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.

I misjudged you. You're one of the rare ones who don't just insist that "it was cold out so climate change is a hoax" or "scientists are all in the pocket of big climate" (which, by the way, doesn't exist...on the other hand, green washing is a thing that companies do to make folks think they're doing something without actually doing anything). It's, frankly, exhausting to have to deal with day in and day out (and I don't even do research on climate myself, although I have the training to do so... I feel bad for my colleagues who actively study climate change). Keep up the open mind and I'll work to keep my frustrations in check.

 Drakheart wrote:
Not sure on the logistics of getting this to work, but if it is a sustainable practice I'm all for it:

https://chng.it/Pg8LmGspv6

No.

This is honestly as pointless and silly as making a petition for GW to recycle the cardboard box.

What if GW swapped to a more useful sprue shape, such as hexagonal, that players can easily turn into crystals for basing?
Or round sprue with minor greebling that could easily be turned into small pipes?

I've built plenty of sprue terrain, and found the shape if GW's sprue to be annoying. It can be turned into a lot of things, but maybe if GW made it easier then more players would be into it. They could even go an extra step and make the sprue designs vary from faction to faction (hexagonal for necron crystals, straight round with minor greebles for IG pipes, oval with occassional embossing for tau pipes, battered round for ork pipes... uh... I'm sure there are other possibilities besides pipes... um... Death models get rougly rectangular sprue with wood grain texture for making fences...? Vague seaweed or coral shapes for Idoneth?).
Of course the sprue couldn't be too decorative or it couldn't do its job, but that's okay. It's not actually part of the kit - it's not a selling point, just making it easier for players to upcycle the sprue.
Sure, players would still have to clean off all the gates and this and that, and GW's modern sprue layout can be pretty convoluted (but imagining taking three pipe-shaped sprues, doing a little cleanup, adding a few details, and slamming them together to make a wall-o-pipes for Necromunda). And it might be difficult for GW to design sprues that could do this and still fulfill their real purpose... but the thought occured to me as I was trying to force myself to make some more sprue terrain to clear out space and I figured I'd throw it out there so I can stop thinking about it.
Except now that I've thought of the wall-o-pipes I'm tempted to assemble some gunpla I bought on a whim and see if I can make that happen with their sprues.
Oh well, such is life.

I'd prefer it if the sprues had a rectangular cross section rather than a trapezoid. Then they could be used as building materials for model cabins. Right now it's a little awkward because of their shape; you have to trim them down to be more of a rectangle.

> green washing is a thing

It's already happened in the states for "organic". Larger store chains lobbied (or whatever) to relax standards for "organic", just so they could put "organic" on the lable. IMO, All these attempts to get *others* to be green are less productive than changes to our own lifestyle. I just saw an alternative energy video, and my thoughts were that, if you want to save energy, you could sleep at night and do activities during the day (at least on weekends).

Amazon, btw, keeps telling us how they're saving on packaging with envelopes and whatever cardboard box, but Prime membership means you get entire boxes and envelopes just for one item. (Amazon Prime has a weekly shipment instead, which saves you packaging, and them money.)

IMO, Post-industrial waste and its reduction would be a better focus than post-consumer waste. Post-consumer waste requires much more sorting and transport, both of which further requires energy, and doesn't address the idea of using resources more efficiently. For companies, more efficient use of resources means greater profit and lower prices for product.


> This is honestly as pointless and silly as making a petition for GW to recycle the cardboard box.

Time for a petition!

Dunno how many of you have seen the bulk bagged off-brand cereals in the store, but they're not just a better value, but more ecologically friendly as well. But what do the shoppers want? The cardboard boxes -- and the plastic bag that you still need to contain the cereal.

https://www.standuppouches.net/blog/is-cardboard-box-packaging-good-for-cereals

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'd prefer it if the sprues had a rectangular cross section rather than a trapezoid. Then they could be used as building materials for model cabins. Right now it's a little awkward because of their shape; you have to trim them down to be more of a rectangle.

The trapezoid probably helps the sprue pop out of the mold cleanly and easily.

(a) It's pretty clear that the climate crisis is real, ongoing, and worsening; anyone still denying that, these days, is not worth arguing with, because they didn't get to that position by logic. It's an ideological stance with them.

(b) Incineration of waste is disastrous for local air quality and for global CO2 emissions. There's no clean way to do it. A UK cross-party committee looked into the science earlier this year and recommended no new incinerators in the UK. More here: https://ukwin.org.uk/facts/

(c) The manufacturer really ought to be taking steps to be sustainable or preferably regenerative. That's GW in this case. They could certainly reuse sprue material for lower detail products such as battleboards or other big terrain pieces.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
(c) The manufacturer really ought to be taking steps to be sustainable or preferably regenerative. That's GW in this case. They could certainly reuse sprue material for lower detail products such as battleboards or other big terrain pieces.

I don't think GW makes any of the big terrain stuff in house anyway.

I don't much mind *what* GW do with their sprues, as long as it's not incineration or landfill. Recycling it elsewhere is fine. It just needs to be their responsibility, rather than the consumer's.

 ph34r wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'd prefer it if the sprues had a rectangular cross section rather than a trapezoid. Then they could be used as building materials for model cabins. Right now it's a little awkward because of their shape; you have to trim them down to be more of a rectangle.

The trapezoid probably helps the sprue pop out of the mold cleanly and easily.

Yeah, the trapezoid has draft angles. I'm sure it could be more square, but having runners that fall out of the mould easily probably helps if the models are a more difficult to get out.

They could do circular, but I imagine the reason for doing trapezoids is so they only have to machine one side of the mould with the runners. I guess they could do a semi-circle and then people could glue them together to make a circle. We would then have to ask how environmentally friendly the glue is I guess.

But I don't really use my sprues for terrain and whatnot because unless you spend a lot of time hacking them into a different shape, the trapezoids are too identifiable as sprues.

I do use old sprues for holding models while spraying them, but I could use a single sprue for ages, you don't really need as many as you'll likely have on hand.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
I don't much mind *what* GW do with their sprues, as long as it's not incineration or landfill. Recycling it elsewhere is fine. It just needs to be their responsibility, rather than the consumer's.

The reality of the modern recycling situation means that often “shipped oversees to recycle” in fact means “shipped overseas (such as to China) to incinerate”

I would have assumed that there was already shipments going back between the GW stores and the warehouses, with excess stock going back to be stored or pulped.

So you'd be piggybacking off that.

 Tastyfish wrote:
I would have assumed that there was already shipments going back between the GW stores and the warehouses, with excess stock going back to be stored or pulped.

So you'd be piggybacking off that.

The excess stock is put into the market. Always has been the case. That is why you have the flash sales of specific items after every iteration of game release.

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
(a) It's pretty clear that the climate crisis is real, ongoing, and worsening; anyone still denying that, these days, is not worth arguing with, because they didn't get to that position by logic. It's an ideological stance with them.

Ah yes, misrepresenting the opinion of other people, claiming a moral high ground, and then saying it's ideological for the people on the other side . Nobody opposes the claim that the climate is changing (or well, I'm sure you can find some I guess), the contented claim is that it's man made (or largely/mainly man made) and that co2 is the driving force behind it. But I'm sure you knew that and made this argument in good faith.

Can confirm... it's humies and co2 (also methane)

So how do you explain the medieval warm period and the global freeze scare of the 70's? If it's purely co2 (and other greenhouse gases) driving the temperature increase, these events don't fit your theory. Just saying, there might be more to it than co2 and simply ignoring the *many* other variables that obviously influence the climate, which might also explain why not a single climate prediction ever has been correct. Then saying everybody who doesn't agree is 'ignoring science' is intellectually dishonest at best.

Another variable could be the sun. The sun does get larger and hotter over time.
It's likely that Climate Change is a combination of various variables, Co2 emissions being one of them.

I love how "GW should recycle more" leads to climate change denial.
The Mods maybe gonna jump on the lack of topic or what?

 Gert wrote:
I love how "GW should recycle more" leads to climate change denial.
The Mods maybe gonna jump on the lack of topic or what?

It'd be nice, wouldn't it, especially given the deniers are just repeating the standard, boring, long debunked, oil industry-funded propaganda that we've heard for decades.

Folks if you want facts about the climate denial propaganda campaign that gave you your oh-so-smart whataboutism, try desmog:

https://www.desmog.com/

If you want unbiased scientific info on the climate breakdown, The Conversation is a good starting point. It's written by academic researchers, with journalistic support, and doesn't have shareholders or owners.

https://theconversation.com/uk/environment

If you *genuinely* have something new to offer regarding climate science, I suggest doing your climate PhD, then writing some peer-reviewed articles, then doing the pop science version on The Conversation. I'll happily read that.

On the topic of the increase in the sun's temperature and its influence on our gobal warning:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

Doesn't look like an argument to me

Brickfix wrote:
On the topic of the increase in the sun's temperature and its influence on our gobal warning:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/

Doesn't look like an argument to me

Interesting. I stand corrected then.
I wonder where the decrease is coming from, that's a significant drop.

It is not a significant drop. It's less then a W/m².

Edit: Rereading my comment it sounds a bit harsh. So from am engineering stand point, it is not a significant drop (I recalled this graph because I looked this up for temperature management on a satellite). For extra information, I recall there was a theory that there is a superimposed cycle over the 11 year solar cycle but it is not proven. This may have an effect on the amount of radiation reaching earth. Another possibility is a change in the distance between earth and sun, NASA has the horizons web app where you can get the planetary positions past and future to compare this to the graph.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brickfix wrote:
It is not a significant drop. It's less then a W/m².

Edit: Rereading my comment it sounds a bit harsh. So from am engineering stand point, it is not a significant drop (I recalled this graph because I looked this up for temperature management on a satellite). For extra information, I recall there was a theory that there is a superimposed cycle over the 11 year solar cycle but it is not proven. This may have an effect on the amount of radiation reaching earth. Another possibility is a change in the distance between earth and sun, NASA has the horizons web app where you can get the planetary positions past and future to compare this to the graph.

Could be a matter of distance, although you'd think that if the sun was getting larger and stronger with age (an observed phenomena), the amount of radiation reaching earth would increase rather than decrease, unless for some reason Earth has drifted further from the sun to "compensate".
It might be due to an increase of aerosols and other chemicals blocking some of the sun's radiation, which apparently is an effect they have. Which given that this downward trend seems to start in 1950, seems to check out?