Recycling [Archive] - Club Bleach

Guy

01-17-2007, 05:10 AM

Because of misinformation we think we are running out of resources.

This sounds like something said a hundred years ago... you know the difference between renewable energy sources and nonrenewable ones? Fossil fuels are not renewable, as it takes millions of years to form. We cannot wait million of years.

For perspective, a 36x36 mile 200 feet high landfill will hold the garbage of all america(biggest producer of garbage) for the next 1000 years.

Interesting, and if these garbage site leaks? It would pollute rivers and streams, poisoning the very water we drink. And since garbages are smothered, no oxygen means it decomposes slower... MUCH slower. So 1,000 years of garbage... wow, I hate to think what will happen if that pollutes our rivers.

We are not running out of space, buying paper actually saves more trees because we grow tree farms just to make paper, and plant new trees in there wake.

Lol, if that were the case, desertification and deforestation would not be problems in the world.

Recycling wastes alot more energy then making products from new material, and recycling makes inferior products aswell. So if your concerned about the earth, the more energy we use, the more oil, the more oil, the more CO2, more CO2, faster global warming. Other then that aluminium is the only product that is cheaper, and uses less energy to recycle.

Yeah, but making new items require fossil fuels as well.

Misinformation is great when fanatics take it to the extreme and little events take place and the media takes hold to change how people think, usually doing no research whatsoever.

Lol, which is why we should not conserve anything? *sighs* Humans have accounted for so many desertifications as a result of overgrazing, you know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

Atrias

01-17-2007, 10:41 AM

In the words of Mr Burns from the Simsons...

Ree-cyy-cling ?

hehehe!

I think we should all do our part to recycle, in certain counties in the UK it is mandatory to recycle, yet with the hassle of sorting and bagging etc at either end of the process theres a llot of inefficiency.

James Cizuz

01-17-2007, 01:40 PM

This sounds like something said a hundred years ago... you know the difference between renewable energy sources and nonrenewable ones? Fossil fuels are not renewable, as it takes millions of years to form. We cannot wait million of years.
Thing is, I never said anything about fossil fuels I said people think were running out of resources, thing is environmentalists blow things out of proportion. Oil may or may not be running out, we don't know, in canada alone we just found new oil reserves in the sand that will supply the world alone with another 20-40 years of oil estimated, could be more or less. There's oil everywhere under the seabed, and almost anywhere really, problem is extracting it. If oil starts to run out, then we'll use clean energy E.g theres enough room on the east coast of the US to put enough windmills to power the country. US is always used as an example for the reason they use the most energy.

Interesting, and if these garbage site leaks? It would pollute rivers and streams, poisoning the very water we drink. And since garbages are smothered, no oxygen means it decomposes slower... MUCH slower. So 1,000 years of garbage... wow, I hate to think what will happen if that pollutes our rivers.
Here's another sign of you being brainwashed with misinformation. When a landfill is started, new ones anyway they put down layers of impermeable
clay, and other materials around 3-9 meters thick. After that a rubber condoms is used over that just in case something is to happen to the clay layers. After that when the garbage is put down, it's covers with dirt as to not let out the gas's such as methane and the methane is vented off. After being covered with dirt more is put on top, this dirt acts as a cover to keep moisture in and make decomposing faster, most landfills made today, and for the past 10 or so years are rich in soil and nutrients, after a landfill is filled completely they turn it into something such as a park, trees are planted and used. Also, the methane that is vented off in some cases goes to powering homes, E.g clean energy. Oh and like I said, no one is suggesting a landfill tat big, just to put it into perspective that we are not running out of landfills, the example was used to show how stupid people are to even think we are running out.

Lol, if that were the case, desertification and deforestation would not be problems in the world.

Problem doesn't come from us, problem comes from poor people in third world countries that are selling the little land they have for tree's and selling them to either raise cows, or make a farm to feed their family, or sell food. We however, when cutting down forests for wood we replant trees, now that the tree's are replanted we have smaller tree's, no sunlight gets blocked onto smaller plants and thus we have more growing there then before. We also keep the tree farms for paper since it's a good business, we mill up the trees turn them into paper.

Yeah, but making new items require fossil fuels as well.

See you keep grasping at straws, what takes fossil fuels? Plastic? Well recycling bottle's is only a benefit when you make such things as carpet, electronic equipment, because they are overpriced and thus they make money off it, instead of losing. To recycle a bottle into a new one, it costs around 8-15 cents. To make a new bottle it costs 3 cents. That means recycling is wasting around 3 - 5 times as more. Other things that take fossil fuels are the same, to make a new product from them you also make an inferior product, and it costs more to produce, wasting more energy, and guess what? When you waste the 3-5 times the amount of energy recreating that bottle you waste oil. That bottle now used 3 times more oil to remake it then it would of to make a new bottle. Here's the thing though, plastic is made from oil, now why waste 3 times the amount of oil just to reuse the plastic, when we could just remake a plastic bottle and get 3 bottles from the same amount of oil you just wasted recycling it? BTW don't use the term fossil fuels so openly, use virgin materials, which are materials that are first used, and not recycled. Since not every product we recycle is made of fossil fuels, however every product when being made uses energy from fossil fuels, and thus the more we use from recycling, the more we waste. I could also argue the more landfills the more methane, the more methane the more clean energy.

Lol, which is why we should not conserve anything? *sighs* Humans have accounted for so many desertifications as a result of overgrazing, you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification
You have a point there, but what does this have to do with recycling? All this has to do is with crops, which I already stated is not only the "big bad rich companies" fault, it's the fault of poorer people trying to make a living. Rain forests get cut down for farms to feed them, farms get planted in the desert to feed them, not a big difference. The tree population however in rich countries such as North America have gone up since 1900, and we are supposed to be worried? Like I said, more trees are planted when trees are taken out, more tree farms are made for paper, and wood. However in poor countries it's the opposite. Was this brought on by environmentalists? No! It was brought on by greed, big companies wanted more money from paper, thus instead of buying land all the time to cut down, they buy big plots of land and plant there own trees, same with wood etc. Poorer countries however make farms to make money, since no one wants to really buy the wood from there, when they can grow there own, and not have to pay shipping costs, or land costs. Environmentalists keep feeding us with the same stuff trying to get us to help them, are they doing the wrong thing? Yes, are there hearts in the right place? Yes, to a point. Most times at the rallies we see environmentalists spouting the same false stuff, then later they always blame government, etc. Most anti government organizations are part of the environmentalists, they use it as an excuse to fight the big bad people running the country.
BTW, our climate from global warming has to stop, recycling is using to much fossil fuels, we are destroying our environment, and it has to stop!

In the words of Mr Burns from the Simsons...
Ree-cyy-cling ?
hehehe!
I think we should all do our part to recycle, in certain counties in the UK it is mandatory to recycle, yet with the hassle of sorting and bagging etc at either end of the process theres a llot of inefficiency.
We should all do our part and only recycle the things we need to recycle, such as aluminum and plastic only if the plastic goes towards stuff like shirts, carpet, and electronic equipment, if it doesn't it's a waste, and we waste more energy reproducing it, then remaking it, wasting more oil, or fossil fuels, killing the planet. However we still waste more recreating bottles into carpet, it does sell for more, and has a net profit, that way at the least theres a little good in recycling. Now, for aluminum recycling is a net profit, and is cheaper to recreate then use virgin materials.

I haven't gone into the good things to recycle that much, but I have into the bad things, plastic is one, so is paper. I'll start research on some of the net profits, and net energy recyclable material instead of posting like most do with information they were told, without going into it and finding it for themselfs.

shadow_of_89

01-17-2007, 05:24 PM

Recycling is some of the best ways to preserve and improve the quality of our environment...recycling for example for aluminum decreases the need for raw materials and as an effect a reduced heavy polluting processes of extraction and refining.....the recycling of plastic is important because it has a long time of degradation and it affects the surroundings......so i'm for recycling

James Cizuz

01-17-2007, 05:50 PM

Actually, we have been lied to about how long it takes plastic to degrade, in a landfill of today it would take around 100-200 years, so much for that "OMG IT TAKES 10000 YEARS TO DEGRADE" bs we were fed with. All plastic is made of is oil, meaning making new plastic takes little oil, but to refine and remake plastic it takes more oil then to just make it from scratch. So no plastic is not a good thing to recycle. Oh and btw, most people don't understand but you cause more pollution recycling then you do remaking, for the simple fact that to transport the plastic bottles, wash, clean, extract the bad plastics and other stuff that mixed into it, and then recast it takes longer, and alot more energy then to just remake it, which is killing our planet. Yes, recycling kills our planet.
Except for aluminum since that's one of the only things you can recycle and use less energy to remake it.

Oh almost forgot, the new plastic's they are making have to adhear to a certain set of standard, which are the ability to degrade faster and have the ability to rot basically but takes around 100-200 years, this has been in place for the past 20 years, and the old plastic was the stuff that took so long to degrade.

Guy

01-18-2007, 12:28 AM

Thing is, I never said anything about fossil fuels I said people think were running out of resources, thing is environmentalists blow things out of proportion. Oil may or may not be running out, we don't know, in canada alone we just found new oil reserves in the sand that will supply the world alone with another 20-40 years of oil estimated, could be more or less. There's oil everywhere under the seabed, and almost anywhere really, problem is extracting it. If oil starts to run out, then we'll use clean energy E.g theres enough room on the east coast of the US to put enough windmills to power the country. US is always used as an example for the reason they use the most energy.

You got me with the clean energy part, but I can't agree with the part that oil is not running out. The war in the middle east... sound familiar? Also, burning oil releases greenhouse gases. We'd be much better off burning natural gas that releases fewer greenhouse gases.

Here's another sign of you being brainwashed with misinformation. When a landfill is started, new ones anyway they put down layers of impermeable
clay, and other materials around 3-9 meters thick. After that a rubber condoms is used over that just in case something is to happen to the clay layers. After that when the garbage is put down, it's covers with dirt as to not let out the gas's such as methane and the methane is vented off. After being covered with dirt more is put on top, this dirt acts as a cover to keep moisture in and make decomposing faster, most landfills made today, and for the past 10 or so years are rich in soil and nutrients, after a landfill is filled completely they turn it into something such as a park, trees are planted and used. Also, the methane that is vented off in some cases goes to powering homes, E.g clean energy. Oh and like I said, no one is suggesting a landfill tat big, just to put it into perspective that we are not running out of landfills, the example was used to show how stupid people are to even think we are running out.

Links?

Problem doesn't come from us, problem comes from poor people in third world countries that are selling the little land they have for tree's and selling them to either raise cows, or make a farm to feed their family, or sell food. We however, when cutting down forests for wood we replant trees, now that the tree's are replanted we have smaller tree's, no sunlight gets blocked onto smaller plants and thus we have more growing there then before. We also keep the tree farms for paper since it's a good business, we mill up the trees turn them into paper.[QUOTE=James Cizuz]

Third world country or not, trees are still getting chopped down. There are more third world countries than developed countries, meaning that if this continues, the world will still run out of resources.

Oh yeah, btw, do you actually know what happens when forests are chopped down? Soil erosion (which is NOT easily returned to its natural state, and no, just adding water won't help, otherwise, there wouldn't be so many deserts) loss of habitats of endangered animals. For the moment, greenhouse gases will smother much of the area because of loss of vegetation... and if it rains a lot in that area, it might even flood.

[QUOTE=James Cizuz]See you keep grasping at straws, what takes fossil fuels? Plastic? Well recycling bottle's is only a benefit when you make such things as carpet, electronic equipment, because they are overpriced and thus they make money off it, instead of losing. To recycle a bottle into a new one, it costs around 8-15 cents. To make a new bottle it costs 3 cents. That means recycling is wasting around 3 - 5 times as more. Other things that take fossil fuels are the same, to make a new product from them you also make an inferior product, and it costs more to produce, wasting more energy, and guess what? When you waste the 3-5 times the amount of energy recreating that bottle you waste oil. That bottle now used 3 times more oil to remake it then it would of to make a new bottle. Here's the thing though, plastic is made from oil, now why waste 3 times the amount of oil just to reuse the plastic, when we could just remake a plastic bottle and get 3 bottles from the same amount of oil you just wasted recycling it? BTW don't use the term fossil fuels so openly, use virgin materials, which are materials that are first used, and not recycled. Since not every product we recycle is made of fossil fuels, however every product when being made uses energy from fossil fuels, and thus the more we use from recycling, the more we waste. I could also argue the more landfills the more methane, the more methane the more clean energy.

We cannot take more resources. You have to consider the fact that people are growing at an enormous rate. Sooner or later, we will use up all the resources to make certain items. If we recycle, well, we're not using more resources. It might be more expensive, but it is better. Burning coal is cheap, solar energy is ridiculously expensive, but solar energy is the way to go because it pollutes less.

You have a point there, but what does this have to do with recycling? All this has to do is with crops, which I already stated is not only the "big bad rich companies" fault, it's the fault of poorer people trying to make a living. Rain forests get cut down for farms to feed them, farms get planted in the desert to feed them, not a big difference. The tree population however in rich countries such as North America have gone up since 1900, and we are supposed to be worried? Like I said, more trees are planted when trees are taken out, more tree farms are made for paper, and wood. However in poor countries it's the opposite. Was this brought on by environmentalists? No! It was brought on by greed, big companies wanted more money from paper, thus instead of buying land all the time to cut down, they buy big plots of land and plant there own trees, same with wood etc. Poorer countries however make farms to make money, since no one wants to really buy the wood from there, when they can grow there own, and not have to pay shipping costs, or land costs. Environmentalists keep feeding us with the same stuff trying to get us to help them, are they doing the wrong thing? Yes, are there hearts in the right place? Yes, to a point. Most times at the rallies we see environmentalists spouting the same false stuff, then later they always blame government, etc. Most anti government organizations are part of the environmentalists, they use it as an excuse to fight the big bad people running the country.
BTW, our climate from global warming has to stop, recycling is using to much fossil fuels, we are destroying our environment, and it has to stop!
We should all do our part and only recycle the things we need to recycle, such as aluminum and plastic only if the plastic goes towards stuff like shirts, carpet, and electronic equipment, if it doesn't it's a waste, and we waste more energy reproducing it, then remaking it, wasting more oil, or fossil fuels, killing the planet. However we still waste more recreating bottles into carpet, it does sell for more, and has a net profit, that way at the least theres a little good in recycling. Now, for aluminum recycling is a net profit, and is cheaper to recreate then use virgin materials.
I haven't gone into the good things to recycle that much, but I have into the bad things, plastic is one, so is paper. I'll start research on some of the net profits, and net energy recyclable material instead of posting like most do with information they were told, without going into it and finding it for themselfs.

*sighs* Everything you said here would be a good arguement, but the fact you completely neglect the problems of soil erosion and destruction of habitats that can possibly even lead to EXTINCTIONS of species is troublesome. Oh yeah, even if what you say about recycling uses up fossil fuels is true, then you think a decade or two without trees will solve our greenhouse problems?

James Cizuz

01-18-2007, 03:08 AM

You got me with the clean energy part, but I can't agree with the part that oil is not running out. The war in the middle east... sound familiar? Also, burning oil releases greenhouse gases. We'd be much better off burning natural gas that releases fewer greenhouse gases.

See, we arn't running out of oil just ways to extract it. We can;t recreate it which I agree, but like I said, we don't need the oil, but why waste it by recycling? Why not make new products and waste less oil? Atleast until we can make more windmill farms.

Links?

Got the thing about the landfills in the penn and teller Bullshit show that I posted. Some other information you should need to know, even with all that protection, a landfill still needs to be away from the water table.

Oh yeah, btw, do you actually know what happens when forests are chopped down? Soil erosion (which is NOT easily returned to its natural state, and no, just adding water won't help, otherwise, there wouldn't be so many deserts) loss of habitats of endangered animals. For the moment, greenhouse gases will smother much of the area because of loss of vegetation... and if it rains a lot in that area, it might even flood.

We have enough food surplus in Canada, United States, and Britan etc to feed everyone in poverity stricken or poor, wanna know what happens to it? It's thrown away, now that's waste. That's why I brought up the thrid world is the problem, but the problem is brought on by us.

We cannot take more resources. You have to consider the fact that people are growing at an enormous rate. Sooner or later, we will use up all the resources to make certain items. If we recycle, well, we're not using more resources. It might be more expensive, but it is better. Burning coal is cheap, solar energy is ridiculously expensive, but solar energy is the way to go because it pollutes less.

Ok you mistunderstood what I said by more expensive, when I say more expensive it means 2 things, one is cost, but the more cost, the more energy used, the more energy used, you guessed it, the more oil. The more oil, the more pollution, and in that case, we have more polution then just starting new and throwing the other things away for he land fills. When you can refine things such as paper, and plastic and have a net profit, and a net energy gain then you can start recycling it, until then we are just killing the planet.

*sighs* Everything you said here would be a good arguement, but the fact you completely neglect the problems of soil erosion and destruction of habitats that can possibly even lead to EXTINCTIONS of species is troublesome. Oh yeah, even if what you say about recycling uses up fossil fuels is true, then you think a decade or two without trees will solve our greenhouse problems?
Yes I know this, I have addressed it, recycling won't help. If anything the paper farms will hold the ground together better. Also, in a lot of cases today, we do not remove the trunks, they are made to stay to keep the soil in place. However, like I said, third world countries are the problem, if we can send over our surplus of food, we can stop things such as this.
Remember before you post again
Recycling most materials requires more energy and money then to make the item new, more energy means we waste more energy(fossil fuels, oil etc) then it would cost/energy cost to make the item new, there in causing more problem. Of course, except for aluminum, and a few little products.

Guy

01-18-2007, 03:35 AM

James Cizuz

01-18-2007, 04:44 AM

I shall do a more detail debate tomorrow when I have a three day weekend and do not have to worry about studying for school. But let me address something important here.
You did not answer about all the side effects of deforestation. You did not answer about the endangered animals' habitats. Their habitats will be DESTROYED, leading to POSSIBLE extinction. Recycling WILL help because we will not chop down more trees. Digging for resources WILL DISTURB an ecosystem, while recycling will not (it's just remaking products at a plant).
Are you serious? When we mine, we are far below the dirt, or where everything lives except a few different things. Extinction? Well, animals are very amazing to what they can cope with, and I did address it, hense when I said, we feed the third world like we should with food surplus they can leave the forests alone. 90% of our paper comes from paper farms(90% of the paper made from tree's that is) meaning we have no worry on what will happen because we control it. Our forests have gone up, not down, however the rainforests go up because like I said, we have starving people. Will using more money, and energy really help them with recycling? Or cutting costs, and energy, less pollution, and more money, and food to help them, if however our goverment allows it. Which they should of. Recycling is just "remaking product at a plant eh?" lets see, plastic is picked up, moved to a sorting plant, wasting energy on oil for the trucks, then sorted, wasting energy for that plant, then moved to another plant maybe for cleaning, yes more energy wasted, and more, then we move them to a plant for shreding it up, then to another plant to remove the plastics that shouldn't be there, such as colorants, then melted down and finally recast in the last plant. Which wastes a shitload of energy. Why not just remake the plastic, which requires less steps, less energy, less oil, less polution.
Anyway it's late i'll do some more research to be ready for you.

Guy

01-18-2007, 05:07 AM

Are you serious? When we mine, we are far below the dirt, or where everything lives except a few different things.

I was talking about the forests. Oh yeah, btw, did you know that mining can cause collapses? If you mine below a city, the whole city can COLLAPSE because of insufficient weight to hold the city.

Extinction? Well, animals are very amazing to what they can cope with,

Are you serious? Then why is extinction even happening at all? If they can "cope" with it, then apparently, there wouldn't even be extinction!

and I did address it, hense when I said, we feed the third world like we should with food surplus they can leave the forests alone. 90% of our paper comes from paper farms(90% of the paper made from tree's that is) meaning we have no worry on what will happen because we control it.

Oh yeah, we can feed the whole world, which is why Africa and North Korea still have starving people, right?

Our forests have gone up, not down, however the rainforests go up because like I said, we have starving people. Will using more money, and energy really help them with recycling? Or cutting costs, and energy, less pollution, and more money, and food to help them, if however our goverment allows it. Which they should of.

You are forgetting that TOURISM is a VERY important aspect of economy for third world country. I'm SURE destroying forests will boost well for third world countries' economies, after all, they can still thrive without tourism right?

Recycling is just "remaking product at a plant eh?" lets see, plastic is picked up, moved to a sorting plant, wasting energy on oil for the trucks, then sorted, wasting energy for that plant, then moved to another plant maybe for cleaning, yes more energy wasted, and more, then we move them to a plant for shreding it up, then to another plant to remove the plastics that shouldn't be there, such as colorants, then melted down and finally recast in the last plant. Which wastes a shitload of energy. Why not just remake the plastic, which requires less steps, less energy, less oil, less polution.

Um... let's see, chopping trees, shipping them costs fossil fuels, and once in the factory, turning them into paper doesn't use energy? Wow! I never knew that!

Anyway it's late i'll do some more research to be ready for you.

Keep them coming. You're arguements are lame, redundent, and lack sufficient evidence. Although I have to say, mine does too. I'll be sure to do research as well.

Xferox 02

01-18-2007, 12:43 PM

recycling is good but ppl dont use the bin, like in my school theres 2 one is the green recycle bin and the other one is the ordnary trash bin, but no one use the green one. its not that they dont want to its just no one is use to think they should recycle before they throw stuff away

James Cizuz

01-18-2007, 01:11 PM

I was talking about the forests. Oh yeah, btw, did you know that mining can cause collapses? If you mine below a city, the whole city can COLLAPSE because of insufficient weight to hold the city.

Never said that, mining only happened under cities before we knew it was wrong. Common sense would tell anyone that. Open pit mines are good if they are kept away from forests and tree's as to not pollute.

Are you serious? Then why is extinction even happening at all? If they can "cope" with it, then apparently, there wouldn't even be extinction!

Misunderstanding the whole point I made eh? Why do you think animals without the smallest nudge go extinct? Why do animals go instinct when we don't interfere? Why? Why? Well it's simple, big things cause animal extinctions. Such as say, lets use the example of the asteroid that hit 60 million years ago, though killing most of the cold blooded animals many still lived, through basically a poison environment, hailing ash, the cold setting in from the block out of the sun, the tree's going away from the sun light not getting through, whole animals starving, yet they still survived this except for some which couldn't cope. Mammals had a easy time, cold blooded animals still survived though. Bug's, which most environmentalists regard as animal extinctions are the most capable of coping with the most extreme changes, heck we had bugs that were shipped up into the Arctic(we think) around 1000 years ago, and we can find them today, still living, they coped with that. Of course not all animals can cope, and that's why we have extinction, hey who cares though, why don't we leave the forests alone just like you say, let them get huge, lets PLUM huge amounts of smoke, and pollution into our atomsphere from recycling net energy lose materials, then we can get it hotter, and burn down al the forests from global warming brought on by, you guessed it, RECYCLING! Although like I said, when we can reproduce plastic, paper, etc with a net energy gain, then it is good, if we don't then, we lose.

Oh yeah, we can feed the whole world, which is why Africa and North Korea still have starving people, right?

It's not that we can't we won't. They are 2 different things. In the US, they pay farmers 300 billion dollars for crops that don't sell well, meaning crops that didn't get sold because of not many buying that certain crop. Why does the government buy it you ask? Well, they buy them off them to keep the farmers working, and then they destroy the food. Let's say that differently to get it into your head, 300 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS OF FOOD ARE DESTROYED A YEAR BY OUR GOVERNMENT AND THEY WON'T SHIP PERFECTLY GOOD FOOD TO FEED THE THIRD WORLD BECAUSE OF SOME FUCKS WHO THINK WE SHOULDN'T. It of course is all about money, after spending all that money on the food, why spend twice as much to send it over? Hah..

You are forgetting that TOURISM is a VERY important aspect of economy for third world country. I'm SURE destroying forests will boost well for third world countries' economies, after all, they can still thrive without tourism right?

Why is it a big thing? Ask yourself, could it be from being a poor ass country? Starving people? I'm guessing you want recycling, but them to starve...

Um... let's see, chopping trees, shipping them costs fossil fuels, and once in the factory, turning them into paper doesn't use energy? Wow! I never knew that!

Tell me where I said that? Tell me now! I didn't that's why. I said it costs more energy and money to reproduce it, then remake it. That's what I said.

Keep them coming. You're arguements are lame, redundent, and lack sufficient evidence. Although I have to say, mine does too. I'll be sure to do research as well.
So are yours, thing is mine are repeating because you are repeating, say something new and I will address it accordingly. Thing is your arguing things that have been proven WRONG!

Guy

01-19-2007, 12:43 AM

Never said that, mining only happened under cities before we knew it was wrong. Common sense would tell anyone that. Open pit mines are good if they are kept away from forests and tree's as to not pollute.

Not necessarily. Mining uses fossil fuels. A lot of fossil fuels. You ever see those machines and cranes they use in mining? They burn up a lot of fossil fuels. And to mine deepr, TNT or some other explosive is required. That will damage the environment quite a bit.

Misunderstanding the whole point I made eh? Why do you think animals without the smallest nudge go extinct? Why do animals go instinct when we don't interfere? Why? Why? Well it's simple, big things cause animal extinctions. Such as say, lets use the example of the asteroid that hit 60 million years ago, though killing most of the cold blooded animals many still lived, through basically a poison environment, hailing ash, the cold setting in from the block out of the sun, the tree's going away from the sun light not getting through, whole animals starving, yet they still survived this except for some which couldn't cope. Mammals had a easy time, cold blooded animals still survived though. Bug's, which most environmentalists regard as animal extinctions are the most capable of coping with the most extreme changes, heck we had bugs that were shipped up into the Arctic(we think) around 1000 years ago, and we can find them today, still living, they coped with that. Of course not all animals can cope, and that's why we have extinction, hey who cares though, why don't we leave the forests alone just like you say, let them get huge, lets PLUM huge amounts of smoke, and pollution into our atomsphere from recycling net energy lose materials, then we can get it hotter, and burn down al the forests from global warming brought on by, you guessed it, RECYCLING! Although like I said, when we can reproduce plastic, paper, etc with a net energy gain, then it is good, if we don't then, we lose.[QUOTE=James Cizuz]

What, destroying their habitats isn't something major? Extinction is still going on now.

[QUOTE=James Cizuz]It's not that we can't we won't. They are 2 different things. In the US, they pay farmers 300 billion dollars for crops that don't sell well, meaning crops that didn't get sold because of not many buying that certain crop. Why does the government buy it you ask? Well, they buy them off them to keep the farmers working, and then they destroy the food. Let's say that differently to get it into your head, 300 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS OF FOOD ARE DESTROYED A YEAR BY OUR GOVERNMENT AND THEY WON'T SHIP PERFECTLY GOOD FOOD TO FEED THE THIRD WORLD BECAUSE OF SOME FUCKS WHO THINK WE SHOULDN'T. It of course is all about money, after spending all that money on the food, why spend twice as much to send it over? Hah..[QUOTE=James Cizuz]

Hmm... interesting idea you brought on (I'd like to see a link). But feeding the third world country won't do much. The third world countries have to feed themselves. We are not responsible for what goes on in third world countries. We are not gods. If third world countries depend soley on us, then they will never improve their situation.

[QUOTE=James Cizuz]Why is it a big thing? Ask yourself, could it be from being a poor ass country? Starving people? I'm guessing you want recycling, but them to starve...

I don't understand. Tourism will fund their economy. Like you said, they are a "poor ass country", depending on tourism for money for FOOD. By taking away tourism, they will starve. Nice job, I guess you're the relentless one here.

Thing is your arguing things that have been proven WRONG!

Lol, have to be a pompous ass to the end, eh?

Now, looking back at previous posts, I am not that against paper farms, after doing more research. However, paper farms require fertilizer... lots and lots of it. Fertilizer pollutes, you know? Our oceans are in deep trouble because of all the fertilizers we use. Nitrogen and phosphorous flow into the oceans, creating algaes. In addition, how long can paper farms last, I wonder? You'd have to clear cut a farm, no matter what. Let me tell you something BASIC. All plants take up nutrients from the soil. You think the nutrients in the soil replenishes everytime to just the right amount of nutrients required for these trees? No way! Once the trees uses up all the nutrients in the soil, the land will become USELESS, contributing to desertification. Wow, nice idea, huh?

For perspective, a 36x36 mile 200 feet high landfill will hold the garbage of all america(biggest producer of garbage) for the next 1000 years.

Pray tell, which country has this kind of landfill? Amuse me. Which country plans on giving up 36x36 miles of good land for our garbages?

James Cizuz

01-19-2007, 05:23 AM

Not necessarily. Mining uses fossil fuels. A lot of fossil fuels. You ever see those machines and cranes they use in mining? They burn up a lot of fossil fuels. And to mine deepr, TNT or some other explosive is required. That will damage the environment quite a bit.

So does recycling, we will continue to do it anyway right? We got caught up in the media frenzy, etc without looking deep into the subject. Also, mining is bad I agree I just said we don't mine under cities anymore. We are very clean in the process of mining now, however it's not right. I did mention before about using windmill power, but mining would still need to be used, certain products we just need. Also, did I mention to recycle a plastic bottle it not only loses all the extra chemicals, which are burnt off into our atmosphere very dangerous stuff, it also loses it's quality and makes a inferior product, and takes more energy to just remake it.

What, destroying their habitats isn't something major? Extinction is still going on now.

Big deal? Yes, but like I said, recycling wastes more energy, then we need more, then we use more, then guess what happens? Opps there goes some races. I brought that up for a reason, we take animals adaptation skills for granted. There is little proof we effect the animals. I know we effect it with globalwarming, which is proven, thing is recycling wastes more energy, therefore faster global warming. Like I said, when we find a magical way to break the first law of thermodynamics, then we will be able to recycle. BTW, it's impossible. (don't bring up aluminum, only reason we have a net energy gain in recycling that is because the steps required to recycle aluminum is very little, but extracting something from the ore is more, same with most metals)

Hmm... interesting idea you brought on (I'd like to see a link). But feeding the third world country won't do much. The third world countries have to feed themselves. We are not responsible for what goes on in third world countries. We are not gods. If third world countries depend soley on us, then they will never improve their situation.

Why would I need to supply the link? I already have! Got the food thing from the penn and teller thing as well.

I don't understand. Tourism will fund their economy. Like you said, they are a "poor ass country", depending on tourism for money for FOOD. By taking away tourism, they will starve. Nice job, I guess you're the relentless one here.

Let's see, I said lets feed them, and look down on tourism for profit there, so entire forests won't be destroyed, then make a comment about how you must want them to die, then you come back and say I was wrong? We should just let them starve? Alright... Tourism won't work, we have people who take over, and keep money for themselfs, hense let the workers starve.

Lol, have to be a pompous ass to the end, eh?
Now, looking back at previous posts, I am not that against paper farms, after doing more research. However, paper farms require fertilizer... lots and lots of it. Fertilizer pollutes, you know? Our oceans are in deep trouble because of all the fertilizers we use. Nitrogen and phosphorous flow into the oceans, creating algaes. In addition, how long can paper farms last, I wonder? You'd have to clear cut a farm, no matter what. Let me tell you something BASIC. All plants take up nutrients from the soil. You think the nutrients in the soil replenishes everytime to just the right amount of nutrients required for these trees? No way! Once the trees uses up all the nutrients in the soil, the land will become USELESS, contributing to desertification. Wow, nice idea, huh?

No just stating the idea of someone using an argument, even if it was proven wrong.

Btw, your next little part was wrong. What kind of fertilizers? You mean the ones made of decomposed material that is completely safe, and healthy? Because that's more widely used today. We used to use chemically made fertilizers till we found out it was wrong, sure it's still used but we know the dangers. Do you know the process of paper? It requires to cut down the tree, leave the stump, grind up the tree, turn it into plup, bleach it, then press it. It requires little energy. The old tree's rot, the new tree's grow. Now tree's do not have to be that old to be used, around a year is enough. Also, phosphorous is no longer used. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our air, it is a gas we breath in 24/7 you know. I see no problem pumping nitrogen into water, especially when the air above it is 78% of it.

Pray tell, which country has this kind of landfill? Amuse me. Which country plans on giving up 36x36 miles of good land for our garbages?
Pray tell where I said this? People like you... I'll never get them. Anyway that's for perspective, normal landfills range from 100-500x100-500meters by around 60 feet deep or so. Lets see, after a landfill gets garbage put in, it's covered with dirt, more garbage put on top, then more dirt. This keeps smell from the landfill, also speeds up decomposing, and lets use trap the methane to be vented off for clean energy. Lets see, how many landfills do you say are in America. Lets see, the number is 1,767 for 2002, couldn't find an early number. On the lowest end we are looking at 109x109 miles by around 106120 feet tall. That's on the low end, the high end would be around 5 times as much. That around the ammount of landfill space in America alone. I only brought up the 36x36x200 landfill idea, but I should of also brought up how much space is used.

Guy

01-19-2007, 09:25 PM

So does recycling, we will continue to do it anyway right? We got caught up in the media frenzy, etc without looking deep into the subject. Also, mining is bad I agree I just said we don't mine under cities anymore. We are very clean in the process of mining now, however it's not right. I did mention before about using windmill power, but mining would still need to be used, certain products we just need. Also, did I mention to recycle a plastic bottle it not only loses all the extra chemicals, which are burnt off into our atmosphere very dangerous stuff, it also loses it's quality and makes a inferior product, and takes more energy to just remake it.

Yes, mining is bad. Maybe if we recycle more, we wouldn't have to depend on mining as such. Now, if you're telling me recycling a newspaper burns up more fossil fuels than using a massive crane and other vehicles to dig through the earth does, then I simply don't believe you.

Big deal? Yes, but like I said, recycling wastes more energy, then we need more, then we use more, then guess what happens? Opps there goes some races. I brought that up for a reason, we take animals adaptation skills for granted. There is little proof we effect the animals. I know we effect it with globalwarming, which is proven, thing is recycling wastes more energy, therefore faster global warming. Like I said, when we find a magical way to break the first law of thermodynamics, then we will be able to recycle. BTW, it's impossible. (don't bring up aluminum, only reason we have a net energy gain in recycling that is because the steps required to recycle aluminum is very little, but extracting something from the ore is more, same with most metals)

We also affect them greatly through habitat destruction. Population is still increasing. We would need more paper farms and mining through your idea, meaning we will destroy more habitats. Actually, loss of habitats might be the biggest reasons why animals are going extinction...

Let's see, I said lets feed them, and look down on tourism for profit there, so entire forests won't be destroyed, then make a comment about how you must want them to die, then you come back and say I was wrong? We should just let them starve? Alright... Tourism won't work, we have people who take over, and keep money for themselfs, hense let the workers starve.

People visit countries like Brazil and South Africa for their wildlife. Tourism will fund their economy, thus, they can probably use it to develop better scientific methods. And like I said, we cannot always help third-world countries. they need to learn to be independent, not dependent on us. Otherwise, they'll just keep coming back begging for more food. In addition, supplying to food to Africa burns up fossil fuels. Now, do all Africans live near shores and ports? Nope, a lot of them live really deep on the second largest continent in the world. How are you going to ship food there? Through vehicles? Burns up more fossil fuels. Put all the food in a cart and drag the cart with manpower there? The food will rot by the time it arrives. I think I explained clearly why third-world countries need to solve their own problems, and not rely on us all the time, no?

No just stating the idea of someone using an argument, even if it was proven wrong.
Btw, your next little part was wrong. What kind of fertilizers? You mean the ones made of decomposed material that is completely safe, and healthy? Because that's more widely used today. We used to use chemically made fertilizers till we found out it was wrong, sure it's still used but we know the dangers.

True, we use natural fertilizers such as fallen leaves, etc. However, compare the amount of food in your nearby supermarket. How many of them were produced in factory farms, versus the ones grown organically? Have you noticed the ones in factory farms are surplus in numbers and cheap in prices, while organically grown produce are low in numbers and high in prices? Simply put, artificial fertilizers make plants grow faster and produce more.

Do you know the process of paper? It requires to cut down the tree, leave the stump, grind up the tree, turn it into plup, bleach it, then press it. It requires little energy. The old tree's rot, the new tree's grow. Now tree's do not have to be that old to be used, around a year is enough.[QUOTE=James Cizuz]

As the old tree rots with just a stump left, many animals lose their habitats. In addition, lack of trees are also what caused the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Wind picks up sand and dust, and with only the stump of trees left, it is not enough to block out the sands and other debris.

[QUOTE=James Cizuz]Also, phosphorous is no longer used. Nitrogen makes up 78% of our air, it is a gas we breath in 24/7 you know. I see no problem pumping nitrogen into water, especially when the air above it is 78% of it.

Phosphorous is no longer used? Since when? How come the beaches off of California recently tested are filled with phosphorous? In fact, I went down to the beach in Santa Monica recently with my science class. We tested the water there. Phosphorous is still unusually high in seawaters....

Pray tell where I said this? People like you... I'll never get them. Anyway that's for perspective, normal landfills range from 100-500x100-500meters by around 60 feet deep or so. Lets see, after a landfill gets garbage put in, it's covered with dirt, more garbage put on top, then more dirt. This keeps smell from the landfill, also speeds up decomposing, and lets use trap the methane to be vented off for clean energy. Lets see, how many landfills do you say are in America. Lets see, the number is 1,767 for 2002, couldn't find an early number. On the lowest end we are looking at 109x109 miles by around 106120 feet tall. That's on the low end, the high end would be around 5 times as much. That around the ammount of landfill space in America alone. I only brought up the 36x36x200 landfill idea, but I should of also brought up how much space is used.

I cannot agree with part about "speed up decomposing". I hope you understand that oxygen is needed for decomposition, right? With dirt and garbage smothering other garbages, how exactly are garbages decomposing at a faster rate? I saw a documentary on landfills about four months ago. They digged through the landfill and found a newspaper whose headline was Nixon resigned because of Watergate!

James Cizuz

01-20-2007, 12:02 AM

Yes, mining is bad. Maybe if we recycle more, we wouldn't have to depend on mining as such. Now, if you're telling me recycling a newspaper burns up more fossil fuels than using a massive crane and other vehicles to dig through the earth does, then I simply don't believe you.
We also affect them greatly through habitat destruction. Population is still increasing. We would need more paper farms and mining through your idea, meaning we will destroy more habitats. Actually, loss of habitats might be the biggest reasons why animals are going extinction...

If we recycle more we will need to mine more, for fossil fuels to recycle. Newpaper take more then a crane? Did I really say that? Lets say you have a cup of oil. You use a whole cup of oil to remake 5 newspapers, but 1 cup of oil to recycle 1 newspaper, does that make much sense? Especially with paper as it decomposes fast. Our population is going up, but then again third world countries arn't that educated in the safe sex part, and condoms, we could start teaching that more there.

People visit countries like Brazil and South Africa for their wildlife. Tourism will fund their economy, thus, they can probably use it to develop better scientific methods. And like I said, we cannot always help third-world countries. they need to learn to be independent, not dependent on us. Otherwise, they'll just keep coming back begging for more food. In addition, supplying to food to Africa burns up fossil fuels. Now, do all Africans live near shores and ports? Nope, a lot of them live really deep on the second largest continent in the world. How are you going to ship food there? Through vehicles? Burns up more fossil fuels. Put all the food in a cart and drag the cart with manpower there? The food will rot by the time it arrives. I think I explained clearly why third-world countries need to solve their own problems, and not rely on us all the time, no?

Problem is, the people who actually run the tourism arn't the little people. It is the rich people. Other then that, like I said, why should we destroy 300 billion dollars of food a year, when we ATLEAST have a chance to get it to thrid world countries.

True, we use natural fertilizers such as fallen leaves, etc. However, compare the amount of food in your nearby supermarket. How many of them were produced in factory farms, versus the ones grown organically? Have you noticed the ones in factory farms are surplus in numbers and cheap in prices, while organically grown produce are low in numbers and high in prices? Simply put, artificial fertilizers make plants grow faster and produce more.

It is now against the law to use harmful fertilizers, and has been for awhile.

As the old tree rots with just a stump left, many animals lose their habitats. In addition, lack of trees are also what caused the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. Wind picks up sand and dust, and with only the stump of trees left, it is not enough to block out the sands and other debris.

Thing is, that wind, and dust would be a good argument, if our tree population is going down, which it isn't. Other then that I agree with the animal part. However, it is to be argued how many animals live in tree farms?

Phosphorous is no longer used? Since when? How come the beaches off of California recently tested are filled with phosphorous? In fact, I went down to the beach in Santa Monica recently with my science class. We tested the water there. Phosphorous is still unusually high in seawaters....
Yes, we did pump to much into our oceans, and it will decrease slowly. Stuff like phosphorous doesn't go away that fast.

I cannot agree with part about "speed up decomposing". I hope you understand that oxygen is needed for decomposition, right? With dirt and garbage smothering other garbages, how exactly are garbages decomposing at a faster rate? I saw a documentary on landfills about four months ago. They digged through the landfill and found a newspaper whose headline was Nixon resigned because of Watergate!
Heat is a big thing with decomposing a material, oxygen is still present, more heat, more decomposing, hense the dirt acts as a blanket. Really? What documentary? I wanna see this.

Xkavanger

01-21-2007, 11:02 AM

Here in my state and city... it is actually illegal to throw recycable items into the rubbish. Also you cannot put non-recycable items into the recycle.

I think EVERYBODY should recycle. It is our job to keep this earth healthy. There are animals dying from the rubbish that we throw on the ground. It is no healthy for them and it isn't healthy for us.

First of all, the Governments and Presidents of each country should crack down on the fact that some people don't recycle. To recycle is to re-use items so it does not fill and pollute the earth.

Nuclear waste is an issue and it cannot be recycled. Uranium (Nuclear power,) is a non-renewable source. Although not much waste is produced, it is still very, very dangerous. They must be sealed up and buried for many years to allow the radioactivity to die away, and how long would it take for the radioactivity to die away? Well for Uranium-235 it would be 704 million years while Uranium-238 would die out at 4.5 billion years. Obviously not a healthy exposure if uncovered.

The earth's atmosphere has changed a lot because of pollution, as you may have witnessed , there have been many natural disasters that have occured. Rubbish is only one of the causes. Pollution is the major.

But still.. the more things we use that are recycable, the better plus with everyone recycling.. it would awsome to get the earth back on track.

Sorry for the long "essay" -_-"
I just kept going >_>

Guy

01-21-2007, 06:59 PM

If we recycle more we will need to mine more, for fossil fuels to recycle. Newpaper take more then a crane? Did I really say that? Lets say you have a cup of oil. You use a whole cup of oil to remake 5 newspapers, but 1 cup of oil to recycle 1 newspaper, does that make much sense? Especially with paper as it decomposes fast. Our population is going up, but then again third world countries arn't that educated in the safe sex part, and condoms, we could start teaching that more there.

If we don't recycle, then we would still have to mine, since we are creating more and more stuff, yes?

Problem is, the people who actually run the tourism arn't the little people. It is the rich people. Other then that, like I said, why should we destroy 300 billion dollars of food a year, when we ATLEAST have a chance to get it to thrid world countries.

The rich people still have to pay taxes to the government. If tourism crashes in third-world countries, then third world countries will be even poorer. Having some rich people is better than having no rich people. Also, food will leave them begging for more, but with money, they can actually buy more food and contribute more to scientific research, which can improve their country's status.

It is now against the law to use harmful fertilizers, and has been for awhile.

Then how do you explain factory farms? They use harmful fertilizers to speed up the growth hormones of animals and plants.

Thing is, that wind, and dust would be a good argument, if our tree population is going down, which it isn't. Other then that I agree with the animal part. However, it is to be argued how many animals live in tree farms?

True, animals can live on tree farms, but human interventions prevents it from becoming a true wilderness.

Heat is a big thing with decomposing a material, oxygen is still present, more heat, more decomposing, hense the dirt acts as a blanket. Really? What documentary? I wanna see this.

Hmm... was on National Geographics. I can't remember the name. I'll go ask my science teacher (she showed us the documentary) next time I see her. Btw, where is this heat you're talking about? How smother trash with dirt suppose to produce heat? Here, do an experiment yourself. Eat two apples to the core. Bury one underground, and leave the other one out in the open air. Go back and check later. Which one decomposes faster? The one underground, or the one above ground, where it is exposed to oxygen?

James Cizuz

01-22-2007, 12:43 AM

Here in my state and city... it is actually illegal to throw recycable items into the rubbish. Also you cannot put non-recycable items into the recycle.

Really? Sucks to be living there.

I think EVERYBODY should recycle. It is our job to keep this earth healthy. There are animals dying from the rubbish that we throw on the ground. It is no healthy for them and it isn't healthy for us.

I can agree more, if first we either find a better way to recycle that doesn't waste more then remaking the item from scratch, cause massive amounts of pollution, and doesn't suck basically. We should all recycle aluminum though!

First of all, the Governments and Presidents of each country should crack down on the fact that some people don't recycle. To recycle is to re-use items so it does not fill and pollute the earth.

Recycling means to "re-use" since when? I guess you could say some of the materials are re-used, but the product itself isn't. When we recycle, we first have to sort, then get the bad stuff out of the item and get it back to a state where it can be recast into a new bottle(plastic) or for paper, we sort it, we clean it, we then pullverize it, then we bleach it, then we iron it back into paper. See recycling wouldn't be so bad if we could find ways to recycle better. As of now, we don't reuse, heck we can only recycle paper 5 times, and the first time you recycle the paper around 30% of the paper can't be recycled, and getting the ink, graffite, etc out of it takes awhile. With plastic we need to get out all the harmful chemicals. You know plastic is made of oil, and when plastic is finally set into plastic, it has re-useable chemicals, the stuff we can just melt down and recast into plastic, problem is the other chemicals if you tryed to do that you wouldn't have plastic, just a black sludge that is no good, and very, very bad for any environment. So what do we do to plastic? We get those bad chemicals out, and through them away, burn them off, and after around 6 or more chemicals cleansing processes, then we can just start the process of making the bottle again, and it isn't a good way to do anything. Take it this way, say you wanted to make a big building out of lego's, and you wanted it all blue. You have a huge bin of mixed colors of lego's only around 20% are blue, so you spend and hour finding all the blue parts, and then you finally start making the tower, basically it's the same for anything your recycling.

Please don't bring up raw materials as we do have to get the useable chemicals out of them to, difference is raw material is alot easier to get the chemicals from, then something already made.

Nuclear waste is an issue and it cannot be recycled. Uranium (Nuclear power,) is a non-renewable source. Although not much waste is produced, it is still very, very dangerous. They must be sealed up and buried for many years to allow the radioactivity to die away, and how long would it take for the radioactivity to die away? Well for Uranium-235 it would be 704 million years while Uranium-238 would die out at 4.5 billion years. Obviously not a healthy exposure if uncovered.

Nuclear fission is a waste issue. Not nuclear fusion. Fission involes colliding the material together releasing massive amounts of expansions, but little usable energy. Fusion(which we don't have quite a good grasp on doing it right yet) requires fusing materials together at such high degrees we release massive ammounts of energy. To put into perspective, fission converts around 10% of it's mass into energy, such as a nuclear bomb, and releases massive amounts of energy, fusion converts around 90% of it's mass to energy, and creates no radioactive material. Fusion deals with degrees of 100 million degrees C. That lies in the problem of containing the fusion, which we are trying to do now, and yes it's safe.

Oh and as for waste, there more power in a glass of water, then in your entire city, problem is getting it.

The earth's atmosphere has changed a lot because of pollution, as you may have witnessed , there have been many natural disasters that have occured. Rubbish is only one of the causes. Pollution is the major.

Your complaining about pollution, and then still behind recycling? Hmm... Well you don't understand recycling then!

But still.. the more things we use that are recycable, the better plus with everyone recycling.. it would awsome to get the earth back on track.

Everything is recyclable, problem is what should we recycle? What materials should we even be aloud to make products out of? What materials that we recycle take less energy, then to just remake them? What materials do we use that break down fast? Is the media, and environmentalists even educated in what they are talking about? When you answer all of those, then we might be able to start making this world better.

Sorry for the long "essay" -_-"
I just kept going >_>
Your forgiven!

James Cizuz

01-22-2007, 12:56 AM

If we don't recycle, then we would still have to mine, since we are creating more and more stuff, yes?

Yes, but we would mine less. We wouldn't have to mine extra to get those materials such as for the extra energy we need because of the ways we recycle, and we would also have better quality stuff. Like I said before, we don't need to recycle stuff that is more harmful when you recycle it, or breaks down fast, or uses more energy to recycle then remake. Other then that go ahead and recycle whats left, all I can think of is aluminum.

The rich people still have to pay taxes to the government. If tourism crashes in third-world countries, then third world countries will be even poorer. Having some rich people is better than having no rich people. Also, food will leave them begging for more, but with money, they can actually buy more food and contribute more to scientific research, which can improve their country's status.
Then how do you explain factory farms? They use harmful fertilizers to speed up the growth hormones of animals and plants.

Rich people did such a great thing for our world eh? 90% of the worlds wealth is locked up in "rich people" while the other 10% is shared between the remaining 90%.
You know what, your right, we should stop all the charities that go to places like Africa to feed the childern, and school them so they might have a hope when they grow up, and leave them alone to help themselfs, even though they can't screw them! In fact your so right, next time I see a homeless person ask for change, I will tell him he has to help himself, and give him nothing, next time a charity comes to my house, I will tell them the people should help themselfs. Yes, your SOOOOOOO right! Ok sarcasim aside, we have to help them, atleast until they can help themselfs.

They do eh? What harmful fertilizers?

True, animals can live on tree farms, but human interventions prevents it from becoming a true wilderness.

We don't want animals in tree farms, that way we can't hurt them, or anything, and not risk ever having to destroy real habitats.

Hmm... was on National Geographics. I can't remember the name. I'll go ask my science teacher (she showed us the documentary) next time I see her. Btw, where is this heat you're talking about? How smother trash with dirt suppose to produce heat? Here, do an experiment yourself. Eat two apples to the core. Bury one underground, and leave the other one out in the open air. Go back and check later. Which one decomposes faster? The one underground, or the one above ground, where it is exposed to oxygen?
What happens when you completely air seal someone in a casket after they are dead? They decompose faster. Landfills are filled with organic material, which heats up, decomposes faster, and helps decompose other materials in the landfill as well.

Guy

01-22-2007, 03:16 AM

Rich people did such a great thing for our world eh? 90% of the worlds wealth is locked up in "rich people" while the other 10% is shared between the remaining 90%.

Lol! You're so right! I guess the word "philanthropy" disappeared from the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philanthropy

You know what, your right, we should stop all the charities that go to places like Africa to feed the childern, and school them so they might have a hope when they grow up, and leave them alone to help themselfs, even though they can't screw them! In fact your so right, next time I see a homeless person ask for change, I will tell him he has to help himself, and give him nothing, next time a charity comes to my house, I will tell them the people should help themselfs. Yes, your SOOOOOOO right! Ok sarcasim aside, we have to help them, atleast until they can help themselfs.

Lol, um... seriously, you're starting to scare me. I mean, are you sure read what I wrote? I said we should not send them so much food or else they would rely on us. MONEY is DIFFERENT from food. Please quote where I said we should stop sending money to them. Here, I'll quote myself:

People visit countries like Brazil and South Africa for their wildlife. Tourism will fund their economy, thus, they can probably use it to develop better scientific methods. And like I said, we cannot always help third-world countries. they need to learn to be independent, not dependent on us. Otherwise, they'll just keep coming back begging for more food. In addition, supplying to food to Africa burns up fossil fuels. Now, do all Africans live near shores and ports? Nope, a lot of them live really deep on the second largest continent in the world. How are you going to ship food there? Through vehicles? Burns up more fossil fuels. Put all the food in a cart and drag the cart with manpower there? The food will rot by the time it arrives. I think I explained clearly why third-world countries need to solve their own problems, and not rely on us all the time, no?

I clearly explained that third world countries need MONEY. I also explained how environmentally unfriendly it is to send food to remote third world countries.

They do eh? What harmful fertilizers?

What, you denying the existence of factory farms?
http://nojoquifarms.org/article.php?id=7

We don't want animals in tree farms, that way we can't hurt them, or anything, and not risk ever having to destroy real habitats.
What happens when you completely air seal someone in a casket after they are dead? They decompose faster. Landfills are filled with organic material, which heats up, decomposes faster, and helps decompose other materials in the landfill as well.

Um... things decompose faster with oxygen. When you bury something, it decomposes slower. Being buried in a casket is different than being buried directly by soil and dirt. When garbages are buried with dirt, they decompose slower.

James Cizuz

01-22-2007, 03:32 AM

Lol! You're so right! I guess the word "philanthropy" disappeared from the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philanthropy

Lol, um... seriously, you're starting to scare me. I mean, are you sure read what I wrote? I said we should not send them so much food or else they would rely on us. MONEY is DIFFERENT from food. Please quote where I said we should stop sending money to them. Here, I'll quote myself:
I clearly explained that third world countries need MONEY. I also explained how environmentally unfriendly it is to send food to remote third world countries.

I stated you were right in your argument that we shouldn't help them, it was sarcasim. You stated we shouldn't help them all the time, and we should let them become independent, problem is no country has ever became independent by itself, not US, not Canada, we both had help from mother countries until they knew we were ready, or to ready and broke off. Same goes for all countries, we were all dependent at some time, of course you can see the countries that really never had the chance, or got abused by the mother country. We live in a world where if you don't help people, they won't continue by themselfs, we try to help, but we are not helping enough. We need to country at a time take them over in a sense, run them, and then let them go off by themselfs. Although, you said we shouldn't let them get dependent, the problem is no one ever gets independent, without first being dependent. E.g. baby and the parents, we as the human race need it.

What, you denying the existence of factory farms?
http://nojoquifarms.org/article.php?id=7

No, I just wanted to know what kind of fertilizers they were using so I could do some research on if they are bad or not, or is it just someone saying they are.

Um... things decompose faster with oxygen. When you bury something, it decomposes slower. Being buried in a casket is different than being buried directly by soil and dirt. When garbages are buried with dirt, they decompose slower.
Also, there is enough oxygen in lose dirt to decompose just as fast as in air. It's no difference then a pile of trash, and a pile of trash with 2 inchs of dirt on it, it just keeps heat in, and methane, methane causes the smell, and the dirt lets you vent it off.

Guy

01-22-2007, 03:41 AM

I stated you were right in your argument that we shouldn't help them, it was sarcasim. You stated we shouldn't help them all the time, and we should let them become independent, problem is no country has ever became independent by itself, not US, not Canada, we both had help from mother countries until they knew we were ready, or to ready and broke off. Same goes for all countries, we were all dependent at some time, of course you can see the countries that really never had the chance, or got abused by the mother country. We live in a world where if you don't help people, they won't continue by themselfs, we try to help, but we are not helping enough. We need to country at a time take them over in a sense, run them, and then let them go off by themselfs. Although, you said we shouldn't let them get dependent, the problem is no one ever gets independent, without first being dependent. E.g. baby and the parents, we as the human race need it.

I stated that third world countries should not rely on us all the time.

I think I explained clearly why third-world countries need to solve their own problems, and not rely on us all the time, no?

No, I just wanted to know what kind of fertilizers they were using so I could do some research on if they are bad or not, or is it just someone saying they are.

Beats me. I don't know the brand, but factory farms DO exist, and they ARE practicing using harmful fertilizers to expediate the growth of plants.

Also, there is enough oxygen in lose dirt to decompose just as fast as in air. It's no difference then a pile of trash, and a pile of trash with 2 inchs of dirt on it, it just keeps heat in, and methane, methane causes the smell, and the dirt lets you vent it off.

Yeah, problem is, your statement claims that oxygen is apparent when there are LOSE amount of dirt and other trash. By recycling, there will be lose amount of dirt. By not recycling, trashes will get piled up quickly, and the trash on the bottom will take a very long time to decompose...

James Cizuz

01-22-2007, 05:45 AM

I stated that third world countries should not rely on us all the time.

I know what you said, I said we have to help them until they can help themselfs.

Beats me. I don't know the brand, but factory farms DO exist, and they ARE practicing using harmful fertilizers to expediate the growth of plants.

Problem is there is factory farms that don't use harmful chemicals, and just because they did in the past, as I am sure a large number do now, the dangers are known and a lot of companies try to stray away from it to not get heat from using them. That's why I asked so I could do a little research.

Yeah, problem is, your statement claims that oxygen is apparent when there are LOSE amount of dirt and other trash. By recycling, there will be lose amount of dirt. By not recycling, trashes will get piled up quickly, and the trash on the bottom will take a very long time to decompose...
I found something intresting. In modern day landfills trash is spread evenly ranging from 5-10 inchs thick, then covered why around 5 inchs of dirt, most of which seeps into the garbage leaving the 2 inch layer. The garbage once starting decomposing can not stop, but slow down by a small margin. Of course stuff like plastic will not decompose fast enough as most other products, however like I said we shouldn't be using plastic in the first place, it is one of the most harmful things we use on a day to day basis. Other then that, one the decomposing starts it keeps going, then another layer is put on around 1-2 days later until the landfill is complete. They also can measure how fast it is decomposing by the methane production in a certain area, and if it slows down enough, they can loosen up the area.

AznMafia19

01-23-2007, 05:19 AM

James Cizuz

01-23-2007, 07:39 PM

Recycling is some of the best ways to preserve and improve the quality of our environment...recycling for example for aluminum decreases the need for raw materials and as an effect a reduced heavy polluting processes of extraction and refining
Did I say aluminum? Actually I did, I said it's one of the only good things to recycle.
Plastic, the more you recycle it = the more raw materials you need. It takes the 3x the amount of oil to recycle 1 plastic bottle(Fill, energy costs, racasting costs etc) then it does to just remake it.

Guy

02-12-2007, 03:16 AM

Kimochi

02-12-2007, 11:43 AM

EnzJon

02-18-2007, 04:45 AM

There was an article in the latest "Popular Science" magazine regarding an issue similar to this one.

There is a man in New York that has constructed these machines that disintegrate garbage down to the elements that formed it and a black, obsidian-like substance. He has already sold several of these machines to other countries, and they seem to like them. You know why? These machines disintegrate ANY piece of garbage except for nuclear waste (because of their isotopes, I believe). They don't do this by burning it, either. The machines "zap" everything with an arc of electricity that is 30000 degrees Fahrenheit. As some elements are gases, the machine traps them and sends them through a converter, which turns some of the gases into electricity to run the machine, and the other half of them into Hydrogen energy cells.

Plus, there is also some electricity that is left over, and that is sold back to the local power grid, thus creating even more revenue for the company that has bought the machine.

Guy

02-18-2007, 05:14 AM

Sounds interesting. Got a link? Identify this "man" you are talking about? I'm interested, because I know some garbage can be use to burn for its methane to make energy.

If recycling isn't appealing, then I've stated before that we can reuse stuff, like water bottles. As for paper, we can read newspapers and stuff online.

Angel_shikigami

02-18-2007, 06:07 AM

I'm sort of both ways on the topic.

Oh almost forgot, the new plastic's they are making have to adhear to a certain set of standard, which are the ability to degrade faster and have the ability to rot basically but takes around 100-200 years, this has been in place for the past 20 years, and the old plastic was the stuff that took so long to degrade.

Really? I didn't know that. Plus most platics we use are un recylable anyway (Besides basicly bottles).
Here's some examples of them:
Detergent bottles
Plastic plates
Plastic cups
Plastic forks/knives/etc.
Most (not all) Shampoo bottles
Staws
Food containers (Like Tuffaware or however you spell)
Video game cases
Beach toys
Binders/notebooks (Like the covers)
Electronics
Plastic wrappers
Cheap Jewrely
And many many more.

But there's thing with tin/Alummum, It doesn't take that much energy to reclycle it. All they do is when they melt down the raw materals, they melt it down right on with it. This is true. My mother works at a steel plant and works in the tin mill of it. So when they make cars and stuff they can just put some cans and other stuff right into it.

Guy

02-18-2007, 07:10 AM

We can reuse a lot of plastic... so if recycling plastic really is a problem, there is an alternative solution...

James Cizuz

02-19-2007, 01:31 PM

A while back, we had a disagreement as to if Nitrogen is bad to put in water. Well, I've found a link as to why nitrogen is bad.
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpno.htm
Now to get back on topic so the mods don't delete this post, I've discovered something better than recycling: reusing. Now, you've argued that recycling plastic is bad, so why don't you get a reusable water bottle? You won't have to recycle it, it won't use up more fossil fuels, and plus, it won't fill up the landfill. It solves both of our concerns.
I have a reuseable plastic bottle. I would love nothing more then if you could just take a bottle and just clean it, and refill it with, say pop and resell it. It would actually be a pro energy cost, and not harm more then it helps.
There are 2 problems though.
People: usually do not like the idea that they are using a bottle that was used many times before.
Plastic: Plastic, when introduced with even fresh spring water has been found to actually break off chemicals off the insides of the bottle into the water after 6 months. Pop starts after 4 months. So constant reusing would cause a chemical break off, and cause harmful chemicals to go into ourselves. Of course the heavy duty water bottles you buy usually are treated to stop this problem. The only way to clean something such as plastic would involves alot of sterilization, moderate heat changes will warp plastic over time.
Shape: What happens to bottles after you throw them away? You might crush them, you might damage them, or just scrape them. Any of this would render a bottle unusable, crushing a bottle would involve using an presurizer to get it back to it's old shape, and that would cause massive energy use, a small scrape and you have a problem that the bottle may burst on shelves. Heck, even the breakdown of the plastic could cause bursting over time.

James Cizuz

02-19-2007, 01:34 PM

hmn . recycling is good . it helps the society . paper are made from trees . the more we recycle the more we save trees . the trees won't have to be chop down . if that happens we have global-warming like now .
when trees are chop down . there will be no habitat to animals . this will lead to extinction of animals as they might not adapt to the new habitat in their new surrounding .
chopping of trees will lead to deforestation .
We have tree farms, and more trees are planted then trees choped down, and we are not in any danger of losing trees due to paper. No, choping down trees does not cause global warming. CO2 causes global warming, and if you waste to much energy due to "saving trees" (which recycling kills more trees then it saves) then you use more oil, thus more CO2 usage. People don't understand, we use more energy to remake most materials, then to just start from scratch.

I'm sort of both ways on the topic.
Really? I didn't know that. Plus most platics we use are un recylable anyway (Besides basicly bottles).
Here's some examples of them:
Detergent bottles
Plastic plates
Plastic cups
Plastic forks/knives/etc.
Most (not all) Shampoo bottles
Staws
Food containers (Like Tuffaware or however you spell)
Video game cases
Beach toys
Binders/notebooks (Like the covers)
Electronics
Plastic wrappers
Cheap Jewrely
And many many more.
But there's thing with tin/Alummum, It doesn't take that much energy to reclycle it. All they do is when they melt down the raw materals, they melt it down right on with it. This is true. My mother works at a steel plant and works in the tin mill of it. So when they make cars and stuff they can just put some cans and other stuff right into it.
I already stated with such things as metals that have a pro energy cost as it takes around the same, or less amount of energy to recast then remake. Although some metals also have a negative energy cost. Thing is, such things as cardboard, paper, plastic, etc have such a negative energy cost your hurting the environment more then helping.
Yes, such plastics as you have stated have a ratio of bad chemicals more then a bottle would, and thus we do not even bother to recycle them. It's not that we can't, but say a bottle you need to get rid of 30% of the bottle because it's bad chemicals, but the ditergant bottle has 70% you need to get rid of, so we just do not bother with it.

There was an article in the latest "Popular Science" magazine regarding an issue similar to this one.
There is a man in New York that has constructed these machines that disintegrate garbage down to the elements that formed it and a black, obsidian-like substance. He has already sold several of these machines to other countries, and they seem to like them. You know why? These machines disintegrate ANY piece of garbage except for nuclear waste (because of their isotopes, I believe). They don't do this by burning it, either. The machines "zap" everything with an arc of electricity that is 30000 degrees Fahrenheit. As some elements are gases, the machine traps them and sends them through a converter, which turns some of the gases into electricity to run the machine, and the other half of them into Hydrogen energy cells.
Plus, there is also some electricity that is left over, and that is sold back to the local power grid, thus creating even more revenue for the company that has bought the machine.

Yea, it's called green energy. True recycling should be converting material into energy, not remaking it.

Vampyrelord

02-19-2007, 01:56 PM

Lol, ok, please do so.

@ guyklc: Please try not to post little replies like that, they clog up threads remarkably quickly. Why do you think God invented PMs :D

Donut

02-19-2007, 08:40 PM

EnzJon

02-19-2007, 09:34 PM

Yea, it's called green energy. True recycling should be converting material into energy, not remaking it.

Yeah, exactly. By making it into the same products again, aren't they just making even more potential waste products? Isn't that what they were trying to prevent in the first place? It's like they can't see that if they'd just use this green energy stuff, the cycle would be broken and we'd all get some really useful energy.

@Rikku: I know what you mean. That's why they have so many trashcans in places, especially cities! And then the people go and complain that their town is so messy. Hmm, I wonder how it got that way?

James Cizuz

02-21-2007, 12:43 AM

I'm not really so in on this whole protect the environment thing, but people who can't even recycle really, really annoys me. Why? Because it's simply stupid, recycling helps so much, and you'll have to put in so little effort. And stupidity annoys the hell out of me. It makes me go crazy, seriously...

And how friggin' hard is it to throw a candywrapper/can/whatever in the damn trashcan!? Please tell me WHY the hell people throw it on the street! Lazy bastards, walk 20 meters and you'll find a trashcan! Damn! Gah...
I'm all for throwing trash in the trash can. But when we take trash, unreuseable trash such as a plastic bottle and try and remake it we cause more harm, it's king of ironic that people refer to recycling as good, and are trying to help, and in reality are doing more harm then help. Of course now a days when this is known to scientists, even a large number who started the recycling deal they try to bring it to our knowledge that recycling isn't helping, it's causing harm.

What do we do? We then dismiss them as wrong, we don't even look into what they are trying to say, we just believe what we are told before hand and try and keep it up. Because recycling does make sense, until you fully understand the subject. When that happens we can finally decide what should be recycled.

As of now nothing is good to recycle unless they are metals, such as steel and tin, and aluminum. All this stuff such as paper, cardboard, plastic etc we think we should recycle we shouldn't. Heck we shouldn't even use plastic in the first place, there are other products similiar to plastic, they cost more, can't be reused, just as plastic, but they do rot rather fast.

Oh btw, anything that uses more energy to remake, then to make from scratch is unrecyclable, and unreuseable by definition of recycling means. So paper and plastic should not be recycled, yet why do we do it?

Guy

02-21-2007, 12:48 AM

I'm all for throwing trash in the trash can. But when we take trash, unreuseable trash such as a plastic bottle and try and remake it we cause more harm, it's king of ironic that people refer to recycling as good, and are trying to help, and in reality are doing more harm then help. Of course now a days when this is known to scientists, even a large number who started the recycling deal they try to bring it to our knowledge that recycling isn't helping, it's causing harm.
What do we do? We then dismiss them as wrong, we don't even look into what they are trying to say, we just believe what we are told before hand and try and keep it up. Because recycling does make sense, until you fully understand the subject. When that happens we can finally decide what should be recycled.
As of now nothing is good to recycle unless they are metals, such as steel and tin, and aluminum. All this stuff such as paper, cardboard, plastic etc we think we should recycle we shouldn't. Heck we shouldn't even use plastic in the first place, there are other products similiar to plastic, they cost more, can't be reused, just as plastic, but they do rot rather fast.
Oh btw, anything that uses more energy to remake, then to make from scratch is unrecyclable, and unreuseable by definition of recycling means. So paper and plastic should not be recycled, yet why do we do it?

I thought this was settled? We can reuse plastic. As for newspapers, read them online. You may argue recycling has negative impacts, but throwing garbage away in landfills is not the best idea either.

James Cizuz

02-22-2007, 04:38 PM

I thought this was settled? We can reuse plastic. As for newspapers, read them online. You may argue recycling has negative impacts, but throwing garbage away in landfills is not the best idea either.
I'm using the definition and reasoning environmentalists used for recycling. They were.
Costs less(Untrue, just to collect recycable material we pay around 3 times as much per ton to collect it then garbage)
Causes less pollution(Untrue, just in getting the bad stuff out we spew more out then what we orginally did making it from scratch. Then we spew out more in energy costs, recasting costs, sorting costs etc)
Creates more jobs(True and untrue. It does create jobs, but what about the jobs people had making the stuff from scratch? Logging etc, so we'll say no it doesn't it creates new jobs, by taking away other jobs)
Uses less energy(Untrue uses more energy to remake then it does to make from scratch)

Take all those that the environmentalists told us, and you should have their definition of recycling that we all thought was right. Sure aluminium, and other metals do follow the guidelines of recycling, such things as plastic, paper, cardboard, and other material does not.

I also do not like the fact I can't say "Recycling is bad for this reason" without having people in real life spout the same stuff which was proven false for the material in question and call me a earth hater. Thing is I love the earth, that's why I hate recycling.

Guy

02-23-2007, 01:16 AM

James Cizuz

02-26-2007, 03:05 PM

OK, fine then, from your point of view, what is the best way to keep this earth clean, then? Recycling has disadvantages, but really, I don't see an obvious alternative.
I personally think that recycling still has some good purposes. We all know it's good to recycle aluminum. Therefore, I think using the word "hating recycling" is a bit too harsh...
I don't hate recycling, just the way people refer to it as being great. It is great if you recycle it right, and the right things. I should be able to say I only recycle aluminum and throw my bottles and paper and cardboard in the garbage without someone questioning why I do that or saying I hate the planet. On the contrary I do more for the planet, thats why I don't recycle the bad stuff even if it meant getting a fine. Thank god no fines in my town yet.

As for protecting the planet. First I would suggest we get rid of oil as a power source, and only use it for cars. After awhile the cars will convert, and then the trucks, then finally oil would only be used in heavy equipment and maybe converted. I say that is a 20-40 year process tops.

I would suggest windpower, and water power. There is enough area on the west coast of US for windmills to power all of US. US uses the most power in the world, and no the windmills would not be as cramped as you think, i'm not suggesting we only put them on the west coast, west coast, east cost, in between etc just an example. We could run the world on this energy alone.

Water power involes using windmills underwater. Pros and cons are hard maintance if anything goes wrong. Pros include does not harm fish life, and is very reliable. Also produces more energy per windmill then wind energy, as water is more powerful and requires less.

Other then that we have thermaenergy etc. We would produce enough energy for electrolsis for breaking water into hydrogen. If we used that hydrogen for combustion engine cars, we could have cars faster, and better then the gas powered today, so no one could complain about the "slow" energy cars. Also hydrogen when you burn it comes out as water, so a renewable resource.

You can not classify wind energy or similar energies as free energy, even though they are. Simply because they get there energy from the sun(All energy comes from the sun, even when you burn oil that energy is coming from the sun)

As for recycling we could recycle only metals and use the decomposing wastes methane as yet another power source. We would not only stop almost all pollution, but slow down global warming and stop the process. As for reversing I am not sure but it is possible. As for plastic, plastic makes up a very small percent of the oil usage and causes for CO2.(But other very harmful chemicals come out when you melt plastic) there in we could keep making plastic out of oil, and just throw it away. Causing little pollution.

We could encourage more tree farms, and more replants(60% of logging companies do replants now and that is rising, combined with people who do replants) to keep our tree population rising(which it is rising, not going down which is what some people want you to believe)

Other then that just in getting the "free" energy we would not have to worry about energy saving appliances, but it would be nice to use less energy even then.

I say the full transition time, if we started now would be between 30-100 years. Problem is big companies that do not want to lose billions due to conversions, take oil companies for example. They would buy out the competition before letting it go by. They did it before with a few electric car companies.

Artic_EcoSystem

03-03-2007, 03:21 PM

James Cizuz

03-03-2007, 06:46 PM

Hello all, I wish to remain impartial to this topic however i must correct you about using wind mills and water turbines.

Both are limited by the theorectical Carnot system and thus can only process approx. 55% of what you place into it, with that said you would think that its o.k. since we are using renewable resources such as wind and water right?

what happens when you place water turbines or windmills in places? the most important aspect is that the ecosystems get destroyed. windmills kill most aerial life. and water turbines cause errosion and such not so not to mention we cant just place a dam anywhere. Property values decrease, maintance? is the city responsible or a company either way its not going to be nice for us the consumers

Solar energy needs the photo litograpgy cells which are made from silicon and other precious materials. the cost is extremley expensive.

Fuel cells are a great idea however the catalyst becomes posioned after a short while and then your amount of output decreases dramatically.

I would say the most safest "free Energy" is up to the biochemist who produce ethanol through enzymes. i have done some research in the lab and found that 75% power output from these enyzymes was common.... in this case the only cost is sugar... doesnt seem so bad...

anyway before you all start hounding me i would just like to let you know that i am a chemical engineer... i deal with the issue of "free energy" all year round....

All technology has its pros and cons.. but i assure you we can not just go around placing windmills and water turbines at every hill or river you see.

im afraid the world will have to rely on oil and other natural resources for a while.

oh and about the logging thing.... this subject i haven't checked on for a while but last i heard South America is deforesting like mad! as they are a 3rd world country and its not a major worldwide company doing this.. again i assure you they are not replacing the tree's... and if you thinking about the laws.... its South America... the govenment is corrupt thus the reason why they are a 3rd wold country
Did I say water turbines? No, I stated water-like windmills they are experimenting with. They work in the same way a normal windmill works, place them in a river, or high current area and they generate more energy the windmills. I already know how much a dam can destroy an area. Of course some areas are better for dams, most are a no-go.

As for windmills destroying aerial life, I agree, but like I said, it's better to kill a few birds then further increase us into global warming and pollution. However if you were to concerned about windmills destroying aerial life, a simple gate structure around the windmill would suffice, although cut down on some energy output.

I know solar panels equipment is very expensive. However it is much less expensive then it was when it was first created, and all products do get cheaper as time goes by, through easier extraction and making processes.

I did not suggest placing them everywhere. I said if you placed them only on the west coast you could power america only on wind energy. America is also the biggest energy hog. So, if you placed them in low-ecosystem areas, or what we would call "dead-areas" we would not be harming it. Even placing them in fields only changes the ecosystem a small amount. Other then that animals treat, and think they area trees for that matter. Which could confuse some animals.

Yes everything does have pros and cons, that's what I was getting at the whole time.

If the cons outweigh the pros by a large amount, we should dis continue doing that. However we still use things such as oil power, or recycling plastic, paper and cardboard. That was the main idea of this thread, are the pros of recycling most products worth it? Are they hurting more then helping? Etc.