Is recycling just a load of BS?

[Flubber]

ok

Penn is amusing to watch but its blatently obvious what he is doing. Take the Dihydrogen Monoxide bit-- I'm sure that someone would figure it out-- heck maybe even a majority did (doubt that but possible) but they will only show the entertaining stuff where people are fooled-- Its exactly the same as when leno does his out and about bits-- IN any large enough sample of people, you will trick some people-- Heck some of the dudes would probably sign anything a hot girl put in front of them

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd


My critisism of recycling was that it does not prevent the use of natural resources. If we where to stop taking resources from nature completely, and only recycle what we had already taken out of the earth, it may be possible to sustain a technological society, although I would remain highly skeptical. It would also require a vast reduction of the human population, unless we expect the world to be stable with 9 billion people living in it while only millions of people can live in excess and luxury.

Similarily, it would mean that corporations would no longer be expected to make larger profits than the year before. Growth of the economy, for all intents and purposes, is out of the question so long as you can't fuel it with natural resources. There is, after all, no such thing as a perpetual motion engine - the energy has to come from somewhere, and even assuming that we could recycle with 100% efficiency (which is a fantasy) that would mean that we could not grow any more than we already have.

This is perhaps describing the technological society founded in an equilibrium of a reduced population coming after an economic collapse that you mentioned previously, but I find it much more idealistic and naive than even my hopes.

1. 100% closed loop recycling is necessary for long term sustainability. But, say, 99% would buy us centuries, during which we could try to figure out how to get to 100%. You dont need immediate sustainability NOW.

2. Growth. Lots of industries survive without growth, and even make profit as they slowly decline. And companies survive within them that way. Theres no reason we couldnt achieve that more broadly.

3. Enery coming from somewhere - theres enough solar power emitted by the sun to power any economy could we could grow to in the next hundred years for hundreds of years beyond that. In billions of years will entropy get us? Maybe, I leave that to physicists like KH. Its not iminent enough to worry about (besides it would get us no matter how sustainable we got)

[Flubber]

@ general Ludd- It is obviously false that the only way to reduce pollution is to consume less. Consuming less is one way --arguably the best way


Example-- Oil companies are now taking pure CO2 and injecting it into tight heavy oil reservoirs. The CO2 aids in oil recovery but is then stored underground in perpetuity. This can completely eliminate CO2 emissions from a nearby power plant

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd


It would also require a vast reduction of the human population, unless we expect the world to be stable with 9 billion people living in it while only millions of people can live in excess and luxury.

Not nearly as big a reduction as your return to hunter gathering would, or even a return to pre-steam age agriculture.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


.

3. Enery coming from somewhere - theres enough solar power emitted by the sun to power any economy could we could grow to in the next hundred years for hundreds of years beyond that. In billions of years will entropy get us? Maybe, I leave that to physicists like KH. Its not iminent enough to worry about (besides it would get us no matter how sustainable we got)

PLus tidal, wind and hydro sources -- once infrastructure is established they are renewable and clean ( but like solar , they require resources for transmission and maintenance)

[Flubber]

I don't get the need to never consume new stuff. Take forests . MY (admittedly limited) understanding of canadian logging practices is that forests are replanted. There are definitely ample forests around.

Or fisheries-- we need to figure out sustainable levels and keep fishing below that level

I don't see any reason NOT to utilize renewable resources at rates that does not deplete the source of them

[RoboCon]

Hello there! I see you are discussing Pollution. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

General Ludd wants to cripple American industry by handcuffing companies with needless stem-cell legislation. Norm Chomsky was jammed up. Your grandchildren will pay. Ang Lee co-authored Brokeback Mountain with Ann Coulter. It is a touching tale of God's furious anger with two men because they were filthy homosexuals. Take it to Teddy Kennedy's state, they might have room for you, Heath Ledger!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by RoboCon
Hello there! I see you are discussing Pollution. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

General Ludd wants to cripple American industry by handcuffing companies with needless stem-cell legislation. Norm Chomsky was jammed up. Your grandchildren will pay. Ang Lee co-authored Brokeback Mountain with Ann Coulter. It is a touching tale of God's furious anger with two men because they were filthy homosexuals. Take it to Teddy Kennedy's state, they might have room for you, Heath Ledger!

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-- its baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!

[Ninot]

ROBOCON

[Impaler[WrG]]

In the US virtualy ever advancment in vehicle fuel efficiency has lead the auto-maker to make larger vehicles hence things like Hybrid SUV's. Totala gasoline consumption per mile remains flat or even rises. On top of that people drive more miles.

Its clear that in the US greater efficiency only leads to more consumption. Ludd's central point is correct, only a willfull reduction in consumption itself will reduce the ecological footpint.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
In the US virtualy ever advancment in vehicle fuel efficiency has lead the auto-maker to make larger vehicles hence things like Hybrid SUV's. Totala gasoline consumption per mile remains flat or even rises. On top of that people drive more miles

Its clear that in the US greater efficiency only leads to more consumption. Ludd's central point is correct, only a willfull reduction in consumption itself will reduce the ecological footpint.

In the 1990s increasing fuel efficiency happened at the same time as declining fuel prices, and so people bought larger vehicles. And drove more miles. It wasnt an illogical response, given both consumer tastes and the prices of different options. In the recent run up of oil prices we say both continued shifts to higher mileage for a given a size class, and a small but real shift to smaller size classes.

In any case there are certain limits. Do you honestly think that if fuel efficiency went up by a factor of 100, Americans would buy triple 40 foot semi rigs to haul their families around in? Or that wed increase miles per person to the point where we spent all our waking and nonwaking hours in a moving vehicle?

[Dis]

18 wheelers. I can't wait to trick mine out.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


There's no oxygen in a landfill, so nothing biodegrades in there. In a thousand years, archaeologists will be able to identify items of food they dig up.

You're a communist. You lie and kill people. And are into crap like the dialectic. You need to feel the Maoist bayonet in your soft non-steel belly.

(No offence.(

[TCO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It isn't bogus for he city tax payer if it extends the usable life of a landfill. Recycling of greenwaste (organic plant bits) easily helps to extend the life of landfills by removing that stuff and instead giving it away for free to anyone who wants mulch (landscapers and farmers use that stuff by the truckload).

It costs big money to make a new landfill so decreasing the amount of waste going into does indeed make dollars as well as sense. (Pun intended)

SD spent 75 mil (in early 90s!) for a reclycle program that was promised not to cost the taxpayers anything, but did when it didn;'t work. You live in tghe case study of butt-fvcked Cali cluelessness.

[TCO]

Originally posted by General Ludd
And on that note, I try not to buy into consumer culture - I try to live with simple needs, and I try to pollute as little as possible, but I don't believe I'm changing the world by doing this. Our society needs to be gutted completely, from the ground up, before any real change is possible.

Actually in a sense, you are right. I prefer the argument to be made clearly for the direct reason then for sneaky ones.