This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I recently fished a chrome bin out of a skip. There was nothing wrong with it: no dents, no scratches and in perfect working order. I think it would typically retail for at least £25. I now have a nice new shiny bin for my kitchen.
It made me think about the ethics of throwing good things like this away. As a society it's now normal to recycle at least some things like glass and paper. Yet there seems to be little emphasis on the larger more valuable stuff. You can take stuff to a charity shop, give it away on freecycle, or even sell it on Ebay but all of that takes effort and it seems many people, particularly in wealthy neighbourhoods judging by what I see in skips, don't bother.
Given awareness of the current environmental crises, is throwing things away now an ethical question and if not should it be? Is it wrong for people to throw out valuable items, to send them to landfill sites rather than attempting to reuse, recycle or rehome them?
And as a society should we place more emphasis on reusing larger or more expensive items. Or would too much reuse be bad for the economy?
It made me think about the ethics of throwing good things like this away. As a society it's now normal to recycle at least some things like glass and paper. Yet there seems to be little emphasis on the larger more valuable stuff. You can take stuff to a charity shop, give it away on freecycle, or even sell it on Ebay but all of that takes effort and it seems many people, particularly in wealthy neighbourhoods judging by what I see in skips, don't bother.
Given awareness of the current environmental crises, is throwing things away now an ethical question and if not should it be? Is it wrong for people to throw out valuable items, to send them to landfill sites rather than attempting to reuse, recycle or rehome them?
And as a society should we place more emphasis on reusing larger or more expensive items. Or would too much reuse be bad for the economy?
3
In reply to stp:
I would completely agree. I personally feel bad for the waste i create and try to minimise it.
I think it's apathy, and a complete lack of effort by some in regards to reusing and recycling. I live with people who despite having a recycling bin right outside, choose to chuck everything to landfill. It's an attitude i simply don't understand.
In terms of bad for the economy, remember the incentive to buy a new car scheme, despite it being in good working order? Let's destroy cars that took a lot if energy to build, used a lot of resources we'll never recover all in the name of the economy.
I would completely agree. I personally feel bad for the waste i create and try to minimise it.
I think it's apathy, and a complete lack of effort by some in regards to reusing and recycling. I live with people who despite having a recycling bin right outside, choose to chuck everything to landfill. It's an attitude i simply don't understand.
In terms of bad for the economy, remember the incentive to buy a new car scheme, despite it being in good working order? Let's destroy cars that took a lot if energy to build, used a lot of resources we'll never recover all in the name of the economy.
7
In reply to stp:
It is, but it doesn't need to be. It is more of a political problem than an ethical one. There is plenty of room on the earth for landfill. Burying rubbish isn't a problem if you can persuade (pay) someone to take your rubbish and bury it for you. What is a problem is litter. The stuff on our streets is unpleasant to look at, but it is when it gets washed into our rivers and seas that the real damage starts happening.
I read a blog recently about a woman who could put 2 years of her rubbish into a jar. I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
http://www.boredpanda.com/trash-picking-cleaning-project-littering-environm...
> Given awareness of the current environmental crises, is throwing things away now an ethical question and if not should it be?
It is, but it doesn't need to be. It is more of a political problem than an ethical one. There is plenty of room on the earth for landfill. Burying rubbish isn't a problem if you can persuade (pay) someone to take your rubbish and bury it for you. What is a problem is litter. The stuff on our streets is unpleasant to look at, but it is when it gets washed into our rivers and seas that the real damage starts happening.
I read a blog recently about a woman who could put 2 years of her rubbish into a jar. I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
http://www.boredpanda.com/trash-picking-cleaning-project-littering-environm...
Post edited at 09:23
2
2
In reply to ByEek:
Are you serious? Litter is a small unsightly part of the waste problem. Digging holes in the ground to throw away stuff is only part of the problem as well. The main problem is using resources at an unsustainable rate and exploiting the poorest people in the world to do that.
Are you serious? Litter is a small unsightly part of the waste problem. Digging holes in the ground to throw away stuff is only part of the problem as well. The main problem is using resources at an unsustainable rate and exploiting the poorest people in the world to do that.
10
1
In reply to stp:
I live in London. Last time I moved I also had a clear out; old DVD player, clothes I dont wear... Anyway, I left them outside my old flat door with a note saying "Free to take"
I went inside and continued packing and went back out about 30mins later and it was all gone! I like to think somebody got use out of it...
I live in London. Last time I moved I also had a clear out; old DVD player, clothes I dont wear... Anyway, I left them outside my old flat door with a note saying "Free to take"
I went inside and continued packing and went back out about 30mins later and it was all gone! I like to think somebody got use out of it...
In reply to Moorside Mo:
True. So we all become eco warriers and recycle everything. And all the factories that employ those poor folks close down - then what?
The whole thing is interconnected and yes - consumption is part of a problem. But landfill is way down the list. There is loads of room in this world for landfill without causing environmental damage.
> The main problem is using resources at an unsustainable rate and exploiting the poorest people in the world to do that.
True. So we all become eco warriers and recycle everything. And all the factories that employ those poor folks close down - then what?
The whole thing is interconnected and yes - consumption is part of a problem. But landfill is way down the list. There is loads of room in this world for landfill without causing environmental damage.
1
2
In reply to ByEek:
It simply doesn't occur to some people. We had new neighbours about two years ago, they came up from Surrey to the outskirts of Derby. I was out in the garden when the chap came over to me ranting about how the council don't clean up outside his house like they do everyone else's and he was being persecuted for being southern. I pointed out that we all pick up the litter outside our own homes and put it in our own bins which is why his front stood out like a rubbish tip. He was aghast, I suspect he immediately wrote to the council demanding something be done about it. He still doesn't pick up litter outside his own house but being good (if grudging) neighbours we sometimes do it for him.
> I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
It simply doesn't occur to some people. We had new neighbours about two years ago, they came up from Surrey to the outskirts of Derby. I was out in the garden when the chap came over to me ranting about how the council don't clean up outside his house like they do everyone else's and he was being persecuted for being southern. I pointed out that we all pick up the litter outside our own homes and put it in our own bins which is why his front stood out like a rubbish tip. He was aghast, I suspect he immediately wrote to the council demanding something be done about it. He still doesn't pick up litter outside his own house but being good (if grudging) neighbours we sometimes do it for him.
3
In reply to stp:
http://www.emmaus.org.uk/your_local_emmaus
This charity will come and collect larger items including electrical goods if you want to get rid of items in good nick.
http://www.emmaus.org.uk/your_local_emmaus
This charity will come and collect larger items including electrical goods if you want to get rid of items in good nick.
1
In reply to stp:
I recently moved in with my fella. He is driven insane by the slow speed with which duplicated stuff and other no longer needed stuff leaves the house. He doesn't seem to get my methodical freecycle attempts and charity shop piles rather than tip runs and chucking in the bin. It does take a bit more work, but I can't bear to see a perfectly good suitcase go to landfill when it could save someone else some money, have a second life and be an economic use of materials. Work issued me with a case, hence the extra one.
I have given up on freecycle though. When I lived nearer to a bigger population hub it was easy - places to exchange, nearness of people. Now, out in the sticks a bit, somehow finding times, days, places to exchange is harder, and from experience, there are a lot more No Shows. There are also more people wanting to see photos of stuff before collecting it (never had that at all when I lived in the city). Mind you, I never give it away to the photo requesters; it seems they can't be that hard up for a suitcase if they are concerned over the exact appearance of something described as large, soft sided suitcase, excellent condition, only flown with twice.
I recently moved in with my fella. He is driven insane by the slow speed with which duplicated stuff and other no longer needed stuff leaves the house. He doesn't seem to get my methodical freecycle attempts and charity shop piles rather than tip runs and chucking in the bin. It does take a bit more work, but I can't bear to see a perfectly good suitcase go to landfill when it could save someone else some money, have a second life and be an economic use of materials. Work issued me with a case, hence the extra one.
I have given up on freecycle though. When I lived nearer to a bigger population hub it was easy - places to exchange, nearness of people. Now, out in the sticks a bit, somehow finding times, days, places to exchange is harder, and from experience, there are a lot more No Shows. There are also more people wanting to see photos of stuff before collecting it (never had that at all when I lived in the city). Mind you, I never give it away to the photo requesters; it seems they can't be that hard up for a suitcase if they are concerned over the exact appearance of something described as large, soft sided suitcase, excellent condition, only flown with twice.
2
In reply to markh554:
You need to be careful doing that. I replaced a load of radiators in my old house. I put the old ones outside my house but along the side (semi detached) and some f*ckers in a van came along and took them before I had a chance to take them to the scrap yard myself. They let themselves through the front gate, walked down the front garden and lifted the lot. Since it happened, I then started to notice them cruising the streets looking for stuff to take.
On the pavement fine,or knock on the door and ask, but not from my property without asking
You need to be careful doing that. I replaced a load of radiators in my old house. I put the old ones outside my house but along the side (semi detached) and some f*ckers in a van came along and took them before I had a chance to take them to the scrap yard myself. They let themselves through the front gate, walked down the front garden and lifted the lot. Since it happened, I then started to notice them cruising the streets looking for stuff to take.
On the pavement fine,or knock on the door and ask, but not from my property without asking
Post edited at 09:47
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Well yes, thats different. Your experience is called theft, probably by pikeys imo. Its the new version of the rag'n'bone man.
I left a note saying take me so i was happy someone did.
Well yes, thats different. Your experience is called theft, probably by pikeys imo. Its the new version of the rag'n'bone man.
I left a note saying take me so i was happy someone did.
1
1
In reply to Moorside Mo:
Nonsense. There is only one resource used to make stuff that is being used unsustainably, and that is energy. There's a planet full of raw materials out there. You may hear stories about being down to 5 years of reserves in XYZ - but reserves there doesn't mean what is left, it means the amount that we have gone looking for and therefore discovered and cataloged.
If energy was truly sustainable then we could strip mine the planet sustainably for an awfully long time - certainly longer than is needed to start pulling resources in from space. As it is, the cost of recycling vs strip mining means that we are - and will continue - to see more and more recycling of existing materials.
I'm not at all bothered by stuff going in to well built landfills - mining them with improved recycling will be cheaper than mining the planet, and people know where to find the resource rich rubbish. The last time this came up someone more knowledgable than me said it's already happening.
> The main problem is using resources at an unsustainable rate
Nonsense. There is only one resource used to make stuff that is being used unsustainably, and that is energy. There's a planet full of raw materials out there. You may hear stories about being down to 5 years of reserves in XYZ - but reserves there doesn't mean what is left, it means the amount that we have gone looking for and therefore discovered and cataloged.
If energy was truly sustainable then we could strip mine the planet sustainably for an awfully long time - certainly longer than is needed to start pulling resources in from space. As it is, the cost of recycling vs strip mining means that we are - and will continue - to see more and more recycling of existing materials.
I'm not at all bothered by stuff going in to well built landfills - mining them with improved recycling will be cheaper than mining the planet, and people know where to find the resource rich rubbish. The last time this came up someone more knowledgable than me said it's already happening.
3
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
If your tip is anything like the other tips around, they will have a re-use bin/area/shed where perfectly useable items are put, sometimes these are sold back to the public, sometimes to furniture charities etc sometimes it's just a freebie area to have a rummage in.
I've just kitted out my workshop with some lovely Laura Ashley bedside chests of draws for nothing from the local tip.
It's kind of like freecycle, but easier and quicker without the risk of a weirdo turning up at the door
If your tip is anything like the other tips around, they will have a re-use bin/area/shed where perfectly useable items are put, sometimes these are sold back to the public, sometimes to furniture charities etc sometimes it's just a freebie area to have a rummage in.
I've just kitted out my workshop with some lovely Laura Ashley bedside chests of draws for nothing from the local tip.
It's kind of like freecycle, but easier and quicker without the risk of a weirdo turning up at the door
3
In reply to ByEek:
I suppose when I think of something thrown away I also think of something new being created to replace it. That implies digging up more raw materials and using a lot of energy to change them into whatever they become plus energy to transport them, store them in a store etc.. So the problem is much bigger than simply landfill.
> The whole thing is interconnected and yes - consumption is part of a problem. But landfill is way down the list.
I suppose when I think of something thrown away I also think of something new being created to replace it. That implies digging up more raw materials and using a lot of energy to change them into whatever they become plus energy to transport them, store them in a store etc.. So the problem is much bigger than simply landfill.
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
That's really interesting. I've never seen such a thing before but then I rarely go to the tip so it might be something they have now.
> they will have a re-use bin/area/shed where perfectly useable items are put
That's really interesting. I've never seen such a thing before but then I rarely go to the tip so it might be something they have now.
In reply to stp:
Agreed. But if you take something to be recycled lots of energy is used to change the old stuff into new stuff, plus energy to transport them, store them etc. And quite probably, the process of recycling is more energy intensive and less efficient than making new stuff because you have to separate out the waste from the bits you actually want.
Agreed. But if you take something to be recycled lots of energy is used to change the old stuff into new stuff, plus energy to transport them, store them etc. And quite probably, the process of recycling is more energy intensive and less efficient than making new stuff because you have to separate out the waste from the bits you actually want.
1
In reply to AlisonSmiles:
I've also given up on freecycle. The first time I used it I got a fridge which was in such good nick I'm still using it three years later. Lured in, I've used it since. Every single time I've collected furniture that is so disgusting I've taken it to the tip straight away. I'm talking rotten, broken furniture covered in animal faeces here. One desk was described as 'flat pack' which meant the desk came off the two pedestals. It was so big it wouldn't go in my car and I had to dismantle it first. Of course it was old and ancient and cheap so all the fittings broke getting it apart.
Lots of people seem to think freecycle is a free collection service for rubbish. I don't ask for photos, maybe I should.
I've also given up on freecycle. The first time I used it I got a fridge which was in such good nick I'm still using it three years later. Lured in, I've used it since. Every single time I've collected furniture that is so disgusting I've taken it to the tip straight away. I'm talking rotten, broken furniture covered in animal faeces here. One desk was described as 'flat pack' which meant the desk came off the two pedestals. It was so big it wouldn't go in my car and I had to dismantle it first. Of course it was old and ancient and cheap so all the fittings broke getting it apart.
Lots of people seem to think freecycle is a free collection service for rubbish. I don't ask for photos, maybe I should.
In reply to illepo:
I think it's important to remember that the economy is not directly important, but rather what it enables us to do that is - namely to live comfortably, safely and happily, to eat healthy food, to lead interesting and fulfilling lives - as long as we have these things then f*&k the economy.
> I would completely agree. I personally feel bad for the waste i create and try to minimise it.
> I think it's apathy, and a complete lack of effort by some in regards to reusing and recycling. I live with people who despite having a recycling bin right outside, choose to chuck everything to landfill. It's an attitude i simply don't understand.
> In terms of bad for the economy, remember the incentive to buy a new car scheme, despite it being in good working order? Let's destroy cars that took a lot if energy to build, used a lot of resources we'll never recover all in the name of the economy.
I think it's important to remember that the economy is not directly important, but rather what it enables us to do that is - namely to live comfortably, safely and happily, to eat healthy food, to lead interesting and fulfilling lives - as long as we have these things then f*&k the economy.
2
In reply to wintertree:
You have a lovely argument, but 'resources' are not just ore and petroleum. One resource being depleted at an alarming rate is biodiversity. Biodiversity to many people is extremely important, but to those who don't think biodiversity has inherent value - it can still provide "objective" value by providing many natural leads for pharmaceuticals, increasing the health of ecosystems to allow them to continue to function as carbon sinks and cloud creators.
The way we are haphazardly dumping fertilizers into the waterways has resulted in a surge in the growth of starfish, and many directly-attributable harmful algal blooms. Starfish booms are the main factor in coral reef decline in many areas, and have reduced the coral coverage by nearly 50% in less than 3 decades. Harmful algal blooms (although of natural occurence) have occured in non-natural places and caused minor (in the grand scale) dying offs.
Soil erosion is another factor - according to some sources 50% of topsoil has been lost to the sea in the last 150 years. Considering that our global population is set to wildly increase, the loss of topsoil could conceivably come to a head in the future. Regardless or not whether we have by then found a way to farm entirely without soil, it's a pretty crap move to leave the planet in such a state, especially when we as a race _know_ that what we're doing is harmful (the Victorians could plead ignorance, as they didn't have satellite images and complex scientific studies of the entire planet to fall back on).
So I would argue, that it is not just energy that is being used/depleted unsustainably - but a whole raft of other things. In my industry, as well as in Scouts, there's a saying - "leave it better than you found it".
You have a lovely argument, but 'resources' are not just ore and petroleum. One resource being depleted at an alarming rate is biodiversity. Biodiversity to many people is extremely important, but to those who don't think biodiversity has inherent value - it can still provide "objective" value by providing many natural leads for pharmaceuticals, increasing the health of ecosystems to allow them to continue to function as carbon sinks and cloud creators.
The way we are haphazardly dumping fertilizers into the waterways has resulted in a surge in the growth of starfish, and many directly-attributable harmful algal blooms. Starfish booms are the main factor in coral reef decline in many areas, and have reduced the coral coverage by nearly 50% in less than 3 decades. Harmful algal blooms (although of natural occurence) have occured in non-natural places and caused minor (in the grand scale) dying offs.
Soil erosion is another factor - according to some sources 50% of topsoil has been lost to the sea in the last 150 years. Considering that our global population is set to wildly increase, the loss of topsoil could conceivably come to a head in the future. Regardless or not whether we have by then found a way to farm entirely without soil, it's a pretty crap move to leave the planet in such a state, especially when we as a race _know_ that what we're doing is harmful (the Victorians could plead ignorance, as they didn't have satellite images and complex scientific studies of the entire planet to fall back on).
So I would argue, that it is not just energy that is being used/depleted unsustainably - but a whole raft of other things. In my industry, as well as in Scouts, there's a saying - "leave it better than you found it".
8
In reply to SenzuBean:
I'd agree with you on biodiversity to a point - but then (rather depressingly) if energy was not limited, why would we need it? Assuming we continue to progress in the sciences then one day the biosphere will be of no importance to the production of food, pharmaceuticals or materials. Likewise with the soil erosion - a problem that cheaper, cleaner energy will either fix or bypass.
Given the energy and progress, wide-spread destruction of habitat and loss of species race could occur without affecting the sustainability of the human race. We could end up with a planet covered in cement and steel, with lots of fusion powered machinery (perhaps using vats of biological stuff, perhaps not) producing all the O2 and food we need. There would be no more CO2 from fossil fuels to worry about.
Depressing but it seems to me an entirely possible future. I imagine that one way or another humans are going to end up living in a relatively closed cycle enabled by future machines and powered by future power sources. The sustainability of this has nothing to do with the presence of a nice biosphere - and it will be going on on planets and space habitats without any biosphere to speak of.
So in the long term, perhaps it's not about sustainability, but the quality of the environment we want to surround ourselves with - and here I agree that we are not conserving that quality anything like as well as we should - especially as we are damaging it rampantly whilst not seriously funding the research needed to become truly sustainable without requiring that environment.
I'd agree with you on biodiversity to a point - but then (rather depressingly) if energy was not limited, why would we need it? Assuming we continue to progress in the sciences then one day the biosphere will be of no importance to the production of food, pharmaceuticals or materials. Likewise with the soil erosion - a problem that cheaper, cleaner energy will either fix or bypass.
Given the energy and progress, wide-spread destruction of habitat and loss of species race could occur without affecting the sustainability of the human race. We could end up with a planet covered in cement and steel, with lots of fusion powered machinery (perhaps using vats of biological stuff, perhaps not) producing all the O2 and food we need. There would be no more CO2 from fossil fuels to worry about.
Depressing but it seems to me an entirely possible future. I imagine that one way or another humans are going to end up living in a relatively closed cycle enabled by future machines and powered by future power sources. The sustainability of this has nothing to do with the presence of a nice biosphere - and it will be going on on planets and space habitats without any biosphere to speak of.
So in the long term, perhaps it's not about sustainability, but the quality of the environment we want to surround ourselves with - and here I agree that we are not conserving that quality anything like as well as we should - especially as we are damaging it rampantly whilst not seriously funding the research needed to become truly sustainable without requiring that environment.
1
In reply to ByEek:
You should watch this, especially the bit about Sweden.
Landfill taxes are £80 per tonne by the way, so besides not being a good environmental option, it's also an expensive one!!
> Agreed. But if you take something to be recycled lots of energy is used to change the old stuff into new stuff, plus energy to transport them, store them etc. And quite probably, the process of recycling is more energy intensive and less efficient than making new stuff because you have to separate out the waste from the bits you actually want.
You should watch this, especially the bit about Sweden.
Landfill taxes are £80 per tonne by the way, so besides not being a good environmental option, it's also an expensive one!!
In reply to wintertree:
That doesn't mean there isn't a very good argument for reducing the amount of all resources we use, whatever they might be. They are, after all, finite resources even if we can recycle more and more of them as technology improves.
Stuff that has been historically landfilled has been done so in a very uncontrolled manner, co-disposal of all sorts of waste, it means there is lots of cross contamination and quality of whatever resources they are reclaiming has been found to be pretty low (or has been shown to be from the few Landfill Mining and Reclamation schemes/pilots that have been undertaken, at least the ones I've briefly read).
Its less energy intensive, easier, and more cost effective to separate and properly re-use/recycle the waste streams at or close to source, rather than dump it than then mine it again.
The volume of material sent to landfill (within the EU anyway) has been steadily dropping for 10 years or more, because of legislation and aggressive landfill tax policy (£82.60 per tonne of waste landfilled ATM) which has driven the massive upswing in reduce & recycle. As a result new landfills in the UK are essentially unheard of now.
> Nonsense. There is only one resource used to make stuff that is being used unsustainably, and that is energy. There's a planet full of raw materials out there. You may hear stories about being down to 5 years of reserves in XYZ - but reserves there doesn't mean what is left, it means the amount that we have gone looking for and therefore discovered and cataloged.
That doesn't mean there isn't a very good argument for reducing the amount of all resources we use, whatever they might be. They are, after all, finite resources even if we can recycle more and more of them as technology improves.
> I'm not at all bothered by stuff going in to well built landfills - mining them with improved recycling will be cheaper than mining the planet, and people know where to find the resource rich rubbish. The last time this came up someone more knowledgable than me said it's already happening.
Stuff that has been historically landfilled has been done so in a very uncontrolled manner, co-disposal of all sorts of waste, it means there is lots of cross contamination and quality of whatever resources they are reclaiming has been found to be pretty low (or has been shown to be from the few Landfill Mining and Reclamation schemes/pilots that have been undertaken, at least the ones I've briefly read).
Its less energy intensive, easier, and more cost effective to separate and properly re-use/recycle the waste streams at or close to source, rather than dump it than then mine it again.
The volume of material sent to landfill (within the EU anyway) has been steadily dropping for 10 years or more, because of legislation and aggressive landfill tax policy (£82.60 per tonne of waste landfilled ATM) which has driven the massive upswing in reduce & recycle. As a result new landfills in the UK are essentially unheard of now.
In reply to Phil79:
I took some stuff to the local council tip the other day to be recycled. They told me they were now charging for this service (a resolution recently introduced by the Tory council under powers given to it by the Coalition, apparently).
Is this typical? If so it's not surprising recycling's not going so well, although presumably if everyone does what I did - took it away, brought it back after hours and dumped it immediately outside their gate - the problem will soon solve itself.
jcm
I took some stuff to the local council tip the other day to be recycled. They told me they were now charging for this service (a resolution recently introduced by the Tory council under powers given to it by the Coalition, apparently).
Is this typical? If so it's not surprising recycling's not going so well, although presumably if everyone does what I did - took it away, brought it back after hours and dumped it immediately outside their gate - the problem will soon solve itself.
jcm
1
In reply to ByEek:
How can it not be an ethical problem to throw away finite resources which they could be reused?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
> It is, but it doesn't need to be. It is more of a political problem than an ethical one. There is plenty of room on the earth for landfill. Burying rubbish isn't a problem if you can persuade (pay) someone to take your rubbish and bury it for you. What is a problem is litter. The stuff on our streets is unpleasant to look at, but it is when it gets washed into our rivers and seas that the real damage starts happening.
> I read a blog recently about a woman who could put 2 years of her rubbish into a jar. I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
How can it not be an ethical problem to throw away finite resources which they could be reused?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
Post edited at 12:52
In reply to ByEek:
Having read about that girl a few years ago, I can't help thinking humans have an uncanny knack of being critical of anything which might make them feel uncomfortable about the way they live.
> I read a blog recently about a woman who could put 2 years of her rubbish into a jar. I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
Having read about that girl a few years ago, I can't help thinking humans have an uncanny knack of being critical of anything which might make them feel uncomfortable about the way they live.
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Free at our tip, Tory council. How much did they want to charge you?
Free at our tip, Tory council. How much did they want to charge you?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Don't remember exactly; some sum between £10 and £30, IIRC. Been free at mine for years; it was quite a surprise.
jcm
Don't remember exactly; some sum between £10 and £30, IIRC. Been free at mine for years; it was quite a surprise.
jcm
1
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Was that wise with CCTV and all that around the premises? Better to do such things in residential streets which suffer far less surveillance, the local retired army major and his notebook notwithstanding.
> Is this typical? If so it's not surprising recycling's not going so well, although presumably if everyone does what I did - took it away, brought it back after hours and dumped it immediately outside their gate - the problem will soon solve itself.
> jcm
Was that wise with CCTV and all that around the premises? Better to do such things in residential streets which suffer far less surveillance, the local retired army major and his notebook notwithstanding.
In reply to Timmd:
I don't feel uncomfortable about the way she lives. But the amount of effort, time and energy she personally had to put in to achieve what she did, to me seemed rather misspent. I feel someone as resourceful as her could have made a much more significant impact that would have benefited more.
> Having read about that girl a few years ago, I can't help thinking humans have an uncanny knack of being critical of anything which might make them feel uncomfortable about the way they live.
I don't feel uncomfortable about the way she lives. But the amount of effort, time and energy she personally had to put in to achieve what she did, to me seemed rather misspent. I feel someone as resourceful as her could have made a much more significant impact that would have benefited more.
In reply to wintertree:
So where will the pharmaceuticals come from, ie the triggers for new directions for research and new kinds of medicines which will then have synthetic copies made of them, if the biosphere continues to be depleted?
Maintaining biodiversity isn't just about having a nice place to live, or in a way that would sound less patronising about having a a high quality of environment, it's also about keeping the huge number of useful medicines etc on the planet until we've managed to discover them.
There number of different potential medicines and healthful foods and supplements which remain undiscovered in the seas and rain forests, and could be lost as biodiversity reduces, I think is likely to be mind bogglingly high, and that their potential loss isn't something to be relaxed about.
> I'd agree with you on biodiversity to a point - but then (rather depressingly) if energy was not limited, why would we need it? Assuming we continue to progress in the sciences then one day the biosphere will be of no importance to the production of food, pharmaceuticals or materials. Likewise with the soil erosion - a problem that cheaper, cleaner energy will either fix or bypass.
> Given the energy and progress, wide-spread destruction of habitat and loss of species race could occur without affecting the sustainability of the human race. We could end up with a planet covered in cement and steel, with lots of fusion powered machinery (perhaps using vats of biological stuff, perhaps not) producing all the O2 and food we need. There would be no more CO2 from fossil fuels to worry about.
> Depressing but it seems to me an entirely possible future. I imagine that one way or another humans are going to end up living in a relatively closed cycle enabled by future machines and powered by future power sources. The sustainability of this has nothing to do with the presence of a nice biosphere - and it will be going on on planets and space habitats without any biosphere to speak of.
> So in the long term, perhaps it's not about sustainability, but the quality of the environment we want to surround ourselves with - and here I agree that we are not conserving that quality anything like as well as we should - especially as we are damaging it rampantly whilst not seriously funding the research needed to become truly sustainable without requiring that environment.
So where will the pharmaceuticals come from, ie the triggers for new directions for research and new kinds of medicines which will then have synthetic copies made of them, if the biosphere continues to be depleted?
Maintaining biodiversity isn't just about having a nice place to live, or in a way that would sound less patronising about having a a high quality of environment, it's also about keeping the huge number of useful medicines etc on the planet until we've managed to discover them.
There number of different potential medicines and healthful foods and supplements which remain undiscovered in the seas and rain forests, and could be lost as biodiversity reduces, I think is likely to be mind bogglingly high, and that their potential loss isn't something to be relaxed about.
Post edited at 13:49
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Well that's clearly a pretty stupid idea. Our local recycling place has started charging for certain things recently (bags of hardcore/tiles/soil etc), stuff that I guess they probably end up landfilling, or recoup very little by recycling.
I think in general recycling is going reasonably well. Household recycling rates are around 30-40% now, up from practically 0% 15 years ago.
I suppose if there are always knob heads around like you, who will happily fly tip their crap everywhere then we'll always have a problem of one sort
From a commercial perspective, its probably a case that the contract for cleaning up flytipped waste from outside the recycling centre gates (or elsewhere) is with a different firm to the one running the recycling centre, hence the flytipping costs aren't their concern. Free market 'innit ...
> I took some stuff to the local council tip the other day to be recycled. They told me they were now charging for this service (a resolution recently introduced by the Tory council under powers given to it by the Coalition, apparently).
Well that's clearly a pretty stupid idea. Our local recycling place has started charging for certain things recently (bags of hardcore/tiles/soil etc), stuff that I guess they probably end up landfilling, or recoup very little by recycling.
> Is this typical? If so it's not surprising recycling's not going so well, although presumably if everyone does what I did - took it away, brought it back after hours and dumped it immediately outside their gate - the problem will soon solve itself.
I think in general recycling is going reasonably well. Household recycling rates are around 30-40% now, up from practically 0% 15 years ago.
I suppose if there are always knob heads around like you, who will happily fly tip their crap everywhere then we'll always have a problem of one sort
From a commercial perspective, its probably a case that the contract for cleaning up flytipped waste from outside the recycling centre gates (or elsewhere) is with a different firm to the one running the recycling centre, hence the flytipping costs aren't their concern. Free market 'innit ...
In reply to ByEek:
Not seen this. Thought about doing something similar myself recently after talking a walk around the Dams to Darnley Country Park. Its a park I 've only recently discovered, with the dog. Last weekend I found a new parking spot and did a circuit of one of the dams, part of which involves a walk through some lovely lightly wooded fields. I came across a clearly popular mega teenage boozing spot, a huge amount of glass & plastic bottles and rubbish scattered our a wide area. Depressing. On I went, through some more fields then a path with a few picnic tables and bins. At this section I picked up some tins and rubbish and put them in the bins. There wasn't much and the little I did made a difference. I've thought about trying to clear up the big area but I won't. Its too extensive and not somewhere I go even fortnightly and it could get awkward if ever confronted by the drinking crowd. I emailed the park rangers instead
> I read a blog recently about a woman who could put 2 years of her rubbish into a jar. I couldn't help thinking that if she had spent all that time and effort picking up rubbish from the streets she would have had a much bigger impact... like this chap
Not seen this. Thought about doing something similar myself recently after talking a walk around the Dams to Darnley Country Park. Its a park I 've only recently discovered, with the dog. Last weekend I found a new parking spot and did a circuit of one of the dams, part of which involves a walk through some lovely lightly wooded fields. I came across a clearly popular mega teenage boozing spot, a huge amount of glass & plastic bottles and rubbish scattered our a wide area. Depressing. On I went, through some more fields then a path with a few picnic tables and bins. At this section I picked up some tins and rubbish and put them in the bins. There wasn't much and the little I did made a difference. I've thought about trying to clear up the big area but I won't. Its too extensive and not somewhere I go even fortnightly and it could get awkward if ever confronted by the drinking crowd. I emailed the park rangers instead
In reply to Phil79:
>From a commercial perspective, its probably a case that the contract for cleaning up flytipped waste from outside the recycling centre gates (or elsewhere) is with a different firm to the one running the recycling centre, hence the flytipping costs aren't their concern.
Oh really? That's disappointing. I was assuming they'd have to carry it inside and dispose of it the same way they would have done if I'd paid them anyway.
These bastards are always one step ahead of you, aren't they?
jcm
>From a commercial perspective, its probably a case that the contract for cleaning up flytipped waste from outside the recycling centre gates (or elsewhere) is with a different firm to the one running the recycling centre, hence the flytipping costs aren't their concern.
Oh really? That's disappointing. I was assuming they'd have to carry it inside and dispose of it the same way they would have done if I'd paid them anyway.
These bastards are always one step ahead of you, aren't they?
jcm
1
In reply to Timmd:
From the continuation of where some of it now comes from - gaining a deep understanding of the biochemical actions of disease down to the molecular level followed by the design of molecules - peptide by peptide - to bind to specific sites in the disease pathway to inhibit them, or to implant in membranes to inhibit other membrane associated proteins from doing so etc.
It's early days for much of this research, and yes at the moment it's currently worth while screening many existing compounds rather than designing things from scratch - bit this will not be the case for ever, and there is a strong argument that by some future point the sustainability of medicine will not be linked to the wider biosphere.
It matters a lot now, but the amount it maters is diminishing every day.
> So where will the pharmaceuticals come from, ie the triggers for new directions for research and new kinds of medicines which will then have synthetic copies made of them, if the biosphere continues to be depleted?
From the continuation of where some of it now comes from - gaining a deep understanding of the biochemical actions of disease down to the molecular level followed by the design of molecules - peptide by peptide - to bind to specific sites in the disease pathway to inhibit them, or to implant in membranes to inhibit other membrane associated proteins from doing so etc.
It's early days for much of this research, and yes at the moment it's currently worth while screening many existing compounds rather than designing things from scratch - bit this will not be the case for ever, and there is a strong argument that by some future point the sustainability of medicine will not be linked to the wider biosphere.
It matters a lot now, but the amount it maters is diminishing every day.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
That's just a guess, maybe they do come out and clear it up, while cursing under their breath that they hadn't managed to wring yet more money from the impoverished plebs.
Best chuck it in a local pond next time, or dump it at a local beauty spot (if it hasn't been overrun with doggers), then it will definitely be someone else's problem.
> Oh really? That's disappointing. I was assuming they'd have to carry it inside and dispose of it the same way they would have done if I'd paid them anyway.
> These bastards are always one step ahead of you, aren't they?
> jcm
That's just a guess, maybe they do come out and clear it up, while cursing under their breath that they hadn't managed to wring yet more money from the impoverished plebs.
Best chuck it in a local pond next time, or dump it at a local beauty spot (if it hasn't been overrun with doggers), then it will definitely be someone else's problem.
In reply to wintertree:
It's a very profound gamble though, with consequences for every generation which follows, if given the choice/chance it's got to be worth us doing our up most to maintain levels of biodiversity. Wouldn't you agree?
It potentially indicates hubris on the part of humans, to think we might be okay without looking after biodiversity...
> From the continuation of where some of it now comes from - gaining a deep understanding of the biochemical actions of disease down to the molecular level followed by the design of molecules - peptide by peptide - to bind to specific sites in the disease pathway to inhibit them, or to implant in membranes to inhibit other membrane associated proteins from doing so etc.
> It's early days for much of this research, and yes at the moment it's currently worth while screening many existing compounds rather than designing things from scratch - bit this will not be the case for ever, and there is a strong argument that by some future point the sustainability of medicine will not be linked to the wider biosphere.
> It matters a lot now, but the amount it maters is diminishing every day.
It's a very profound gamble though, with consequences for every generation which follows, if given the choice/chance it's got to be worth us doing our up most to maintain levels of biodiversity. Wouldn't you agree?
It potentially indicates hubris on the part of humans, to think we might be okay without looking after biodiversity...
Post edited at 15:08
1
In reply to stp:
If you start talking ethics, then with a few worthy exceptions, you'll end up creating a load of sanctimonious talk, but no action.
This is a business issue - stuff that's in the way has a cost of ownership, and if it continues to be in the way, throwing it out makes sense unless it's easier to sell or recycle it. The business-case for throwing vs selling varies from individual to individual, depending on how cash rich or poor they are and how time rich or poor. If you're very busy and in well-paid employment, it's easier to chuck it than to have a succession of people emailing you or coming to see you, particularly if you have limited time to go climbing.
If we want to change anything, as opposed to just generating ethical hot air and self-righteousness, then we could focus on how changes to government recycling policy might incentivise people to dispose of stuff that could be re-used. We could also consider ways in which businesses could use new technology to make selling second-hand stuff easier. In that case, it would require being able to add something that Ebay and Gum Tree don't already offer - do that and you've probably made your first million or whatever.
But in the real world, one very obvious point that could be addressed here is the inflated price of second-hand climbing gear advertised in these UKC forums. I'm usually dismissive of stuff that I see on sale here as I know most sellers will be flying a kite price-wise. I also notice lots of frustrated sellers bumping adverts because they haven't managed to sell or because no-one is interested in buying something from them. Why would I or anyone else buy something here second hand for as much or sometimes more money than I could buy it for new from companies like G.O? If people stopped advertising used climbing gear here for silly prices, it would unclog the market and it would be much easier to dispose of stuff. I really don't understand why that happens, but until it changes, I will continue to go elsewhere to buy stuff. Understanding why the second-hand gear market here is so distorted and then maybe intervening to change that would be one way of actually making something happen, rather than just generating self-righteous talk.
If you start talking ethics, then with a few worthy exceptions, you'll end up creating a load of sanctimonious talk, but no action.
This is a business issue - stuff that's in the way has a cost of ownership, and if it continues to be in the way, throwing it out makes sense unless it's easier to sell or recycle it. The business-case for throwing vs selling varies from individual to individual, depending on how cash rich or poor they are and how time rich or poor. If you're very busy and in well-paid employment, it's easier to chuck it than to have a succession of people emailing you or coming to see you, particularly if you have limited time to go climbing.
If we want to change anything, as opposed to just generating ethical hot air and self-righteousness, then we could focus on how changes to government recycling policy might incentivise people to dispose of stuff that could be re-used. We could also consider ways in which businesses could use new technology to make selling second-hand stuff easier. In that case, it would require being able to add something that Ebay and Gum Tree don't already offer - do that and you've probably made your first million or whatever.
But in the real world, one very obvious point that could be addressed here is the inflated price of second-hand climbing gear advertised in these UKC forums. I'm usually dismissive of stuff that I see on sale here as I know most sellers will be flying a kite price-wise. I also notice lots of frustrated sellers bumping adverts because they haven't managed to sell or because no-one is interested in buying something from them. Why would I or anyone else buy something here second hand for as much or sometimes more money than I could buy it for new from companies like G.O? If people stopped advertising used climbing gear here for silly prices, it would unclog the market and it would be much easier to dispose of stuff. I really don't understand why that happens, but until it changes, I will continue to go elsewhere to buy stuff. Understanding why the second-hand gear market here is so distorted and then maybe intervening to change that would be one way of actually making something happen, rather than just generating self-righteous talk.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
My local tip won't let you take anything away - the blokes who run it find it a bit frustrating but say there are cameras monitoring the site so people can't help themselves to things. All a bit curious. It's especially curious when you see what some people throw away, things that look to be in perfectly good nick.
I love freecycle - I got two huge ceramic planters last year, the sort that cost around £40 each, because someone decided they didn't go with her garden colour scheme (!) and was going to take them to the tip. Got lots of lovely expired film a few weeks ago... and have rehomed various things like dog cages.
My local tip won't let you take anything away - the blokes who run it find it a bit frustrating but say there are cameras monitoring the site so people can't help themselves to things. All a bit curious. It's especially curious when you see what some people throw away, things that look to be in perfectly good nick.
I love freecycle - I got two huge ceramic planters last year, the sort that cost around £40 each, because someone decided they didn't go with her garden colour scheme (!) and was going to take them to the tip. Got lots of lovely expired film a few weeks ago... and have rehomed various things like dog cages.
In reply to Phil79:
Someone's dumped a caravan portaloo by a passing place just up the lane from where I live - the mind boggles as to the scale of an incident so horrific it necessitated the disposal of the entire portaloo unit...
> ... who will happily fly tip their crap everywhere
Someone's dumped a caravan portaloo by a passing place just up the lane from where I live - the mind boggles as to the scale of an incident so horrific it necessitated the disposal of the entire portaloo unit...
1
In reply to Timmd:
When you hear things such as James Watson saying that cancer research over the last 40 years (something that was so important that even US and Russian scientists worked together on during the cold war) has turned up nothing substantial - it's a bit sobering to pin all our hopes on our current science solving problems. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805...
(as a side note, he said this: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer." <- that's a scary thought, I will have to research that)
Current thinking is that cancer is so multifaceted, with thousands upon thousands of chemical pathways - that focusing on the development of one or two drugs to influence a handful of paths is a highly wasteful approach (each drug can cost £50-100m) that is unlikely to achieve wide-reaching success.
So it's not hard to see that if we throw away novel compounds (i.e. nature) - we're relying on modifying our already single-focused chemicals to affect a slightly different pathway.
Lastly there are innumerable pharmaceuticals that are directly harvested from natural precursors. I'm sure you've heard of horseshoe crabs for example and the way they are collected for their blood, as a single example (which sadly - are also a victim of unsustainable harvests - as our method of catch/drain/release kills a certain number of them each time [depending on who you ask]).
When you hear things such as James Watson saying that cancer research over the last 40 years (something that was so important that even US and Russian scientists worked together on during the cold war) has turned up nothing substantial - it's a bit sobering to pin all our hopes on our current science solving problems. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/09/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805...
(as a side note, he said this: "The time has come to seriously ask whether antioxidant use much more likely causes than prevents cancer." <- that's a scary thought, I will have to research that)
Current thinking is that cancer is so multifaceted, with thousands upon thousands of chemical pathways - that focusing on the development of one or two drugs to influence a handful of paths is a highly wasteful approach (each drug can cost £50-100m) that is unlikely to achieve wide-reaching success.
So it's not hard to see that if we throw away novel compounds (i.e. nature) - we're relying on modifying our already single-focused chemicals to affect a slightly different pathway.
Lastly there are innumerable pharmaceuticals that are directly harvested from natural precursors. I'm sure you've heard of horseshoe crabs for example and the way they are collected for their blood, as a single example (which sadly - are also a victim of unsustainable harvests - as our method of catch/drain/release kills a certain number of them each time [depending on who you ask]).
In reply to Tall Clare:
Can you imagine what it would be like if it was a bring and buy sale with people upended in every skip?
> My local tip won't let you take anything away - the blokes who run it find it a bit frustrating but say there are cameras monitoring the site so people can't help themselves to things. All a bit curious. It's especially curious when you see what some people throw away, things that look to be in perfectly good nick.
Can you imagine what it would be like if it was a bring and buy sale with people upended in every skip?
In reply to stp:
I have a problem with this at the moment. I've just bought a new tent to replace my Vango Banshee 300 (old model). The tent is is good condition, except it seems tom have lost some of it's waterproof ability. I am unable to throw it away, but don't know what to do with it.
I have a problem with this at the moment. I've just bought a new tent to replace my Vango Banshee 300 (old model). The tent is is good condition, except it seems tom have lost some of it's waterproof ability. I am unable to throw it away, but don't know what to do with it.
In reply to SenzuBean:
Exactly what I was trying to say but not succeeding, pretty much.
Exactly what I was trying to say but not succeeding, pretty much.
Post edited at 15:23
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Well there is that, but on the other hand if people can make use of things then it does seem daft that they can't use them.
Well there is that, but on the other hand if people can make use of things then it does seem daft that they can't use them.
In reply to Tall Clare:
I agree. Hopefully the contents of skips don't actually go to landfill and are filtered for what can be reused and recycled as far as the resources go, if not the actual products themselves.
> Well there is that, but on the other hand if people can make use of things then it does seem daft that they can't use them.
I agree. Hopefully the contents of skips don't actually go to landfill and are filtered for what can be reused and recycled as far as the resources go, if not the actual products themselves.
Post edited at 15:33
In reply to Tall Clare:
No, you're right. The image of people taking their kids by the heel and sweeping them through the piles of rotting dogs like Thetis dangling her brat in the River Styx is too attractive to pass up.
> Well there is that, but on the other hand if people can make use of things then it does seem daft that they can't use them.
No, you're right. The image of people taking their kids by the heel and sweeping them through the piles of rotting dogs like Thetis dangling her brat in the River Styx is too attractive to pass up.
1
In reply to Timmd:
At my local tip everything has to go into the right skip - metal, cardboard, wood, etc. I have a somewhat cynical vision that once all the tip-fillers have gone home, it all just gets shoved into one big hole...
At my local tip everything has to go into the right skip - metal, cardboard, wood, etc. I have a somewhat cynical vision that once all the tip-fillers have gone home, it all just gets shoved into one big hole...
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
Hah! All that's required is one of those handwash dispensers attached to each skip and Bob's your uncle...
Hah! All that's required is one of those handwash dispensers attached to each skip and Bob's your uncle...
In reply to stp:
We might think about buying more durable things in the first place too. Basically anything from the likes of Ikea has a lifespan of <10 years. We could pay more and have things last indefinitely. For example I doubt there will be many of today's fitted kitchens around in 50 years but the Victorian cupboards in my mother's kitchen will be (unless some fool rips them out).
We might think about buying more durable things in the first place too. Basically anything from the likes of Ikea has a lifespan of <10 years. We could pay more and have things last indefinitely. For example I doubt there will be many of today's fitted kitchens around in 50 years but the Victorian cupboards in my mother's kitchen will be (unless some fool rips them out).
1
In reply to wintertree:
Bollocks.
jk
> I'd agree with you on biodiversity to a point - but then (rather depressingly) if energy was not limited, why would we need it? Assuming we continue to progress in the sciences then one day the biosphere will be of no importance to the production of food, pharmaceuticals or materials. Likewise with the soil erosion - a problem that cheaper, cleaner energy will either fix or bypass.
Bollocks.
jk
4
In reply to Phil79:
Maybe they do have the flytipping contract so encouraging flytipping is the idea.
My council collects large items free from kerbside by arrangement. Less flytipping makes it worth their while to provide thjs service.
Maybe they do have the flytipping contract so encouraging flytipping is the idea.
My council collects large items free from kerbside by arrangement. Less flytipping makes it worth their while to provide thjs service.
In reply to Tall Clare:
Unlikely, due to the previously mentioned landfill tax (at £82 per tonne)! The big waste contractors who run the recycling sites have to pay this, even if they also own/run the landfill sites. As do the council for council run operations.
E.g. There's no financial incentive to landfill a 1000 tonnes of scrap wood and pay £82K in tax, if you can sell it to a chipboard manufacturer for £2 a tonne, etc.
The last 10 -15 years has seen a massive change in the waste industry, as there is now such a financial penalty for disposal to landfill sites, there is no option but to find as many avenues as possible to recycle waste. Even household black bag waste is starting to be screened/segregated/picked these days, to remove food waste, plastics, paper etc. for recycling.
Where there's muck there's brass..
> At my local tip everything has to go into the right skip - metal, cardboard, wood, etc. I have a somewhat cynical vision that once all the tip-fillers have gone home, it all just gets shoved into one big hole...
Unlikely, due to the previously mentioned landfill tax (at £82 per tonne)! The big waste contractors who run the recycling sites have to pay this, even if they also own/run the landfill sites. As do the council for council run operations.
E.g. There's no financial incentive to landfill a 1000 tonnes of scrap wood and pay £82K in tax, if you can sell it to a chipboard manufacturer for £2 a tonne, etc.
The last 10 -15 years has seen a massive change in the waste industry, as there is now such a financial penalty for disposal to landfill sites, there is no option but to find as many avenues as possible to recycle waste. Even household black bag waste is starting to be screened/segregated/picked these days, to remove food waste, plastics, paper etc. for recycling.
Where there's muck there's brass..
1
In reply to wintertree:
what a load of drivel, how do you make Helium?
It's a finite resource and we've been loosing it to space since the earth was formed.
> Nonsense. There is only one resource used to make stuff that is being used unsustainably, and that is energy. There's a planet full of raw materials out there.
what a load of drivel, how do you make Helium?
It's a finite resource and we've been loosing it to space since the earth was formed.
In reply to krikoman:
You want to think a little bit before calling something drivel.
How do you make Helium? You put some Deuterium and some Tritium (bred from Lithium) in a fusion reactor and press go. That can be and is done in more than a dozen labs around the world. If the world was generating energy with D-T fusion then the quantity of Helium generated per year would represent a significant fraction of the quantity that is currently used annually.
Although Helium is a good choice to mention because we are currently dependant on petrochemical reserves for the Helium they contain, and we are squandering it far faster than would be wise.
I'd call that argument drivel in the context of the discussion- we've also been loosing hydrogen, oxygen and a host of other compounds to space - not since the earth was formed but since it gained an atmosphere.
We will continue loosing them to space until the planet is as dead as Mars. That is why we have to become a sustainable species independent of the biosphere. You and others can call that drivel or nonsense, but is has to happen one day, and the only significant barrier to that happening is energy. Look at how long a nuclear submarine can remain submerged keeping people alive with biosphere free oxygen and water. The amount of energy available to use per person has been rising for a very long time and will continue to do so.
> what a load of drivel, how do you make Helium?
You want to think a little bit before calling something drivel.
How do you make Helium? You put some Deuterium and some Tritium (bred from Lithium) in a fusion reactor and press go. That can be and is done in more than a dozen labs around the world. If the world was generating energy with D-T fusion then the quantity of Helium generated per year would represent a significant fraction of the quantity that is currently used annually.
Although Helium is a good choice to mention because we are currently dependant on petrochemical reserves for the Helium they contain, and we are squandering it far faster than would be wise.
> It's a finite resource and we've been loosing it to space since the earth was formed.
I'd call that argument drivel in the context of the discussion- we've also been loosing hydrogen, oxygen and a host of other compounds to space - not since the earth was formed but since it gained an atmosphere.
We will continue loosing them to space until the planet is as dead as Mars. That is why we have to become a sustainable species independent of the biosphere. You and others can call that drivel or nonsense, but is has to happen one day, and the only significant barrier to that happening is energy. Look at how long a nuclear submarine can remain submerged keeping people alive with biosphere free oxygen and water. The amount of energy available to use per person has been rising for a very long time and will continue to do so.
Post edited at 11:00
1
1
In reply to stp:
It's been like that at my mum's local tip for at least 20 years so not exactly a new thing.
> (In reply to balmybaldwin)
>
> [...]
>
> That's really interesting. I've never seen such a thing before but then I rarely go to the tip so it might be something they have now.
>
> [...]
>
> That's really interesting. I've never seen such a thing before but then I rarely go to the tip so it might be something they have now.
It's been like that at my mum's local tip for at least 20 years so not exactly a new thing.
In reply to stp:
When a large two year construction site was finished we had sacks and sacks of paper we segregated in the office. I took a couple of trips with our van to the local skip hire company. We no longer had skips and we wanted the slip to show we had segregated the paper. They just threw it into the mixed rubbish and gave me a slip. When I went back and told my boss he just said "Oh well we did our bit"
On defence I use a firm where we have a mixed skip and it gets segregated at the plant. I jog by it and can see them doing this inside the doors of their big shed. A wee bit suspicious about the former company as I was already bringing it to them segregated so why mix it once there.
When a large two year construction site was finished we had sacks and sacks of paper we segregated in the office. I took a couple of trips with our van to the local skip hire company. We no longer had skips and we wanted the slip to show we had segregated the paper. They just threw it into the mixed rubbish and gave me a slip. When I went back and told my boss he just said "Oh well we did our bit"
On defence I use a firm where we have a mixed skip and it gets segregated at the plant. I jog by it and can see them doing this inside the doors of their big shed. A wee bit suspicious about the former company as I was already bringing it to them segregated so why mix it once there.
In reply to Skip:
Put it in the for sale forum with advice that it needs reproofing (not a tough or hard thing to do if you've got the space)
> I have a problem with this at the moment. I've just bought a new tent to replace my Vango Banshee 300 (old model). The tent is is good condition, except it seems tom have lost some of it's waterproof ability. I am unable to throw it away, but don't know what to do with it.
Put it in the for sale forum with advice that it needs reproofing (not a tough or hard thing to do if you've got the space)
In reply to fmck:
"During World War II, many sets of iron railings in Britain were removed. Railings were usually cut off at the base; the stubs may still be seen outside many buildings in London and elsewhere where they have never been replaced. This was supposedly to provide scrap metal for munitions, but there is some scepticism as to whether they were actually used for this purpose." (Wikipedia)
"It now seems certain that the collection of aluminium pots, pans, railings and other metals during the war was largely a propaganda exercise intended to give blitzed civilians a feeling of having contributed to the war effort and the opportunity to 'hit back' at Germany. [...] Metals such as cast iron were of little value and were frequently – and secretly – dumped!" (Evening Standard)
According to a BBC documentary a few years ago, London's vandalised iron railings were taken out to sea by the navy under a cloak of great secrecy and dumped overboard.
> They just threw it into the mixed rubbish and gave me a slip. When I went back and told my boss he just said "Oh well we did our bit"
"During World War II, many sets of iron railings in Britain were removed. Railings were usually cut off at the base; the stubs may still be seen outside many buildings in London and elsewhere where they have never been replaced. This was supposedly to provide scrap metal for munitions, but there is some scepticism as to whether they were actually used for this purpose." (Wikipedia)
"It now seems certain that the collection of aluminium pots, pans, railings and other metals during the war was largely a propaganda exercise intended to give blitzed civilians a feeling of having contributed to the war effort and the opportunity to 'hit back' at Germany. [...] Metals such as cast iron were of little value and were frequently – and secretly – dumped!" (Evening Standard)
According to a BBC documentary a few years ago, London's vandalised iron railings were taken out to sea by the navy under a cloak of great secrecy and dumped overboard.
In reply to wintertree:
Helium?
Can you make efficiently enough to justify party balloons?
Helium?
Can you make efficiently enough to justify party balloons?
Post edited at 19:40
1
In reply to Skip:
Take it to your local nursery or early years section of a primary school and they'll probably happily use it as a play tent or for den building.
If you are anywhere near Bingley, we'll have it and if anybody has got a caravan they don't want, we'll take that as well. Thanks in advance.
Take it to your local nursery or early years section of a primary school and they'll probably happily use it as a play tent or for den building.
If you are anywhere near Bingley, we'll have it and if anybody has got a caravan they don't want, we'll take that as well. Thanks in advance.
In reply to stp:
Got to resurrect this to add to the complaints by jcm et al about how difficult some disposal centres can be.
I drive a van, not a camper, but with a few minimalist modifications for camping in, but still convenient to transport bikes, as a people carrier etc. it's also my only vehicle, used for everyday commuting.
Turns out the garbage dump won't allow you to bring your rubbish in your van because they don't allow commercial waste. Try ponting out that this is your own private vehicle, with your own private domestic waste, same as everybody else who attends, and you get told you need to bring proof of ownership of vehicle and council-approved proof of address. Bring these documents and then get told ok then, but you have to pay a fee to bring the van in here, cos it's still commercial.
But you've just proved it isn't.
They don't make the rules, they can now accept the waste, but all vans are commercial, end of.
Suggest the wife brings her little corsa from home, and we transfer the waste from van to car in the street to ferry it through the gates in six separate loads.
Yes, you could do that for free.
Suggest that that would just be f*cking ridiculous, and get threatened with the police.
You couldn't, ...well could you? Could anyone have made this up?
Got to resurrect this to add to the complaints by jcm et al about how difficult some disposal centres can be.
I drive a van, not a camper, but with a few minimalist modifications for camping in, but still convenient to transport bikes, as a people carrier etc. it's also my only vehicle, used for everyday commuting.
Turns out the garbage dump won't allow you to bring your rubbish in your van because they don't allow commercial waste. Try ponting out that this is your own private vehicle, with your own private domestic waste, same as everybody else who attends, and you get told you need to bring proof of ownership of vehicle and council-approved proof of address. Bring these documents and then get told ok then, but you have to pay a fee to bring the van in here, cos it's still commercial.
But you've just proved it isn't.
They don't make the rules, they can now accept the waste, but all vans are commercial, end of.
Suggest the wife brings her little corsa from home, and we transfer the waste from van to car in the street to ferry it through the gates in six separate loads.
Yes, you could do that for free.
Suggest that that would just be f*cking ridiculous, and get threatened with the police.
You couldn't, ...well could you? Could anyone have made this up?
In reply to Just Another Dave:
Derbyshire are pretty good at recognising a camper van for what it is. Salford on the other hand have a height restriction that probably prevents even 4x4s .... yep, couldn't make it up.
Derbyshire are pretty good at recognising a camper van for what it is. Salford on the other hand have a height restriction that probably prevents even 4x4s .... yep, couldn't make it up.
In reply to stp:
Apart from the limitations of what can currently be done, you're absolutely right. In the interests of energy conservation, minimising landfill, and generally good conservation practice there should exist laws which control
a) expected lifetime of products
b) serviceability of products (ease of repair)
c) re-cylability of products at end of life and including
d) facilitation of exchange/pickup among public
Environmental issues will cost us far more than 'poor' economy if left unattended
Apart from the limitations of what can currently be done, you're absolutely right. In the interests of energy conservation, minimising landfill, and generally good conservation practice there should exist laws which control
a) expected lifetime of products
b) serviceability of products (ease of repair)
c) re-cylability of products at end of life and including
d) facilitation of exchange/pickup among public
Environmental issues will cost us far more than 'poor' economy if left unattended
In reply to wintertree:
But then it's radioactive as I'm sure you know, and you still have to build the reactor yet!!
You could say we could go to the sun and collect some from there, but that's drivel too.
Well you might call it drivel, but Hydrogen and oxygen tend to combine with other elements before it reaches space.
As there are no compounds of helium, the helium has a much easier job of waving the earth goodbye.
Helium was the first thing that came to mind while reading your post, I'm sure there are many more, that given a little time would prove my point even more, but Helium's as good enough start.
> You want to think a little bit before calling something drivel.
> How do you make Helium? You put some Deuterium and some Tritium (bred from Lithium) in a fusion reactor and press go. That can be and is done in more than a dozen labs around the world. If the world was generating energy with D-T fusion then the quantity of Helium generated per year would represent a significant fraction of the quantity that is currently used annually.
But then it's radioactive as I'm sure you know, and you still have to build the reactor yet!!
You could say we could go to the sun and collect some from there, but that's drivel too.
> I'd call that argument drivel in the context of the discussion- we've also been loosing hydrogen, oxygen and a host of other compounds to space - not since the earth was formed but since it gained an atmosphere.
Well you might call it drivel, but Hydrogen and oxygen tend to combine with other elements before it reaches space.
As there are no compounds of helium, the helium has a much easier job of waving the earth goodbye.
Helium was the first thing that came to mind while reading your post, I'm sure there are many more, that given a little time would prove my point even more, but Helium's as good enough start.
In reply to krikoman:
Just so you know, you're wrong. If you don't believe me, go and research the isotopes of Helium. You might also want to look into the origins of Helium in natural gas.
There are dozens of functional D-T reactors around the world. I clearly said sufficient use of these to produce the worlds Helium is in the future, not now. Or are you calling a realistic future drivel?
More a case of dumb when the lunar regolith has all we need and is a lot closer.
We are loosing 60x as much hydrogen as helium. It doesn't actually matter much if we loose the helium or not because once it's released into the atmosphere the concentration is very low meaning that it is effectively lost to us. You may note that the rate we release it into the atmosphere - tonnes per year - is far higher than the rate the atmosphere releases it into space - 50g per year. It will take 20,000 years for the helium wasted this year alone to boil off to space. So as arguments go, drivel.
Like I said before, we are mad to waste or helium - we need it more and more and commercial breeding of sufficient is possibly further away than a resource crunch. It's not the boiling into space that's the problem though...
It's an excellent one for my point - technology is decreasing our dependence on the planets natural resources and one day we will be independent of them.
> But then it's radioactive as I'm sure you know,
Just so you know, you're wrong. If you don't believe me, go and research the isotopes of Helium. You might also want to look into the origins of Helium in natural gas.
> and you still have to build the reactor yet!!
There are dozens of functional D-T reactors around the world. I clearly said sufficient use of these to produce the worlds Helium is in the future, not now. Or are you calling a realistic future drivel?
> You could say we could go to the sun and collect some from there, but that's drivel too.
More a case of dumb when the lunar regolith has all we need and is a lot closer.
> Well you might call it drivel, but Hydrogen and oxygen tend to combine with other elements before it reaches space
We are loosing 60x as much hydrogen as helium. It doesn't actually matter much if we loose the helium or not because once it's released into the atmosphere the concentration is very low meaning that it is effectively lost to us. You may note that the rate we release it into the atmosphere - tonnes per year - is far higher than the rate the atmosphere releases it into space - 50g per year. It will take 20,000 years for the helium wasted this year alone to boil off to space. So as arguments go, drivel.
Like I said before, we are mad to waste or helium - we need it more and more and commercial breeding of sufficient is possibly further away than a resource crunch. It's not the boiling into space that's the problem though...
> Helium was the first thing that came to mind while reading your post, I'm sure there are many more, that given a little time would prove my point even more, but Helium's as good enough start.
It's an excellent one for my point - technology is decreasing our dependence on the planets natural resources and one day we will be independent of them.
Post edited at 09:50
In reply to wintertree:
And how much hydrogen is there compared to helium available as a earth's resource?
More to the point how much more economical is it to produce hydrogen than helium?
Therefore finite!! FFS!
What complete bollocks!! We'll be independent of them because there aren't any left and we have no choice.
> We are loosing 60x as much hydrogen as helium.
And how much hydrogen is there compared to helium available as a earth's resource?
More to the point how much more economical is it to produce hydrogen than helium?
> It doesn't actually matter much if we loose the helium or not because once it's released into the atmosphere the concentration is very low meaning that it is effectively lost to us.
Therefore finite!! FFS!
> It's an excellent one for my point - technology is decreasing our dependence on the planets natural resources and one day we will be independent of them.
What complete bollocks!! We'll be independent of them because there aren't any left and we have no choice.
In reply to Just Another Dave:
Hi,
Our council allows you to take a van if you have a letter that confirms its private use only and the waste is from your private home (its been a while since i sold my van and can't remember if i wrote the letter or they sent it to me).
Phone them up and check (centrally at the local council).
Kevin
Hi,
Our council allows you to take a van if you have a letter that confirms its private use only and the waste is from your private home (its been a while since i sold my van and can't remember if i wrote the letter or they sent it to me).
Phone them up and check (centrally at the local council).
Kevin
In reply to krikoman:
Don't backtrack just to argue. You claimed that we loose more helium than hydrogen to space. You were wrong. I corrected you. Now you want to re-cast your comment as about relative proportions so that you can paint me as wrong. Changing your point is fine, but does not give you ground to attack my earlier correction of your incorrect statement.
At the moment, quite a lot. I have never said otherwise. I have repeatedly said that we are currently squandering helium, but that one day in the future technology could and likely will overcome the exhaustion of natural helium resources.
So is everything!! FFFS!!1!!1!!1 If you want to play that game the universe may well be a finite resource. So we'll just give up then and go home.
Perhaps, perhaps not. At the moment I wouldn't like to call it either way - will exhaustion of Helium drive the adoption of more prevalent resources, or will commercial D-T fusion or transmutation plants take over as the main source of our Helium? The history books are full of examples of natural resource consumption that was made unnecessary by technology advance rather than resource extinction.
Actually, I am going to call your entire Helium exhaustion comment both drivel and bollocks seeing as you have used those words. As you were almost totally wrong and it is not being lost to space at any appreciable rate, it is in the atmosphere. The concentration of atmospheric Helium is 0.28x that of atmospheric Neon [1], and it is commercially viable to fractionate Neon from air, so I imagine it wouldn't take much of a shift in the supply situation to do so for Helium as well.
[1] http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/airgas.pdf
The thing about the now, the present, is that there is nothing special about it, no reasons to think that all progress ends here. Look back 50, 100, 500, 1000 years. People from each of those past periods will have depended upon natural resources that have been rendered unnecessary through increased energy supply and science and technology. As there is nothing special about the now, there is no reason to suspect that people 50, 100, 500 and 1000 years from now won't look back on us and make the same observations. The big difference to the people of 1000 years ago is that we now have a very strong insight into where we're going.
> And how much hydrogen is there compared to helium available as a earth's resource?
Don't backtrack just to argue. You claimed that we loose more helium than hydrogen to space. You were wrong. I corrected you. Now you want to re-cast your comment as about relative proportions so that you can paint me as wrong. Changing your point is fine, but does not give you ground to attack my earlier correction of your incorrect statement.
> More to the point how much more economical is it to produce hydrogen than helium?
At the moment, quite a lot. I have never said otherwise. I have repeatedly said that we are currently squandering helium, but that one day in the future technology could and likely will overcome the exhaustion of natural helium resources.
> Therefore finite!! FFS!
So is everything!! FFFS!!1!!1!!1 If you want to play that game the universe may well be a finite resource. So we'll just give up then and go home.
> What complete bollocks!! We'll be independent of them because there aren't any left and we have no choice.
Perhaps, perhaps not. At the moment I wouldn't like to call it either way - will exhaustion of Helium drive the adoption of more prevalent resources, or will commercial D-T fusion or transmutation plants take over as the main source of our Helium? The history books are full of examples of natural resource consumption that was made unnecessary by technology advance rather than resource extinction.
Actually, I am going to call your entire Helium exhaustion comment both drivel and bollocks seeing as you have used those words. As you were almost totally wrong and it is not being lost to space at any appreciable rate, it is in the atmosphere. The concentration of atmospheric Helium is 0.28x that of atmospheric Neon [1], and it is commercially viable to fractionate Neon from air, so I imagine it wouldn't take much of a shift in the supply situation to do so for Helium as well.
[1] http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/pdf/airgas.pdf
The thing about the now, the present, is that there is nothing special about it, no reasons to think that all progress ends here. Look back 50, 100, 500, 1000 years. People from each of those past periods will have depended upon natural resources that have been rendered unnecessary through increased energy supply and science and technology. As there is nothing special about the now, there is no reason to suspect that people 50, 100, 500 and 1000 years from now won't look back on us and make the same observations. The big difference to the people of 1000 years ago is that we now have a very strong insight into where we're going.
In reply to wintertree:
"So you imagine"!! well done, what's your imagination got to do with physics or engineering?
Do you realise the difference between -246 °C and −269 °C. Here's a clue it's not 23 °C
And I wasn't back tacking, your original proposition was that none of the earth's resources are finite, whether it's lost to space or lost to the atmosphere, usable helium is a finite resource.
Like Dodo's were finite
> Actually, I am going to call your entire Helium exhaustion comment both drivel and bollocks seeing as you have used those words. As you were almost totally wrong and it is not being lost to space at any appreciable rate, it is in the atmosphere. The concentration of atmospheric Helium is 0.28x that of atmospheric Neon [1], and it is commercially viable to fractionate Neon from air, so I imagine it wouldn't take much of a shift in the supply situation to do so for Helium as well.
"So you imagine"!! well done, what's your imagination got to do with physics or engineering?
Do you realise the difference between -246 °C and −269 °C. Here's a clue it's not 23 °C
And I wasn't back tacking, your original proposition was that none of the earth's resources are finite, whether it's lost to space or lost to the atmosphere, usable helium is a finite resource.
Like Dodo's were finite
In reply to krikoman:
Speak for your imagination. Mine runs of engineering and science with a bit of future prediction.
I've got no idea as you've written gibberish. Neon's liquefaction temperature is ~27K, and Helium's is ~5K. That's a difference of 22K - expensive but not impossible, at least as long as there is some Helium to use in the (closed cycle) final stage of cooling.
Yes you were. You claimed we were loosing Helium to space and that that proved we were using it unsustainably. When confronted with actual facts you back peddled to the suggestion that we are releasing it into the air and will then be left with none. Again, I suggest you are wrong there and that we can either breed it or liquify it from air if needed.
I stand by my original point which was not that none of the earth's resources are finite but that If energy was truly sustainable then we could strip mine the planet sustainably for an awfully long time - certainly longer than is needed to start pulling resources in from space. As it is, the cost of recycling vs strip mining means that we are - and will continue - to see more and more recycling of existing materials.
You'll notice that I said "if" - we need a more sustainable source of energy. Other resource depletion problems are symptoms of a lack of energy. Fix that one, and other resource problems become a thing of the past.
> "So you imagine"!! well done, what's your imagination got to do with physics or engineering?
Speak for your imagination. Mine runs of engineering and science with a bit of future prediction.
> Do you realise the difference between -246 °C and −269 °C. Here's a clue it's not 23 °C
I've got no idea as you've written gibberish. Neon's liquefaction temperature is ~27K, and Helium's is ~5K. That's a difference of 22K - expensive but not impossible, at least as long as there is some Helium to use in the (closed cycle) final stage of cooling.
> And I wasn't back tacking, your original proposition was that none of the earth's resources are finite, whether it's lost to space or lost to the atmosphere, usable helium is a finite resource.
Yes you were. You claimed we were loosing Helium to space and that that proved we were using it unsustainably. When confronted with actual facts you back peddled to the suggestion that we are releasing it into the air and will then be left with none. Again, I suggest you are wrong there and that we can either breed it or liquify it from air if needed.
I stand by my original point which was not that none of the earth's resources are finite but that If energy was truly sustainable then we could strip mine the planet sustainably for an awfully long time - certainly longer than is needed to start pulling resources in from space. As it is, the cost of recycling vs strip mining means that we are - and will continue - to see more and more recycling of existing materials.
You'll notice that I said "if" - we need a more sustainable source of energy. Other resource depletion problems are symptoms of a lack of energy. Fix that one, and other resource problems become a thing of the past.
In reply to wintertree:
It may be 50g per second, or ~1.5x10^6 kg per year, but that's according to Sci. Am., and I'd prefer a different source for the info.
> We are loosing 60x as much hydrogen as helium. It doesn't actually matter much if we loose the helium or not because once it's released into the atmosphere the concentration is very low meaning that it is effectively lost to us. You may note that the rate we release it into the atmosphere - tonnes per year - is far higher than the rate the atmosphere releases it into space - 50g per year. It will take 20,000 years for the helium wasted this year alone to boil off to space. So as arguments go, drivel.
It may be 50g per second, or ~1.5x10^6 kg per year, but that's according to Sci. Am., and I'd prefer a different source for the info.
1
In reply to l21bjd:
That would sound a lot more believable! That's my second very embarrassing unit mistake of the day, but thankfully nobody needs to know about the other one! Still, it takes 16 years for each year's Helium use to evaporate off into space, and there's still about 150,000,000 as much as a year's usaage of Helium in the atmosphere. Assuming no more very embarrassing mistakes on units... (!)
> It may be 50g per second, or ~1.5x10^6 kg per year, but that's according to Sci. Am., and I'd prefer a different source for the info.
That would sound a lot more believable! That's my second very embarrassing unit mistake of the day, but thankfully nobody needs to know about the other one! Still, it takes 16 years for each year's Helium use to evaporate off into space, and there's still about 150,000,000 as much as a year's usaage of Helium in the atmosphere. Assuming no more very embarrassing mistakes on units... (!)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...