|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 8, 2018 14:24:43 GMT
I've been thinking about this for a while now.
If the problem is that we're pulling old, dead plants out of the ground, burning them for fuel and turning their waste products into plastics, why not solve it by reversing the process?
Set off huge areas of land for plants that grow really fast - like bamboo, for example - and let them suck major portions of carbon out of the atmosphere. Cut them down, seal them up in huge containers made from recycled plastic, so carbon from the decay can't get back out into the atmosphere and put all of it back deep into the ground where we got it from. Keep growing, cutting and burying until carbon levels in the atmosphere are back to normal.
People keep talking about terraforming other planets to make them inhabitable. Why not terraform this one to KEEP it inhabitable?
Yes, it would probably take a few centuries, but cleaning up always takes a little longer than making the mess to begin with, but we do it in other contexts all the time because it's worth it. We don't stop using pots, pans, plates and utencils because it takes longer to cook and do the dishes than it does to eat the meal.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 8, 2018 14:28:50 GMT
this is why I am thinking figuring out how to make items which require resilience but not structural strength out of waste plastic is a better idea. basically sorting easily melted plastics from plastics that don't melt easily. then you shred the less easily melted plastics, loose fill a mold with them, and then inject the mold with the easily melted plastics. you could sort the plastics by color for things where color was a concern, but otherwise, just let them be random colored, or color your molten plastic a dark color to mask the random colors.
as far as plastics in landfills, I have always found it funny that people complain about things in landfills which don't break down rapidly - and then they complain when things built on old landfills collapse because stuff in the landfill broke down rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 8, 2018 14:31:14 GMT
I've been thinking about this for a while now. If the problem is that we're pulling old, dead plants out of the ground, burning them for fuel and turning their waste products into plastics, why not solve it by reversing the process? Set off huge areas of land for plants that grow really fast - like bamboo, for example - and let them suck major portions of carbon out of the atmosphere. Cut them down, seal them up in huge containers made from recycled plastic, so carbon from the decay can't get back out into the atmosphere and put all of it back deep into the ground where we got it from. People keep talking about terraforming other planets to make them inhabitable. Why not terraform this one to KEEP it inhabitable? I think, because that would involve admitting that we are trashing the planet.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 8, 2018 14:34:12 GMT
And what need is there to admit that? All you have to do is take a walk and it'll be obvious to anyone with functioning eyes.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 8, 2018 15:16:14 GMT
And what need is there to admit that? All you have to do is take a walk and it'll be obvious to anyone with functioning eyes. people don't want to admit it because if they admit it, they will feel obligated to stop.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jul 8, 2018 19:15:09 GMT
The problem is that this costs extra. Wealth and most profits are made by stealing from nature. Fixing nature is the exact opposite from making money so who would do that?
All major "green" projects are done because the government funds it or puts up laws that you have to do that. in the end, it is the citizen who pays for it.
In Europe, electricity is 3 times more expensive than it "should" by funding renewable energy sources. Water is even 6 times the price to purify and provide water in order to run water treatment plants.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 11, 2018 3:42:49 GMT
The problem is that this costs extra. Wealth and most profits are made by stealing from nature. Fixing nature is the exact opposite from making money so who would do that? All major "green" projects are done because the government funds it or puts up laws that you have to do that. in the end, it is the citizen who pays for it. In Europe, electricity is 3 times more expensive than it "should" by funding renewable energy sources. Water is even 6 times the price to purify and provide water in order to run water treatment plants. And you hit the nail on the head there. You just can't trust industry to do the right thing if left to their own devices. They are 100% profit driven and as long as what they're doing is making them money, they have no incentive to stop. The only way to make them stop is to hurt them financially and there are really only two ways to do that: 1. The customers refuse to buy their products unless they do the right thing, but there are two problems with this. One is that the customers need to know something wrong is going on in the first place and many companies are extremely good at hiding that in some way or another. If they're found out and are forced to do something about it, they'll only do just enough to shut up the detractors and no more. If that means only making it look like they've fixed the problem* and then marketing the hell out of it, then that's all they'll do. The other is price, as you mentioned. Most people don't care how the sausage is made. As long as they don't get sick from eating it, they just want the cheapest one they can get that still looks, smells and tastes like sausage. 2. Governments get involved and regulate the problem areas. Yes, it costs citizens money, but they're the only ones who have the resources to keep checking up on industry to make sure they're in compliance with the rules. Small consumer interest groups have nowhere near the kind of clout a government agency can provide (if properly funded and run). The best they can hope for without political help is to influence consumers to be smart about how they do business. The government's job is to do what's best for everyone, both now and in the long run, even if that makes them slightly unpopular, because average citizens will mainly think about themselves and their own immediate futures, not the wellbeing of the country or the entire world 50 years down the road. That said, the biggest mistake we've made in modern democracy is handing power over to academic career politicians who couldn't possibly make a living if they had to do anything else. When that's who's ruling the world, you can be certain they'll do whatever they can to keep their seats. They live from election cycle to election cycle and they'll do and say whatever they have to to make sure they can pay their bills for the next four years, so you can't really count on them to do the right thing any more than you can trust industry. That's why we always need to do both things. We need our governments to legislate for the greater good, but we also need the average person to be aware of what's going on, so politicians always feel their chairs wobbling beneath them if they're not doing what they're supposed to come election time. *Or making the public believe the problem doesn't exist and there's really nothing to worry about. When we know for a fact the tobacco and sugar industries (just to name a few) have been doing this for decades, it's weird to me that some people still have a hard time believing the oil industry would do the same thing.
|
|