I did not say that, stop using the hundreds of products that are made possible by the oil industry and maybe you could be part of the solution
Last edited:
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I did not say that, stop using the hundreds of products that are made possible by the oil industry and maybe you could be part of the solution
Not at all. I was arguing against deniers but then a greenie started arguing about plants not using CO2 which then sort of fell straight into their hands.
I would however suggest that cutting down forests to grow bio-fuel is sort of counter productive seeing as those forests would have helped (how much I don't know) remove some of that CO2.
CO2 doesn't give us more plants. But more plants use more CO2. They don't work in a circle like that. Plants grow faster. Maybe they produce more seeds? I can't say but I would go on a theory of one tree produces the same amount of seeds and thus more CO2 doesn't give us more plants.
Not understanding this. We have one recycle wheelie bin and one refuse bin. Anything recyclable (or think it might be recyclable) goes in the recycle bin. The recycle plants are very clever and their machines separate the glass from the tin from plastics from the cards. Simple Nos for the recycle bin is no carrier bags or film. Everything else goes in. There should not be any need for 7 bins or multiple bins. Just the one.
Even with that system in Lincoln of one bin I know a few people that still proudly announce "f*** that. It all goes in the the black bin." There really are people out there who could not give a flying .... and will never separate, even though the council states that it will refuse to empty people's bins if they aren't following the rules. The council is not going to open up each black bag in the refuse bin to check if it has recyclables in it.
But in answer to the number of bins and what different councils will recycle, that question will in the very near future become irrelevant, because the machinery that is now being used in some places is capable of making that decision so the public can just chuck everything they think is recyclable into the one recycle bin.
Last edited:
The short-term answer is to start charging people by the weight of their general waste bins on collection. Easy enough to fit a scale to the lift on the truck.
EDIT: Before I answer what you meant here. I do recycle carrier bags. I use them again and again and again. When they are broke though moves into what you meant:
Carrier bags and film because I remember reading it on a sticker once when they slapped stickers on each bin. I would suggest that also they don't want people bagging up the recyclables, so want it all loose. I have also known a mate post up on facebook a picture of this bin content moaning that he got home with a notice attached to his bin. He thought everything was fine but got a long list of people that commented "you have left the lids on the bottles."
That is right, they refused to empty his recycle bin into the bin lorry because bottles had lids on!!
This is from the council site. first time I've looked on the site. I just go by the sticker that used to be on and if its plastic, paper, tin or glass it goes in the bin. It isn't hard to follow that rule. Clothes or textiles go in the charity bins at the Fire station.
Carrier bags/thin Plastic
Carrier bags and thin soft plastic that looks similar such as bread bags and food wrapping, (not cling film) is poor quality plastic which is hard to recycle. It is almost worthless to recycling processors however in large quantities (for example when collected separately at Lincoln tip/recycling centre) it can be worthwhile.
Bottle tops (Plastic and metal)
These can be recycled but we ask for them to be removed from their container before binning as they are often a different type of material - and removal will have to be done by hand at the sorting facility.
Last edited:
Film and bags can be recycled. So many councils say not to though which is a shame.
The idea that the world is being deforested just isn't true. The forested areas of the world are increasing. https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ion-farming-rainforests-forests-a8486096.html
All this goes to show that it's never quite as simple as it's made out.
Vin
And the fact that a lot of the new growth is in areas previously too cold to sustain life is hardly good news either.
I agree. But that doesn't alter the fact that the world isn't being deforested.
Vin
My point was the rain forests are being destroyed, and they are, at an ever-increasing rate. In a lot of places the cleared land is used to farm cattle, which creates methane, an even worse greenhouse gas than CO2, in that plants don’t absorb it.
Talking of methane, the more the permafrost warms up, the more trapped methane is released into the atmosphere, which accelerates the warming. This is why we are reaching the point of no return if something isn’t done soon to halt emissions.
Those trees are in Tundra's, basically the north Russian wastelands and North Canada. You're comparing a light cover of trees with dense jungle over land that's been made fertile through millennia with a cycle of grown and decomposition vs a spattering of trees over a larger area.
Basically:
You must log in or register to see images
vs
You must log in or register to see images
It will take a looong time for the soil in the north to become as rich as in the South American jungles and be able to support the same level of foliage.
The worst part is that as the deforested jungle is being replaced with farmland, the fertility of the soil is being used up and without trees to hold the soil, washed away.
so the Amazon won't easily regrow either.
Last edited:
Sorry, who said it was simple?
It’s very complicated but stated simply if we don’t reduce the human impact on the planet then your children will possibly die
Who fancies a gamble?
I'm not disagreeing with you at all about the impact of climate change. I never have and I never will.
It's an odd world. You point out that, factually, something isn't the way it's popularly portrayed and you run the risk of being jumped on as a heretic who has your facts wrong.
And the reason it's important is that if you don't know the true facts about the world then it's easy either to sink into despair and decide that nothing can be done or demand action in the wrong areas. Facts matter.
I've been watching as someone who I know knows a tad about the impact of plastics on CO2 outputs and about recycling plastics has been told he's wrong. I'm now being told that, despite a major scientific journal (Nature) printing a peer-reviewed article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9) whose headline conclusion is that forest cover has increased by 7% in 34 years that that's wrong as well.
Not everything is exclusively good or bad. Understand that we can both be increasing the output of CO2 in a reckless manner that threatens the future of the planet and increasing forest cover. One doesn't preclude the other, and stating that one is true does not means you're denying that the other one is true.
Vin
It's an odd world. You point out that, factually, something isn't the way it's popularly portrayed and you run the risk of being jumped on as a heretic who has your facts wrong.
And the reason it's important is that if you don't know the true facts about the world then it's easy either to sink into despair and decide that nothing can be done or demand action in the wrong areas. Facts matter.
I've been watching as someone who I know knows a tad about the impact of plastics on CO2 outputs and about recycling plastics has been told he's wrong. I'm now being told that, despite a major scientific journal (Nature) printing a peer-reviewed article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9) whose headline conclusion is that forest cover has increased by 7% in 34 years that that's wrong as well.
Not everything is exclusively good or bad. Understand that we can both be increasing the output of CO2 in a reckless manner that threatens the future of the planet and increasing forest cover. One doesn't preclude the other, and stating that one is true does not means you're denying that the other one is true.
Vin
I'm not saying your fact is wrong I'm saying its misleading and was clarifying.
The final line from from that study;
That "greening," however, masks the ecological impacts of replacing diverse natural landscapes with monoculture crops. So while Earth may presently have more trees than 35 years ago, the study confirms that some of its most productive and biodiverse biomes—especially tropical forests and savannas—are significantly more damaged and degraded, reducing their resilience and capacity to afford ecosystem services.
so they felt the need to point it out as well.
Remember that the carbon is stored in the plants themselves and there's significantly less mass of plantlife in the same amount of space in a boreal, or even temperate forest like the New Forest, than a tropical rainforest.
Having read that study now one thing i will say is while it confirms what i said about tree gain in Russia and North America, apparently China are doing really good job of planting trees.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was writing for FLT to take a gander at. There are 7 different categories of plastic waste. Ideally each should go in separate bins as putting them in together devalues or renders them uneconomincal or useless. Which means the system of recycling we have at present is inadequate, especially as we have a significant proprotion of the public who say 'f*** that' to any form of recycling. This is a societal problem. We ask the most uneducated and/or poorest to be responsible citizens whilst we've been screwing them down for eveything else all their lives. No wonder they can't be bothered to be responsible. If you were ignorant you possibly wouldn't and maybe me neither.
This problem cannot be ignored and has to be solved. Sweeping it under the carpet and hoping nobody will notice will simply not do. The environment has been the most important subject for the last 30+ years only very few people realised it. We've run out of time. It's time to realise it. I can't make it any plainer. There are no more excuses.
