he might have a chance of convincing me!
Sorry have to say something here as I am in this business and work alongside the London Councils. I can assure you that all recycling collected is recycled. We get asked this question all of the time because the material is often taken to a reclamation facility to be sorted and if its mixed people assume its being dumped.
It is a very serious business now with councils having statutory targets that attract fines if they don't reach them. The misnoma is that each individual can do nothing, on the contrary. This country still lags behind the rest of Europe but the national recycling rate is now 17%, our council has 30% and many others are now on 51%. Its just a matter of time and education.
BTW we run deisel vehicles (and electric) but we ensure highest spec engines with eminox traps to remove the particulates, we always look at the overall environmental footprint of any service and send the materials to local reprocessors.
Lots of good stuff here.
I like cars, want the right to drive a big SUV if I choose to, but I also care about the environment. This is not a paradox, and I should not be villified for having these views.
Someone made a point about reversing the decentralisation of supplies and materials - spot on IMO. While everyone is getting upset about congestion charges, no-one is worrying about the fact that congestion occurs because lorries have to carry empty beer cans 500 miles across country, or milk lorries have to travel long distances with their deliveries.
There was a time when food and goods came from local suppliers. Funny that as this was broken down and the power handed to big supermarkets and such like, congestion aslo increases.
Imagine if many of the things you buy were sourced locally. Imagine the reduction that may have on needless congestion.
Consider how stupid it is to carry something hundreds or thousands of miles , have it put in a cardboard box, and then take it right back to a Tesco in the same town where it originally came from.
And Darling wants to take away our freedoms because they cannot see this simple truth. Idiots.
I like cars, want the right to drive a big SUV if I choose to, but I also care about the environment. This is not a paradox, and I should not be villified for having these views.
Someone made a point about reversing the decentralisation of supplies and materials - spot on IMO. While everyone is getting upset about congestion charges, no-one is worrying about the fact that congestion occurs because lorries have to carry empty beer cans 500 miles across country, or milk lorries have to travel long distances with their deliveries.
There was a time when food and goods came from local suppliers. Funny that as this was broken down and the power handed to big supermarkets and such like, congestion aslo increases.
Imagine if many of the things you buy were sourced locally. Imagine the reduction that may have on needless congestion.
Consider how stupid it is to carry something hundreds or thousands of miles , have it put in a cardboard box, and then take it right back to a Tesco in the same town where it originally came from.
And Darling wants to take away our freedoms because they cannot see this simple truth. Idiots.
los angeles said:It's a start (we've gotta start somewhere), and in my view a useful exposed reminder to the public that renewable energy is the way forward.
If Scotland caved in and allowed all those currently proposed to be built the energy generated wouldn't accumulate to 3% of what is needed.
los angeles said:Any vehicle with a large diesel engine emits those two most carcinogenic chemicals known, 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP particularly (no pun intended) when the engine is under load.
Anyone got any thoughts about how the environment and traffic are affected by the huge numbers of artics - bigrigs - bombing up and down motorways and trying to negotiate narrow city streets?
Cruising trucks not brilliant, but not bad. Buses and recycling lorries stop-starting in towns and residential areas - very bad indeed. Rest assured this may come back to haunt the bus companies like smoking has done to the tobacco companies. Across our towns and cities there are very likely many tens or hundreds of thousands of masked lung cancer cases and other carcinomas due to buses. Not just my view, I rarely give that except if LA asks
but the view of researchers looking at 3-NBA impacts. It ends up in run-off rainwater, so the stuff you don't breathe gets 'recycled'...Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff