Recycling Bad?
- Thread starter Richard G
- Start date
Link to the Telegraph story referenced in the NewsMax story in the link above:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/02/ixportal.html
The slant is slightly different. The impression I got from NewsMax was that they were claiming that burning was better for the environment than recycling, which troubled me - surely even land fill is better than burning, since at least that locks up the carbon?
The Telegraph article says:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/03/02/ixportal.html
The slant is slightly different. The impression I got from NewsMax was that they were claiming that burning was better for the environment than recycling, which troubled me - surely even land fill is better than burning, since at least that locks up the carbon?
The Telegraph article says:
That makes more sense - replace one carbon source by another. It is at least worth doing the numbers on it.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
There are several things to note from this article.
1. It seems that all swedes are environmental gurus, not. forget that appeal to authority.
2. incineration has it's own problems, although it has been improving a lot, as i understand it. that is, high temperature incineration causes less pollution than the old bonfire approach.
3. people still won't want one of these things near them.
4. toxic metals will still come pouring out the top from old batteries, etc, even if toxic organic compounds are broken down.
5. the article is written more from the point of 'lets stick this up the greenies' than, lets see if we can improve on what is now being done.
6. the costs of materials are not just the cost of purchasing them, it is also the cost of disposing of them, and garbage collection and landfill still costs money.
1. It seems that all swedes are environmental gurus, not. forget that appeal to authority.
2. incineration has it's own problems, although it has been improving a lot, as i understand it. that is, high temperature incineration causes less pollution than the old bonfire approach.
3. people still won't want one of these things near them.
4. toxic metals will still come pouring out the top from old batteries, etc, even if toxic organic compounds are broken down.
5. the article is written more from the point of 'lets stick this up the greenies' than, lets see if we can improve on what is now being done.
6. the costs of materials are not just the cost of purchasing them, it is also the cost of disposing of them, and garbage collection and landfill still costs money.
Soon as the labels and name-calling starts ("enviros") it diminishes the strength of any argument.
The person obviously had their mind made up before it was written.
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Emerson
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---Arthur Block
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
The person obviously had their mind made up before it was written.
"Thinking is the hardest work of all, that's why so few of us engage in it."---Emerson
"A conclusion is the place where we got tired of thinking."---Arthur Block
"We see and hear what we expect to see and hear."----Thoreau
Its good to see that there is genuine sensible and intelligent debate going on about these issues in the green movement.
As technologies change, ideas need to be re-evaluated. What was the best option in 1990 might not still be the best option in 2010. At the moment there is a genuine debate about incineration vs. recylcing and that's got to be a good thing.
Thanks to Richard G for highlighting this article which puts the lie to the idea that the Green movement is weighed down in anti-scientific dogma.
As technologies change, ideas need to be re-evaluated. What was the best option in 1990 might not still be the best option in 2010. At the moment there is a genuine debate about incineration vs. recylcing and that's got to be a good thing.
Thanks to Richard G for highlighting this article which puts the lie to the idea that the Green movement is weighed down in anti-scientific dogma.
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
The Newsmax article states that the trucks picking up the materials are polluting. This indicates a poorly managed recycling program more than anything else.
The Telegraph article goes into more detail and presents ideas for improved use of wastes such as electric generation. The hard part about incineration is that somebody has to sort the garbage before you feed it into the burner. This is much harder to do than most people imagine.
The Telegraph article goes into more detail and presents ideas for improved use of wastes such as electric generation. The hard part about incineration is that somebody has to sort the garbage before you feed it into the burner. This is much harder to do than most people imagine.
It is about time some more balanced analysis has come from a "green" institutions (or at least people from institiutions).
Most green proposals come from an emotional knee jerk. A classic example is "global warming" and Kyoto. As a result it permiates popular thinking - ask a sample of people if they thought making people drive elctric cars would help prevent global warming and the majority would probably say yes.
Pollution is a cost, but it is a side effect of an action that has a benefit. The mitigation of popllution will also entail costs. We need to be aware of both sides of the eqation in order to make the best decisions.
Most green proposals come from an emotional knee jerk. A classic example is "global warming" and Kyoto. As a result it permiates popular thinking - ask a sample of people if they thought making people drive elctric cars would help prevent global warming and the majority would probably say yes.
Pollution is a cost, but it is a side effect of an action that has a benefit. The mitigation of popllution will also entail costs. We need to be aware of both sides of the eqation in order to make the best decisions.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Although land fill would 'lock up the carbon', burning waste can be used to produce energy. (Burning a ton of garbage may reduce the need for coal or oil power generation, which would release its own carbon dioxide.)Thumbo said:
The other problem is that land fills can cause leaching of chemicals into the soil. (Yes, if people sorted trash properly it may not be a big issue, but many people have no problem throwing things like oil-based products in with the rest of the garbage.)