posted on 03/04/2003 7:16:57 AM PST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
I say we recycle enviromentalists.
Maybe they will come back to earth as relevant, useful human beings.
When this billion dollar boondoggle is behind us, can we trash the non-science of global warming too?
It's minus 14 degrees in Fargo this morning, and record lows are being set here all the time. Global warming models predict that night time temperatures in the winter in the north should be the first thing to rise.
I wish it were true, but it ain't.
posted on 03/04/2003 7:25:45 AM PST
by Uncle Miltie
(Peace is Good, Freedom is Better!)
The eco-fascists knew that recycling was a scam when they proposed it. The purpose was to make it more expensive for corporations to do business, and bring down overall corporate profits. But corporations do not pay costs, and they do not pay taxes. They collect these costs and taxes from their customers. When no market developed for the recycled goods, or the costs proved to be in excess of the returns, the whole concept fizzled.
Incineration works. The supposed dangers of smokestack emissions are mitigated or eliminated completely by the careful application of technology. The principle of co-generation puts incineration on a paying basis in a way that recycling never could.
I agree and after many discussions with the Engineer of one of our old "burn" facilities, plastic was causing more problems than anything.
How big was the last plastic container you took home that held two little cream puffs?? How many plastic garbage bags did you use this year??
Years ago, we "sold" our newspapers and rags to a dealer. We sewed the holes in our socks. We put our coffee grounds and egg shells in our gardens.
Plastic?? I'm trying to think of "What was made of plastic??" when I was a kid. Toys in the cereal boxes, Canasta trays, some dolls....???? Not much.
posted on 03/04/2003 7:27:56 AM PST
(Hillary: Please read the Constitution for your homework.)
"Yep Emma, those enviro kooks just woke up. I told you it'd take thirty years or so."
posted on 03/04/2003 7:31:13 AM PST
(Freeper Caribbean Cruise May 31-June 7, Staterooms As Low As $510 Per Person For Entire Week!)
Well, I've not studied the science or economics of recycling. I also, as a conservative, have big problems with the environmentalist movement (they've screwed up domestic oil drilling, transportation issues, etc.)
However, recycling is something I've actually enjoyed doing over the years. I actually get some small satisfaction knowing that my aluminum cans, plastic bottles and newspapers are going to be reused as opposed to filling up the local land fill.
Interestingly, if you take diapers out of my family's garbage production, our recycling volume is greater than our regular garbage volume. I think that's kind of cool.
Part of my conservatism has always been to not be wasteful. So, my family recycles enthusiastically. At the same time, I'm not into telling other people they should be exactly like me. That, I think, is the way recycling should be. Allow people to do their part, but don't come down like a ton of bricks on the people who choose not to. THAT would be wasting resources... Just me own $.02.
I love it when two moronic groups fight over who is more stupid.
Great post, thanks.
The NYTimes Magazine did a cover story along these lines a few years ago. It may have had a tiny effect on the thinking of a few, e.g. NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who has drastically cut back the city's recycling program.
But there'll be no convincing the majority of people on this topic, I'm afraid.
That's because 'environmentalism' is a RELIGION.
Plastic recycling is probably more important than paper, etc., because it depends more on a non-renewable resource.
posted on 03/04/2003 7:43:01 AM PST
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobin Mugatu, Zoolander)
One thing I always found comical....Go to some remote town in Mexico, order a coffee and meal. The coffee comes in a china cup, the cream is thick and poured from a pitcher. The butter comes in a big blob, the salt and pepper are "grind your own". Your silverware is real metal, your plate is chipped but clean. If you had ordered too much food, there are a few dogs and cats who make their living off of scraps, hanging outside. No "to go box" needed here.
That is a consumer in the backward third world.
Now in an enlightened society...The coffee comes in three foam treated paper cups, as to not burn you. The cream must be poured from plastic capsules, usually taking three. The coffee is stirred by a plastic stirrer. The butter is in capsules similar to the cream, but five of the butters are needed, adding to the heap of garbage sitting on the table. Your meal arrives on foam plates, salt and pepper is in paper envelopes(as is the sugar), the utensils are plastic wrapped in plastic. Of course there are civilized leash laws in enlightened urban areas, so no dogs can make a living out of handouts. They wait to be euthanized out of view of your "to go" foam box.
Even the French let you bring your dog with you into a cafe'.
Starbucks alone creates as much waste as the entire backwards population of Bolivia. But Starbucks is enlightened on such matters, the people of Bolivia just practice environmental stewardship because they can't afford to buy all that food wrapped in trash that civilized countries do.
posted on 03/04/2003 7:43:11 AM PST
("But that's what I do" A quote from my Border Collie)
Sure takes these whack-jobs a long time to reach logic and common sense. Liberalism clearly disables intelligent thought.
I consider myself a "green" conservative. Meaning, I try to be a good steward of God's creation. It's hard for me to understand that at our local recycling center, where cans, plastic, and glass are thrown together, that it actually gets sorted out efficiently.
posted on 03/04/2003 7:56:41 AM PST
Has anyone thought of the energy, chemicals and effort necessary to recycle newsprint? About 25 years ago old newspapers were chopped up into blow inplace type insulation, but I haven't seen that product available for years. I know from friends in the waste business that there is virtually no market for old newsprint locally --so what happens to all the newspapers I dilligently collect for recycling? I suspicion they end up in a landfill anyway.
Coupled with the overwhelming cost of collecting, sorting and reprocessing the material, the group is convinced that decades-old recycling initiatives are nothing short of a complete failure.
This is obviously not a group of "real" environmentalists. Monetary cost does not matter to real environmentalists.
posted on 03/04/2003 8:01:06 AM PST
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
You are hereby vindicated in your refusal to recycle.
An insight into the non-rigorous thinking patterns of your typical enviroweenie:
For decades, Canada has built very few new garbage incinerators, largely over concerns that they emit harmful substances.
No thought as to what emits more harmful substances. Any process that emits any harmful substance is equally bad.
Changing that philosophy is definitely not the way to solve any glitches associated with recycling, said Veronica Sherwood, who co-ordinates the Nova Scotia Environment Network, an umbrella organization for the environmental groups in the province.
Can't change the philosophy! That might mean admitting that we were wrong! And how much do you want to bet that this "umbrella organization" is a figment of Veronica Sherwood's imagination?
"Recycling may not be the best choice," she said yesterday. "It burns considerable precious energy and does in fact add to fossil fuel emissions. However, incineration is not an ecologically sound alternative."
So recycling is not the best choice, incineration is not ecologically sound. Is there any way of dealing with garbage that is acceptable?
Burning recyclables, said Mr. Dauncey, would still entail the same amount of effort as traditional recycling. Simply ensuring that certain toxins do not filter into the air would involve the same level of methodical sorting that occurs now.
It would not just require sorting, but exactly the same amount of sorting that is required for recycling. Let alone the fact that in one scheme you are sorting out different materials for re-use and in the other you are picking out toxins, through some sort of divine miracle, both of these process involve exactly the same level of methodical sorting. Amazing!
And, he said, transportation costs -- both financial and environmental -- would not decrease if incineration replaced recycling.
Again, by some cosmic coincidence, the transportation costs for recycling and incineration are exactly the same. They don't go up or down mind you, but are some kind of universal constant, like e or pi.
"You can't put an incinerator in the middle of downtown Toronto," he said.
So we might as well not put it anywhere at all.
"So you've still got to haul the stuff to an incinerator."
Which makes it just as bad as recycling, don'tcha know.
posted on 03/04/2003 8:06:35 AM PST
Don't cha love it when enviromentalists eat their own?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson