Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Haighus wrote:

 Overread wrote:
There's massive currents of oceanic sea water that run around the world. Moving from upper to lower regions all over. In fact its one of these that warms the UK and is the reason it and many other countries in western europe are warm rather than Siberian in climate.

That deep sea current shutting down/moving is basically what is part of the onset of a glacial period where we end up growing glaciers and the UK becomes Siberian.

Interestingly they think its linked to salt density in the ocean; a reduction in salt is one of the proposed triggers, and as such melting icecaps and land ice (eg greenland and glaciers) is, of course, a good way to increase water and reduce density!

I am aware of ocean currents in general, and the gulf stream, it was more in relation to deep sea trenches and their unusual depths and geography that I was thinking about.

Surface currents are pretty well know. Lesser known are the cold, deep-sea counter-currents running under or near all the major surface currents.

Which, when you think about it, just makes sense. You can't have the Gulf Stream carrying billions (or more) gallons of warm water north and not expect it to cool and flow back south somehow...

 cuda1179 wrote:
Recycling in some areas doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For instance, in Idaho all your recycling gets shipped to Arizona, as Idaho doesn't have a single recycling plant. Also, as for paper in general, don't recycle it. the average recycling center in the US gets too much paper and can't handle it. They end up sending something like 75% of it to the landfill. All you are doing is having more trucks driving more miles to dump it. Not to mention the labor costs.

That's not an argument against recycling so much as a horrible failure of your local and/or state-level government to actually do what they're supposed to.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Recycling in some areas doesn't make any sense whatsoever. For instance, in Idaho all your recycling gets shipped to Arizona, as Idaho doesn't have a single recycling plant. Also, as for paper in general, don't recycle it. the average recycling center in the US gets too much paper and can't handle it. They end up sending something like 75% of it to the landfill. All you are doing is having more trucks driving more miles to dump it. Not to mention the labor costs.

That's not an argument against recycling so much as a horrible failure of your local and/or state-level government to actually do what they're supposed to.

It actually isn't, in some regards. The reason a lot of places "can't handle" recycling paper is because we're basically already using as much recycled paper product as we can. If we can make it from recycled paper, by and large we do. In cases where we can't, stuff is often made of a mix of virgin product and as much recycled as can be added while still achieving the desired result. There's no point wasting energy and transportation on recycling paper if it won't actually be used for anything, especially given it actually is biodegradable.

Recycling other materials often isn't profitable enough for private corporations to get involved without hefty subsidies, and both those and the more direct method of simply having a state-owned recycling facility can struggle to gain traction due to all manner of political reasons, not to mention good old NIMBY-ism.

Even if the facility can't take it and is just dumping it as normal waste; the practice for the public is good to keep up with. It also means that its a lot easier to then later poll for more recycling support because people are more outraged at recycling material not being recycled and thus more likely to vote and fundraise to increase recycling facilities.

So you're still changing minds and opinions even if the scheme is visibly only going half way through things at this stage.

 Overread wrote:
Even if the facility can't take it and is just dumping it as normal waste; the practice for the public is good to keep up with. It also means that its a lot easier to then later poll for more recycling support because people are more outraged at recycling material not being recycled and thus more likely to vote and fundraise to increase recycling facilities.

So you're still changing minds and opinions even if the scheme is visibly only going half way through things at this stage.

I'm not sure that giving people practice at recycling is sufficient justification for the additional carbon expenditure required to transport it twice separately from the regular rubbish. Also, I'd wager that for people who're already predisposed to think recycling is pointless, telling them that the recycling you've been having them do has actually been pointless will probably reinforce rather than challenge that view.

Also of note is that no paper product available in the US has been made from a deforested tree since 1986. Not newspaper, not paper towels, not cardboard. It all comes from tree farms, which have some net positive effects.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Even if the facility can't take it and is just dumping it as normal waste; the practice for the public is good to keep up with. It also means that its a lot easier to then later poll for more recycling support because people are more outraged at recycling material not being recycled and thus more likely to vote and fundraise to increase recycling facilities.

So you're still changing minds and opinions even if the scheme is visibly only going half way through things at this stage.

I'm not sure that giving people practice at recycling is sufficient justification for the additional carbon expenditure required to transport it twice separately from the regular rubbish. Also, I'd wager that for people who're already predisposed to think recycling is pointless, telling them that the recycling you've been having them do has actually been pointless will probably reinforce rather than challenge that view.

It's a lot easier to upscale the recycling back end to meet demand than it is to increase the number of people willing to take extra free unpaid time to sort their rubbish at home. Yes at present its offset by the inefficient system, but when it comes to transport we've a lot of that already. Heck look at all the internet buying which has exploded into a million small delivery firms. The countryside is now full of men in white fans driving around delivering parcels all day rather than a dedicated postman doing two rounds over a region every day. You can easily spot (even in the countryside) days where several vans will zoom past going this way and that and the postman is still also doing their one round a day.

Granted in the UK part of this was opening up mail to a commercial competitive system of business rather than it being a government run system (ergo no competition)

 Overread wrote:


It's a lot easier to upscale the recycling back end to meet demand than it is to increase the number of people willing to take extra free unpaid time to sort their rubbish at home. Yes at present its offset by the inefficient system, but when it comes to transport we've a lot of that already. Heck look at all the internet buying which has exploded into a million small delivery firms. The countryside is now full of men in white fans driving around delivering parcels all day rather than a dedicated postman doing two rounds over a region every day. You can easily spot (even in the countryside) days where several vans will zoom past going this way and that and the postman is still also doing their one round a day.

Granted in the UK part of this was opening up mail to a commercial competitive system of business rather than it being a government run system (ergo no competition)

Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting centralised control over all recycling, so as to minimise the extra recycling trucks? Or are you arguing the extra recycling trucks don't add much pollution compared to delivery trucks?

 =Angel= wrote:

Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting centralised control over all recycling, so as to minimise the extra recycling trucks? Or are you arguing the extra recycling trucks don't add much pollution compared to delivery trucks?

When I read the comment, I see them talking about scaling up the actual recycling facilities. They are saying that in general, we have plenty of trucks collecting the recycling, its the "business end" of the stick that is still short, so we need more capacity or more facilities to break down the papers and plastics and whatnot.

Why send paper excess to landfill when we could burn it for extra energy? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

nareik wrote:
Why send paper excess to landfill when we could burn it for extra energy? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

It's been tried, but domestic paper pellets aren't really that good burners.

Make a lot of ash compared to wood and other recycled stuff but it's still better than just dumping it.

Paper in landfill is like buried trees.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Paper in landfill is like buried trees.

I didn't know white paper was unmodified for beeing white......

There are a lot of interesting things I've heard about which could help with the planet.

Firstly, apparently it will make a huge difference to the rate of climate change if everyone were to simply paint their roof white. The increased white surface would mimic that of the ice caps, and reflect the suns energy in the same way, which would slow climate change a bit. it'd be an easy one to put government grants in place for, too.

Secondly, it's worth remembering that the only people with enough money to make a difference are the ones who will not make a difference if it doesn't make them money. Selling solar panels, wind turbines and the like are money-making plans which fit in the guise of planet saving. Beach cleans to remove plastic waste from our oceans should be a priority, but instead people sell other people solar panels which have a life expectancy of 8 years. They sell poorly engineered wind turbines which have all the weight on one side, leading to terrible bearing wear, meaning they have to sell repairs.

To save the planet, you hve 2 options - either we change how everyone thinks and get out of the infinite-growth capitalism, or we exploit it. The first option is impossible, unfortunately. As long as 2 people have something, one person will want both. So the solution is to find a way of monetising the planet. To convince companies to clean up the oceans, you need to find a value in the plastic they remove. To make companies stop selling single-use plastic, you need to stop buying it. To make companies invest in long-lasting energy solutions, you need to make it worth more to them than disposable ones.


To my mind, the best options are Solar Panels (Not cells or batteries; solar panels heat water!) and hydroelectric. Rivers keep flowing, so use them. the ecosystem lost by a carefully thought out dam is cancelled by both the ecosystem created and the reduced carbon emissions of the energy creation.

I wonder if you could create a dam where the water spills out onto a flat, black plain, where the sun evaporates it, it condenses on the glass roof and rolls down back into the dam? essentially a mini-water-cycle.

Another key thing is to find ways around peoples objections. People in the UK are against wind turbines because they are ugly and noisy. Electricity pylons already exist, and are ugly and noisy. So, put a vertical wind turbine inside the pylon, and hook it straight into the grid.

 some bloke wrote:
There are a lot of interesting things I've heard about which could help with the planet.

Firstly, apparently it will make a huge difference to the rate of climate change if everyone were to simply paint their roof white.

Sure, although down here in SoCal black roof (solar panels) would be better, but green room (plants) are the gold standard.

Living up in Blighty, I can understand why the concept of solar power doesn't exist for you.