What's new
By:

How Green Are You?

I think we can wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. Like right now, in fact. The only reason we aren't is because people don't want to.

I do think reduction is huge. Incinerating is a great way to reduce waste, but i'm not sure we have the scrubbers to reduce the climate impact sustained from incinerating.

I'd approach it like this: 1) remove fossil-fuel dependence 2) intense dedication to reducing and reusing (our society is getting phenomenal at recycling-- but recycling isn't as potent as the first two) 3) being conscious of how we dispose our waste. Do we incinerate? Continue to landfill? Incinerate then dilute/disperse at sea? Etc.
 
I think we're past the point of no return in a sense. We're not going to crawl backwards with our eyes closed and get out of this, like the environmental alarmist seem to want us to do. We're not going to be less human. We're not going to shrink and live smaller lives. That's not realistic now and it was never realistic.

We're going to advance our way out of this and it might very well take us through some environmental catastrophes. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, either way, it's not going to be the end of the world.
 
b_line said:
The problem with this thinking is that technology is not a self organizing or self inventing entity. It is spurred by perceived need. If there is no perceived need to improve technology to take care of the situation, how will it be remedied?
Click to expand...

Not true. We already have BACT, RACT, and LAER forcing innovation onto new production facilities.

We have tens of thousands of pages of regulation dealing with older grandfathered facilities, in addition to EPA consent decrees (nothing short of legalized blackmail). On top of that are our environmental standards that force states to tighten the screws into industry mainly (politically feasible). In addition to that we have the political process that allows new innovations to gain a foothold (see BACT/RACT/LAER).

Bottom line is there is a huge incentive built into our current regulatory system for businesses to innovate. There is a reason automobiles in North America are insanely expensive. The manufacturers make money based on the overall price. They want more regulation, not less.

I can give plenty more examples but I'll end it with the reason Warren Buffett bought Waste Management and got into the trash business. It wasn't about trash at all. It was about mandating recycling. The richest guy in the world doesn't get into a saturated market without a motive.
 
dalamon said:
I do think reduction is huge. Incinerating is a great way to reduce waste, but i'm not sure we have the scrubbers to reduce the climate impact sustained from incinerating.
Click to expand...

Incineration produces a bunch of nasty **** that people aren't comfortable with being spewed into the air. The toxins can actually be quite insignificant but we have a big *** NIMBY problem with them, as well as other things like the inconsistency of the waste creating very poor and inconsistent combustion characteristics.

We don't just scrub the pollutants out either.

Incineration is as difficult as the landfill-to-power projects. The waste/energy steam is so inconsistent that it's tough to work with. Engines don't handle inconsistency very well.
 
Carbon13 said:
Hate to say it, but Franklins scenario is the most likely to play out In my opinion. Well continue to consume and use natural resources and the most likely thing to improve our environment is human progress. Capitalisn won boys. Get used to it!

That said, i dont the world can support 5 or 6 billion people living an American standard of living.
Click to expand...

Gameface said:
I think we're past the point of no return in a sense. We're not going to crawl backwards with our eyes closed and get out of this, like the environmental alarmist seem to want us to do. We're not going to be less human. We're not going to shrink and live smaller lives. That's not realistic now and it was never realistic.

We're going to advance our way out of this and it might very well take us through some environmental catastrophes. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, either way, it's not going to be the end of the world.
Click to expand...


I see this as a non-issue within 20 years. There are several reasons, but the main factors are technology advancing at an incredible pace, the price pressure that scarcity puts onto conservation, and the speed at which we will see developing economies advance. We've seen price pressure clean up Europe and North America plenty enough. Our populations have exploded yet we use less water and energy, have done an incredible job at saving species, preserving open spaces, and pushing the envelope. I see no reason to think that trend will reverse just because the rest of the world wants to live as good of lives as us. If anything, we should embrace them coming out of the dark ages and helping to preserve an enjoyable future.

If anything, I do worry about the loss of open land. State and local politics are incredibly destructive to open lands. Damn developers.
 
franklin said:
Incineration produces a bunch of nasty **** that people aren't comfortable with being spewed into the air. The toxins can actually be quite insignificant but we have a big *** NIMBY problem with them, as well as other things like the inconsistency of the waste creating very poor and inconsistent combustion characteristics.
Click to expand...

It's the NIMBY problem mostly-- property value plummets when landfills are nearby. Landfills have many publicized cases of increasing various chronic health risks, so no one wants anything to do with them. That's why you have densely populated countries like Germany trying to incinerate everything & operate landfill-free within a decade.

We don't just scrub the pollutants out either.
Click to expand...

We can scrub out a lot of the crappy stuff-- but GHGs are still inherently generated with every combustion reaction unfortunately.

Incineration is as difficult as the landfill-to-power projects. The waste/energy steam is so inconsistent that it's tough to work with. Engines don't handle inconsistency very well.
Click to expand...

My city has a pretty good landfill to energy program actually. From what I've read.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
It's the NIMBY problem mostly-- property value plummets when landfills are nearby. Landfills have many publicized cases of increasing various chronic health risks, so no one wants anything to do with them. That's why you have densely populated countries like Germany trying to incinerate everything & operate landfill-free within a decade.



We can scrub out a lot of the crappy stuff-- but GHGs are still inherently generated with every combustion reaction unfortunately.



My city has a pretty good landfill to energy program actually. From what I've read.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Let me clarify: we don't only scrub, there are more processes involved in addition to the manpower processing issues of dumping a bunch of wet garbage into a burner and expecting it to come out clean on the other end.


The irony here is I'm a fan of waste to energy but the fanatics on the environmental side have shut it off even more than the fanatics on the other side shut off reasonable controls.


As far as Germany (and Europe) goes, you hit the nail on the head. It's a lot easier to get things like this done when you're densely populated and need somewhere to put your junk.
 
franklin said:
I see this as a non-issue within 20 years. There are several reasons, but the main factors are technology advancing at an incredible pace, the price pressure that scarcity puts onto conservation, and the speed at which we will see developing economies advance. We've seen price pressure clean up Europe and North America plenty enough. Our populations have exploded yet we use less water and energy, have done an incredible job at saving species, preserving open spaces, and pushing the envelope. I see no reason to think that trend will reverse just because the rest of the world wants to live as good of lives as us. If anything, we should embrace them coming out of the dark ages and helping to preserve an enjoyable future.

If anything, I do worry about the loss of open land. State and local politics are incredibly destructive to open lands. Damn developers.
Click to expand...

My comment was pretty vague, but I expect that technological advancement will be the key. I think really understanding how the environment works will be the key. I think that our ability as humans to have an even greater impact on how the environment works will be the key. In short, we can't try to have less of an impact, we need to learn how to have more of an impact...but a better impact.

Of course, if environmental catastrophes actually occur they will be huge motivators for change. That's all part of advancement. It's all going to happen with or without the "green" movement.
 
green-laser-show-o.gif
 
Have ya'll seen interstellar?

Hope you like corn and dust
 
Hey you lil boy toyz. Just read through the responses and i want to respond to all of you, but im at work and am using my cell phone, so ill just have to send out a general message.

My basic position is we arent at the technological level yet to phase out hydrocarbons, not even close. I dont believe we should just let things play out, i just think our only play is to reduce consumption since innovation is so far off.

Another thing, renewables arent all that big a part of the picture, last i checked, they make up around 3% of the total energy picture. With history as our guide, it will take at least another 50 years before renewables overtake hydrocarbons!

I agree with siro on his point that capitalism can bring about positive environmental change. I hope i didnt come across as railing against capitalism. My only point is the more we consume, the more we use the earths resources, the more waste we create. Theres no way around it!

That said, i think theres a lot common ground here. Appreciate the points made by Dal, Siro, Frank, GF. Sorry if i missed anybody. **** enes kanter!
 
franklin said:
You're so naive it's cute. Environmentalism is a luxury for the rich. Think about it.
Click to expand...

That, and toilets.

Ever been on a long ride on a bus with a black cloud of diesel fumes through a third-world backwater province, with everyone piling out at the stops to pee on the wheels and poop in a ditch? Ladies on the right, gents on the left?
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
I see this as a non-issue within 20 years. There are several reasons, but the main factors are technology advancing at an incredible pace, the price pressure that scarcity puts onto conservation, and the speed at which we will see developing economies advance. We've seen price pressure clean up Europe and North America plenty enough. Our populations have exploded yet we use less water and energy, have done an incredible job at saving species, preserving open spaces, and pushing the envelope. I see no reason to think that trend will reverse just because the rest of the world wants to live as good of lives as us. If anything, we should embrace them coming out of the dark ages and helping to preserve an enjoyable future.

If anything, I do worry about the loss of open land. State and local politics are incredibly destructive to open lands. Damn developers.
Click to expand...

Capitalism is going to overcome this malgovernance issue. . . . .

Yesterday I had my eyes opened visiting a development in the LA area, in the middle of a bunch of tall buildings occupied by some of our high-end technology corporations, walking around in a walker-oriented apartment complex with some well-placed parks, with little street-level shops with nice sidewalk areas for customers to sit in the sun or shade, in the breeze, to visit neighbors and friends and passersby. Building "UP" while leaving more room for nature. . . .

Beats the idea of gated mansion spreads and three-hour commutes hands down.
 
bigb said:
Every scrap of wire from our jobs get recycled (more because of the $ it brings me than being environmentally right). I am conscientious about recycling as much as possible. I recently upgraded all of my light bulbs to either LED or CFL. The car we drive gets about 14 MPG.
So overall, not really green.
Click to expand...

Siro liked this post, which got me to re-read it and think about it a little more. I'm actually greener than I gave myself credit for. I recycle as much as possible. I just upgraded my lights to LED at a pretty big expense (sure, I got some of it back from the power company, but it was still costly), I turn off my sprinklers for a good long while after it rains, keep my AC temp higher than average and my heat temp lower than average, all kinds of things, really. Sure, my vehicle MPG sucks, but I have a **** ton of kids and all their cap to haul around. I need something to get it everywhere.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top