The environment thread

[Y2HH]

That's not really true. First off, the behavioral steps being encouraged about energy use, are small but could have a nice positive effect. Second, a major push to renewable energy is certainly expensive in the short run, but much, much cheaper for us in the long run, when you look at the complete picture.

 

I said the small things are things we are all already doing -- like cutting down needless waste.

 

Here is my issue with the current renewable energy sources we've thought up. At the current time they're expensive in the short run and they're still expensive in the long run...and it's not yet been proven they aren't, simply because it's the nature of infant tech. All of these renewable techs are in their infancy and they'll all need to be replaced in a few short years for being inefficient and wasteful. I liken it to AT&T's crappy network, it was implemented a long time ago with infant cellular technologies, and now there infrastructures full of outdated towers and older technologies and they're lagging behind everyone else who waited and implemented more mature, better thought out ideas...so now AT&T is spending billions MORE on top of the billions they already spent to REINSTALL the same infrastructure in order to catch up with modern technology. And it became no cheaper, as a matter of fact, it wound up costing them even more because they jumped the gun and bought into the hype and installed crappy gear just to get it done.

 

Implementing these infant renewable energy technologies will lead us down the same path. Solar panels of today will do 5% of what they will do just a few years from now, so then we get to tear down everything we built and rebuild it, because the stuff we built before was sub par crap and we hurried to install it all because of the hysteria/panic, we then hand these costs down to the consumer, and end up with billions of unintended costs simply because we didn't stop and think...we created a crappy infrastructure off of a knee jerk reaction.

 

I get it, we need to do something -- but waiting a few years and doing it right the first time won't make much of a difference is all I'm saying. Just racing to get some crappy idea implemented only to have to go back and redo it all isn't the answer.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

I said the small things are things we are all already doing -- like cutting down needless waste. So I already said that.

We aren't doing enough IMO. For example, I wish it was easier for me to recycle. There's no reason for me to not be recycling but if I wanted to (and I do, as I'm typing this I'm going to go look) I have to go find a way to do it. It should be as easy as putting my trash out.

Edited November 25, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

We aren't doing enough IMO. For example, I wish it was easier for me to recycle. There's no reason for me to not be recycling but if I wanted to (and I do, as I'm typing this I'm going to go look) I have to go find a way to do it. It should be as easy as putting my trash out.

Your town doesn't do recycling bins of some kind?

 

My ward in Chicago just recently got away from the failed Blue Bag program, and went to seperate bins.

 

[lostfan]

Your town doesn't do recycling bins of some kind?

 

My ward in Chicago just recently got away from the failed Blue Bag program, and went to seperate bins.

I know they have recycling bins but I have no idea where to get them. Some of my neighbors do it and I put some of my stuff in there sometimes.

 

I did find this though. I've never thrown any of my old electronics hardware away, ever, it just accumulates in crates when it gets obsolete because it's extremely wasteful and so easy to re-use in something newer. I'm going to drop it off this Saturday.

[Y2HH]

I know they have recycling bins but I have no idea where to get them. Some of my neighbors do it and I put some of my stuff in there sometimes.

 

I did find this though. I've never thrown any of my old electronics hardware away, ever, it just accumulates in crates when it gets obsolete because it's extremely wasteful and so easy to re-use in something newer. I'm going to drop it off this Saturday.

 

See, this is also an issue. Recycling doesn't necessarily mean good. There ARE things that actually use more energy to recycle than to create new...blindly recycling because the name "recycle" is synonymous with good isn't the answer to our pollution woes. I get that it prevents the creation of more wasteful raw material, but it's still not the way go to. How about we stop using plastic when possible and move back to glass? We won't do that, because it makes things too expensive...but it's the REAL answer...where as recycling plastic is NOT the answer...as it creates more pollution than to just create more plastic. Instead of recycling this garbage, we need to stop making it and abusing it.

 

I prefer my milk and soda in glass anyway...and I'd be willing to move back to the deposit format to get off of wasteful plastic.

 

Water bottle people are some of the most wasteful polluters on the planet.

 

At least they're healthy, though. They get to live longer breathing bad air...oh, wait...no they don't, since the bad air is killing them...so the benefits of drinking the water instead of the sugared sodas are negated anyway.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Y2HH

[NorthSideSox72]

See, this is also an issue. Recycling doesn't necessarily mean good. There ARE things that actually use more energy to recycle than to create new...blindly recycling because the name "recycle" is synonymous with good isn't the answer to our pollution woes. I get that it prevents the creation of more wasteful raw material, but it's still not the way go to. How about we stop using plastic when possible and move back to glass? We won't do that, because it makes things too expensive...but it's the REAL answer...where as recycling plastic is NOT the answer...as it creates more pollution than to just create more plastic. Instead of recycling this garbage, we need to stop making it and abusing it.

 

I prefer my milk and soda in glass anyway...and I'd be willing to move back to the deposit format to get off of wasteful plastic.

 

Water bottle people are some of the most wasteful polluters on the planet.

 

At least they're healthy, though. They get to live longer breathing bad air...oh, wait...no they don't, since the bad air is killing them...so the benefits of drinking the water instead of the sugared sodas are negated anyway.

These are all good points. Recycling, in general, is good, but there are definitely exceptions. Glass is cheaper and easier to recycle than plastic, and metals being recycled is good because you also cut down the need for more mining. but plastic is, itself, a major issue, for multiple reasons (more costly and polluting to recycle, it also uses petroleum in some form or another, etc.).

 

[Cknolls]

It's too bad that the vocabulary disconnect is largely the cause of this, and despite there being completely rational explanations for the language used, they will obviously be ignored.

 

Of course Fox News has called this Global Warming's Waterloo. Despite the obvious preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise.

 

I don't get the vitriol aimed against people who want to stop global climate change. Besides Al Gore being a champion for it, I don't know why it's such a politically divisive issue.

 

What do global warming deniers believe the incentive is for those "making it up" is?

 

 

Ask Kleiner Perkins?

[lostfan]

See, this is also an issue. Recycling doesn't necessarily mean good. There ARE things that actually use more energy to recycle than to create new...blindly recycling because the name "recycle" is synonymous with good isn't the answer to our pollution woes. I get that it prevents the creation of more wasteful raw material, but it's still not the way go to. How about we stop using plastic when possible and move back to glass? We won't do that, because it makes things too expensive...but it's the REAL answer...where as recycling plastic is NOT the answer...as it creates more pollution than to just create more plastic. Instead of recycling this garbage, we need to stop making it and abusing it.

 

I prefer my milk and soda in glass anyway...and I'd be willing to move back to the deposit format to get off of wasteful plastic.

 

Water bottle people are some of the most wasteful polluters on the planet.

 

At least they're healthy, though. They get to live longer breathing bad air...oh, wait...no they don't, since the bad air is killing them...so the benefits of drinking the water instead of the sugared sodas are negated anyway.

I agree that water bottles are stupid. Especially when people buy new ones and leave the old ones laying around or just toss them outside somewhere. It's just so unnecessary, and wasteful. At least use the same bottle a few times. God damn.

 

But as far as recycling paper, there's no reason not to do that. At the risk of sounding like a superliberal hippie, we kill lots of trees for no reason, just so we can have a mailbox full of circulars we won't even read, so at least we could put that trash to use somehow. I think recycling electronics is really underrated though. The material is already there, already harvested and refined, etc. and it's really easy to just use it again in some new product.

[Balta1701]

I said the small things are things we are all already doing -- like cutting down needless waste.

Actually no we're not. There really is very, very little economic incentive to cut down on waste at the levels at which we could. We could quite literally meet the Kyoto goals and catch up with Europe based solely on energy efficency. But what you're missing is...there's one big constituency who benefits from people using more energy; energy companies.

[Y2HH]

I agree that water bottles are stupid. Especially when people buy new ones and leave the old ones laying around or just toss them outside somewhere. It's just so unnecessary, and wasteful. At least use the same bottle a few times. God damn.

 

But as far as recycling paper, there's no reason not to do that. At the risk of sounding like a superliberal hippie, we kill lots of trees for no reason, just so we can have a mailbox full of circulars we won't even read, so at least we could put that trash to use somehow. I think recycling electronics is really underrated though. The material is already there, already harvested and refined, etc. and it's really easy to just use it again in some new product.

 

Whenever I can, I sign up for email correspondence so I don't get paper mail. I do my part in that...but you're a super liberal hippy who I despise so STFU.

 

Seriously, though, we have farms of paper mill pulp trees...we have more trees now than we did 50 years ago...we've been improving on this aspect.

[Y2HH]

Actually no we're not. There really is very, very little economic incentive to cut down on waste at the levels at which we could. We could quite literally meet the Kyoto goals and catch up with Europe based solely on energy efficency. But what you're missing is...there's one big constituency who benefits from people using more energy; energy companies.

 

With all due respect -- which means with no due respect -- I like my Jeep, and f*** Europe and they're stupid little cars.

[Balta1701]

Seriously, though, we have farms of paper mill pulp trees...we have more trees now than we did 50 years ago...we've been improving on this aspect.

Big issue though...if you count only the U.S., I'm sure you're right. If you count the whole world, I'll guarantee you're wrong. A lot of what has been done is to simply outsource that resource destruction.

[lostfan]

Whenever I can, I sign up for email correspondence so I don't get paper mail. I do my part in that...but you're a super liberal hippy who I despise so STFU.

 

Seriously, though, we have farms of paper mill pulp trees...we have more trees now than we did 50 years ago...we've been improving on this aspect.

That s*** in my mailbox is like herpes.

[Y2HH]

Big issue though...if you count only the U.S., I'm sure you're right. If you count the whole world, I'll guarantee you're wrong. A lot of what has been done is to simply outsource that resource destruction.

 

I can only speak for us -- what the rest of the world is doing while it may be a shared issue there isn't anything we can do about it. Standing in front of a steam roller about to plow down the rain forests doesn't work...all it gets you is dead. We can try to reason with them, but there isn't much we can force them to do.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

With all due respect -- which means with no due respect -- I like my Jeep, and f*** Europe and they're stupid little cars.

At least IMO, we have the technology right now (or at worst within 5 years) to get ourselves nearly independent of oil and coal and let you keep your jeep at the same time, we just have to make it economically feasible to use it.

[Balta1701]

I can only speak for us -- what the rest of the world is doing while it may be a shared issue there isn't anything we can do about it. Standing in front of a steam roller about to plow down the rain forests doesn't work...all it gets you is dead. We can try to reason with them, but there isn't much we can force them to do.

Yes there is...and that's where the economics of this plan that you hate come in. If it costs more money to harvest trees by destroying a rainforest because you've priced carbon, then there's an economic benefit to producing them in a sustainable way as opposed to destroying old-growth. This is why we want to do a cap and trade system; if you put a price on carbon and do it correctly, then you line up the economic incentives in the right way.

[Y2HH]

At least IMO, we have the technology right now (or at worst within 5 years) to get ourselves nearly independent of oil and coal and let you keep your jeep at the same time, we just have to make it economically feasible to use it.

 

I'm all for that, so long as the technology you speak of is mature and doesn't need to be replaced again 5 years down the road because it was infantile and inefficient. This is my problem with jumping the gun and implementing renewable infrastructure before the technology is mature enough to make a difference.

[Texsox]

They don't contain any funky chemicals that would be unsafe? I know they are super durable and strong, that is obvious because of their normal usage.

 

A little late I know, but we own two of them at camp, both were recycled refrigerated units. Basically built out of aluminum and stainless steel and very well insulated. The items that are shipped in them are containerized, so unless there was a spill, there should not be anything harmful left over. Down here they sell pretty quickly. There are also companies that lease them for short term storage or portable offices.

[NorthSideSox72]

I still cannot believe we don't have a do-not-mail list like the do-not-call list. We could save consumers all sorts of time and annoyance, save millions of trees, and help marketing firms save a ton of money, and reduce the size and cost of a government agency (USPS) if we had a centralized opt in/out system for junk mail. Really is a win-win all around. Amazing this doesn't exist yet.

[EvilMonkey]

But as far as recycling paper, there's no reason not to do that. At the risk of sounding like a superliberal hippie, we kill lots of trees for no reason, just so we can have a mailbox full of circulars we won't even read, so at least we could put that trash to use somehow. I think recycling electronics is really underrated though. The material is already there, already harvested and refined, etc. and it's really easy to just use it again in some new product.

When i still owned my print shop, it was harder than you might thnk to recycle the paper. most of the recycling companies wanted to charge me to haul it away, and wanted me to have space to leave a semi trailer until it is full. Didn't have any space for that, and no way I am paying someone to take my paper so they can recycle it and make money. i brought some home and dumped in the recycle bins by the school, and dumped some paper in the recycle bins around the shop, but that was a hassle, big time.

[lostfan]

When i still owned my print shop, it was harder than you might thnk to recycle the paper. most of the recycling companies wanted to charge me to haul it away, and wanted me to have space to leave a semi trailer until it is full. Didn't have any space for that, and no way I am paying someone to take my paper so they can recycle it and make money. i brought some home and dumped in the recycle bins by the school, and dumped some paper in the recycle bins around the shop, but that was a hassle, big time.

I wish it was easier to do.

[NorthSideSox72]

When i still owned my print shop, it was harder than you might thnk to recycle the paper. most of the recycling companies wanted to charge me to haul it away, and wanted me to have space to leave a semi trailer until it is full. Didn't have any space for that, and no way I am paying someone to take my paper so they can recycle it and make money. i brought some home and dumped in the recycle bins by the school, and dumped some paper in the recycle bins around the shop, but that was a hassle, big time.

I assume you had to pay to get your trash picked up, right?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I still cannot believe we don't have a do-not-mail list like the do-not-call list. We could save consumers all sorts of time and annoyance, save millions of trees, and help marketing firms save a ton of money, and reduce the size and cost of a government agency (USPS) if we had a centralized opt in/out system for junk mail. Really is a win-win all around. Amazing this doesn't exist yet.

 

Wouldn't that destroy a large chunk of revenue of the USPS?

[NorthSideSox72]

Wouldn't that destroy a large chunk of revenue of the USPS?

Yes, and they'd be forced to downsize to reality, which I am OK with. Ultimately, they would still need just as many carriers and many other jobs - the only jobs lost would be some in the processing side of things. Essentially, you are transferring the money from a government agency (who are only there to provide something necessary), to private business and consumers, which I'd feel better about. USPS may have to raise postage costs to cover regular letters, and that's fine with me too.

 

 

 

[JorgeFabregas]

Wouldn't that destroy a large chunk of revenue of the USPS?

Yes. I worked as a casual carrier (contractor) for 3 months and I suspect that direct mail subsidizes the cost of regular letters and that the USPS would have a hard time providing mail service to the whole country without it. There's a reason that mailing letters is cheap and reliable compared to the rest of the world. Now, whether all that waste is worth it is a question worth asking. I would imagine that the USPS, which (IIRC) used to be revenue-neutral pre-email and during better economic times, would run a much larger deficit if there were no junk mail and it was still expected to provide daily mail service and to have an office in most every town.

Edited November 25, 2009 by JorgeFabregas