Help Me Prove The Myth of 'Green".
 

My Brother and I have been having some interesting discussions concerning the whole 'green' thing. He used to be big into recycling until he took a few minutes and did some research and quickly discovered that his towns (and others) recycling efforts are actually a bad idea for a few reasons - not cost effective, actually creates a larger carbon footprint and is really not better for the environment. I guess the only thing that makes sense to recycle is metal (mostly aluminum).

So, does anyone have more soild logic examples to support/debunk the green myth claim?

I can think of several...

Recycled paper has to be treated more chemically than new paper, which is not good for the environment, and a shiat load of water is used in the process.

Plastic bottles are bad to recycle because they are not meant to be reused. This leads to bacteria growth that cannot be removed and leaching of the plastic into whatever the new bottle contains.

MIke - you may findsome in Env'l Science text books...

Nucor must be run by "Green" idiots; their products are 87% recycled steel. They are recycling 20 million tons of steel a year. Why aren't they bankrupt?

read

Nucor steel has very little aluminum content.

It is worth while recycling the following "non-metallic" materials due to either the replacement cost or the cost of disposal:

helium
sulfur hexafluoride
fluorinated and brominated hydrocarbons
acetone, ketones, alcohols and other similar organic solvents
carbides (cutting tools)

remember, recycling has other benefits - it keep stuff out of the landfills

I expect that we will someday mine our landfills to reclaim the most valuable components...

One study providing a cost vs benefit comparison of recycling, landfill disposal and incineration:

http://envirovaluation.org/index.php/2005/08/15/comparative_lcas_for_curbside_recycling_

Both are examples of only considering single factors - re paper, it reduces the need to clearcut our forests. Most of that water is recovered, BTW

re plastic bottle - I have never heard of them going back into food containers. Instead they are generally recycled into garments (Patagonia does this for their fleece jackets), door mats, and industrial materials.

Bottle plastic must be certified food safe like other food plastics used.

If you know of instances where bottles are recycled back into other (food or beverage) bottles, I'd like to hear about it.

I've often thought the same thing. Eventually it will become cost effective to "mine" landfills for certain things.

Penn & Teller put a stake through the heart of recycling

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/onDbTL9DFpA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/onDbTL9DFpA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0mq9skLurY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0mq9skLurY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DfwE5y_GOIQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DfwE5y_GOIQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Steel is not a metal? Good to know:rolleyes:

Can we re-brain these left wing fools?

I had a work-up once that showed the total life cycle cost of of an incandescent light bulb vs a flourescent. Very surprising to some that the incandescent was actually more enviromentally and energy friendly.

There are plenty of green "myths" out there.

For example, the begining of flourescent bulbs should have been in congunction with a federally-mandated deposit system.
I'd expect 99% of every used florescent tube ever produced and sold throughout history has been broken up and put into dumpsters: leaching mercury and other (recoverable) heavy metals into the ground water system. Eventually the mercury levels build up locally, people drink the local water, babies have birth defects, and no one knows why. Percentage-wise, why is there so must autism, cancer, and other mental/physical problems these days?

The managment of toxic materials has to come from the top, and through financial incentives. Can you trust "the top"? That would be another discussion.

The "myth" I see these days is scientific ignorance. Pure ignorance.
Humans are part of their environment with every breath, and drink, and bite they take.

The other day, the dog chased a squirrel, then took a long piss on a plant in the back yard. Plants feed primarily from the soil, so (by my "scientific" observation) the radical chemical imbalance affected the one in the foreground. They were the same size at the time of pissing:

(photo of two plants-one is dead)
[You attempted to upload a file totaling 1694717 bytes. We tried to compress it down, but it still exceeds the maximum limit of 100000 bytes (100k). Please go back and select a smaller image.]

I don't think anyone opposes environmental sensitivities, but there is a big difference between Greenpeace, Sierra Club, et al and leading a reasonable approach to ecological sustainability.

The adage that we must sleep in the bed we make applies big time to the environment, but environmental grandstanding for the sake of fame with no options for alternatives does not cut it.

Responsible management of the environment is all of our responsibilities. Change is inherent in our climate, but certainly can be accelerated through the unmitigated use of "greenhouse gasses". Responsible use of resources such as water, carbon based fuels, renewable resources (forests, vegetation) really hits home with our current rates of consumption. We need to keep this use sustainable.

If we can achieve this through conservation, recycling, reuse or what have you, we're ahead. If we wait until a crunch, we may have a lot of work ahead of us to get back what we now have.

My $0.02 worth.

Tim

The solution to pollution is dilution.
So a chemical plant only has to add "x" amount of water to it's discharge tubes and it's ok?

[You attempted to upload a file totaling 1694717 bytes. We tried to compress it down, but it still exceeds the maximum limit of 100000 bytes (100k). Please go back and select a smaller image.]
Uploads still take about 3-4 minutes to get past the NSA censors. Yup.

I heard you donated.

Hey, I'm "green". Decades ago, the damned garbage truck kept flattening my driveway reflector posts. I cancelled their service, have taken my own trash to the local transfer station myself. I recycle used oil, place newspapers, plastics, and metals in the proper dumpsters, etc. Then I toss the non recylables. It's roughly a 25 mile round trip to do so...all hauled in this!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1220060549.jpg

No smog equipment, full time 4 wheel drive, running a 360 bored .20 over, double roller timing chain, hypereutectic pistons, windage tray, a AFB carter atop an edelbrock performer manifold...heads with improved flow, comp cams RV cam, etc. Oh, burns premium fuel. Mileage? Who cares? I'm GREEN...I recycle. :cool:

I've read somewhere that the mining and processing of the nickel for the nickel-metal hydride batteries in my Camry Hybrid and in Priuses leaves a huge carbon footprint. The nickel is mined in Canada shipped to Mexico where it is made into the batteries (environmental laws are a little more relaxed in Mexico you know), then shipped back to the US where they're assembled in Tennessee or Kentucky.

I did, I gave $.50. That should buy about 4 fresh democrat brains at $100 per pound.

:( Now some, poor 23 yr old barmaid is not going to get a tip.

My wife and I recycle to keep crap out of landfills. There are many large cities starting to 'filter' trash in order to weed out recycleable materials, however, it's quite labor intensive and the ROI is quite slim. We recycle so much that our WM can makes it the street about once every five weeks- and that's only to make sure that it doesn't start to stink. The rest we take to our recycling facility about five miles away, and only when one of the cars requires fuel. Like ethanol, our current recycling is not the answer but it is a start towards a better use cycle for our resources.

I think that we all need to stop moving, breathing, and stay in one place. That'll work.

actually - not a big need for smog equip. in this end of the valley, Paul (yet)

helping to reduce Oregon's population density is also Green...

good luck with the kitchen remodel BTW

Randy...at least I did that...never wanted to pass my bad genetics on...wouldn't wish my bad eyesight on anybody.

Hey, I got yer number...If Eugene ends up being one of the places I wander to, I'll give you a ring. Any good pool halls down there with 9' brunswick or Diamond tables? ;)

On my recycling efforts? It would be pretty difficult to calculate, but I'd surmise I do more to produce bad stuff than I help by recycling because I haul in the Power Wagon. When I'm at the transfer station, I get lots of "nice truck" comments tho.
Guys in this town like my truck better than they liked my old P-car.

Nah, been to Sudbury CA many times - biggest Ni met processing and mine in all of Canada. They are very very green there. Actually, the Au, Ag and Pl that they get as by-product fund the op, the Ni is pure profit for them.

Of course Mexico is as dirty as a Mormon girls thoughts...

Not as big as a problem as you would think. Many landfills are now looking to capture methane and power the equipment.

Did you watch all 3 of the Penn and Teller videos on page 1 of this thread? If not, please do so with your wife. I'm serious, watch them.

Why Recycle?

I continue to be baffled by those that extoll the merits of recycling and then proceed to charge me MORE forhte priviledge. To my engineer brain, if I am truly saving something, the result should show up as REDUCED costs to me.

An example is that leaflet that is in every PGE power biull I get where they want me to tell them how much of my power I want to come from Alternative sources. They want to charge me "only" a few pennies per kw more for this selection. If this is truly better for the environemnt, why should it cost more?

Ethanol is another scam. Same thing. It is supposed to be good for hte environment. So where are MY savings? What I see is reduced mileage in my car and the same cost as non-E10 fuels.

If you want me to recyle, it is easy, help my pocketbook at the same time.

BTW-This issue was not well discussed when I got my MS in Environmental Management. But I will say that some of my classmates had some very odd ideas.

The difference is in externalized vs. internalized costs.

Randy,

Yes, this has always been the bane of these movements. Why is that to be Green you pay it "all", while the "non-green" folks get a partially free ride?

Seems you would want to reward the Green folks (good for the commons) while penalizing the "non-greens" (bad for the commons). Yet the system as it exists seems to do the opposite and as a result we are continually hounded by "hi minded ideas" when a price signal would do the same thing in a much more forceful manner.

I've always perceived Penn and Teller to be leaning a bit, so I discount what they say accordingly. In my narrow-minded worldview, the aluminum, glass and plastic that I put into the recycling dumpsters will at least be put somewhere other than a large burial plot. So, I really don't care if it's being used to burn ozone or kill the last Polar Bear so long as it's not being used to take up otherwise useable land. For the same reason, I'm also set against cemetaries.

Harry, I think it is the general failure of pricing mechanisms that is at issue. Sometimes these are just hard to incorporate. Other times, they are caused by people who don't really want to be subject to capitalism -- i.e. the old history of the RRs seeking Congressional favors, etc. I mean really - if you could externalize a cost on somebody else, you'd be crazy not to. The invisible hand sometimes becomes a hand job.

Randy,

On this we agree.

I think that many who wish society to move in a "Green" direction should pay more attention to the pricing mechanisms (I know, I know, capitalism is evil....). By providing decent price signals, people would then, in turn, do the right thing. After all, is this not how companies in general manipulate us to buy their stuff?

FWIW-I do recycle what I can via my four bins (glass, recyclable materials, trash, and yard debris) here in Portland plus my bin for deposit bottles. The city is attempting to provide some realistic pricing signals by charging me a fixed fee for a weekly single trash can, one yard debis can (every other week), and as many other weekly recycling bins as I can fill. As noted in the videos above, it feels ok to do this but then again I do not agonize over what should go into a recycling bin versus my trash can until my trash can is overflowing nor would I accept the multiple sorting cans that was presented.

"capitalism is evil"

Am I going to hell for holding stocks?

How about Bonds?

But back to Mike's question. I'm not sure what the motivation is.

Is it to reveal Greenwash?

To point out that what is really "Green" often requires a fair amount of analysis?

or to claim that there are no "green" improvements that have been made?
-- or that such are impossible?

Randy,

As usual, the answer is murky.

No you are not going to hell by having stocks.

Bonds are ok too.

I know that when I moved to Houston Texas in 1980, I could barely see the skyline from Clear Lake City (about 20-30 miles away. When I left, it was typically visible. To me, that is a triump of air pollution control to reduce the haze.

I think green is possible but I would like to see better price signals to hte "unwashed" to help them do the right thing. But as you note, the well paid lobbists are not funded by greens but by corporation that have a great financial stake in the status quo.

Like we discussed, we need to find a way to have the "external" costs of pollution internalized to those who create the problem. Everytime we do so (think CAFE standards, tailpipe emmision limits, BACT requirements etc), society reaps a tangible benefit.