-
Enjoy XS650.com? Consider making a donation to help support the site.
XS650.com receives a small share of sales from some links on this page, but direct donations have a much greater impact on keeping this site going.
Do we care about the enviroment !!! ????
- Thread starter 650Skull
- Start date
MikeyDeepXS
Livin’ in XS
Yessir, I agree with the sentiment.
I probably take this a little bit extra personally because of my history trying to create an awareness as to what is factually happening with post consumer waste.
Maybe I’m just plain wrong about the intent of plastics recycling, but then again, I might be right on point.
Do I care about THE environment, maybe… do I care about my environment, absolutely yes.
I see my environment and every other living organism’s as connected.
Then again, some organisms(like mosquitoes and poison ivy) I’d like to see DIE! Lol
Bad acters, these people are half the problem people loose faith in recycling.
It's the same as those getting contracts to recycle, sending it to poor Asian countries who don't have recycling facilities. Can't blame the poor Asian countries.
Happened here in Aus. Queensland boarders with NSW. There was a situation, can't remember the exact details or which way round it was), but a wast transfer company was getting paid to recycle household waste Turns out they were crossing the boarder and using the other states landfill to dump the waste in.
If that company was not fulfilling its obligations and you had proof they weren't, then it was a choice of yours on how far to take it. Lawyers letters don't always have the power they want you, (you as in anyone in that situation), to think they have.
I have lost jobs by sticking to my guns over, and reporting animal cruelty.
We make a choice.
MikeyDeepXS
Livin’ in XS
It’d be nice to be qualified as a lawyer and get to write some letters, for the good side
Then again, 97% of doctors in the 1800s believed washing their hands was useless in stopping the spread of disease, and an overwhelming majority of geneticists and biologists in the 1920s supported the core principles of eugenics...
Seriously. Why are you posting in this thread?.
This you?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1023431423399044/?referral_source=profile_reels_tab
I bet you even think you're funny.
The point is, just because a "consensus" of "experts" believe something doesn't make it true. They've been very wrong in the past.
Evidence makes something true, or at least, more likely.
So don't give me the "97%" BS. Give me data and facts.
Watch the Elephants in Rooms video and you'll see where I stand, or come over to my house where we recycle what gets recycled, have wild spaces for the animals, and are planting native trees and plants to give the local wildlife even more space to live.
Point is, knowledge is gained and old (incorrect) knowledge is discarded. Your analogy above is the "funny" one. We've gotten all the way to heart transplants, lung transplants and machining nice purty titanium joints for our knees and shoulders. I'd argue that's a fair bit advanced from "washing our hands." Old incorrect knowledge falls by the wayside. Over the years, peer reviewed data discarded the old notion that hand washing doesn't help, and that's how it's supposed to work. New peer reviewed data replaces the old.
Over 99% of REAL climate scientist say that climate change is real... and humans are the cause. That's a fact. You can toss up videos from ex-Fox News execs 'till the cows come home... but you want data and facts don't you? Well here it is... peer reviewed. Got any facts to tell thousands' of climate scientist's they're wrong? Facts please... give us facts.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
MikeyDeepXS
Livin’ in XS
I gotta
@Wordman, I can’t tell you if “they” actually recycle #5 because I don’t know who “they” are. But I can tell you that it’s very likely that not much of it is actually getting recycled and a surprising amount is getting polluted, that’s at least, if you live in the USA
#5 is mainly smaller items like bottle caps, and pill bottles, the main exception that I come across are reusable food containers(why not reuse them, its far better than “recycling”).
Even pill bottles are better re-used for organizational efforts(great for small hardware in the garage) than recycled
My 2c
I’m with Jim 650 skull on climate change, it’s definitely being accelerated by human activities, even it it’s not c02 emissions as much as the media portrays it to be, we’re doing all kinda of things to modify the weather, some as an unintentional consequence, and some intentionally.
The only argument I think that could plausibly hold water that climate change isn’t as much human caused as media leads on is that it’s actually drivin by some cosmic shit that we dont understand… although that doesn’t seem to hold much water if we’re having ice ages and cataclysms historically during these periods…
@Wordman, I can’t tell you if “they” actually recycle #5 because I don’t know who “they” are. But I can tell you that it’s very likely that not much of it is actually getting recycled and a surprising amount is getting polluted, that’s at least, if you live in the USA
#5 is mainly smaller items like bottle caps, and pill bottles, the main exception that I come across are reusable food containers(why not reuse them, its far better than “recycling”).
Even pill bottles are better re-used for organizational efforts(great for small hardware in the garage) than recycled
My 2c
I’m with Jim 650 skull on climate change, it’s definitely being accelerated by human activities, even it it’s not c02 emissions as much as the media portrays it to be, we’re doing all kinda of things to modify the weather, some as an unintentional consequence, and some intentionally.
The only argument I think that could plausibly hold water that climate change isn’t as much human caused as media leads on is that it’s actually drivin by some cosmic shit that we dont understand… although that doesn’t seem to hold much water if we’re having ice ages and cataclysms historically during these periods…
Facts, data facts, recognised world eminent scientist lays out reasoned response to deniers believes. I have posted all of the above.
Now you don't want to accept that information and that's ok. What you are doing in this thread is not.
I am posting info based on what I think, know and believe to b true from all sorts of sources.
Questioning every post I make just because you don't think it aligns with your beliefs is not being constructive. It's being combative, trolling and quite frankly boring. If that clip I posted offended you then maybe it hit home how your behaviour in this thread is on par with that guy's reaction.
If your so he'll bent on trying to prove me wrong all the time, don't, I suggest you start a thread on flat earth theories, how oil production is good for the planet, environmentalists destroy capitalism, or any thing you want to.
I can't make you not post in this thread, but as I have said to you several times now, your attitude is counterproductive to the first post I made when I started this thread.
In other words piss off
Well, you've definitely demonstrated you know how to attack a source rather than the information that source gives...
I agree man is contributing (as did the guy in the video I posted).
We do reuse containers as much as possible, but at some point you have too many prescription bottles. But there's just no reuse for the container the microwavable food come in.
The LaCorte video I posted emphasizes data from after we started measuring things with satellites (they say the climate IS warming). Of course, such data can't tell us what's going to happen, and that's where my issue comes in.
We're currently in an interglacial period, so the earth is supposed to be warming. That it is warming faster than it's "supposed to" seems to be the case. What we can and/or should do about it is in question.
But that doesn't mean I think we should just keep on the way we are.
Personally, I like the French model (more nuclear), but in the end, that's only a bandaid unless we can get China and the developing world to skip fossil fuels while still developing (seem rather colonial).
Every post? Hyperbole much, or do you just have a space in your head where you think I live?
So far, all I've seen out of you is the attitude that anyone who doesn't think and believe exactly as you do is an idiot and a troll.
P.S. Ivy League colleges had Eugenics departments. Does that mean I think Climate Change isn't real? Nope. Does it mean I think man doesn't contribute to it? Nope. It means that prestigious scientists and scientific departments have been horribly wrong before.
P.P.S. Ever notice how it's always you calling people names or insulting people's intelligence, while those you rail against do not do the same toward you?
Maybe think about that, eh?
Wait, I thought you said, "I'm not going to get into debates or arguments."
Listen, as I've said many times, I agree we need to do better. I agree we need to think things through more. I agree we should, on our own, try to do what's best.
Since I know you didn't (and won't) watch the LaCorte video, did you know fracking actually helped with lowering pollution? Seems the low cost of natural gas caused a lot of plants to switch from coal to natural gas. Yes, that's still a fossil fuel, but it is still better, and better is good, right?
As for coal, whether we keep using it or not, we need to stop blasting the tops off mountains and letting the slag run off and kill the creeks and rivers!
And we need more nuclear. Especially TSMRs.
I recycle what I can, and keep things until they're just not usable. I'm personally expanding wildlife habitat in my own yard. I bet you're doing the same.
But I don't think it's some crazy emergency wherein if we don't force people to use bajillion dollar electric balloons starting tomorrow we're all going to die.
Anyway, have a good evening (or morning, or whatever it is in your part of the world). Seriously.
Einstein's threary of relativity was dismissed by 99% of the scientific community.
Black holes were dismissed as falicy and eventually accepted as a possibility based on mathematics only.
Devinci's inventions were laughted at by 99% of the people 99% of the time.
Scientific studies prove that there is always more to learn when they do studies.
Making problems go away by doing less study proves the problem was never there.
Absoultely.
If you read the details on the graph, it reads nothing like your interpretation.
The papers the graph is based on were picked because they are sceptic based.
Conclusion is climate change is driven by human activity.
They simply make a huge assumption.
But again, I'm not saying there isn't anthropogenic climate change.
As LaCorte said, "So here's where the agreement actually is. Some warming is human-caused, and almost no serious skeptic argues humans contribute nothing. There’s a question as to how much comes from us versus natural variability … not whether we're in the mix at all."
Nonetheless, and as I've stated before, I don't think it's some crazy emergency wherein if we don't force people to use bajillion dollar electric balloons starting tomorrow we're all going to die.
Let's be smart, but let's not panic. Nor should we bankrupt ourselves in order that China, India, etc., can pollute their asses off.
Last edited:
From the LaCorte video:
4. The Cost of Solutions
So the underlying question all of this is … are the costs of solutions worth it? And are we even pursuing the right solutions at all?
The dominant economic argument for aggressive climate action goes back to the Stern Review, a landmark 2006 analysis commissioned by the British government. Its basic conclusion: the cost of inaction substantially exceeds the cost of action. Every dollar spent on trying to slow climate change now saves multiple dollars in avoided damage later.
A lot of people still buy that premise … but it rests entirely on discount rates and damage projections that, as we just saw, have a pretty wide margin of error built into them … and remain heavily contested among economists.
The counterargument comes most prominently from Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish researcher who's spent 20 years arguing that the climate movement's math doesn't add up.
Lomborg isn't a climate denier, and doesn’t dispute the science. His argument is a cost-benefit one: the specific policies being pushed … aggressive decarbonization, Net Zero mandates, trillion-dollar green energy transitions … don't survive honest cost-benefit analyses when you stack them against alternatives.
He argues the same money spent on malaria prevention, clean water access, and economic development in poor countries would prevent far more human suffering than halting the use of fossil fuels. It’s an allocation of resources argument.
There’s also debate on whether instead of concentrating on reducing CO2, to accept what’s already BEEN released and WILL be released … and spend more on adapting rather than on trying to prevent warming. Things like seawalls and drought-resistant crops and early warning systems for extreme weather. It’s a notion that used to be considered defeatist, but is getting more attention now.
Now, the good news is that we’re seeing some carbon-reducing energy sources that are working, once again split in popularity depending on politics.
Renewable electricity is on the rise. In the US, wind, hydropower and solar now account for about 20% of the electricity generation, although when you factor in energy used for cars, planes and heat … over 80% of the total energy still comes from fossil fuels. Still, solar and battery costs are falling, and renewables are becoming competitive.
To that end, fracking has contributed to the largest reduction in U.S. carbon emissions in recent history. Cheap natural gas from fracking made coal uncompetitive. Utilities switched, and CO2 emissions dropped, even though many of the people who most loudly advocate for climate action fought against it.
Nuclear energy – long a boogeyman of the environmental movement – is another one that is seeing more acceptance on both sides of the political aisle. It currently generates almost 20% of US electricity, and there are real efforts to increase it.
France runs the cleanest electrical grid in Europe … by a significant margin. Their electricity is roughly 70% nuclear and has been for decades. On the other hand Germany shut down all its nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan … and promptly burned more coal to fill the gap. It’s building up its non-carbon sources, but the nuclear abandonment slowed that down considerably.
And the reality is that going green comes with a cost. I live in California where two-thirds of the electricity comes from zero-carbon sources … and electricity is about 75% higher than the national average.
The UK committed to Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 … the most aggressive economy-wide target of any major nation. The results haven’t been auspicious: surging energy bills, political backlash, and factories closing or moving abroad to find cheaper energy.
Overall, global arithmetic is also something that needs more attention. The U.S. accounts for about 14% of global annual CO2 emissions. China accounts for roughly 31%. India is rising fast and has made clear it intends to keep developing.
Any framework that doesn't seriously grapple with non-Western emissions isn't a climate solution … it's a gesture … because, let’s be honest here, does anyone actually believe China is going to willingly throttle its economy in the name of climate change?
The issue of China, India and the rest of the developing world comes with a moral dilemma that doesn’t get discussed much as well.
Wealthy nations … the U.S., Europe, Japan … industrialized freely for 150 years largely around cheap, plentiful fossil fuels. They built their standard of living, their infrastructure, their middle classes, on coal and oil.
Now developing countries are being told to grow differently … more expensively, more slowly, with technologies that cost more. The families in the developing world who want their first air conditioner aren’t the villains of this story. Telling them they can't have one in the name of climate change is a moral argument dressed up as an environmental one.
CONCLUSION
So are we winning or losing the war against global warming?
If the goal is to stop the planet from getting warmer, we’re losing. And I don’t see that substantively changing. The temperatures are still rising and greenhouse gas concentrations are still increasing.
But if the goal is to avoid the worst-case scenarios that we heard about … you could argue we’re doing better than expected.
Clean energy is growing faster than most experts predicted. And maybe because of that, or maybe the math is getting corrected, but the worries of warming by 2100 are generally less than they once were.
And perhaps I’m one of those old guys who’s heard a lifetime of catastrophes that didn’t happen, but I have an enormous amount of faith in human ingenuity. The more time I spend away from social media, and instead looking into humanity’s problems and progress … the more optimistic I get.
4. The Cost of Solutions
So the underlying question all of this is … are the costs of solutions worth it? And are we even pursuing the right solutions at all?
The dominant economic argument for aggressive climate action goes back to the Stern Review, a landmark 2006 analysis commissioned by the British government. Its basic conclusion: the cost of inaction substantially exceeds the cost of action. Every dollar spent on trying to slow climate change now saves multiple dollars in avoided damage later.
A lot of people still buy that premise … but it rests entirely on discount rates and damage projections that, as we just saw, have a pretty wide margin of error built into them … and remain heavily contested among economists.
The counterargument comes most prominently from Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish researcher who's spent 20 years arguing that the climate movement's math doesn't add up.
Lomborg isn't a climate denier, and doesn’t dispute the science. His argument is a cost-benefit one: the specific policies being pushed … aggressive decarbonization, Net Zero mandates, trillion-dollar green energy transitions … don't survive honest cost-benefit analyses when you stack them against alternatives.
He argues the same money spent on malaria prevention, clean water access, and economic development in poor countries would prevent far more human suffering than halting the use of fossil fuels. It’s an allocation of resources argument.
There’s also debate on whether instead of concentrating on reducing CO2, to accept what’s already BEEN released and WILL be released … and spend more on adapting rather than on trying to prevent warming. Things like seawalls and drought-resistant crops and early warning systems for extreme weather. It’s a notion that used to be considered defeatist, but is getting more attention now.
Now, the good news is that we’re seeing some carbon-reducing energy sources that are working, once again split in popularity depending on politics.
Renewable electricity is on the rise. In the US, wind, hydropower and solar now account for about 20% of the electricity generation, although when you factor in energy used for cars, planes and heat … over 80% of the total energy still comes from fossil fuels. Still, solar and battery costs are falling, and renewables are becoming competitive.
To that end, fracking has contributed to the largest reduction in U.S. carbon emissions in recent history. Cheap natural gas from fracking made coal uncompetitive. Utilities switched, and CO2 emissions dropped, even though many of the people who most loudly advocate for climate action fought against it.
Nuclear energy – long a boogeyman of the environmental movement – is another one that is seeing more acceptance on both sides of the political aisle. It currently generates almost 20% of US electricity, and there are real efforts to increase it.
France runs the cleanest electrical grid in Europe … by a significant margin. Their electricity is roughly 70% nuclear and has been for decades. On the other hand Germany shut down all its nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster in Japan … and promptly burned more coal to fill the gap. It’s building up its non-carbon sources, but the nuclear abandonment slowed that down considerably.
And the reality is that going green comes with a cost. I live in California where two-thirds of the electricity comes from zero-carbon sources … and electricity is about 75% higher than the national average.
The UK committed to Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 … the most aggressive economy-wide target of any major nation. The results haven’t been auspicious: surging energy bills, political backlash, and factories closing or moving abroad to find cheaper energy.
Overall, global arithmetic is also something that needs more attention. The U.S. accounts for about 14% of global annual CO2 emissions. China accounts for roughly 31%. India is rising fast and has made clear it intends to keep developing.
Any framework that doesn't seriously grapple with non-Western emissions isn't a climate solution … it's a gesture … because, let’s be honest here, does anyone actually believe China is going to willingly throttle its economy in the name of climate change?
The issue of China, India and the rest of the developing world comes with a moral dilemma that doesn’t get discussed much as well.
Wealthy nations … the U.S., Europe, Japan … industrialized freely for 150 years largely around cheap, plentiful fossil fuels. They built their standard of living, their infrastructure, their middle classes, on coal and oil.
Now developing countries are being told to grow differently … more expensively, more slowly, with technologies that cost more. The families in the developing world who want their first air conditioner aren’t the villains of this story. Telling them they can't have one in the name of climate change is a moral argument dressed up as an environmental one.
CONCLUSION
So are we winning or losing the war against global warming?
If the goal is to stop the planet from getting warmer, we’re losing. And I don’t see that substantively changing. The temperatures are still rising and greenhouse gas concentrations are still increasing.
But if the goal is to avoid the worst-case scenarios that we heard about … you could argue we’re doing better than expected.
Clean energy is growing faster than most experts predicted. And maybe because of that, or maybe the math is getting corrected, but the worries of warming by 2100 are generally less than they once were.
And perhaps I’m one of those old guys who’s heard a lifetime of catastrophes that didn’t happen, but I have an enormous amount of faith in human ingenuity. The more time I spend away from social media, and instead looking into humanity’s problems and progress … the more optimistic I get.
It's one thing for science to associate a cause and result. It's another to allow politicians to dictate our lives with NOT scientifically proven schemes that ignore (how we will pay for it) and quality of living results.
If you are following astronomy and the human understanding of the universe you see how rapidly core tenets are unraveling as JWST allows a better view of what's out there.
Climate science is in similar flux. The tools are barely above cave man rocks tied to sticks, back looking data is limited and of questionable value.
Why have this thread if there's to be no debate or dissent? A tool the skull is not foreign to.
The tipping point away from fossil fuels is getting nearer but requires huge investments. Oddly low cost fossil fuel will help fund that transition without requiring humankind to move back into caves.
My
is that early pollution efforts to "clean the air" sped up surface temperature change, reducing smog, atmospheric particulates increased sunlight heating the surface. It's never as simple as it seems at first.
An odd twist of fate is "the ruling class" is often willing to reduce everyone else's standard of living before they are willing to change the way THEY live.
AI and much more powerful computing will increase the rate of change to more efficient energy. It's visionaries and industry that will create the infrastructure that enables those improvements, not additional layers of bureaucracy.
Can government help change the way we live? Yes carbon credits is one example of a successful strategy.
But it's very tricky for governments to find a way forward without locking their countries into counterproductive regulation.
If you are following astronomy and the human understanding of the universe you see how rapidly core tenets are unraveling as JWST allows a better view of what's out there.
Climate science is in similar flux. The tools are barely above cave man rocks tied to sticks, back looking data is limited and of questionable value.
Why have this thread if there's to be no debate or dissent? A tool the skull is not foreign to.
The tipping point away from fossil fuels is getting nearer but requires huge investments. Oddly low cost fossil fuel will help fund that transition without requiring humankind to move back into caves.
My
is that early pollution efforts to "clean the air" sped up surface temperature change, reducing smog, atmospheric particulates increased sunlight heating the surface. It's never as simple as it seems at first.An odd twist of fate is "the ruling class" is often willing to reduce everyone else's standard of living before they are willing to change the way THEY live.
AI and much more powerful computing will increase the rate of change to more efficient energy. It's visionaries and industry that will create the infrastructure that enables those improvements, not additional layers of bureaucracy.
Can government help change the way we live? Yes carbon credits is one example of a successful strategy.
But it's very tricky for governments to find a way forward without locking their countries into counterproductive regulation.