Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > The Green Thing

The Green Thing
Thread Tools
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 08:22 PM
 
My Aunt posted this on her facebook, I had to share it.

Our generation wasn't green? Checking out at the grocery store recently, the young cashier suggested I should bring my own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. I apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days." The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations." She was right about one thing -- our generation didn't have the green thing in “Our” day. So what did we have back then…?

After some reflection and soul-searching on "Our" day here's what I remembered we did have.... Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles repeatedly. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day. We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day. Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then. We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus, and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please post this on your Facebook profile so another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person can add to this!!
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 08:39 PM
 
Awesome

And sorry for your loss.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
We didn't have the green thing back in our day. Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
Well obviously there was no green, they were all black and white!

But the computers had green

     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2012, 09:33 PM
 
So your Aunt didn't use escalators, washing machines, blenders, or gas lawnmowers? Sorry, but since she was born in 1940, she definitely used all these things, and the automobiles and home appliances of her day were energy-guzzling nightmares that wouldn't even be legal today.

The boomers really were self-satisfied tossers who had to be dragged screaming into the modern world. I remember listening to them moan and whine about the end of leaded gasoline like we were sacrificing their first born to some dark god.

And satellites are about 10 tines further away than she thought, and it's because at that orbit it requires no energy to keep in sync with the rotation of the Earth. See, someone did think about energy savings when it actually mattered!
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
So your Aunt didn't use escalators, washing machines, blenders, or gas lawnmowers? Sorry, but since she was born in 1940, she definitely used all these things, and the automobiles and home appliances of her day were energy-guzzling nightmares that wouldn't even be legal today.

The boomers really were self-satisfied tossers who had to be dragged screaming into the modern world. I remember listening to them moan and whine about the end of leaded gasoline like we were sacrificing their first born to some dark god.

And satellites are about 10 tines further away than she thought, and it's because at that orbit it requires no energy to keep in sync with the rotation of the Earth. See, someone did think about energy savings when it actually mattered!
I know the chinese language is very literal in meaning. But to fully intergrat in to our society you will have to learn not everything in English is literal, and work harder to search out for humor in things to avoid looking silly. I know you will come along in the decades it takes you to fit it
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
So your Aunt didn't use escalators, washing machines, blenders, or gas lawnmowers? Sorry, but since she was born in 1940, she definitely used all these things, and the automobiles and home appliances of her day were energy-guzzling nightmares that wouldn't even be legal today.

The boomers really were self-satisfied tossers who had to be dragged screaming into the modern world. I remember listening to them moan and whine about the end of leaded gasoline like we were sacrificing their first born to some dark god.

And satellites are about 10 tines further away than she thought, and it's because at that orbit it requires no energy to keep in sync with the rotation of the Earth. See, someone did think about energy savings when it actually mattered!
Sense of humor not found! Ejection to PWL in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:44 AM
 
I guess a lot of it could be called false progress when you look at it this way. Maybe the Amish are on to something after all...
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:49 AM
 
Remove the religious element of the Amish and I would become one pretty quickly. Simple life with whats best for the community is ideal in my books.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:21 PM
 
I used to live in a shoe box at the bottom of a lake. If you told kids today, they wouldn't believe you!
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2012, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
... or gas lawnmowers...
I still use a nicely oiled push lawnmower. Works just fine.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 03:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I still use a nicely oiled push lawnmower. Works just fine.
I used to mow my parents lawn with one of those too. With nice sharpened blades and well-greased parts it really flew through grass, fun too.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 05:21 PM
 
They also drove cars that got 12 miles to the gallon... sprayed DDT all over the place, etc... smoked like crazy... etc...

Little self-satisfied memes/email forwards like this are annoying. No offense to your aunt. (she didn't write this)
( Last edited by ort888; Jan 5, 2012 at 05:32 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 07:58 PM
 
Lawns aren't green-chic. Now you're supposed to use native fauna that doesn't need watering, mowing or fertilizer. Like the indians' front yards were.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 02:45 AM
 
Damn kids... Get off my gravel!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I used to live in a shoe box at the bottom of a lake. If you told kids today, they wouldn't believe you!
Well, it would depend on what kind of shoe box you are talking about here, which you haven't specified.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, it would depend on what kind of shoe box you are talking about here, which you haven't specified.
The kind you share with 48 other people I'd wager.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 02:23 PM
 
I cannot believe you had to post a relevancy link for "live in shoe box 't bottom of th' lake"!

The OP/chain letter does have a point about some aspects of recycling in the past, but it was due to thrift more than care for the environment. I remember refillable soda bottles.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2012, 04:41 PM
 
^ A great way to gain pocket money.

We live in a disposable society. And those disposable items are twisty-tied to a plastic backing board, put in a plastic bag, put in a box with a plastic window and then heat-sealed in plastic for your sanitation.

Then we put them in a reusable bag at the shop so we feel good.
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2012, 02:12 AM
 
The Trojans.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2012, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I remember refillable soda bottles.
What I liked most about soda bottles was always having something innocuous at hand which could be instantaneously repurposed for skullcracking.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
....But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then? Please post this on your Facebook profile so another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-ass young person can add to this!!
Excellent post. It would be great if it was to show an example of how spoiled we are these days and not to take things for granted; unfortunately whoever wrote this did so to start a fight with the green movement. The whole idea is that we want to remember days where some things were more efficient and better for the environment. This is important because the environment is at this point almost completely destroyed beyond repair. This shouldn't even be a blame game of older vs younger but let us remember is was the older generation that created the paper pusher culture; most all the forests, which take hundreds of years to grow, in the lower 48 have been destroyed for paper, junk mail, documentation, coupons.

No person at a grocery store would ever say "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations." This is just to make environmentally conscious people look bad and start a fight.

The only reason they didn't have satellite TV, 20 wall outlets, big screens, computers, power lawnmowers etc. is because it wasn't invented yet or they couldn't afford it.... Not because they weren't lazy or cared about the environment.

The list goes on and on about how savagely the older generations treated our resources and the environment. They tried to exterminate the buffalo; They put a bounty on the Tasmanian tiger, because it killed some common sheep. When warned it might be on the verge of extinction, they proclaimed "NONSENSE ARRRG A RARR STUPID ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARAR R A MY SHEEP!!" Sound familiar? Now days you have warnings about the fish populations while people fight for their right to destroy the oceans. Japan a nation dependent on fish has resorted to hiding poisonous whale meat in fish filets in order to feed their nation.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Just one example of ridiculous wastefulness today:

Parents driving their car to the end of the driveway / beginning of the street, then leaving the engine running, so the kid can wait inside the warm car for the school bus to arrive. WTF ?

When I was a kid, I had to ride my bike to school, no matter if it was 90F or -15F. I had one other option: walking the 1.5 miles.

-t
     
brassplayersrock²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 03:59 PM
 
^ The parents who don't walk, but drive their kid the 2 blocks to school and then complain about the parking lots being to crowded during drop off.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Don't get me started on people that drive to their mailbox 100 yards away.

-t
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Just one example of ridiculous wastefulness today:

Parents driving their car to the end of the driveway / beginning of the street, then leaving the engine running, so the kid can wait inside the warm car for the school bus to arrive. WTF ?

When I was a kid, I had to ride my bike to school, no matter if it was 90F or -15F. I had one other option: walking the 1.5 miles.

-t
Was it uphill? Both ways?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Was it uphill? Both ways?
Downhill both ways.

-t
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2012, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Excellent post. It would be great if it was to show an example of how spoiled we are these days and not to take things for granted; unfortunately whoever wrote this did so to start a fight with the green movement. The whole idea is that we want to remember days where some things were more efficient and better for the environment. This is important because the environment is at this point almost completely destroyed beyond repair. This shouldn't even be a blame game of older vs younger but let us remember is was the older generation that created the paper pusher culture; most all the forests, which take hundreds of years to grow, in the lower 48 have been destroyed for paper, junk mail, documentation, coupons.
And this is the kind of message that is so incorrect. You think you are green yet you are full of false information. Paper for example is from farmed trees. They don't use wild growth forest for trees because its not uniformed. The more paper you use the more trees will be farmed to supply that paper. And then you have the recycling industry, yes a for profit industry that is tax payer subsidized because what they recycle isn't profitable to recycle. Paper which is bio degradable should NOT be recycled because it is a industrial process that creates more population recycling it then use fresh FARMED material. So tax payer money is wasted for a feel good service that is worst for the environment at the expense of farmed trees which is a good thing....

Old growth forest is used for your homes and in construction. And these days a lot of trees are logged in second and third growth forests in a sustainable way. In South America the destruction of the rain forest has nothing to do with paper or building supplies but for raw land access. Most of it is just burned away to make room.

No person at a grocery store would ever say "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations." This is just to make environmentally conscious people look bad and start a fight.
Most environmentally conscious people are frauds and don't actually know anything. They just jump on feel good things regardless of if its actually better for the environment or not. Take a look at compact florescence lights. Sure it uses a lot less power. But at the same time can cause sickness in people who are predisposed to sickness from sensitives and they use mercury in the manufacturing process. You reduce power demand at the cost of a very toxic substance for the landfills. The real solution would be to be power smart in light usage and using clean sources to generate the power needed instead of trying to reduce power usage at the expense of mercury pollution.

The only reason they didn't have satellite TV, 20 wall outlets, big screens, computers, power lawnmowers etc. is because it wasn't invented yet or they couldn't afford it.... Not because they weren't lazy or cared about the environment.
No, most of that stuff was around, but cost a lot more. globalization and slave labor has made everything so cheap every one can afford it. While at the same time causing a lot more pollution from the transportation of the goods we no longer make locally. 20 Super tankers produce as much pollution as all the cars on the planet put together. Want to make a major dent in air pollution, ban global transportation of goods and make everything local. Sure it will cost 5x more.

The list goes on and on about how savagely the older generations treated our resources and the environment. They tried to exterminate the buffalo; They put a bounty on the Tasmanian tiger, because it killed some common sheep. When warned it might be on the verge of extinction, they proclaimed "NONSENSE ARRRG A RARR STUPID ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARAR R A MY SHEEP!!" Sound familiar? Now days you have warnings about the fish populations while people fight for their right to destroy the oceans. Japan a nation dependent on fish has resorted to hiding poisonous whale meat in fish filets in order to feed their nation.
Thats because people refuse to pay the higher price it would cost to farm salmon on land which is no threat to wild stocks. It all comes down to price in the end.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 06:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
And this is the kind of message that is so incorrect. You think you are green yet you are full of false information. Paper for example is from farmed trees. They don't use wild growth forest for trees because its not uniformed. The more paper you use the more trees will be farmed to supply that paper. And then you have the recycling industry, yes a for profit industry that is tax payer subsidized because what they recycle isn't profitable to recycle. Paper which is bio degradable should NOT be recycled because it is a industrial process that creates more population recycling it then use fresh FARMED material. So tax payer money is wasted for a feel good service that is worst for the environment at the expense of farmed trees which is a good thing....

Old growth forest is used for your homes and in construction. And these days a lot of trees are logged in second and third growth forests in a sustainable way. In South America the destruction of the rain forest has nothing to do with paper or building supplies but for raw land access. Most of it is just burned away to make room.
This might be the case nowadays, I think the point was that when the paper industry began to explode, this was not the case, hence lots of forests got destroyed.


Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Take a look at compact florescence lights. Sure it uses a lot less power. But at the same time can cause sickness in people who are predisposed to sickness from sensitives and they use mercury in the manufacturing process.
The majority of people who believe they are 'sensitive' to electric fields and fluorescent light are hypochondriacs and their problems are usually psychosomatic. Overexposure to fluorescant light has been linked to depression though. Either way I'm not sure the numbers are significant enough to worry about. The mercury is certainly the bigger problem here. LED lighting is starting to come in and change these habits gradually.


Originally Posted by Athens View Post
20 Super tankers produce as much pollution as all the cars on the planet put together.
I'm not overly convinced by some of your other claims but I'm going to call outright bull***t on this one. What is your source for this little nugget?

Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Thats because people refuse to pay the higher price it would cost to farm salmon on land which is no threat to wild stocks. It all comes down to price in the end.
This is true but the blame shouldn't lie entirely with the consumer here. As long as just one company is prepared to do something less ethical in order to cut their costs and therefore their prices, then people will buy the cheaper items and competing products will have no chouce but to follow suit in order to survive. This is another good example of why business needs those regulations that some people here hate so much.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Paper for example is from farmed trees. They don't use wild growth forest for trees because its not uniformed. The more paper you use the more trees will be farmed to supply that paper. And then you have the recycling industry, yes a for profit industry that is tax payer subsidized because what they recycle isn't profitable to recycle. Paper which is bio degradable should NOT be recycled because it is a industrial process that creates more population recycling it then use fresh FARMED material. So tax payer money is wasted for a feel good service that is worst for the environment at the expense of farmed trees which is a good thing...
This is completely wrong. The paper industry itself acknowledges that it is much faster/economical to use paper slurry (ie, recycled paper) than to start from scratch with wood pulp. I've seen paper made, it's impressive to see the big bales of recycling go into the vat.

As WarAgainstSleep said, when the paper industry first got rolling big, it didn't care about replanting. It took a long time and the realization of the bottom line for them to replant. Even so, have you ever seen a mountain that's been deforested? Even farming the trees, the destruction is evident.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 12:26 PM
 
Pretty impressive post. Mind if I share it?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
This is completely wrong. The paper industry itself acknowledges that it is much faster/economical to use paper slurry (ie, recycled paper) than to start from scratch with wood pulp. I've seen paper made, it's impressive to see the big bales of recycling go into the vat.

As WarAgainstSleep said, when the paper industry first got rolling big, it didn't care about replanting. It took a long time and the realization of the bottom line for them to replant. Even so, have you ever seen a mountain that's been deforested? Even farming the trees, the destruction is evident.
Yes of course its more economical to use paper slurry, its paid for by tax dollars through recycling programs. If you made them pay the full cost of recycling paper and took away the tax payer money, they would drop it in a heart beat.

As for deforested Mountains, yes all the time. Forestry is the largest industry in BC. I see the clear cuts all the time and shoot in some of them. Replanting of forests has been going on for the last 50 years at least. At least in this country. Might be a new thing in the US, dunno. Most of the forests lost had nothing to do with paper or even wood products but land reclaiming for agriculture. When ever you point out a lost forest some place, well whats in its place now? A city, a farm? Forested locations that was for tree harvesting only grow back as forests because the land isn't turned into a farm or a city. This is why most surviving forests outside of parks and protected areas are mountains. The land isn't usable for anything else. And much of the forests we see today that are not protected areas are second and third growth forest.

If you want to protect forests the battle isn't against paper companies and wood product companies. Its against Farming and urban sprawl.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 12:54 PM
 
As for the tanker ships, its actually 16 not 20

Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.
Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.
With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.


Read more: How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world | Mail Online
How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world | Mail Online

Environmental impact of shipping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exhaust emissions from ships are considered to be a significant source of air pollution, with 18 to 30 percent of all nitrogen oxide and 9 percent of sulphur oxide pollution.[25] The 15 biggest ships emit about as much sulphur oxide pollution as all cars combined.[25] "By 2010, up to 40 percent of air pollution over land could come from ships."[26] Sulfur in the air creates acid rain which damages crops and buildings. When inhaled the sulfur is known to cause respiratory problems and even increase the risk of a heart attack
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
And this is the kind of message that is so incorrect. You think you are green yet you are full of false information. Paper for example is from farmed trees. They don't use wild growth forest for trees because its not uniformed. The more paper you use the more trees will be farmed to supply that paper. And then you have the recycling industry, yes a for profit industry that is tax payer subsidized because what they recycle isn't profitable to recycle. Paper which is bio degradable should NOT be recycled because it is a industrial process that creates more population recycling it then use fresh FARMED material. So tax payer money is wasted for a feel good service that is worst for the environment at the expense of farmed trees which is a good thing....
None of what you have said here is correct; I don't know where you heard any of that. I watched the "old growth forests" of my beautiful homeland get clear cut and checker-boarded to pieces by the Pot-latch monopoly for paper. Yes technically it all came from a farm... The Potlatch corporation buys an old growth forest, calls it a "tree farm" and cuts it down. My family (relatives) owned some old growth forests and would selectively thin out trees and send them to the mill; but that is a small business practice and is not the norm. A few times the Potlatch monopoly would use their pet government pit bully to eminent domain their forest so that they could clear cut it. Only in the past 15 years or so have they actually replanted what they clear cut so they can technically get away with calling it a farm. Here's a picture of what happens to the rivers in the northwest when Big Potlatch clear cuts the forest for your junk mail: This silt kills a lot of fish by the way.


What you might be thinking of is the small operations they have in Florida where they can chop down a natural forest, replant high growth rate trees over and over, and harvest them for paper.

Most environmentally conscious people are frauds and don't actually know anything.
And most people who criticize the environmentally conscious are frauds who don't know anything as well. Even a hypocritical environmentalist at least knows you can't exhaust your resources for infinity with a 'drill baby drill' attitude; and hence tries to bring awareness to a long lasting sustainable approach.
They just jump on feel good things regardless of if its actually better for the environment or not. Take a look at compact florescence lights. Sure it uses a lot less power. But at the same time can cause sickness in people who are predisposed to sickness from sensitives and they use mercury in the manufacturing process. You reduce power demand at the cost of a very toxic substance for the landfills. The real solution would be to be power smart in light usage and using clean sources to generate the power needed instead of trying to reduce power usage at the expense of mercury pollution.
Every fluorescent light ever made has mercury. These bulbs have never been anywhere close to a primary source of mercury pollution. You're more likely to get mercury poisoning from eating tuna. Besides they're recyclable.
1000bulbs.com | One Big Fish Story

Google florescent bulbs mercury vs tuna.

...So none of that is valid criticism. If you wanted to criticize how waist-full it is that they all contain their own ballast, or how they don't last as long as they claim that would be fine. If people are afraid of mercury they can choose the new energy efficient incandescent, sola tubes, or skylights. Personally I've never broken a bulb in my life; and if I did I'd just get a glove and paper towel and wipe if of the floor.

No, most of that stuff was around, but cost a lot more. globalization and slave labor has made everything so cheap every one can afford it. While at the same time causing a lot more pollution from the transportation of the goods we no longer make locally.Want to make a major dent in air pollution, ban global transportation of goods and make everything local. Sure it will cost 5x more.
I agree, that is another area that needs to be a targeted for clean up. I'm fine with it costing 5x more.

Thats because people refuse to pay the higher price it would cost to farm salmon on land which is no threat to wild stocks. It all comes down to price in the end.
I think you underestimate how much fish the world is consuming. I wasn't referencing the fist full of salmon people eat a few times a year; but the annual 80 million tons of cod, herring, tuna, etc. that the world has become unsustainable addicted to. This can not be reproduced 'on land farms'. When fishing companies have to result in bottom trawling you know there is problem. Heres a little video:
The Blue Seals - Bottom Trawling (Coral Reefs)
What happens to a coral reef after bottom trawling; these are the things the highly oppressed and hated environmental groups are trying bring awareness and sustainability to.


It is profitable to be green!
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:28 PM
 
Those that actually know any thing about environmental problems would start attacking the real issues, those that have the biggest global impact and the biggest local regional impact on ones health. This would be shipping which is responsible for a gigantic amount of pollution followed by Trucking and Heavy machinery. Cars are so much better at pollution today they shouldn't even be on the radar. I've already explained and linked to the shipping industry above. The Trucking industry and heavy machinery industry which forestry, construction uses are big problems for local regional pollution that impacts health. New trucks and new heavy machines meet better emission guidelines but the problem is the older trucks and machines. The engines that operate them have no pollution controls in them at all and worst they can be rebuilt continuously for ever. So as long as the environmental standards for truck engines does not go retroactive to all trucks say over the next 15 years for the long term and I do mean long term like 50-100 years we will still have dirty engines running and polluting a lot. And for those that are more concerned about health over GLOBAL impact the truck and heavy machines should be target number one. Because in every major city you have a lot of truck activity and construction activity. Most of the partial pollutants in a city is caused by trucks and heavy machines not cars. The smog you see in cities in the summer can be attributed to bulldozers and semi trailers.

The biggest threat to our water systems is our toilets and toxic medicated human waste. In a ideal world we would have 2 sets of pipes and water work systems. One for drinking water and one for waste water. The waste water system which would feed toilets would be a closed system that recycles the same water over and over vs dumping it. The solid waste would be removed from the system and the water treated and reused. The problem with toilet water waste ending up in river and lake supplies is you can't get all the medications we pump ourselves with out of the water through filtration.

Waste water from showers, sinks and drains should feed into this closed system. And the closed system should feed toilet water while fresh drinking water runs the rest of the pipes in a house. Would put a lot less stress on the drinking water supply and stop pollution our drinking water supply.

On the power side of things we should be using Solar, Wind, Thermal and Nuclear power for our energy sources. Hydro Electric is a mixed bag of good and bad, but should be used where it can be. Oil and Coal should be ended as power sources.

Fish farming is good, but not in the ocean. Fish farming should be closed inland systems.

Selective Logging is BAD!!!! Another feel good story that has its roots in ignorance. Selective logging is cherry picking trees from a forest, taking the biggest and best trees out. One log at a time. It looks better then clear cutting but new trees can NOT grew in the place of the ones logged because the sun light does not reach the forest floor. As ugly as clear cutting is, it has the best regrowth rate and success allowing for future logging.

Stopping forest fires = BAD. And we have a big problem now because for the last 90 years we have kept forest fires at bay. The amount of fuel collecting on the floor of forest is making it harder and harder to prevent forest fires. And forest fires of the past did not actually kill the trees. They burned excess fuel on the ground quickly enough the trees survived them. Now because of the amount of fuel on the floor the fires burn hotter and longer and do kill the trees.

The core transportation networks for all the major urban areas should be electric run rail based systems. Fast inter city rail systems as well. Airplanes and shipping are both horrible for the environment.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
None of what you have said here is correct; I don't know where you heard any of that. I watched the "old growth forests" of my beautiful homeland get clear cut and checker-boarded to pieces by the Pot-latch monopoly for paper. Yes technically it all came from a farm... The Potlatch corporation buys an old growth forest, calls it a "tree farm" and cuts it down. My family (relatives) owned some old growth forests and would selectively thin out trees and send them to the mill; but that is a small business practice and is not the norm. A few times the Potlatch monopoly would use their pet government pit bully to eminent domain their forest so that they could clear cut it. Only in the past 15 years or so have they actually replanted what they clear cut so they can technically get away with calling it a farm. Here's a picture of what happens to the rivers in the northwest when Big Potlatch clear cuts the forest for your junk mail: This silt kills a lot of fish by the way.

I think your time lines are off and might even be mistaken over old growth and second growth. Most of what people think are old growth forest today (at least here in Canada because thats where I live) is actually second growth forest. Even large sections of Clayoquot sound, something like 35% of it is second growth forest. A lot of the original old growth forest got logged in the late 1800's to 1950's. TFL's (Tree Farm Licences) have been handed out since the 1800's. The only thing that changed is in the 70's with truck logging and new technology is they could cut way more trees down faster then any point in time before. But the lands have been ear marked as logging lands for a long time. It was in the late 80's that logging peaked as unsustainable and since then the rate of logging has slowed and the amount of replanting increased to keep it sustainable.

The point is logging isn't the problem because trees are planted to replace the forest removed. And in 50 years those locations will look like untouched forest. The problem is forests that are removed to make room for corn farms or for urban sprawl. Those are forest gone and gone for ever because the land that was once occupied by trees will never have trees again. Forest cut down for lumber and paper are still forests and will have trees again. Most of the amazon rain forests that have been cut down it has been to make land.

Oh and the florescent bulbs and mercury, any amount of mercury in the environment is bad. Trading a mercury free solution for a mercury pollution solution is bad. How do you even try to argue that one?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The point is logging isn't the problem because trees are planted to replace the forest removed. And in 50 years those locations will look like untouched forest. The problem is forests that are removed to make room for corn farms or for urban sprawl. Those are forest gone and gone for ever because the land that was once occupied by trees will never have trees again. Forest cut down for lumber and paper are still forests and will have trees again. Most of the amazon rain forests that have been cut down it has been to make land.
I'm not so sure. There's a product popping up at garden stores everywhere - loam. Loam is the half-decomposed dead leaves, animal droppings, dead plants, etc. on forest floors. Forests depend on it to provide nutrients for re-growth. But now they scrape the forest floors when harvesting to sell that to people to put in their gardens and lawns because suburban lots are also scraped for their topsoil to resell. Bottom line is the forest can't regrow as well as it used to because much of the nutrients are not returned to the soil.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 03:02 PM
 
Their generation may have been "green" or not, but they surely drove up the price of food and real estate so now it takes two adults to work full time to support a household. We no longer have the time to hang our laundry out to dry, mend holes in our old clothes to pass down to younger siblings, mow our lawns the slow way, cook huge meals seven days per week, etc.

Look at how the older generation votes too. They certainly aren't voting for "green" ways of living.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 03:08 PM
 
I've never herd of that product. It sounds really new and I can't see that having a negative impact at least not yet. And yes forest depends on dead leaves and such for nutrients but in BC and Alberta forest fires have been getting more intense every year because of the last 90 years of preventing forest fires. Forest fires have always been a natural system of forests and our interference with it created new problems. But it also depends on the type of forest too. Canadian Pine forests are the ones that need forest fires to grow and regenerate. The pine cones actually require fire to seed. So whats good for one forest is bad for another. Eco systems are complicated.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 9, 2012, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk View Post
Their generation may have been "green" or not, but they surely drove up the price of food and real estate so now it takes two adults to work full time to support a household. We no longer have the time to hang our laundry out to dry, mend holes in our old clothes to pass down to younger siblings, mow our lawns the slow way, cook huge meals seven days per week, etc.

Look at how the older generation votes too. They certainly aren't voting for "green" ways of living.
That is the banking sector that created this, totally different topic. Few select people got power and changed our entire system for quick profits at the expense of people. That is more a politics debate. But the food prices is a error. Part of our environmental and health problems comes from the stabilization of food prices. Nixon wanted to take food prices off the election issue. Before Nixon food prices went up and down by a lot. Its been mostly flat lined and stable since. Our generation has enjoyed some of the cheapest food in history. The reason it seems like its not is because food prices do increase with inflation but our real wages have for the most part been flat lined for 25 years. This is where the farm subsidies come in along with HFCS and the massive resources put into corn production. While we stabilized our food prices artificially with tax money it created a bunch of problems that helped with world wide starvation. Corn prices are artificially low as a commodity which means the sale price of corn with out subsidy is lower then the actual production cost of the corn. So places with out a subsidy like Africa can't produce corn and make a profit on it. Because our corn is so cheap thanx to tax dollars it is a massive export for North America. So instead of Africa growing its own corn, they have to buy our corn. Net result is Africa grows stuff they can make money on like Tobacco. So farm land that could be used for food isn't, and the food they do get they can't afford to buy because it has to be imported. This impacts the environment just on the shipping aspect of it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,