http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46704609/ns/us_news-environment/#.T19XQfWjlTY
Have a care. Thanks.
Have a care. Thanks.
How do you think recycling process works? Trucks (which pollute) have to haul all the crap to a factory (which pollutes) which can turn the crap into something useable, then more trucks (which pollute) have to redistribute the new material. Meanwhile, I am sure that there is some waste byproduct to the recycling process, so more trucks (which pollute) need to dispose of this waste (which ends up in landfills or wherever).
insider trading wrote:
How do you think recycling process works? Trucks (which pollute) have to haul all the crap to a factory (which pollutes) which can turn the crap into something useable, then more trucks (which pollute) have to redistribute the new material. Meanwhile, I am sure that there is some waste byproduct to the recycling process, so more trucks (which pollute) need to dispose of this waste (which ends up in landfills or wherever).
Yeah, but to just use a product, then when done with it just drop it wherever you are. Avoids all those pesky transportation issues.
Here we go again! This is how these people operate:
IF we start with a wild, arbitrary supposition, look at all of these bad things that COULD happen. Then it takes on a life of it's own and becomes fact and inevitable.
""Greenland's early Viking settlers were subjected to rapidly changing climate. Temperatures plunged several degrees in a span of decades, according to research from Brown University. A reconstruction of 5,600 years of climate history from lakes near the Norse settlement in western Greenland also shows how climate affected the Dorset and Saqqaq cultures.""
Greenlend is a classic example of a place where the climate has changed during the last 100,000 years. The weather in Greenland has gone from a cool weather place where the Vikings strolled the country and were able to live because the weather was decent. And then the ice ages came along and made Greenland ice and Iceland green. If you fly to Europe you are treated with this visual on your way over the Atlantic Ocean.
I am all for recycling and taking care of this earth. But there is zero proof that climate change is due to man. Climates change, weather changes. We had an ice age 20,000 years ago and now the earth is getting warm. Climate has changed from the beginning of time. Why should we ruin our economy just because there is a 2% chance that climate change is man induced. Makes no sense to me at all.
I love this post!
Global warming, ahhhhhhh. Now if we recycle this will all be solved.
Look at this before you post next time:
Nanook wrote:
... there is a 2% chance that climate change is man induced.
Yep, you seem like you have a whole lot more knowledge about this than all the world's climate scientists, chemists and physicists combined. You've sure got me convinced.
insider trading wrote:
How do you think recycling process works? Trucks (which pollute) have to haul all the crap to a factory (which pollutes) which can turn the crap into something useable, then more trucks (which pollute) have to redistribute the new material. Meanwhile, I am sure that there is some waste byproduct to the recycling process, so more trucks (which pollute) need to dispose of this waste (which ends up in landfills or wherever).
You're not totally wrong, but for a few examples:
It takes 4% as much energy to recycle aluminum as it does to make aluminum from ore.
For steel it is 30-40% depending on the type of steel.
Plastic (making new plastic accounts for approx 10% of our oil consumption) is in the 10% range depending on the type.
Yes the trucks that haul those materials pollute, but so do the one hauling the raw materials. The difference is the HUGE energy savings.
The arrogance of some of you is amazing. Why not protect Earth? If not for you, your kids?
Nanook wrote:
""Greenland's early Viking settlers were subjected to rapidly changing climate. Temperatures plunged several degrees in a span of decades, according to research from Brown University. A reconstruction of 5,600 years of climate history from lakes near the Norse settlement in western Greenland also shows how climate affected the Dorset and Saqqaq cultures.""
Greenlend is a classic example of a place where the climate has changed during the last 100,000 years. The weather in Greenland has gone from a cool weather place where the Vikings strolled the country and were able to live because the weather was decent. And then the ice ages came along and made Greenland ice and Iceland green. If you fly to Europe you are treated with this visual on your way over the Atlantic Ocean.
I am all for recycling and taking care of this earth. But there is zero proof that climate change is due to man. Climates change, weather changes. We had an ice age 20,000 years ago and now the earth is getting warm. Climate has changed from the beginning of time. Why should we ruin our economy just because there is a 2% chance that climate change is man induced. Makes no sense to me at all.
I'm not a crazy rant type but just so you know 97% of climatologists that regularly publish in the field believe that climate change is happening and is man made.
You know chemists and physicists don't have anything to do with climate science right? Neither do 85% of the scientists who have signed off on the UN climate change studies. Ever heard of climategate? When your own research appropriates your funding what do you think the answer is going to be? I know one thing for sure that ball of fire in the sky has absolutely nothing to do with temperatures on earth because climate scientists said so. Re read nineteen eighty four and substitute perpetual war for climate change. End result is the same.
Ho hum:
"If humanity managed to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) — a goal embraced by climate negotiators but one that looks increasingly unlikely — the Greenland ice sheet would disappear in 50,000 years, according to the study."
Anthropogenic warming is pretty clear cut now. The only real deniers are in the US.
It is, however, too late. Read the Stern Review published in 2006. Odds and costs of preventing 2C temperature rise(2% of GDP), and consequences if nothing is done(20-25% of GDP). If dozens of nations have to cooperate, and then get their populations to cooperate, it will not get done.
Schelling is right - this is a bargaining problem, where developed nations bear most of the cost, and developing nations reap most of the benefit.
I <3 Tacos wrote:
You know chemists and physicists don't have anything to do with climate science right?
Yeah, I know. Because the earth, ocean and atmosphere are not made up of chemicals and physicists really have no understanding of processes involved in thermal retention.
Look, there are morons and there are MORONS. Just going by the first sentence of your post you are clearly one of the latter. Only problem is that the rest of your post gets even worse.
"When your own research appropriates your funding what do you think the answer is going to be?" Yes, the world of science is absolutely filled with conspirators and has no means of error correction.
"ball of fire"??? OMFG!
"climategate"??? Are you being serious here? You think that a few emails among a few researchers written in bad taste out of tens of millions of emails and tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers among tens of thousands of researchers is evidence of some grand conspiracy?!?
Well, it is quite plain why you would never be able to be a scientist when you think of that as meaningful evidence. Try not letting the bitterness you feel from being rejected by science and math color your perspective of the work being done by those far more capable than yourself.
I would say please try thinking rather than just repeating talking points of those who luxuriate in their ignorance but I suspect that you are not capable.
Some crazy runner guy wrote:I'm not a crazy rant type but just so you know 97% of climatologists that regularly publish in the field believe that climate change is happening and is man made.
And 98% of all statistics are completely made up.
Where did you get that number from?
We should not put a price on saving the environment. This is the only planet we have...who cares how much it costs to stop the melting? DO IT.
Can I recycle the leftover ice from my drink? Should I mail the ice to Greenland to help put a stop to this disaster?
nice troll
Plastic bottles
if you throw a bottle in the trash- It has to be hauled to a landfill.
To make a new bottle to replace it, you have to get raw materials (oil) then send raw material to a bottle maker.
if you throw a bottle in the recycle bin, it has to be hauled to a recycling facility.
you then send the product to a bottle maker
recycling is one less step
plus it saves space on earth
plus less biodegredation
plus you can control recycling facility emissions as a point source
No Way wrote:
You're not totally wrong, but for a few examples:
It takes 4% as much energy to recycle aluminum as it does to make aluminum from ore.
For steel it is 30-40% depending on the type of steel.
Plastic (making new plastic accounts for approx 10% of our oil consumption) is in the 10% range depending on the type.
Yes the trucks that haul those materials pollute, but so do the one hauling the raw materials. The difference is the HUGE energy savings.
Curious if you could cite your stats. I was under the impression that recycling metal was worth it (especially aluminum), but that it was not worth recycling paper or plastic.