So if it's a net energy savings to recycle, and the energy saved has some value, why won't someone else come pick it up at my house for free?Originally Posted by Eric Larsen
Contributor
So if it's a net energy savings to recycle, and the energy saved has some value, why won't someone else come pick it up at my house for free?
Member
Or, we can cherry pick the scientist who says what we want to hear, despite the fact that the book is considered "unscientific" by most scientists.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ng_from_ia.php
Call someone at your city office and ask!
Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.
Contributor
Eric,
Could you be guilty of cherry picking the one you want to believe?
And even if you want to call your city office
SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL. THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES.
Look at the states that have passed the most stringent ecological standards. Businesses are leaving in droves....high tech, high pay jobs are leaving with the businesses and the states are going bankrupt. You can't for any length of time spend more than you receive.
That is IRRESPONSIBLE.
You can beat your chest and shout and scream.....ECOLOGICAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.
There is such a thing as FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.
You seem to want to preach ecological reality.
I asure you there is a financial reality.
Explain that one to the future generations.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
I tend to listen to what the scientists at NASA have to say. They're apolitical. And the warnings are freakin' DIRE. (They're currently worried about losing the West Antarctic Ice sheet. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=38678)
Seems to me, it's the "drill-baby-drill" crowd who wants the free ride. They want to do whatever the hell they want -- because that's what they've always done. And they want to pass the problem down to their children, and grandchildren. They're not prepared to pay one thin dime for their excess. And they're unwilling to change their lifestyle one IOTA to reduce their personal pollution contribution.
"Let's do nothing! A crackpot scientist in Australia says it's OK!"
How is THAT responsible?
Last edited by Eric Larsen; 10-25-2009 at 5:25 PM. Reason: "unwilling" is not the same as "unprepared"...
Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.
Contributor
Eric,
I doubt seriously if you can find an apolitcal scientist at NASA or any other organization. You believe them to be apolitical. I doubt it.
How do we pay for what you suggest?
The states with the most stringent ecological standards....are losing businesses and jobs.....they are going bankrupt. One of the reasons is higher taxes and yes, the higher ecological standards figure into increased cost to operate a business there.
The companies who moved their factories to other countries did so for one reason. It became less profitable to operate a business here. Think about this. They had to put out lots of money to establish the factories in those other countries and then they finally started seeing a return on their investments.
I agree with some of what you desire but the reality is you have to pay for it. Period. Nothing is free. Sooner or later, you have to pay for it. The day my employer quits sending me a paycheck, I won't be going to work. I don't work for nothing. I have bills to pay. There are no free rides. My creditors will allow me so much credit and will only let me go so long without paying my bills. Then, they want payment. There are no free rides.
As surely as we can't afford to ignore the ecological problems we are facing, we can't afford to ignore the cost of dealing with them. When reasonable people of both sides of the issues are willing to sit down and repectfully and openly discuss the problems, reasonable resolutions will be found.
Until then, rants will not win many converts. It may fan the flames of those already on that side of the argument but IMHO emotional, in-your-face rants will drive away many more than it will convert. This goes for both sides of these issues.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
According to the McGregor book "Environmental Law and Enforcement" the states with the toughest laws are:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Only Michigan, California and Oregon are at the bottom of the unemployment rankings -- but you can make arguments that environmental laws aren't the only reason for California and Michigan's woes.
"It'll cost money" is always the rallying cry of the polluters.
But I'm more concerned about the things we COULD be doing for little or no net cost, but aren't. Recycling, reducing plastic bag consumption (really, who can't bring canvas sacks to the market?), encouraging higher gas mileage (especially the new diesel technology), and MOST OF ALL, training unemployed workers to install PV net-metered solar.
PV solar systems could transform this country. The technology is there, we lack qualified designers and installers. And yet there are millions of Americans who are desperate for a job.
And just one more thing, Ken -- almost every post, I have tried to support my opinions with linked data. I'm no fool. I know that numbers can be skewed and data fudged. But at least I'm trying to show I'm not just pulling numbers and facts out of my posterior.
Every reply from you has been a variety of "It costs too much" and "Business will suffer!" -- with nothing to support it.
I think Greg's right -- there is huge opportunity out there for green industry. Opportunity is knocking, and we're wasting precious time with partisan bickering.
Every year, our options on how to address climate change shrink. We're not doing near enough. And we can do a lot more without having to make a big sacrifice.
Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.
Member
Ken,
I have watched this thread with great interest, there are many with passionate points of view here, some I agree with and others I do not. As to the issue of companies moving their manurfacturing overseas, tax laws were changed with reguard to business, prior to the change business was taxed based on profits. In order to reduce their tax burden the companies would invest in their infrastructure and employees and thus grow the business. With no penelty on profits it was logical to ship the manufacturing overseas and pay slave labor wages and have little to no enviormental responsibility.
I do agree that the initial costs of being environmentally conscious will be somewhat higher in the beginning, remember what a calculator cost thirty years ago. I attended a Green Building Expo last Friday and was pleasantly surprised with the enthusiasm and progress that is being made here in the Chicagoland area. I watch alot of public television as I find it to be the most open minded source of information. This is a link to a show called Green Builders, it will require an hour of your time and I hope that you invest that much in it, I think it is worth it. http://video.pbs.org/video/1088152802/
This is a link to anoth PBS show called Architecture 2030, this one is only 24 min. http://video.pbs.org/video/1094055821/
Heather
PS I have recycled since the mid sixties, used to pick newspaper from the curb on garbage day, used to make about sixty dollars a week depending on the market price, learned about supply and demand.
Last edited by Heather Thompson; 10-25-2009 at 7:31 PM.
Any thing with sharp teeth eats meat.
Most powertools have sharp teeth.
People are made of meat.
Contributor
Folks,
I am not against recycling. Last Friday, the LOML ordered our 2nd recycling bin because 1 didn't hold enough for what we are recycling.
We have recycled since the '80s BTW.
Locally 2 trucks pickup up trash.....1 for combined trash and 1 for separated recycling. What is the carbon footprint caused by running the 2nd truck? What is the carbon footprint of remanufacturing the recyclibles into a product?
It is irresponsible to deny man is contributing to the negative ecological effects.
It is just as irresponsible to want to pass legislation or regulations that force standards without a reasonable way of paying for it. THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES. Someone has to pay for that 2nd truck that is running in my neighborhood.
Eric, you can link to all the sources of information you want. I'm am not taking sides of business or envionmentalists. Statistics links....data....all too often is looked at and appreciated and quoted and linked because it backs one's personal biased beliefs. And of course, the other guys data is junk science....biased data....
BTW....the financial status of the states of California and Michigan is????
Heather..the initial higher costs of enviromentally friendly heating, ac, higher mileage vehicles...that's part of the financial problems presented to everyone and part of the reason change has been so slow to happen.
Take ethanol.....how much power is burned in refining it? That is no solution......and for a lower BTU energy to boot.
I have said from the beginning......extremists from both sides....they live like they have their heads in a paper bag and the whole world is brown. Both sides. Until reasonable moderates from both sides want sit down and showing respect for each other, reasonably discuss the problems and look for reasonable resolutions...there will not be any resolutions.
Extemists from both sides of this argument refuse to accept they are in the minority. They fail to realize that continued zealot, overly emotional, absurd rants hurt their causes more than helps their cause. Both sides.
And thus they don't have a majority and the problems will continue.
BTW Eric....I have never said it costs too much. All I have said it will increase the cost of doing business or the cost of living. This has had an effect on businesses.
The energy problem is not new. I wrote a college prep english term paper in 1967 predicting the coming oil shortages and how oil produced from oil shale could help mitigate the shortages. My main sources of reference was the oil companies data. They predicted then it would happen by the '80s. Since then oil was discovered in larger quantities in Alaska, the Middle East etc. The point is over 40 years ago it was known these days were coming.
The problem is there. Continued mud slinging isn't going to win friends, converts or get the problems resolved.
Both sides have extremists that hinder their causes more than help same.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Contributor
I actually work in the PV field, engineering inverters for grid-tie systems. PV has a place and a use, but what you say is untrue: There is no lack of designers/installers. The problem is that, with current electric rates, our best designs will take 20+ years to produce enough electricity to justify their cost, and system lifespans are generally ~30 years. Additionally, you get huge problems with power distribution - sure, the PV supplies plenty of juice in the middle of the day, but you also have to plan for a week of cloudiness, which means having full-capacity nukes/coal ready to step in and take PV's place. If you're going to build a full capacity coal plant anyways, why add PV? (there are reasons, of course, but the solution is not cut-and-dried "Put PV everywhere!" like you seem to think)
Exactly. What really bugs me is the "recycling" of glass. Drive a truck around town, collect bits of dirty glass, wash the glass, crush the glass, re-melt the glass, and make new glass. Versus just going and getting a truckload of clean, fresh sand. Apparently the recycled glass takes about 25% less energy to re-melt, but then again, collecting it is a pain.
I think what we need is not just people running around screaming about how important recycling is, we need some reasonability, too. Using enough energy to MELT SAND to make a container for a $1 jar of spaghetti sauce is a poor use of energy.
You are suggesting that recyclables are valuable commodities, that's why we should save them and recycle them, rather than throw them away. If that were true, we wouldn't need government intervention - private enterprise would step in and collect these "valuables". Since that isn't happening, you must be wrong. Someone has considered this business plan, and decided that the value of recyclables (in terms of raw materials and energy) is less than the cost to haul and process them.
Member
You have managed to work those three terms into almost every reply. You're also asking a lot of open-ended questions that are easily answered with google.
Every year for the past 10 years has seen record heat numbers, "100 year" floods and storms, and massive drought.
Yet, every time there's a cold snap, there are people RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM that get a free pass when they say, "Where's your global warming now, hippies?" (OK, I'm paraphrasing the words, but not the intent.)
It is my opinion that these people are the "extremists" and that the people who ask, "Why we don't clean up after ourselves?" are the moderates. And yet we kow-tow to these extremists for fear of offending them.
Climate is changing. Why it's changing is of secondary importance. What we do about it is the primary consideration. And as mentioned earlier, what we're currently doing (for the US at least) is "jack-[censored]."
Our economic woes are a drop in the bucket compared to what people will be going through in 50 and 100 years. Let's do what we can for them. We've studied and waited too long. The data is in. We have a job to do. Let's get started.
Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.
Member
Ken, any serious scientific claim must pass peer review. Sure scientists have a hunch or even a bias. But to imply the community at large is engaged in some vast conspiracy is a bit hard to buy.
The only ones that I've seen or heard claim the climate change isn't real are persons or organizations that have a stake in the status quo.
Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.
Contributor
Greg,
If all scientific studies must pass peer review, why are there so many studies announced and the rejected later? Medical studies are a really good example. Those are announced and then rejected several months if not a couple of years later.
I suggest that most peer groups are there for the benefit of the peers not the public.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
Member
It's seven years here in Southern Nevada, not 20. I'm good with those numbers. And after 15 months, I'm still near the bottom of the list, waiting for installers.
I'd LOVE to get into the PV industry here -- but I have no desire to climb around on roofs. I'm a bit old for that.
A week of cloudy days? I wish I could see that.
My local recycling center (less than a mile away), will pay me for metal. So obviously, that has SOME value. Las Vegas is happy to pay for recycling pickup because it has some value compared to chucking it all into a landfill.You are suggesting that recyclables are valuable commodities, that's why we should save them and recycle them, rather than throw them away. If that were true, we wouldn't need government intervention - private enterprise would step in and collect these "valuables". Since that isn't happening, you must be wrong. Someone has considered this business plan, and decided that the value of recyclables (in terms of raw materials and energy) is less than the cost to haul and process them.
Deflation: When I was a kid, an E-ticket meant I was about to go on the ride of my life. Today, an E-ticket means a miserable ride.
Contributor
You are certainly welcome to your opinion Eric!
So am I.
Ken
So much to learn, so little time.....
[OP]
Member
Except that works both ways. I'll give you that today there are more campfires (cars, houses, etc) per family unit than during the bulk of modern man's 35,000-year development, but that doesn't mean Plimer is wrong that there are major periods of time in the planet's development with greater C02 production than today, without major warming occurring. Moreover, you conveniently ignore my more simple comments on the stupidity involved with wind farms wind farms.
And......."It seems anyone questioning this new religion is called a denier and is attacked immediately. I am not disagreeing or denying that manmade green house gasses can affect global temperature, but if that is the case how does cap and trade work as a solution, it really does not reduce or cap CO2, it just rearranges the deck chairs. Al Gores movie is claimed to have 13 factual inaccuracies and can not be shown in some UK schools without that disclcaimer. Maybe Plimers book needs the same disclaimer."Wind farms are just one small example of many.
- Are we really gonna plow up thousands and thousands of acres of pristine, fragile desert ecosystems for concrete pads and service roads?
- How difficult, expensive and lengthy a process will it be to condemn the thousands of acres of private property necessary for all those new transmission lines necessary to bring that electricity to population centers?
- How many threatened and endangered migratory birds and bats will be killed annually by all those propeller blades?
- Besides oil tycoon Boone Pickens, who today have positioned themselves to gain financially from such a massive national investment?
- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?
Either way, these impacts didn't happen overnight and nor will an effective approach toward solutions....if solutions are either necessary or possible. Blindly wrecking the economy as we know it in hasty stabs toward the unknown to please the those who've positioned themselves to gain financially may not be the answer either.
““Perhaps then, you will say, ‘But where can one have a boat like that built today?’ And I will tell you that there are still some honest men who can sharpen a saw, plane, or adze...men (who) live and work in out of the way places, but that is lucky, for they can acquire materials for one third of city prices. Best, some of these gentlemen’s boatshops are in places where nothing but the occasional honk of a wild goose will distract them from their work.” -- L Francis Herreshoff
Posting Permissions
