COP26 progress or same old

[Phil Pascoe]

And yet, amazingly, they shrugged it off, apparently with little damage to their popularity.
I was likewise amazed at how either Coke or Pepsi (I can't remember which)recovered from the DasaniGate.

Coca Cola.

 

[D_W]

Burying high carbon garbage in a way which does not allow it to decay, is sequestering carbon. Would also have to be replacing plastic with sustainable alternatives, but this was never a problem in the past. Modern plastic products were virtually unknown when I was a kid.

How complicated is it to get filtered water out of a tap? Something like milk is a little bit different where the dairy had a bottling setup and would sterilize the bottles and then deliver them.

Our recycler has now requested that we no longer give them glass. We used to have a huge bottle making plant in the city where I live, but it's no longer there, so there is no customer for glass. And the recycler, who is bound by contract to take it, has requested we not put it in, anyway, as they say that when it breaks, all of the other mixed recycling just gets automatically baled and sent to the dump instead.

the whole recycling thing is a farce. There are customers for steel and aluminum and there always were. Those were set aside before recycling because people could get paid for them. I don't remember getting too much else in plastic as a kid other than milk.

FTR, I don't buy bottled drinks other than brandy once every couple of months (call me a lightweight if you want) - it still irks me to throw away a brandy bottle every month or two. The reason I don't buy bottled drinks is two-fold - one, it's a waste of money, and two, it bothers me that the plastic ends up going to the dump and people think it's getting recycled. I remember as a kid, we burned our paper trash, recycled aluminum, steel and glass (there was a "mission" down the road that would take all of it- sometimes, we'd haul the metal bits a mile the other way as the aluminum would yield a few bucks). The remaining bits would go to the dump. I also remember being admonished that "if you burn plastics, it will ruin the environment".

I doubt the amount of carbon you're talking about sequestering amounts to anything in the grand scheme. Save the mines for something more valuable.

 

[transatlantic]

I've said it before. Plastics should not have even entered production until we had a solution for how to deal with the waste.

If not for long lasting products (which is a joke by todays standards), but most certainly for products that are bought and thrown away daily (food wrapping etc).

It's like the whole microbeads issue. How an earth did that get as far as it did? the companies must have known the issues, but I suspect profit came first and they took a gamble on it. It's infuritating.

 

[Spectric]

I can remember someone talking about some old quarries in Derbyshire that were landfilled with old tyres in the sixties and they were now going to have to remove them because of water pollution, so what may seem like a good idea at the time can have consequences for the next generations.

 

[DrPhill]

Up until a couple of years ago I used bottled water - because I like the fizzy stuff. Finally I decided that my preferences did not justify the plastic waste and started buying fizzy water in bottles. Then I figured that the transport of water and glass was too expensive for environment. I miss fizzy water, and it is my drink of choice at pubs and restaurants......

I would bother with every bit of plastic - it might not be recycled but if it is burnt then at least it wont be choking turtles or whatever.

I do agree that some of the greenwash is nauseous though. I have come across "this packaging is recyclable where facilities exist". Oh well that is alright then. Which planet do I send it to?
I do like the idea of burying plastic - it came from under the ground so I see no problem putting it back. It may break down eventually, but perhaps slower than above ground, and it wont be choking turtles. Of course there will be those that use this as justification for digging a new coal mine - think of all the plastic we can bury.

Unfortunately most of the 'solutions' are really just tackling the symptoms of the real problem. The human species overall is too greedy and too destructive in satisfying its greed. (Yes, I know its mostly due to a very small minority of super-consumers but that takes us too near politics, and I like this thread).

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Does Somerset win the prize for the most recycling miles - a sort of offset for reduced food miles:

• paper sent ~225 miles to Kings Lynn
• glass - 220 miles to Nottingley, West Yorkshire
• cardboard and cartons - 100-200 miles to Kent or West Midlands
• steel - 70 miles to South Wales
• other metals - aluminium - 120-200 miles Warrington or the Midlands
• plastics - 200 miles to Manchester

Creates the illusion of green policies whilst burning diesel driving around the motorway network in large diesels. Or does the UK simply have an inadequate recycling infrastructure.

Collecting it seems easy compared to actually doing something environmentally sound.

 

[D_W]

I would bother with every bit of plastic - it might not be recycled but if it is burnt then at least it wont be choking turtles or whatever.

I'm the complainer here, but I still put all of the plastic in the recycle bin. *all* of it. But when someone doesn't or no can is available, I don't fret it. If you look at my statistics, the chance that any excess that you provide gets burned is basically zero. There's already a consumer for a certain amount of burned material (and it probably takes grants to make it worth handling the plastics and then burning them as they likely aren't energy dense enough to beat a source even like wind or solar). So what you pain to pick up either gets landfilled or shipped to another country where it's most likely landfilled, or maybe burned with no control on emissions.

Most plastics will degrade over several hundred years, so it's not automatically better to burn it. there are also enzymes that will eat certain plastics, and in some cases, some insects (though it'd be a real stretch to dream that they'll ever be big enough in quantity to eat a large amount).

I don't have a great answer other than not to use it.

and like the post above mentioned, I've gone through times where fizzy water is really a preference (but we get it in cans now, they'll be re-used at least since aluminum always has residual value) - but it takes not more than a couple of days to wean off of it and go to the filtered outlet on the fridge.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I read an article by a scientist who said (and admitted he'd get shot down in flames for saying it) that ALL plastic should incinerated to fuel purpose built power plants, rather than recycled. He reckoned that as half of all plastic collected went for either incineration or to landfill anyway (for one reason or another) and the transportation, sorting, reprocessing of the rest is so energy consuming that it makes more sense

 

[DrPhill]

I'm the complainer here, but I still put all of the plastic in the recycle bin. *all* of it. But when someone doesn't or no can is available, I don't fret it. If you look at my statistics, the chance that any excess that you provide gets burned is basically zero.

For sure, and I was not intending to criticise you. However landfill/incinerate/recycle all take it out of random environment maybe saving turtles. Unless the plastic decomposes faster or more obnoxiously in the landfill, it is producing no more pollutant than if it were strangling turtles. A big pile of plastic decomposing will produce a higher concentration of pollutants with more noticeable adverse side effects though.
But the answer is to stop using them for everything.
I am trying to reduce my dependency on plastic, but it is a difficult challenge. For some problems it is an excellent engineering solution. For example I use leather footwear, but plastic soles seem way better than leather ones.

 

[D_W]

You and I are in the same boat - it's not really an environmentalist consideration for me. I don't much care about global warming, it's not something I can affect further reasonably than what I already do, but things of ease that are inconsiderate....

...for example, for me to continue to use plastic bottles for drinks when they are both more expensive and more misleading for everyone (I can get fined for not putting plastic bottles in my recycling bin, but there is no recourse if the contracted recycling center finds no buyer for any and throws them in the garbage)....that's a matter of being inconsiderate.

In the US, they won't strangle turtles, and unless something has changed, they won't find their way to birds (most of the stuff in the ocean was cast off not by a barge off of new jersey, but by countries that print labels in other languages). The ease things strikes me, though. It is easy for me to not use plastic bottles for everything other than milk. Is it always easier to stop for a second with the kids and fill bottles when we're in a rush to go somewhere? No. But it's not that much harder. Just as it's not hard to live relatively close to work and take vacations that don't require more than a moderate drive.

Not sure where excess plastics in England go. Greenpeace makes it sound like those sent to recycling but not recycled can end up being shipped to other countries. That's not cool. If it's done with US plastics, same. It's being lazy and inconsiderate.

People at the point of use and purchase should be aware of how little of their plastics are actually returned to service as plastic again later. the lobbying agencies for "recycling" are operating at best on idealism when they ignore reality and encourage people to continue use and recycling.

 

[DrPhill]

People at the point of use and purchase should be aware of how little of their plastics are actually returned to service as plastic again later. the lobbying agencies for "recycling" are operating at best on idealism when they ignore reality and encourage people to continue use and recycling.

That could seem to be a deception - people who believe that the problem is being addressed are less likely to modify their behaviour or call for change.
How much of the deception is cynically planned for that purpose? I have no idea....

 

[Jacob]

......
I do like the idea of burying plastic - it came from under the ground so I see no problem putting it back. It may break down eventually, but perhaps slower than above ground, and it wont be choking turtles. Of course there will be those that use this as justification for digging a new coal mine - think of all the plastic we can bury.
......

No need to dig new holes we could just backfill the old ones. I live about half a mile from this hole - typical of many in Derbyshire.
I envision it being carefully and scientifically filled with plastic and other sorts of high carbon waste - even grow timber to drop in. Alternating with flooding and careful cultivation of peat bog in layers to stabilise it, until it reaches a height to be landscaped back to how it was.
It would hold millions of tons and be the start of the post anthropocene neo-carboniferous era!

 

[Jacob]

We would also plant fast-growing carbon-capturing trees to be felled and dropped int'ole at the most appropriate stage of growth.
https://learn.eartheasy.com/articles/10-carbon-storing-trees-and-how-to-plant-them/Deep vertical mine shafts could be reserved for 'gravity battery' purposes. Gravity battery - Wikipedia

 

[TRITON]

I burn plastic bags, it makes them last longer when buried in the garden.

 

[Jacob]

........... I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.

....There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. I will leave you to research on your own, if you want to. Entirely up to you.

Could do with some help on this.
So far I've only managed to dig up Bellamy and P Corbyn. Not very convincing.
Other than that there seem to be just paid lobbyists and fruitcakes. Must be more to it than that?

Edited - got my Patrick Moores mixed up. The well known astronomer was innocent of climate change scepticism as far as I know.
The other one was head of Greenpeace and probably a paid lobbyist and dodgy dealer. Possibly the most influential sceptic in recent years Patrick Moore (consultant) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)#Global_climate_change_denial

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There is always a scientific fringe with more radical theories to add to a debate.

Often they are scientists who have yet to, or are unlikely to ever, achieve fame and glory. They want their chance in the spotlight. There are those once in the public spotlight whose star has now faded, and desperately want to return (a bit llike "D" list celebrity masterchef etc).

Their one hope is that they will challenge the consensus and with the benefit of hindsight later be proven right. They dream of Nobel prizes, public acclaim, etc which they are unlikely to achieve through intellect alone.

 

[D_W]

There is always a scientific fringe with more radical theories to add to a debate.

Often they are scientists who have yet to, or are unlikely to ever, achieve fame and glory. They want their chance in the spotlight. There are those once in the public spotlight whose star has now faded, and desperately want to return (a bit llike "D" list celebrity masterchef etc).

Their one hope is that they will challenge the consensus and with the benefit of hindsight later be proven right. They dream of Nobel prizes, public acclaim, etc which they are unlikely to achieve through intellect alone.

I think it probably goes deeper than that, but both the consensus and objector groups are a study in human nature.

For example, you can end up with someone switching from consensus to fringe because they have a serious legitimate question and are told to keep it to themselves for various reasons.

Consider the plastic discussion on here - there's an enormous disconnect between the ideal and practice and consensus will generally be "well, it's no big deal, it's the way we need to go", but with no analysis of whether or not there's actually a benefit from recycling beyond what was already recycled due to economic interest (copper, aluminum, bulk steel - like car bits, etc). Rubber is recycled here in large volume (old tires) as it's easier to find a use for shredded tires or tires as generation fuel than it is just to discard them "in a big pile".

But the odds debate (I'm a big fan of odds based on professional and life experience - if you want to have a likely outcome, you have to deal with what the odds are. Spending life choosing a low-odds outcome time and again in every instance requires detaching yourself from measuring outcomes and comparing them to pre-outcome assertions.)

Not debating there aren't glory seekers - in the US, you see them not just in scientists, but MDs - often MDs who just want more money, who try to skirt the rules and assert things that aren't provable or are shown by data to actually be false.

But I think there's a cohort of folks who don't like the tendency of consensus builders to give one-sided speech and squash anyone who brings up reasonable deficiencies in the current consensus that should be addressed. Either side likes to paint the other with a wide brush ("they just go along with the establishment because it pays more and its easier, so they don't care about ____", or "anyone who doesn't go along with the consensus or who brings up any objection is a crackpot, just like _____".

 

[Droogs]

Up until a couple of years ago I used bottled water - because I like the fizzy stuff. Finally I decided that my preferences did not justify the plastic waste and started buying fizzy water in bottles. Then I figured that the transport of water and glass was too expensive for environment. I miss fizzy water, and it is my drink of choice at pubs and restaurants......

Get a SodaStream and fizz your own. Use your empty pop bottles to put it in and keep it in the fridge. DO NOT however try to fizz milk, unless you want a new kitchen. I experimented with this as a kid (the SodaStream exploded) and the resulting residual smell even after everything was washed down made my parents totally redo the kitchen.
I suppose up here we are very lucky, in that we probably naturally have the best council juice from the tap in Europe. The Swiss have some good water but it is a little bit hard and to me has a bit of a tang in the aftertaste. Water in England to me tastes rank from the tap and in France & Germany has a mettalic tang.

 

[ey_tony]

As someone with a degree in Geology/Geophysics, obviously a subject that appeals to me, I have to say that while there is some truth regarding climate change, there is also a lot of bull-whotsit thrown about by these so called CC experts but the problem is that any scientist/academic who challenges some of the ludicrous and alarmist claims is immediately censored and marginalised by the CC extremists and those 'academic scientists' who rely upon CC grants proving that it exists to keep them in the life in which they are accustomed.

There is a whole industry built up around GW as it was first named. They don't want the data they use to be questioned or challenged and will deliberately leave out facts that would bring into question their hypothesis and modelling.

Anyone who followed Mann's questionable 'Hockey Stick' presentation of the so called facts will know to what I'm referring.

Of course GW or whatever they call it these days, exists. We're in an interglacial period and it's only just over 8000 years since the North Sea first formed from melt waters as the last of the ice advance finally retreated. Sea levels and temperatures have never been stable.

Alarmists say the sea is rising at one or two cms per year. Just imagine how the people of that time around 8300 years ago who lived on the then landmass that lies between what is now the UK and the continental Europe must have felt when the sea to the North gradually transgressed southward and they saw their lands and villages slowly disappearing before their very eyes as the waters rose. Now that was what GW can really do.
While the effects of GW are no doubt catastrophic for some, just imagine how such as the Northern Hemisphere would be affected if the ice began to advance once again which it could do in the space of a lifetime and given that we are in an interglacial period, probably the only thing standing in the way of a return of the ice at the moment is the temperature increases attributed to human-kind.

If we were to see ice advancing as it did at the beginning of the last ice age, then many parts of Northern Europe and the likes would be totally uninhabitable with quite possibly many hundreds of millions being displaced which would no doubt result in famine and wars so, the CC bods need to be careful for what they wish for as the alternative could be far worse.

 

[DrPhill]

Did you follow this to the bottom?