|
I agree with NewForumSoftware. You can buy pretty much everything in a recyclable container now. And the grocery store I go to has recyling drop offs for their grocery bags right in the store so I don't need to worry about those bulky earth-friendly bags or whatever they are called.
Polio Vax Scene fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Dec 19, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Where do you live? I will help you since it seems you're incapable. You said Atlanta (lol there's going to be an absurd amount of food availability there) but please show me the neighborhood where this isn't possible. Atlanta is the one. Meat isn't so much an issue as cereal crops -- grits, flour, etc. Call it a lack of imagination, perhaps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Recycling is available in Atlanta -- I'm seeing what I can get away with. Can I displace landfill with recycling? Recycling with outright reuse? Reuse with just not having a package at all? My frustration coming off as desperation is wrong. It's a fun challenge and something to constantly work my mind on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Atlanta is the one. Flour comes in a recyclable container pretty much everywhere. Where are you buying plastic-wrapped flour?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Flour comes in a recyclable container pretty much everywhere. Where are you buying plastic-wrapped flour? I can straight up buy 100% everything recyclable right now if I wanted. That's not what I'm aiming for. and yes I did earlier say "landfill waste." that was an improper term on my part
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I can straight up buy 100% everything recyclable right now if I wanted. That's not what I'm aiming for. Well like I said earlier, zero-waste is literally impossible so good luck with that. Beyond that, it's a stupid goal. Reduce, reuse, recycle, in that order. It's really not that difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
I feel like I do pretty well bringing my own bags and all that. The biggest thing I'm not sure on is oil. Is recycling the glass from an olive oil bottle good by this whole no garbage thing or do you guys have places you're getting this oil from? All my produce and stuff except I think spinach and mushrooms I can buy bulk. Well I could buy bulk mushrooms but my grocery store sells them for far more per pound than in the cardboard bin with plastic wrap around it. I save the dollars there. I'm a bad environmentalist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Interesting stuff. What about paper/cardboard? Or replacing plastics with paper/cardboard? Always good to recycle paper and cardboard. They are both bad for the climate to be in a landfill and bad for the landfill. Some recyclers can't handle laminated papers/cardboard so it can be weird where the "green" laminated cardboard container is recyclable in California/NYC, but has to be thrown out in the rest of the country with shittier machines. While recycling #1 plastic is pretty much done everywhere. Also many recyclers can't take greasy paper/cardboard like pizza boxes. But some industrial composts are fine with them. Or some places can recycle the laminated paper milk jugs but need you to cut the plastic spigot out yourself. Finding places that can actually recycle styrofoam is the hard one sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Seriously, you think your last 6 meals all had no waste associated with them? Almost all my meals either have food waste (which very rarely goes in the trash aside from egg shells which I should compost but I don't do composting during the winter anymore) or recyclable waste (cans, jars, pasta boxes). I suppose for the purpose of reducing carbon emissions the recyclables are just as bad though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have city service or space at home to do it? I had a worm farm at home, those things are actually really cool and don't take up much space and you get really nice soil out of it, I would definitely recommend people do it. Trabisnikof posted:Or some places can recycle the laminated paper milk jugs but need you to cut the plastic spigot out yourself. Finding places that can actually recycle styrofoam is the hard one sometimes. I am trying to figure out how why you'd have a milk carton with a spigot.  That seems super weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Almost all my meals either have food waste (which very rarely goes in the trash aside from egg shells which I should compost but I don't do composting during the winter anymore) or recyclable waste (cans, jars, pasta boxes). Nah recyclables are categorically better for the environment even if you're correct there is a cost associated with the recycling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Exactly. If recycling didn't give a significant improvement over just landfilling everything, we wouldn't recycle in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I had a worm farm at home, those things are actually really cool and don't take up much space and you get really nice soil out of it, I would definitely recommend people do it. I probably meant another word. I mean cartons like this: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Interesting stuff. What about paper/cardboard? Or replacing plastics with paper/cardboard? If you're recycling the material, plastic is generally better than paper. It takes less energy to make a plastic product than an equivalent paper one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
https://electricitymap.tmrow.co/ Cute little map on live EU emissions (electricity production only - no traffic & industry). not much to see now obv, will see what it's like tomorrow. What the christ Poland. Huh. The Dutch are exporting 2400 GW to Belgium, who in turn sell 1930 to the French. double nine fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Glass is really the most iffy to recycle. Since it is inert in the landfill and uses about the same energy to recycle or make from sand. It falls in some horrible "depends on how far 4 different trucks have to drive" and probably varies from a location to location basis. But from a public education and policy perspective, better to keep recycling glass just to instill the norm and keep the drat bottles off the street. My local authority sent around a leaflet about local waste disposal and it stated that putting glass in the "landfill" (incinerator) trash can is a net cost to them, but that recycling it earns them about the same as the cost would have been to dispose of it. Also there was a diagram that quoted a figure for how much less energy it takes to make glass from old glass than primary materials and it was much cheaper, though I forget the precise multiple. Pro tip: A former housemate worked in a glass factory and he said that you should not clean glass before you put in the recycling, as the less organic matter there is in the glass, the more flux (or whatever) they have to add. One of his colleagues made a mistake one time that resulted in potentially dangerous bottles and it cost the company millions in refunds. He got demoted. Funny/not funny story: I visited the incinerator and recycling center a couple of years back and the woman who did the tour told us that the number in the "recycling triangle" on plastic products represents how many times the plastic has been recycled. I told her that it actually represents the type of plastic, and how would you know how many times the molecules had been recycled anyway, but she insisted and I just let it drop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Has anyone read Fossil Capital by Andreas Malm yet? I'm just on chapter in and it's good. https://www.versobooks.com/books/2002-fossil-capital
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
So "moderate" environmentalists have been reduced to chanting "reuse, reduce, recycle" with people like Trabisniskof emphasizing the recycle aspect so that they don't need to cut down on consumption?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:So "moderate" environmentalists have been reduced to chanting "reuse, reduce, recycle" with people like Trabisniskof emphasizing the recycle aspect so that they don't need to cut down on consumption? Do you have anything constructive to say?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Do you have anything constructive to say? Nah he just likes to take goofy potshots. Like lol that I'm discussing the impacts of recycling in order to ~*~ignore~*~ reduction of consumption. But I'll take this chance to again recommend the works of Amery Lovins on the incredible potential of improved effiency to reduce demand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
My supermarket wraps cucumbers in plastic and puts lovely little stickers on the fruit. Australia. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
I may have posted it before but it feels like, across my lifetime (I'm 32) I was indoctrinated in the Three R's (recycle, reduce, reuse, and close the loop!) but that after the mid-90s as recycling programs really got into gear around the country, the other two R's just fell out of the vernacular. I'm not sure if it's because recycling is like... an affirmative action you take that is externally visible and thereby potentially reinforced via peer acclaim? And one that takes mindfulness? Versus Reducing which is doing less of things? It vaguely makes sense to me but... Holy poo poo, consuming less is a tremendous way to limit your carbon footprint. Buying things that last longer, not HAVING so many things, all the energy taken to extract, manufacture, transport and store Cheap poo poo can be diverted to other uses or not generated at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Reduce and reuse fell to the wayside because consumerism and capitalism cant make money off it. At least recycling can produce profits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:I'm not sure if it's because recycling is like... an affirmative action you take that is externally visible and thereby potentially reinforced via peer acclaim? And one that takes mindfulness? Versus Reducing which is doing less of things? It vaguely makes sense to me but... It's all of those things. It's also a way of not changing ones lifestyle at all and occasionally putting something in a different bin. And it has huge societal buy in as well. Everyone's giving each other environmental high fives while not making any meaningful change because, recycling is enough. Everyone gets to feel good about their lives while not actually doing meaningful change. On this note, I absolutely hate the term, "environmentally friendly". Basically everything that is described as environmental friendly, is still damaging to the environment. People feel "good" while damaging the environment. On the note of using less. I choose not to own a car. But people don't perceive that as an environmental choice I am making which has benefits to society as large that I wish other people would also choose to do. They just think I'm poor. EDIT: You know what's better than using that Earth Choice dish washing soap? USING LESS OF IT. Typically at my work place and home, there is often times more than enough soap in the sponge that I don't have to use any soap at all. Just a teeny tiny example of people being horrible. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
In somewhat positive news, solar is top source of new capacity on the US grid in 2016:quote:The US electric grid continued to transform in 2016. No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity. Combined with wind, a small bit of hydro, and the first nuclear plant added to the grid in decades, sources that generate power without carbon emissions accounted for two-thirds of the new capacity added in 2016. Interesting that renewable usage might continue to expand on economic merits alone under Republicans. One of the comments pointed out that nearly 100% of the retired capacity was fossil-fuel, mainly coal. On the other hand if I'm reading this correctly 26GW of capacity was added and only ~3.25GW removed, which means Americans still haven't gotten their heads around the whole "reducing consumption" thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:In somewhat positive news, solar is top source of new capacity on the US grid in 2016: I'd say you left out the key part: quote:
You can't just replace fossil fuel sources with Solar/Wind. Even ignoring the need to cover down time for those sources a lot of fossil fuel plants will stick around just to provide a way of varying the total output in an area. 26GW gained with 3GW removed doesn't mean we're chewing through more power (although it might), it means natural gas, coal, and oil plants can be cycled down to lower output levels periodically. The full capacity is still there as far as the "grid" is concerned, we just don't use it as much. Edit: A neat documentary cutout that explains how this works in Britain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAvewWfrA nessin fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Hey here's a thought: how come we can't get all this CO2 gunk out of the air?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
nessin posted:You can't just replace fossil fuel sources with Solar/Wind. Even ignoring the need to cover down time for those sources a lot of fossil fuel plants will stick around just to provide a way of varying the total output in an area. 26GW gained with 3GW removed doesn't mean we're chewing through more power (although it might), it means natural gas, coal, and oil plants can be cycled down to lower output levels periodically. The full capacity is still there as far as the "grid" is concerned, we just don't use it as much. Or: We do what France does and run nuclear + solar and wind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
nessin posted:You can't just replace fossil fuel sources with Solar/Wind. Even ignoring the need to cover down time for those sources a lot of fossil fuel plants will stick around just to provide a way of varying the total output in an area. 26GW gained with 3GW removed doesn't mean we're chewing through more power (although it might), it means natural gas, coal, and oil plants can be cycled down to lower output levels periodically. The full capacity is still there as far as the "grid" is concerned, we just don't use it as much. One of the article comments actually tried to account for capacity factors: quote:#1, natural gas, 4.47 real GW (0.559 * 8) So wind + solar still slightly edges out natural gas. Also apparently this is about the only new nuclear plant we can expect to see in the immediate future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I'd once again blame money and greed and laziness for the loss of emphasis on reduce and reuse. Being somewhat familiar with the outdoor apparel industry, there is a LOT of feel good stuff about the materials being used. They're "more sustainable", package entirely in recyclables, purchasing gives money to charities, etc. People eat up how "good" these brands are while they drive the newest Jeep and eat their giant steak. But do you (general you) actually need that new $60 technical hoodie that gives a dollar to local conservation efforts or can you accept that you can use what you have already or buy used and donate more money directly to a charity you've researched? I won't claim to not fall to it. I'm wearing a pricey USA made flannel right now that I bought new. It's built to last, so that's good. Upon reflection, a thrift or consignment store flannel and a hefty donation would be the more environmentally friendly choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:One of the article comments actually tried to account for capacity factors: This the first growth of Nuclear in years, not the last we'll see for years. quote:nuclear also joins the list for the first time in years There are at least three more being built according to the NEI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:In somewhat positive news, solar is top source of new capacity on the US grid in 2016: Consumption doesn't equal installed capacity. Consumption is on track as lowest since 2013. Though in the EIA document its scary how many nat gas plants have approval and just waiting for the right scenario to pull the trigger on construction and start of operation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
All the cool kids limit the amount of beef they eat. Shits expensive and bad for you anyway. Makes the very occasional steak that much more delicious too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hey here's a thought: how come we can't get all this CO2 gunk out of the air? I don't actually know if this is true, I'm just spitballing likely scenarios since otherwise we'd probably be doing it. Same reason we can't just engineer a bacteria to de-acidify the ocean, with the added bonus that random mutations could turn the germs into a japanese horror anime monster. Mustached Demon posted:All the cool kids limit the amount of beef they eat. Shits expensive and bad for you anyway. Veyrall fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Hey here's a thought: how come we can't get all this CO2 gunk out of the air? Because its stupidly expensive and as long as we are emitting co2, it will always be more cost effective to emit less than try to take it out of the atmosphere. Taking c02 out of the atmosphere is so unviable its not even discussed as an option. For all intents and purposes, once emitted it will persist for thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:Same reason we can't just engineer a bacteria to de-acidify the ocean, with the added bonus that random mutations could turn the germs into a japanese horror anime monster. As long as we get bitchin mecha out of it then I am okay with the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Because its stupidly expensive and as long as we are emitting co2, it will always be more cost effective to emit less than try to take it out of the atmosphere. Taking c02 out of the atmosphere is so unviable its not even discussed as an option. For all intents and purposes, once emitted it will persist for thousands of years. http://environmentalfuture.org/deacidification-of-our-oceans/ Also, someone please actually explain to me how it won't work, because I'm a dumbo who's actually feeling a little hopeful? maybe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
Star Man posted:As long as we get bitchin mecha out of it then I am okay with the consequences. Yeah y'all act like this isn't a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:In that vein, let's all point at this article and laugh. On a technical level, I am not a chemist, but I think its safe to assume that technically it would work. From the scant details provided (and I do mean scant) they are able to produce hydrogen but the whole process on a fundamental level requires an energy input. This is just conservation of energy, you cannot create a fuel like hydrogen without an energy input. And the process is probably horribly energy efficient, energy in being >>> than energy in hydrogen produced. All energy transformations are horribly energy inefficient, no reason to assume this would be different. Okay, so we can use Renewable Energy, to *inefficiently* and probably very expensively with this infrastructure , to sequester some carbon. Or we can just not build that infrastructure and use that same renewable energy to displace burning of coal, releasing much less carbon that could be sequestered with the previous method. Also you don't have to build that expensive infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Well, whatever method is ultimately chosen (and you know the capitalist-industrialists are going to see to it that a method of carbon sequestration is chosen and implemented as a part of industrial production, just so they can claim current industry and consumer capitalism can and should continue), I find it very likely that the most significant technology for that process will be automation. I'm not a believer in scifi technical dreams, but automation is a very powerful tool when applied correctly. A completely automated carbon sequestration process on a massive is the only form of process I'm willing to believe will be effective in actually sequestering carbon in any significant amount. I am also dead certain that it won't be enough without also stopping emissions elsewhere, which large-scale automation probably isn't such a great thing for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 10:31
|
|
