PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6162|Roma
You don't think people have thought of that? Algae isn't going to affect shit.
And Take-off? Why did you single that out? Sure it's a major part of the fuel burn, but only about a quarter on a 2 hour flight.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

PrivateVendetta wrote:

You don't think people have thought of that? Algae isn't going to affect shit.
And Take-off? Why did you single that out? Sure it's a major part of the fuel burn, but only about a quarter on a 2 hour flight.
Because during take-off you're generating enough wattage to power a small city
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6162|Roma
No point taking off if you don't cruise anywhere. It's singling out something for no reason.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
rdx-fx
...
+955|6562

rdx-fx wrote:

no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc

Dilbert_X wrote:

What would be the point?
Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6493|...

rdx-fx wrote:

Four reasons I avoid many "green" products
  • It doesn't work.  "Green" Windex"
That was the first product I though of when looking at this thread ... honestly vinegar and water does better in general. So many diverse yet unnecessary products
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

rdx-fx wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc

Dilbert_X wrote:

What would be the point?
Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.
Cargo ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel oil now.

http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233

Most ships these days are diesel driven anyway. Bunker fueled steam turbines are dinosaurs now.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6162|Roma

Jay wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

no catalytic converters on cargo ships or jet aircraft, etc

Dilbert_X wrote:

What would be the point?
Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.
Cargo ships are required to burn low sulfur fuel oil now.

http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233

Most ships these days are diesel driven anyway. Bunker fueled steam turbines are dinosaurs now.
I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines..
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4166|Oklahoma
The green debate is about as pointless as it gets.  There is no such thing as clean energy or green products as all of the green energy requires dirty energy to be produced and all of the green products require dirty products to be made and most simply turn back into dirty products once they are used up.

Might as well have an argument over how circles are cylindrical and cylinders are circular because all that's going to happen is your going to talk each other round and round.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Realistically, unless you plan on carpeting the entire Mojave and Sonoran deserts with solar panels, and hooking it up to a grid filled with superconductors we're never going to get anything more than a very small fraction of our power from solar or wind sources. Nevermind that the cost would be bonkers.
We've been through this before, there's no need to carpet an entire desert, and high voltage DC works just fine.
The equation changes completely if someone has a solar panel bank on the roof that they are charging their vehicle with, of course. My argument was based on the fact that most energy is produced here by burning coal. Plugging your electric or hybrid vehicle into our power grid does nothing to reduce your carbon footprint. That's also not going to change for... well, probably ever. We're never going to go majority solar or wind for our power production, at least not in my lifetime. We have too much natural gas to burn which provides reliable energy on demand.
If your electricity is provided from gas then running an electric car puts you well ahead on the carbon front.
Or you can sit back and wait for the govt and corporations to change your life, your pick.
Most ships these days are diesel driven anyway. Bunker fueled steam turbines are dinosaurs now.
And gasoline driven cars will be talked of as 'dinosaurs' relatively soon.

rdx-fx wrote:

Illustrating the point that consumer level greenness generally does jack shit in the face of industrial pollution.
Thats not the point on catalytic converters.

PV wrote:

I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines.
Jet engines are IC engines.
The point is catalytic converters don't reduce emissions one bit, they increase it, what they do is locally reduce the specific pollutants which cause immediate problems like smog.
If cargo ships and airliners were circling mid-town Los Angeles at ground level there might be a point in looking at the emissions.
Since they don't and the immediately harmful (to people) emissions react and disperse before they reach population centres there would be no point. CO2 and SO2 emissions are a different matter obviously.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-11-19 00:24:40)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6645|Canberra, AUS

Extra Medium wrote:

The green debate is about as pointless as it gets.  There is no such thing as clean energy or green products as all of the green energy requires dirty energy to be produced and all of the green products require dirty products to be made and most simply turn back into dirty products once they are used up.

Might as well have an argument over how circles are cylindrical and cylinders are circular because all that's going to happen is your going to talk each other round and round.
there is no spoon
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6294|Graz, Austria
We buy most of our food at the farmer's market, from farmers a few kilometers away from us.
They don't use any pesticides.

We buy organic fruit juice at the same market, bottled in glass bottles, which are refilled when we return them.
It's even cheaper than the tetrapacked ones from the supermarket.

We buy our bread from a local bakery, which uses flour from a local mill.

A few simple changes that are not much more expensive, but are healthier and taste much better.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

globefish23 wrote:

We buy most of our food at the farmer's market, from farmers a few kilometers away from us.
They don't use any pesticides.

We buy organic fruit juice at the same market, bottled in glass bottles, which are refilled when we return them.
It's even cheaper than the tetrapacked ones from the supermarket.

We buy our bread from a local bakery, which uses flour from a local mill.

A few simple changes that are not much more expensive, but are healthier and taste much better.
^

But thats unpossible.

How are corporations supposed to turn a profit if you don't buy their products?

See, I knew I'd prove you wrong in the end Mr Stupid.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6162|Roma

Dilbert_X wrote:

PV wrote:

I think Dilbert was saying there isn't a point in Catalytic converters on Jet engines because they are generally for internal combustion engines.
Jet engines are IC engines.
Wrong name, right thinking.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

globefish23 wrote:

We buy most of our food at the farmer's market, from farmers a few kilometers away from us.
They don't use any pesticides.

We buy organic fruit juice at the same market, bottled in glass bottles, which are refilled when we return them.
It's even cheaper than the tetrapacked ones from the supermarket.

We buy our bread from a local bakery, which uses flour from a local mill.

A few simple changes that are not much more expensive, but are healthier and taste much better.
That's all fine if the local producers are providing an equal or superior product for about the same price. If they aren't, then you're cutting your own throat for nothing. 'Buy local' is the same concept as a tariff and is just as bad for the consumer if it's all they will consider. If they are open minded and its just one option among many, then yes, that is awesome.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6294|Graz, Austria

Jay wrote:

That's all fine if the local producers are providing an equal or superior product for about the same price. If they aren't, then you're cutting your own throat for nothing.
Which surprisingly they do.
Here in Austria it's a general misconception where most people believe that buying at a farmer's market is more expensive than a supermarket.
Of course, in the big cities, this is actually true, but simply because the prices are artificially increased to rip off "rich" city folks...

The only thing where I hesitated to go green and organic was with milk.
I could tap fresh cow milk from a slot machine, which is from a nearby rancher, but it's not pasteurized or sterilized in any way (just refrigerated) and I'm a bit wary feeding that to my kids.
(And boiling the milk at home makes it taste awful.)

Jay wrote:

'Buy local' is the same concept as a tariff and is just as bad for the consumer if it's all they will consider. If they are open minded and its just one option among many, then yes, that is awesome.
Well, by buying local you cut out the whole transportation which affects the carbon footprint.

Speaking of that, I read somewhere that glass bottles are only ecologically sensible up to a certain distance of transportation (IIRC, 60km).
Above that, you'll get more carbon emission than if you'd transported PET bottles.
Of course, that doesn't take into consideration that glass bottles don't use fossil fuels as a raw material.


But yeah, there is a lot of abuse and misleading in this aspiring green/organic market.
It's really contradictory that a big, multinational chain can mass produce organic food.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
Why is it contradictory?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

My reasons:

1) False advertising/ineffective product.
2) High prices.
3) Not actually green. "This container made of 60% aftermarket material." What a stupendous achievement...

Seriously, people my age and older have already went through the whole "paper to plastic and back to paper" again thing with grocery bags. And those older were exposed to global cooling hype. We're just too "jaded for our own good."

e: also, my local recycler has stopped picking up glass, and I can't always be arsed to deliver all my trash personally.
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|6294|Graz, Austria

Jay wrote:

Why is it contradictory?
Because you can't mass produce many things organically.
E.g. eggs from free-range hens.

Use of zero pesticides is impossible with long transportation and storage of fruit and vegetables, which are needed to ship stuff into every store of a chain.
west-phoenix-az
Guns don't kill people. . . joe bidens advice does
+632|6360
I used a 'green' cleaner once. it sucked.
https://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/west-phoenix-az/BF2S/bf2s_sig_9mmbrass.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

I use Simple Green. Does that count? Hahaha.

hah...
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

globefish23 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Why is it contradictory?
Because you can't mass produce many things organically.
E.g. eggs from free-range hens.

Use of zero pesticides is impossible with long transportation and storage of fruit and vegetables, which are needed to ship stuff into every store of a chain.
Everything moves in refrigerated containers, pesticides have nothing to do with shelf life. They just increase productivity per acre farmed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

They also adversely impact the bee population.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6552|SE London

Jay wrote:

Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.

I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Bertster7 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Or... most of the claims made by people pushing green products are built on hucksterism rather than real science and people see through it. To use the example from the article, what is the benefit of organic cotton versus other cotton? That there are infinitesimal amounts of chemical transferred during the processing of it? Ok. Now prove those infinitely small levels of chemical are harmful. Oh, they can't? Right, it's a placebo effect and that is 99.99% of the benefit gained by people buying organic products. They get to feel better about themselves when they spend money. They sell people a chance to attain smug superiority, nothing more. Higher prices and lower output on the production end due to inefficient use of farmland are the results. And they expect people to buy in?
You seem to be neglecting that fact that many fertilisers used have a harmful effect on the ecosystem around them, often leading to increased costs and bigger problems further down the line. When I was at school we went on a trip to farms where they would show the effects of badly managed use of fertilisers from the 70s which meant there were huge swathes of land they effectively could not use for farming. I have a friend who works in agricultural research for Bayer, he's always saying stuff like that. Hear all sorts of horror stories about areas being destroyed by misuse of loads of nasty chemicals.

I'm with you on the organic thing, because the criteria for something to be classed as organic are meaningless, not because I don't think there is a problem. But it's a problem with some short sighted farmers fucking up relatively small areas of land for short term gains. In the US, with the amount of space you have, maybe it isn't a problem - but here in the UK, it is.
Those farmers are generally just fucking themselves over though. Modern farming is literally a science and good land is expensive. In my opinion, it's much more likely that a small farmer would use unsustainable practices, mostly out of ignorance, compared to the huge agribusiness farms that employ teams of scientists to extract every ounce of productivity out of the land that they can. It's largely why I don't understand the organic 'buy local' movement. It hinges on emotion based marketing rather than hard science. Frankly, I blame the French influence on food culture more than anything else. They're the most conservative, progress resistant, people on the entire planet when it comes to food. They give people who don't understand science cover to push their ignorance on other ignorant people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
BVC
Member
+325|6666
One green tech I would use if it were cheaper is LED light bulbs, due to the electricity savings.  CFLs are okay, but I find they fail quicker than incandescants, and there are disposal issues to consider.

Lack of environmentally-conscious farming practices has meant that most of the rivers here have become unsafe for swimming in the last 15 or so years.  But dairy cows are more profitable than sheep or cabbages, so I guess that won't be changing any time soon.

Last edited by BVC (2012-11-20 12:18:42)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard