Slashdot Mirror

Facts say otherwise. I do find some things saying USA is in top 5/10(of ocean pollution, nut specifically plastics), but provide no information on it, and feels more like FUD. (however, New York needs to stop dumping trash in ocean)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/w...
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
https://www.ecowatch.com/these...
https://www.dw.com/en/almost-a...

fixing the post (HTML on mobile is an adventure: no "preview"):

Recycling plastic waste. We do it here in the USA.

All? (Some is recycled here in Brazil too... Some cities here do almost all: that's not enough, not even close...)

Perfect is surely the pernicious enemy of good. We have four recycling setups here where I am. One is the municipal, which takes glass, aluminum, most plastics, paper and cardboard. Large metallic items can be dropped off at our transfer station gratis. Oddball plastics that are recyclable are now being taken at the nature conservancy locations, and they also take large cardboard items - think the box a refrigerator comes in.

The last line is the local people who will buy copper and other metals from you. I have bags of wire that I just drop off for them.

Is it all of every recycleable item? That's probably not attainable. But one thing is for certain, precious little makes it into rivers that dump in the ocean. We don't do badly, The first world's contribution to the problem is in microspheres. But we'll take care of that as well.

So let us look at where evil America is in the list of criminals befouling our oceans with plastic. From eco watch: https://www.ecowatch.com/these... Hardly a conservative anti-ecological site. They even have vegan pink hair dye recipes. China, indonesia, Phillipines, Vietnam, Thailand.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018...

90 percent. 90 freaking percent of the plastic pollution. The USA could disappear tomorrow, and it would hardly make a dent in the amount of plastic dumped in the ocean.

So no, the USA does not recycle 100 percent of all materials. I'm skeptical that anyone is. Oh, bullshit - no one is. But worrying over our lack of perfection, to blame it on us, while 90 percent is coming from elsewhere is simply irrational. And won't fix the problem either.

Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent. https://www.ecowatch.com/bioma...

8 Myths About Pesticides That Monsanto Wants You to Believe (Nov. 4, 2015)
Quote: As of 2008, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, BASF and others had filed 532 patents for 'climate-related genes,' touting the imminent arrival of a new generation of seeds engineered to withstand heat and drought."

Answer to question on Yahoo: "Organophosphates KILL everything. Good bugs as well as bad. Most growers of any crops are now using something called. I.P.M., integrated pest management."

But, isn't it also true that the vast, vast majority of the polluters is energy, manufacturing, and transportation?

Actually, from what I read, one of the the largest single source of carbon pollution is cow farts,.

another link

another link

And yet another link

Some say they are worse polluters than cars.

If you believe the models, they say that as the Earth warms, the poles will warm more than the tropics. This means that the temperature difference between the poles and tropics will decrease. What drives storms? Temperature differences. The bigger the difference, the stronger the storm. So, if you believe the models, the intensity of storms will *decrease* due to global warming, not increase as everyone keeps saying. If you believe the models.

The great thing about an amorphous hypothesis like Global Warming/Climate Change is that it can be said to be causing whatever's going on right now. Hurricanes? Climate Change! Tornadoes? Climate Change! Volcanoes? Climate Change! Roger Federer losing the U.S. Open? Climate Change!

The cities attorney was quoted as saying:
"Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid."

I actually wonder who he's referring to. BP a major investor in Wind power in the USA, who's CEO is pushing for a price to be put on carbon? Royal Dutch Shell a major investor in electric charging infrastructure? Chevron with their work on Solar power? Conoco Phillips who have published on their homepage: "We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.". Or maybe Exxon who have published a page dedicated to the very art of not denying climate change is real and valid http://corporate.exxonmobil.co....

Congratulations San Francisco! What a .... errr ... win?
Now can we please eliminate the San Francisco city attorney who is constantly expelling CO2 while contributing nothing at all of value to society.

Source:
https://www.ecowatch.com/clima...

Climate Change May Be Slowing Hurricanes, Leading to More Flood-Heavy Storms Like Harvey

This is an awesome job for AI robots. Either:

1. It replaces hard-on-the-body manual labor (long hours bent over, sun & sunburn & skin cancer, etc) by using a robot to pull weeds.
2. It delivers targeted doses of herbicides, hopefully reducing the enormous amount of Glyphosate(*) currently used AND reducing Monstanto's ridiculous amount of control over the farm industry.

* - Over 90% of all glyphosate produced and used EVER has been in the past 20 years. 70% in just the last 10. Food today is NOT the same as it was in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Do you trust Monsanto to proactively limit the amount of Roundup you consume?

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsa...

No, but you can give it just the wavelengths that work for it. Plants don't absorb much green light (because it's reflected) but you can't change the sun's spectrum. But you can use lights that emit just on the red/blue parts of the spectrum and you can tailor the lights to maximize efficiency. And you can build multiple levels stacked on top of each other, by putting lights under the next level up, whereas producing on a normal farm is a 2D venture.
I also used to believe that we'd never be able to outcompete a free sun. But then I read of companies doing just this. Sure, I doubt it will ever work for producing fruits and most vegetables, but for leafy greens, it seems it's possible...

That's fine, just don't eat steak.
https://www.ecowatch.com/which...

Here are some non-slashdot articles for you as well...

As you can see my question was not unreasonable...

https://www.ecowatch.com/megad...

https://www.livescience.com/21...

Well, you could just Google it but I'll hold your hand:
http://www.ecowatch.com/100-re...
http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
https://www.scientificamerican...
http://energyblog.nationalgeog...
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Yeah, you can grow things in Mars regolith. If you first remove the toxic perchlorates. And the hexavalent chromium. And the general excess of arsenic. And on and on. Basically, if you take a highly polluted natural material and remediate the various pollutants from it, then add water, you can grow plants in it. Well golly gee, whoda thunk that?

You won't be able to eat everything grown in the regolith, but you will be able to eat some plants.

You'd think, for instance, somewhere someone should be experimenting with the minimum requirements for rendering Martian regolith into non-toxic, fertile ground.

You would think that, yeah. Indeed, we probably have some sort of simulated martian regolith that can be used for this sort of research.

Toying around with the power requirements to augment Martian sunlight and temperatures to levels required to support Terran plants or trying to engineer plants that will grow and thrive at Martian insolation levels.

That sounds quite handy.

Or playing around with in situ production of building materials, automated mining and refining equipment, etc.

Yes, it would be handy if you could make bricks, or perhaps concrete.

I'd certainly be up for a really inhumane experiment

When can you be ready to go?

Most people base their belief that the nails are in the coffin for Anti-vaxxers (a derogatory term) on scientific studies released by the CDC. The unfortunate reality is that evidence of correlation was intentionally destroyed. One of the authors of the CDC studies turned Whistleblower, but he is not being allowed to testify.

Despite this possible scientific evidence which needs to be properly adjudicated, we still have to weigh the benefit vs harm of various vaccines. If, at some point in the future, it is found that vaccines increase the incidence of Autism, is it acceptable compared to an epidemic of Polio, Small Pox, Rubella, etc?

Keep in mind that doctors once promoted cigarettes. Keep in mind that Dr Barry Marshall was ridiculed for his discovery of Helicobacter Pylori before being proven correct and earning the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

If he's saying "energy revolution" he invites you to project "trump is making america use green technologies". But he is proposing exactly the opposite: http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-...

Quoting his press release https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... , he wants to:

Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
[...]
Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

And for the coal workers: At one of his rallies in west virginia he has said this:

Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they're going to start to work again, believe me. You're going to be proud again to be miners.

I don't know whether it qualifies as "projection" if you are just quoting his words as he says so much, but show me the quote where he said the thing about the new energy system.

Err why am I trolling? This is what he said http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-...

Quoting his press release https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
[...]
Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.

Nice fallacy there, finding a case that was not what I was referring too and using it to dismiss my argument.

The why don't you post a case that is what you are referring to? Of course you can't, because there isn't one.

6) Loss of organic certification due to contamination. http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/12...

It is not Monsanto's fault that Australia has stupid laws (driven by anti-GMO hysteria).

2) suing neighbours.

Nice fallacy there, finding a case that was not what I was referring too and using it to dismiss my argument.

Oh and add:
6) Loss of organic certification due to contamination.
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/12...

A very real cost there.

Nuclear would have cost you more. http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/04...

Selective breeding is a lot more predictable than directly twiddling genes. There are a lot of unforeseen side-effects.

[citation needed]

Bill Nye would disagree with you. Specifically, here is a quote from when he changed his mind about GMO's:

"The thing is, genetically modified food has no effect on us. That is to say, there is no difference between it and organically raised food. This is scientifically provable. It’s certainly provable to my satisfaction, and that’s the most straightforward thing about it, to see if it’s still nutritious and see if it has any allergic effect, and it absolutely does not. In fact, in general, all of these foods are more nutritious."

Source: http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/14...

There's further details in his recent book Undeniable about why there aren't "unforeseen side-effects" from GMO foods. I think anyone with doubts or curiosity about the subject (and evolution in general) should read it.

If all judges were this sensible, then those who want to imprison people for "climate change denial" will be thwarted.

All zero people.

Well probably not quite zero, there's enough people in the world that there's probably one nutjob who says something like that. I'll bet you can't find a remotely significant number of people with such views.

Crawl out from under that rock, because you're WRONG:

Read a US Senator (Democrat, natch) call for bringing RICO charges against climate deniers.

More here: Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

And here: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

More: Al Gore Blasts GOP Climate Deniers, Thom Hartmann Says Throw Them in Jail

Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice

Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers?

WTF? DEATH PENALTY?!?!?!

Yes indeed - death penalty. And he's not alone:

Climate “Deniers” Must Be Jailed or Killed

What States' Attorneys General Can Do About Climate Deniers (Hard to believe the Kennedy clan has fallen that far - JFK tried to depose a Communist dictator instead of sucking up to him...)

Except if you live near oil producing areas using fracking and suddenly your well water becomes flammable:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07...

So while there may be some hysteria, I damned well would be hysteric if my drinking water suddenly became flammable.

In fairness, it isn't the fracking process that is directly causing the earthquake problem here -- it is disposing of the wastewater in certain deep wells that is causing the earthquake activity. I read somewhere that ninety percent of the earthquake activity is associated with less than ten percent of the wells, which tells me that if we are able to choose which wells we use for wastewater injection we can substantially solve this problem.

Ohio has had a similar, if less serious, problem:

http://www.livescience.com/493...

For all that, this whole story sounds like we are watching a classic disaster movie unfold.

Are you sure about that? It's inexpensive enough for roughly 30 million homes *right now*.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/16...

When the government subsidizes the costs, it doesn't actually make the energy any cheaper it just makes it more affordable. The costs remain the same, the burden is just shifted around a bit.

Are you sure about that? It's inexpensive enough for roughly 30 million homes *right now*.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/16...

I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.

Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths

Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..

I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.

So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.

On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/17...

Japan officially unveiled today its 7 megawatt (MW) wind turbine, the world’s largest offshore turbine to date. It is slated to be operational by September [of 2015].

Let's also look at contenders.

The SeaTitan 10MW wind turbine designed by American energy technologies company AMSC is currently the biggest wind turbine in the world. [...] AMSC is currently negotiating with potential partners to build and commercialise the SeaTitan 10MW wind turbines.

That one's not in production yet.

The ST10 offshore wind turbine designed and developed by the Norwegian technology company Sway, is the world's second biggest wind turbine. It has a power output of 10MW, is equipped with a rotor of 164m diameter, has a 2rpm nominal speed and blades 67m in length. [...] Sway Turbine is looking for potential partners to commercialise the ST10 turbine technology.

Looking to commercialize this one, too.

French energy company Areva's 8MW wind turbine, launched in November 2013, is the world's third biggest wind turbine by rated capacity. [...] The turbine's prototype is scheduled to be installed in 2015, while commercial production is expected to begin in 2018.

This is the third-highest-nameplate-capacity turbine in the world, behind the two 10MW ones that haven't even gone into production yet. This one is looking for a prototype test in 2015, and maybe commercial production in 2018.

Shit this big doesn't exist yet. No single 10MW turbine exists yet. You're claiming you've got single 25MW turbines installed, when they don't exist either. Do you also have Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny over there, and a functional warp drive and space fold generator?

Before the Civil War they said freeing the slaves would ruin the economy

Emphasised that for you.

But yeah, there's little doubt that the value of slaves as assets and production & fears of economic catastrophe were a major factor in the Civil War, though the war itself was an even bigger economic disaster.

The primary byproducts are carbon dioxide and water, neither of which is a poison at the concentrations at which they are currently generated.

CO2 isn't a poison - but CO is, as are SO2, NOx, formaldehyde, benzene, mercury etc, all of which are produced by burning fossil fuels. Of course our economy isn't "based on" these poison gases, but it is based on the burning of fossil fuels, and the resulting toxic byproducts from fossil fuel electricity alone in the US is estimated at "$361.7–886.5 billion annually, representing 2.5–6.0% of the national GDP."

You really miss the point, don't you. The energy still has to come from somewhere, unless you are running a 100% green energy (Solar, Wind, GeoThermal) and off the grid, you're creating waste, yes, it may not be a tail pipe, it's somewhere else that you don't directly see it. But fact is, the waste still occurs, the fault is still there, it's just out of sight, and for you, clearly out of mind. Even the most green countries use forms of energy that are not green. The highest green countries still only account for about 40%, which means the other 60% is coming from somewhere not green, also known as polluting. http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/09... Recyclable batteries are good, except when they reach the limit, which is only a second use before they have to be scrapped or face fault (Which result in fires, explosions, etc, not to mention the caustic fumes). We have a long way to go in recyclable technology, in green energy, in the whole lot. But what I'm saying is that EV just move the problem out of sight, continued work and improvements need to be made, gasoline vehicles in the past 10 years have made huge leaps in MPG not to mention its overall reduction of free chemicals. It's not perfect by any means. No technology is, the argument isn't wrong, you just can't see the forest for the "leaf"

Who should I believe, a respected laboratory, NREL, or some guy on the internet who can't be bothered to do math? Regarding Vermont, HydroQuebec is ready to cover Vermont Yankee. California should be obvious and it doesn't use coal. http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/17...

National Geographic, I believe, had an article/piece where someone took pictures of the contents of bird stomachs. Albatross, you name it, they all like to eat plastic, especially colorful plastic. When they laid out all the pieces found in the stomach of birds, it looked like all the weapons a fighter jet can carry.

Here, let me Google that for you:

http://ecowatch.com/2013/06/12/coal-companies-receive-taxpayer-subsidies/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/
http://www.cato.org/blog/clean-coal-subsidies
http://illinoistimes.com/article-permalink-12589.html