Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Are you an eco-criminal ? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=421045)

  • Oct 13, 2013, 03:27 AM
    tomder55
    Part 2
    4 Laundry
    Fast fashion has created textile mountains in many homes, yet the environmental cost of this excessive consumption has an even less conspicuous twin: the energy used to launder it all. Cleanliness has become a touchstone of domestic life since advertisers convinced us that our shirts must always be “whiter than white”, our sheets should forever smell of spring flowers, and that to be dressed in freshly laundered clothes at all times is a badge of success. We live in a “wear once and wash” culture. In fact, only about 7.5 per cent of the average laundry load in the UK is thought to be heavily soiled. Much of the rest is made up of items that are stuffed into the washing machine simply because they are on the floor instead of in the wardrobe (Sustainable Fashion and Textiles by Kate Fletcher, Earthscan, 2008). This habit is shockingly wasteful in terms of water, detergents and energy.

    One study found that over 80 per cent of the CO2 emissions produced during the life cycle of a single polyester blouse arose from cleaning and drying it. The percentage can be even higher for items made of cotton, as they tend to require far more energy-hungry drying.

    It is easy to see how these emissions stack up. A full load in a washing machine uses around 1.2 kilowatt-hours of electricity per cycle and tumble drying clocks up a further 3.5 kilowatt-hours, resulting in over 2 kilograms of CO2 emissions per wash. With four or five loads per household per week, the total annual emissions from each home can easily pass the half-tonne mark. That's a significant proportion of the 10-tonne annual emissions of the average European. Line drying, washing at lower temperatures and ensuring full rather than partial loads will all help to reduce laundry emissions. For the largest cuts, simply washing less frequently is the way to go.

    5 Food wastage
    Of all the facets of overconsumption that plague both human society and the global environment, food wastage is the most shocking. US households throw away around 30 per cent of their food, worth $48 billion every year. Similar levels of wastage are seen in Europe. In the UK, some 6.7 million tonnes of food is binned annually. Most of this joins the layers of unwanted clothing in landfill sites, where it decomposes, emitting the powerful greenhouse gas methane. Potatoes top the pile, with 359,000 tonnes going uneaten each year. Bread and apples are not far behind. Meat and fish are next, accounting for over 160,000 tonnes, followed by 78,000 tonnes of cooked rice and pasta. A staggering 4.8 billion grapes go the same way, as do 480 million yogurts and 200 million rashers of bacon. The annual cost to UK consumers of all this waste is £10 billion and the cost to the environment is the equivalent of an extra 15 million tonnes of CO2 (The Food We Waste, WRAP, 2008; bit.ly/urUFj).

    £10 billion The annual cost to UK consumers of wasted food
    The cost of food wastage reverberates down the supply chain, increasing requirements for storage, transport and packaging. But the biggest impact by far comes in food production. For almost all the food we buy, the bulk of its greenhouse gas emissions arise here. This is especially true for meat and dairy produce. For example, 40,200 tonnes of milk are wasted each year in the UK, adding up to the equivalent of 40,000 tonnes of CO2. This is comparable to the annual CO2 emissions of 10,000 cars, or of flying 30,000 people from London to New York and back.

    In their 2008 report, WRAP, the UK's Waste & Resources Action Programme, examined just why people throw so much food away. The most common reasons were that the food had been left on plates after a meal, was out of date, or simply “looked bad”. WRAP is now running a campaign to reduce food wastage. It aims to promote better management of food at home by encouraging people to prepare the right amount of food, keep an eye on use-by dates, and store food in appropriate conditions. As consumers we should also think more carefully before we shop. Check what you have already got, make a shopping list and, most importantly, don't do the weekly shop when you are hungry.

    This list is far from complete and you may disagree with my choices. Perhaps you would include air conditioning, flushing toilets or popular science magazines on your list. Maybe you consider soft toilet roll or your morning latte as non-negotiable. If so, join the debate in the comments below. What's not in doubt, though, is that the cumulative effects of our everyday decisions can make a big difference to the global environment. Knowing just how damaging they are today may help us to make better choices tomorrow.

    Gas-guzzling gadgets
    Widescreen TVs

    Last year, consumer electronics became the biggest user of electricity in UK homes. TV sets have led the regime change. As prices have fallen, size and energy demands have risen. Some plasma TV screens now measure more than 150 centimetres and, assuming average use, cause the emission of almost a tonne of CO2 each year. In 2005, TV sets used 8 per cent of the electricity consumed in the UK and this is predicted to almost double by 2020 (The Ampere Strikes Back, UK Energy Saving Trust; bit.ly/4h7IM7). This will mean an increase from just over 5 million tonnes of CO2 annually to more than 8.5 million tonnes. In the US, emissions attributable to TV use now top 30 million tonnes a year.

    Plug-in air fresheners

    Compared to watching TV on screens so large that they need a reinforced wall to hang on, the energy used by a plug-in air freshener seems positively spartan. At about 1 watt each their electricity demand is tiny, but they are busy wafting their approximation of apple and cinnamon odours around our homes 24/7. For a plug-in fanatic, half a dozen of them chugging away all year will emit the equivalent of 28 kilograms of CO2 – another tiny addition to the less fragrant outpourings of our power stations.

    Patio heaters

    The must-have garden accessory of a few years ago, the patio heater remains the domestic antithesis of climate change mitigation. The little useful heat that does manage to redden the foreheads of those clustered nearby comes at a cost of around 10 kilograms of CO2 for just four hours' use.

    In-car gizmos

    Instead of I-spy and guess-the-colour-of-the-next-car, in-car entertainment is now more likely to feature a plug-in games console or a passenger TV screen. Meanwhile, the badly folded map book has given way to intermittent commentary from a dashboard-mounted satnav. The extra energy demands of such devices, together with ever more powerful aircon systems, can result in fuel efficiency plummeting by more than 20 per cent.

    Dave S. Reay is at the University of Edinburgh, UK. His new children's book on climate change is called Your Planet Needs You! And is published by Macmillan Children's Books
  • Oct 13, 2013, 03:32 AM
    NeedKarma
    Wow... the article's content and your bullet points in the original posts barely resemble each other. There are some interesting facts and valid points in the proper article. It has a lot to do with our disposable/planned obsolescence economy.
  • Oct 13, 2013, 06:07 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Wow...the article's content and your bullet points in the original posts barely resemble each other. There are some interesting facts and valid points in the proper article. It has a lot to do with our disposable/planned obsolescence economy.

    Didn't it really always have to do with that, the more crap we make the more CO2 we release. Let's see and SUV can last well maybe ten years but how many are traded every year? And you justt got to have that 100 in TV, right and aircon that could serve as a primary unit for a freezer room. Who ever turns off a light?
  • Oct 13, 2013, 06:24 AM
    tomder55
    So clete... you've bought into the CO2 is pollution bs. I see .
  • Oct 13, 2013, 01:54 PM
    paraclete
    No Tom CO2 isn't pollution pursee, waste is pollution, excess is pollution and it leads not only to CO2 emissions but the using of resources. Cutting down forests to grow soya beans is waste, using corn to fuel vehicles when people starve elsewhere is waste. Time to stop the waste, if you can recycle tanks you can recycle SUV, not just to stop bleshing smoke into the atmosphere but to change from a throwaway society to one that builds fro the future
  • Oct 13, 2013, 02:02 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    No Tom CO2 isn't pollution pursee, waste is pollution, excess is pollution and it leads not only to CO2 emissions but the using of resources. Cutting down forests to grow soya beans is waste, using corn to fuel vehicles when people starve elsewhere is waste. Time to stop the waste, if you can recycle tanks you can recycle SUV, not just to stop bleshing smoke into the atmosphere but to change from a throwaway society to one that builds fro the future

    A Sheryl Crowe... one sheet of toilet paper world.
  • Oct 13, 2013, 02:12 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    a Sheryl Crowe... one sheet of toilet paper world.
    Why so condescending? No need for that.
  • Oct 13, 2013, 02:51 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    a Sheryl Crowe ...one sheet of toilet paper world.

    I don't expect you to be capable of understanding a concept so contrary to your throwaway society, A Muslim would tell you not to use toilet paper but to wash yourself, a chinese would tell you not to put toilet paper in the toilet, it blocks the drains, each society has it own excesses
  • Oct 13, 2013, 02:55 PM
    tomder55
    Neither of you have a clue .
  • Oct 13, 2013, 03:23 PM
    NeedKarma
    And the insults continue...
  • Oct 13, 2013, 03:57 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    neither of you have a clue .

    Coming from a clueless person that is a compliement
  • Oct 14, 2013, 06:21 AM
    speechlesstx
    Fatberg ahead...

    http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/stream...ktop_large.jpg
  • Oct 15, 2013, 09:20 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Fatberg ahead...

    I think you will find that fatberg sitting in the Capitol building in Washington blocking the flow of funds. Rogoff has described this process, or rather a default, as a loss of viriginity, but I think there is a somewhat cruder description and it has already happened. If you don't get it I'll be happy to tell you...
  • Oct 16, 2013, 02:06 AM
    tomder55
    Although this is on another thread... I want to correct the emperor and others who claim that the US has never defaulted before . It has actually happened before once in 1790... once in 1812... in 1933, and once more recently... in 1979. The 1812 one was excusable because the Brits were burning down Washington at the time. The 1979 one was another finger pointing affair between the executive and the White House. The difference then was that both Congress and the executive was Democrat controlled . What is notable is that these incidences have been lost to history and although costly (in 1979 ,T Bills yielded 10% + as opposed to close to 0% today) ,are but blips that are not remembered today.
    Others have argued that the US repeatedly defaulted on domestic debt after the Revolution ,on greenback obligations during the civil war ,and on Liberty Bond obligations during WWII. And there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .
  • Oct 16, 2013, 04:10 AM
    excon
    Hello wrongwinger:

    Allrighty then. Default sounds great. Let's do it.. Last one in is a RINO...

    excon
  • Oct 16, 2013, 04:28 AM
    tomder55
    As I've stated on the other thread. If there is default ;it is completely because the emperor chooses that there is one.
  • Oct 16, 2013, 05:42 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    It's true. If I threatened to chop off your arms unless you do my bidding, and you REFUSE, OF COURSE it's your fault that I chopped 'em off.

    excon
  • Oct 16, 2013, 05:54 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    And there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .

    At last some sanity, yes you have already defaulted so the process is now academic posturing
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:04 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    At last some sanity, yes you have already defaulted so the process is now academic posturing

    At last ? I thought I was very clear in my position about monetary policy .
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:15 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    At last ? I thought I was very clear in my position about monetary policy .

    Tom monetary policy is missing in the US at the moment, you have 0% interest rates, you will be borrowing money to borrow money next, your taxes are low, so you cannot make many adjustments except the dreaded tax increase, you have a cap on borrowing and no budget to speak of. In addition you are printing money. What has happened is your ponzi scheme has fallen over, you have to keep paying out more than your income and you continue the illusion that you lead the world. The only place you are leading them is into depression, both mental and financial
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:16 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:
    Quote:

    there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .
    I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

    But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

    excon
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:20 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    your taxes are low,
    it's always about collecting more taxes isn't it ? It's never about reigning in out of control spending by the Leviathan . The rest of your response about interest rates ,and printing money I agree with as you know... and especially about our ponzi scheme entitlements that now includes the unfunded Obamacare .
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:22 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

    But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

    excon

    No I'm not.. why would you think that ? I've certainly argued often against our monetary polices in the last 2 decades .
  • Oct 16, 2013, 06:22 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post

    But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

    excon

    Of course he is arguing that, BO is the epitamy of all evil in his mind, but BO hasn't ruined the dollar, Congress has as it proves that the opposite of progress is congress
  • Oct 18, 2013, 03:00 PM
    speechlesstx
    If the EPA gets their way anyone that owns property and has a puddle could soon be an eco-criminal subject to their heavy handed tactics.

    Quote:

    Republican leaders of the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of rushing a rule to establish broad authority over streams and wetlands.

    In a letter to the agency on Friday, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) alleged that it is trying to initiate a “sweeping reinterpretation” of its jurisdiction in a potential new rule.

    The regulation to expand the EPA’s oversight would give it “unprecedented control over private property across the nation,” they asserted.

    In September, the EPA began the process of asserting that it can regulate streams, estuaries and other small bodies of water under authority granted by the Clean Water Act. The agency said that the new rule is necessary to clear up confusion caused by two recent Supreme Court cases.

    The EPA said making sure that regulations protecting clean water apply to those smaller waters ends up protecting larger lakes and rivers downstream.
    Republican lawmakers have attacked the move and accused the agency of making a broad power grab. They worry that the EPA’s science has not been thorough enough to warrant a new rule.

    “In light of the significant implications this action would have on the economy, property rights, and state sovereignty, this process must be given more thought and deliberation to allow for important, statutorily-required, weighing of the scientific and technical underpinnings of the proposed regulatory changes,” Smith and Stewart wrote on Friday.

    Smith is the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, and Stewart leads its environment subcommittee.

    The proposal is currently under review at the White House’s budget office, where most major rules are subjected to scrutiny before being unveiled to the public.
    Once the proposal is released, the EPA will accept public comments and revise the regulation before finalizing it.

    The lawmakers want the EPA to give a copy of the proposal to the agency’s science advisory board, which is made up of outside experts from academia and businesses, for a thorough review.
    Releasing the proposal before the board has had a chance to look at it “would be to put the cart before the horse,” they claimed in their letter.
    In a statement emailed to The Hill Friday afternoon, the EPA said that it has received the lawmakers’ letter and will review it.


    Read more: GOP: EPA move 'unprecedented' - The Hill's RegWatch
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
    This is their response to losing 9-0 in a SCOTUS case that determined an Idaho couple had the right to sue the EPA for arbitrarily deeming part of their property protected wetlands and threatening them with fines of $75,000 per day if they didn't bow to their demands.

    Trust me, the EPA will attempt a huge power grab here and they need to be reined in before private property rights become largely a thing of the past.
  • Oct 25, 2013, 09:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    The Goracle has vented his spleen again on Keystone:

    Quote:

    The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is "ridiculous" and "an atrocity," said former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday.

    Speaking at an event honoring the 10th anniversary of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, Gore praised President Barack Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he thinks the president is sincere and that it will be a legacy issue for him. But on Keystone XL, which is waiting to hear its fate from the Obama administration, Gore was unequivocal.

    "I hope as he gets down to the licklog, as he gets down to the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, that he understands what this means," Gore said. "This should be vetoed. It's an atrocity, it's a threat."

    Gore, who just concluded his third annual 24 Hours of Reality event, compared the reliance on fossil fuels -- particularly those derived from tar sands, which the Keystone pipeline would spur further development of -- to a drug addiction.

    "Junkies find veins in their toes when their arms and legs go out," Gore said. "We are now at a point where we are going after dangerous and dirty fuels."

    Because the proposed pipeline crosses an international border, the northern part of it must get approval from the State Department before it can go forward. The issue has been a major source of controversy for the Obama administration, as environmental groups argue that the pipeline would exacerbate global warming.
    And where we aren't going after "dangerous and dirty fuels" we're killing off our eagle population and destroying the view, but who cares about that? OK Al, I give, let's just keep moving it by train.
  • Oct 25, 2013, 09:12 AM
    talaniman
    canadian pipeline map - Bing Images

    Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy. You worry about birds, not a bad thing at all, but I worry about birds, animal, fish, and people who suffer when those pipelines rupture, and there have been plenty of those.
  • Oct 25, 2013, 09:21 AM
    tomder55
    "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."
  • Oct 25, 2013, 09:44 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

    Tilting at windmills

    Quote:

    The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published The character of a London diurnall in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):


    "The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

    The full form of the phrase isn't used until towards the end of the 19th century; for example, in The New York Times, April 1870:


    "They [Western Republicans] have not thus far had sufficient of an organization behind them to make their opposition to the Committee's bill anything more than tilting at windmills
  • Oct 25, 2013, 10:58 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    canadian pipeline map - Bing Images

    Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy.

    Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!
  • Oct 25, 2013, 12:35 PM
    speechlesstx
    Meanwhile, what if the federal government held an auction for solar and wind leases and nobody showed?

    BLM holds solar auction for Colorado public lands — and no one shows
  • Oct 25, 2013, 02:38 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!

    You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines
  • Oct 26, 2013, 05:40 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines

    You know, I live in Texas which is in an oil boom and I never notice any pipelines, they just go about their business unnoticed. On the other hand those darn windmills are an increasingly worse eyesore.
  • Oct 26, 2013, 06:46 AM
    talaniman
    When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.
  • Oct 26, 2013, 06:53 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.

    It does happen, but you should know how strictly pipelines are regulated. There is nothing energy companies are more stringent about than safety.
  • Oct 26, 2013, 07:01 AM
    talaniman
    The problem is more related to maintenance, replace, repair, and inspection. Not easy on underground pipes of any kind and very labor intensive.
  • Oct 31, 2013, 02:58 PM
    speechlesstx
    One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.

    Quote:

    Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report

    A Colorado-based solar company that got hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loan guarantees before going belly-up didn't just empty taxpayers' wallets - it left behind a toxic mess of carcinogens, broken glass and contaminated water, according to a new report.

    The Abound Solar plant, which got $400 million in federal loan guarantees in 2010, when the Obama administration sought to use stimulus funds to promote green energy, filed for bankruptcy two years later. Now its Longmont, Colo., facility sits unoccupied, its 37,000 square feet littered with hazardous waste, broken glass and contaminated water. The Northern Colorado Business Report estimates it will cost up to $3.7 million to clean and repair the building so it can again be leased.

    “As lawyers, regulators, bankruptcy officials and the landlord spar over the case, the building lies in disrepair, too contaminated to lease,” the report stated.

    The owner of the property tried to force a bankruptcy trustee to clean the facility, but the report said it would "place humans at imminent and significant health risk." One of the hazards is the presence of cadmium, a cancer-causing agent that is used to produce the film on the solar panels, the report said.

    While the loan guarantees exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars, the federal government lost a total of $70 million backing the failed company. Unsold inventory which should have been used to offset those losses, including 2,000 solar panels, mysteriously disappeared, according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

    "If a coal, oil or gas company pulled something like that the EPA would send out SWAT teams and the U.S. Marshals to track down the offenders, bankrupt or not," the center said in a report of its own.
    Now that's what I call "green" energy.
  • Oct 31, 2013, 03:07 PM
    paraclete
    I prefer deep green energy myself
  • Nov 1, 2013, 04:46 AM
    Tuttyd
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.



    Now that's what I call "green" energy.

    Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.
  • Nov 1, 2013, 07:51 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tuttyd View Post
    Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.

    That's pretty much the same argument I use when examples of leakage are cited as an example of the negatives of fracking .

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 PM.