Climate change anyone?

[benedmonds]

10 minutes ago, Scottish Cleaning Service said:

.... I study cycles and all I see is cycles coming and going like history has told us. ... The world has been in perfect balance since time began but now they say after billions or maybe trillions of years that we have knocked it out of balance and we must fix it. Either Natural Law is wrong and the experts are right or experts are wrong and Natural Law is still correct after Trillions of years. 🤔 We never left the stone age because we ran out of stones.  

The world is never in balance. It is always changing, it just happens that at this particular moment in the history of the world human activity is causing the change and as humans we could try and slow or reverse that change if we wanted.  Or not..

[peds]

30 minutes ago, Scottish Cleaning Service said:

In 1970 the BBC were doing a documentary saying we were going into the ice age again up in the North of Scotland. We were building an incinerator or something so we could dig up and burn all the peat. Now they are saying we are going into a hot age because of all the commodities we are burning. I study cycles and all I see is cycles coming and going like history has told us. Everything in life is expand and contract and if that is not happening then its usually dead. The world has been in perfect balance since time began but now they say after billions or maybe trillions of years that we have knocked it out of balance and we must fix it. Either Natural Law is wrong and the experts are right or experts are wrong and Natural Law is still correct after Trillions of years. 🤔 We never left the stone age because we ran out of stones.  

It's clusters of words like this that make me so unbelievably depressed about the future of humanity on this planet. The science, at this stage, is so clear cut, so defined, so well-understood. How on Earth, I ask the sky, fists clutching my hair, can people have such ridiculous ideas as this in their heads?

 

Protip: learn to grow your own food and don't get too attached to polar bears.

[sime42]

In 1970 the BBC were doing a documentary saying we were going into the ice age again up in the North of Scotland. We were building an incinerator or something so we could dig up and burn all the peat. Now they are saying we are going into a hot age because of all the commodities we are burning. I study cycles and all I see is cycles coming and going like history has told us. Everything in life is expand and contract and if that is not happening then its usually dead. The world has been in perfect balance since time began but now they say after billions or maybe trillions of years that we have knocked it out of balance and we must fix it. Either Natural Law is wrong and the experts are right or experts are wrong and Natural Law is still correct after Trillions of years. [emoji848] We never left the stone age because we ran out of stones.  

Unbelievable .....

[AHPP]

2 hours ago, benedmonds said:

I don't know for sure and have no evidence to support my argument (I am sure someone with more time could find some), but am pretty sure you are wrong, small scale burning of waste in a domestic appliance is going to be releasing all kinds of nasties into the local atmosphere.  While all the transport especially if it is international has an environmental cost I reckon micro scale home burning will be WAY worse.

 

There is  nothing wrong with properly designed landfill.  It doesn't take up that much space and people are going to start mining them as a resource soon.

 

Nah. Transporting rubbish uses shitloads of resources. It's not just a bit of fuel. It's that and then the vehicles themselves, then other vehicles that drive workers to work, then vehicles that drive trainers, accountants, marketers, lawyers, car designers, boot makers etc to work to support the workers who do the actual work of transporting the rubbish (and to support the supporters). Pointless work is far worse than it seems.

Also consider most pointless* recycling is government led (ideas that are so good that they're mandatory...). When was the last time the government did something that makes sense? If they're doing it, it's probably a shit idea.

 

 

*Not all reycling is pointless. Re-using stuff (including to heat your house) is recycling and not pointless. Sorting stuff into the blue bin so some chancing cvnt can sell it to Indonesia (to end up in the sea) is pointless.

[Haironyourchest]

Don't know if this is Global Warming related or not but..

 

Apparently, in North Korea, the rural people trade their own toilet waste as a commodity. The economy has reached the medieval level where fertilizer of any description is valuable.

 

At the same time, in Japan, they have invented a low maintenance composting toilet for public parks etc, so advanced, that it composts close to 99.99% of waste. Virtually never fills up. The unit costs $40,000.

 

In other news, X-tinction rebellion were thrilled that CO2 emissions dropped by 5.5% during the spring lockdowns. They (the Greens and the "climate x-perts) say we need to reduce by at least 7.5% every year. 

 

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, AHPP said:

Sorting stuff into the blue bin so some chancing cvnt can sell it to Indonesia (to end up in the sea) is pointless.

I feel for your sentiment but it was an ill thought out directive that gave a financial reward in the form of recycling credits for stuff that was exported. This went entirely against the ethos of dealing with waste locally. It didn't take much for the entrepreneurial types to see they could collect rubbish, export it anywhere and  claim these credits whereas the legitimate recycling industry had to actually do some recycling to claim theirs. Such is the capitalist system we live in, it allows any innovation then takes a while to react and regulate the new activity once someone realises it is done at a cost to the commons we all depend on. In the meantime fortunes have been made.

 

Just consider how long we have had a two, or more, bin system, 20 years yet?

 

Also consider that segregation near to where the final user wishes to discard something keeps the "resource" cleaner and purer, once you start mixing it it becomes of less value to the recycler. e.g. originally glass bottles were kept separate by my local waste collection but many people did not feel they should be responsible for keeping it separate, the council relented and allowed glass bottles of any colour, tins, paper  and plastic food containers all in one bin. This immediately devalued the glass cullet but worse it contaminated the paper and card with shards of glass after sorting and damaged the re pulping machines, making the waste paper fraction less valuable and reduced the yield. However it increased the total claimed recycling and the chief executive was awarded a number of tens of thousand to his already corpulent salary for the increased performance.

[AHPP]

I feel for your sentiment but it was an ill thought out directive that gave a financial reward in the form of recycling credits for stuff that was exported. This went entirely against the ethos of dealing with waste locally. It didn't take much for the entrepreneurial types to see they could collect rubbish, export it anywhere and  claim these credits whereas the legitimate recycling industry had to actually do some recycling to claim theirs. Such is the capitalist system we live in, it allows any innovation then takes a while to react and regulate the new activity once someone realises it is done at a cost to the commons we all depend on. In the meantime fortunes have been made.

 

Just consider how long we have had a two, or more, bin system, 20 years yet?

 

Also consider that segregation near to where the final user wishes to discard something keeps the "resource" cleaner and purer, once you start mixing it it becomes of less value to the recycler. e.g. originally glass bottles were kept separate by my local waste collection but many people did not feel they should be responsible for keeping it separate, the council relented and allowed glass bottles of any colour, tins, paper  and plastic food containers all in one bin. This immediately devalued the glass cullet but worse it contaminated the paper and card with shards of glass after sorting and damaged the re pulping machines, making the waste paper fraction less valuable and reduced the yield. However it increased the total claimed recycling and the chief executive was awarded a number of tens of thousand to his already corpulent salary for the increased performance.

Putting up taxvictims' money for whoever is unscrupulous enough to take it is emphatically NOT capitalism.

 

I couldn't tell you how to best make use of resources, sorting or whatever. Neither can any other one man. The market can though.

 

[difflock]

The wisdom of capitialism vis-a-vis Government is again demonstrated by our latest revealed renewable energy fiasco here in NI.

Where stand-alone wind power installations attracted something like 4 times the subsidized return than those in wind farms, giving a payback of as little as 2 years with 18 more free and clear.

Bringing in figures between £100,000.00 and £200,000.00 per year over 18 more years.

Oh! and if you put in a way-oversized and de-rated turbine you could furthur "game" the system.

All paid for by helpless mugs like us paying our leccy bill.

DOfornicatingH!

Edited December 15, 2020 by difflock

[difflock]

8 hours ago, openspaceman said:

I feel for your sentiment but it was an ill thought out directive that gave a financial reward in the form of recycling credits for stuff that was exported. This went entirely against the ethos of dealing with waste locally. It didn't take much for the entrepreneurial types to see they could collect rubbish, export it anywhere and  claim these credits whereas the legitimate recycling industry had to actually do some recycling to claim theirs. Such is the capitalist system we live in, it allows any innovation then takes a while to react and regulate the new activity once someone realises it is done at a cost to the commons we all depend on. In the meantime fortunes have been made.

 

Just consider how long we have had a two, or more, bin system, 20 years yet?

 

Also consider that segregation near to where the final user wishes to discard something keeps the "resource" cleaner and purer, once you start mixing it it becomes of less value to the recycler. e.g. originally glass bottles were kept separate by my local waste collection but many people did not feel they should be responsible for keeping it separate, the council relented and allowed glass bottles of any colour, tins, paper  and plastic food containers all in one bin. This immediately devalued the glass cullet but worse it contaminated the paper and card with shards of glass after sorting and damaged the re pulping machines, making the waste paper fraction less valuable and reduced the yield. However it increased the total claimed recycling and the chief executive was awarded a number of tens of thousand to his already corpulent salary for the increased performance.

OSM

Seeing as I worked within local government and persistently queried where our obviously polluted blue bin waste, never mind the polluted "colour segregated" glass went and was always rebuffed.

etc etc

The uncaring idiots were running the aylsum and costing the ratepayers and the Enivironment a fortune in hard cash.

Like trucking heavy wet green waste miles to a composting facility when they had acres of ground nearby, a closed "dump" where it could simply have spread to decay naturally and give nature a helping hand.

The waste involved in handling our waste drove me to mental despair, quite seriously.

Never mind the seriously frivilious expenditure of the landfill tax cash-back from the Government, on stupid, ill considered short term community/vanity projects.

Marcus

[openspaceman]

7 hours ago, AHPP said:

Putting up taxvictims' money for whoever's unscrupulous enough to take it is emphatically NOT capitalism.

 

I couldn't tell you how to best make use of resources, sorting or whatever. Neither can any other one man. The market can though.

Yes a properly regulated market can but as I said government  takes a while to adapt whereas there/s always somone looking for a wrinkle to make some easy money without concern for the consequences for others.