That is a truly silly argument, mm.
Since, by your logic, it's easy to kill a live chicken and turn it into a piece of fried chicken on your dinner plate, it should be easy to take that piece of fried chicken and turn it back into a live chicken, right?
There are lots of processes that run one way. Unless you figure out some new and novel way to sequester a few million tons of CO2, global warming is a one way process.
username wrote:That is a truly silly argument, mm.
Since, by your logic, it's easy to kill a live chicken and turn it into a piece of fried chicken on your dinner plate, it should be easy to take that piece of fried chicken and turn it back into a live chicken, right?
There are lots of processes that run one way. Unless you figure out some new and novel way to sequester a few million tons of CO2, global warming is a one way process.
Actually.global warming is NOT a one way process.
There have been many times in the earth's history when the earth has cooled.
Volcanic activity throws soot and ash into the air,effectively blocking the suns light and heat.
When that happens,the earth cools.
Granted,it doesnt cool a huge amount,but it does cool.
So,why cant man come up with an artificial way to do the same thing and bring the earth's temp down?
Fine. I'm all for that. Why can't man indeed? Any workable ideas?
Take all of the cars, houses, and planes away from Al Gore. That is my suggestion for at least slowing down the warming.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How much is spent on shipping trash, when our neighborhoods could have these machines in them? How much is spent on landfills, how many chemicals and waste products seep into our groundwater from them? My guess would be that the cost of implementing new technologies can be reclaimed in other areas.
Cycloptichorn
Before we move on and abandon the subject of recycling, cyclops, I would like to get a straight answer from you to really verify what you have been arguing here, by asking you a question. Do you believe that recycling is always the most efficient and less wasteful with respect to each and every commodity or product? Your answer should consider both short term and long term, and you can only consider the technology currently feasible, as research or future processes are largely irrelevant to what we do now. Yes or No?
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
How much is spent on shipping trash, when our neighborhoods could have these machines in them? How much is spent on landfills, how many chemicals and waste products seep into our groundwater from them? My guess would be that the cost of implementing new technologies can be reclaimed in other areas.
Cycloptichorn
Before we move on and abandon the subject of recycling, cyclops, I would like to get a straight answer from you to really verify what you have been arguing here, by asking you a question. Do you believe that recycling is always the most efficient and less wasteful with respect to each and every commodity or product? Your answer should consider both short term and long term, and you can only consider the technology currently feasible, as research or future processes are largely irrelevant to what we do now. Yes or No?
I'd like to answer, but first I need you to clarify your definition of 'most efficient'. Most cost efficeint? Most resource efficient? Most energy efficient? Most man-power efficient? Most time-efficient?
"Most efficient" includes resources, energy, man power, and time efficient, etc., all of the above. Cost is included as well, because it reflects all of the above, but you can ignore cost for now if you wish. And recognize that energy also includes resources, man power, and time. Similarly, man power also includes resources, energy, and time, and likewise, time also includes all of the above. They are all interconnected and cannot be separated in the grand scheme of things. So, bottom line, the question is what is most efficient in all respects, put in slightly different terms, benefit vs effort and resources expended.
old europe wrote:High Seas wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:The favourite resource of many here, the highly paid consultant for the energy industry, MIT-professor of atmospheric science, Richard Lindzen is [
"[......................]
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Nonsense - at best.
Checking a source more reliable than the foregoing:
Quote:Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
So? You realize that he
can be a highly paid consultant for the energy industry, while never receiving any
research funding from energy companies?
Old Europe - are you at liberty to disclose the jurisdiction which awarded your LL.D.?
Not a single one in "Old Europe" will fail to construe the deliberate insertion of words in a text which is subsequently presented as a verbatim quote from the original as fraud.
I'm not old europe, high seas, but your point escapes me. What is it you're accusing o.e. of inserting? In fact, he is right, while Lindzen's research may only be funded by the gov't., he has also gotten a lot of money and a lot of support from fossil fuel trade and lobbying organizations. He also receives support for his anti global warming efforts from right wing think tanks who in turn have been well-funded by anti-global-warming fossil fuel trade organizations.
The Newsweek disclaimer, I would suspect at Lindzen's insistence, is so very carefully worded as to be almost weasel-worded.
Besides that, my quote spoke of "highly paid consultant".
Which is negated bythe Newsweek quote at all.
Walter, should there be a "not" in your last post's second sentence?
okie wrote:"Most efficient" includes resources, energy, man power, and time efficient, etc., all of the above. Cost is included as well, because it reflects all of the above, but you can ignore cost for now if you wish. And recognize that energy also includes resources, man power, and time. Similarly, man power also includes resources, energy, and time, and likewise, time also includes all of the above. They are all interconnected and cannot be separated in the grand scheme of things. So, bottom line, the question is what is most efficient in all respects, put in slightly different terms, benefit vs effort and resources expended.
Well, I wish I could provide you with an easy answer as you requested, but with all of these variables you mentioned need to be taken into account I doubt a simple answer exists.
Even your initial question where you said "consider both short term and long term" raises new variables. How long term do you want to go, 1 generation, 50, 100?
So I guess the only answer I can provide across such a general question is that ...... The benefits of recycling outweigh the effort depending on the resources expended. I understand that this really isn't the clear-cut answer you hope to pin someone down on. But there are as you said, too many factors that are all interconnected and intertwined to be so brief.
maporsche wrote: [
So I guess the only answer I can provide across such a general question is that ...... The benefits of recycling outweigh the effort depending on the resources expended. I understand that this really isn't the clear-cut answer you hope to pin someone down on. But there are as you said, too many factors that are all interconnected and intertwined to be so brief.
Again, the key to the question is "always." Is recycling always more efficient? Simple question and should be easy to answer. Yes or No? The answer you give actually has many ramifications beyond this particular subject.
okie wrote:maporsche wrote: [
So I guess the only answer I can provide across such a general question is that ...... The benefits of recycling outweigh the effort depending on the resources expended. I understand that this really isn't the clear-cut answer you hope to pin someone down on. But there are as you said, too many factors that are all interconnected and intertwined to be so brief.
Again, the key to the question is "always." Is recycling always more efficient? Simple question and should be easy to answer. Yes or No? The answer you give actually has many ramifications beyond this particular subject.
To answer this specific question "Is recycling always more efficient?", the only possible answer is "No". So to that specific question, you have my answer.
Nothing is "always" anything. That particular question is nonsensical.
maporsche, thanks for the answer. It was tough to draw it out of you. I strongly disagree that it is a nonsensical question because there are people everywhere, in government and otherwise, and including right here on this forum, that "feel" that the answer is yes.
I am anxious to know what cyclops answer will be.
okie wrote:maporsche, thanks for the answer. It was tough to draw it out of you. I strongly disagree that it is a nonsensical question because there are people everywhere, in government and otherwise, and including right here on this forum, that "feel" that the answer is yes.
I am anxious to know what cyclops answer will be.
I would say that the answer is "yes" the vast majority of the time though Okie (probably at least 90%).
MaPorsche is right that it's a nonsensical position. There are no absolutes in life.
Quote:
Again, the key to the question is "always." Is recycling always more efficient? Simple question and should be easy to answer. Yes or No? The answer you give actually has many ramifications beyond this particular subject.
Depends on whether you are talking about an enviromental or economic standpoint.
Is it more efficiently economically to throw stuff away and just dig new stuff out of the ground and forget about the trash, as if it doesn't exist? Usually.
Is it more efficient environmentally to throw stuff away and just dig new stuff out of the ground and forget about the trash, as if it doesn't exist? Practically never.
You have
zero ability to argue this issue without Appealing to Extremes. In the vast majority of cases, it is more efficient to reuse previously used materials then it is to dig new ones out of the ground.
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops, include the environmental impacts that might be involved. Recycling also has environmental impacts associated with it, such as energy use, transportation, etc., that varies with whatever you are recylcing. You have to think in terms of more than one dimension. If you were charged with making public policy, you have to consider all factors, in order to make a recommendation. Again, is it always more efficient to recycle? This is a question that applies to reality, and a question that deserves an honest answer. It is not nonsensical. It is a question that has to be answered daily by people that make these kinds of choices and policy. It is totally pertinent and deserves an answer. Yes or No?
Quote:Recycling also has environmental impacts associated with it, such as energy use, transportation, etc., that varies with whatever you are recylcing. You have to think in terms of more than one dimension
Mining and harvesting new materials also has environmental impacts, such as energy use, transportation etc. I've seen little compelling evidence that the environmental impact of recycling is generally higher then of collecting new materials; you certainly haven't provided any.
You are arguing off of shoddy logic. It isn't 'always' anything, ever.
Cycloptichorn
