OT pluses of the slump?

[The Medway Handyman]

Makes more sense than ecobollox.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not really. Its not proof, its a hypothesis, which you have totally failed to refute at any time on any post.

Whereas I have refuted most of your assertions time and again.

By doing the sums.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:06:30 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Yawn. More proof by assertion. Do keep it up, it is mildly amusing.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Its not necessary,. You have amply demonstrated the point by saying what you just said.

Not only do you not do maths, you don't understand the difference between proof and refutation.

Proof demonsrates that an assertion is correct. refutation is much easier. It demonstrates that an assertion is INcorrect.

I have demosterated that most of your assertions are total bollocks. That's easy to do, I have never 'proved' or attempted to prove any of mine, bar the one that says that you are at best a misguided idiot, and at worts a compulsive liar with an axe to grind.

I propose theories and solutions that fit the facts. They may not bec correct, but you have failed to refute any of them

You on the other hand spout theories and solutions that are manifestly in conflict with the real world, and all of which have been refuted.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:37:35 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

Yawn. More proof by assertion, this time a little louder than the previous assertions but just as unconvincing.

Feel free to have the last word, if you wish to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the subject further.

[unopened]

You make some good points.

For my own part, I'm prepared to make a little effort to try and make the environment less bad than it might have been. Reducing humankind's effect on the environment, to me, is a good thing - so long as it can be achieved without too radical a change in quality of life. I'm not quite ready for composting toilets and knitting my own yoghurt yet.

Whole life economic calculations are extremely difficult to do (as you allude to), often because people neglect externalities - both from the 'greenwash' side and the 'can't be bothered with this environmentalism nonsense' side. For example, even using cold water to soak used food containers is questionable due to the problem of using potable water for non-drinking purposes. I suppose I could wait for the (hypothetical) dishwater to go cold. :-) (It's hypothetical because I use a dishwashing machine). I'm not a (vegetable-based) dyed in the (organic) wool rabid tree-hugging card-carrying member of Greenpeace environmentalist. I am, however, all for practical solutions that minimise humanity's effect on our common living space, so that it can become better for all of us now, and for future generations. I am aware that some people believe quite strongly that future generations can, will, and should look after themselves, and we'll enjoy what we've got while we can.

Quite often, recycling seems expensive, because the current price of raw materials and energy is artificially low at present. If you have a

10-year perspective, it is obvious to make new 'stuff' from abundantly available raw materials and energy. If you have a 100-year perspective, it becomes a little more nuanced, and if you have a 1000- year perspective, almost any use of limited resources becomes anathema. One thing many successful Japanese companies have is a 1000- year strategy. We all know that most companies (and people) have a shorter lifespan than this, but is shows (a) ambition and (b) and acceptance that long-term thinking has it's place.

I'm dead against greenwash. Lieing for the cause is an acceptable, or even necessary (in some minds) means to an end, which I think gives some parts of the green movement a bad name. Some people don't even know they are doing it, which makes having a reasoned debate difficult.

Now for the case in point, I realise we are not going to run out of silica to make good quality glass any time soon. There's a little bit less iron ore around. The energy required to make new rather than clean or reprocess existing containers is where things get interesting. At current energy prices, we can argue whether it is worthwhile (I'd agree that cleaning a single glass jar in hot water to remove the label, washing it in a dishwasher, then driving to the recycling centre in a 'gas-guzzling' 4x4 isn't likely to save energy over making new) - but the point is that by adjusting the variables we can make the argument go one way or the other. As energy costs rise, and raw materials become less available, recycling will become more favoured. Where the cross-over point is, is anybody's guess. Some would say now, some in the far future, but I don't think anyone serious argues that recycling will not become necessary rather than optional at some point.

Please do continue to question the necessity of recycling, but also, please do be prepared to find out you may, just possibly be wrong. I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, and hope to learn from the experience.

Regards,

Sid

[The Natural Philosopher]

Also agreed..

Yes, and for all the above reasons, the answer is stunningly simple: Don't legislate on what people SHOULD do, simply raise the price of what IS environmentally expensive, artificially if necessary, and let people work it out in their context.

I've no objection to greenpiss setting an agenda: I heartily object to all their solutions which are childish and silly in the extreme. And dont actually address the problems.

You want less carbon? tax fuel. Less electricity use? tax electricity. All that needs be done in the whole arena is to replace taxes on savings, taxes on labour and taxes on just about all the GOOD things we do, and replace them with swingeing taxes on all the BAD things we do, like spending money on crap in crap packaging, and driving far more than we need, and using scarce resources in a profligate way.

If there was 100% tax on anything *new*, recycling would suddenly become very profitable. No need for legislation at all.

Its the same story as with T. Bliar.

If he is clever, he's a liar, If he's not lying he's stupid/incompetent. Either way get the Cnut out of our faces.

Either Greenpiss are a bunch of cynical liars who want to return the world to the stone age, or they are a bunch of well meaning nincompoops who don't deserve the time of day.

Luckily as with T Bliar, the answer is the same in both cases. Ignore them. They haven't a clue, cant do sums, and are about as much use as a limp dick in a brothel.

Well we could stuff all the bottles in a nuclear furnace and make nice containers for nuclear waste ;-)

Frankly I favour using them to create islands in the sea. We could use some offshore land. Build a dam round some bit of useless essex estuarine marsh, and drive all the landfill there, and tip it in the lagoon so formed.

Then eventually you can build a factory, a power station or an airport on it. No NIMBY because its not in anyones back yard.

The thng about galss, is that its inert and non biodegradable, which mens it should make excellent hardcore. So leave it in the actual sea fo a decade, and let the tides turn it into fashionable gravel or shhingle, all in pretty colors..

There are two issues: environmental and cost benefit.

The surest solution is to align them. Tax energy and materials and new goods, and the problem solves itself.

But governments haven't the balls to take Greenpiss on . So they fudge legislation to keep greenpiss happy, and thereby pass the costs down to the population.

Now I don't mind, if the costs reflected the actual problem: But they don't.

The cost is in mindless legislation that usually achieves the opposite result. e.g. the massive rise in fly tipping.

The rise in metal prices magically removed nearly all of e derelict vehicles from our streets. as well as a lot of lead from our rooves and copper from our building sites.;-)

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember David Hansen saying something like:

I forgot; proof by assertion is your particular strong point, isn't it?