Eco-guilt

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by RStar

If, indeed, that is what is happening.

Great, big, humongous (and not supported by any scientific evidence) "if" there.

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Great, big, humongous (and not supported by any scientific evidence) "if" there.

Too funny.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Too funny.

Agreed.


I missed the whole almond cleaner part for some reason. Also, too funny.

Originally Posted by RStar

I hear tell that electronic waist like old computers go to some third world country where they process them in a manner that pollutes the environment in ways that wouldn't happen in America.

This is true, and now when you recycle your haz waste you're supposed to ask where it's processed. Sometimes those third world countries just have landfills of the stuff.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by RStar

Oh, China. I knew it was in the Orient. So recycled paper saves trees, but increases carbon output.

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Well, since trees scrub carbon from the air, and carbon dioxide isn't actually a pollutant, then your "equation" is actually pretty beneficial to ol' Mother Gaia.

Okay, I know I have said this before, so apologies to all who are reading this for the 83rd time.

But the paper made here in the US and in Canada (and many other responsible countries) is made from trees grown much like crops specifically for the purpose of making paper. The trees are scientifically engineered for speedy growth and greater pulp yield. In these managed forests, more trees are actually planted each year then are cut down.

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Great, big, humongous (and not supported by any scientific evidence) "if" there.

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Too funny.

Funny, but true.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Okay, I know I have said this before, so apologies to all who are reading this for the 83rd time.

But the paper made here in the US and in Canada (and many other responsible countries) is made from trees grown much like crops specifically for the purpose of making paper. The trees are scientifically engineered for speedy growth and greater pulp yield. In these managed forests, more trees are actually planted each year then are cut down.

Interesting. So the paper industry helps clean the air by being responsible for planting trees. Cool.

And no, I haven't read that before- so no apology needed.

So, in that case, I wonder if it is possible that the recycling of paper is actually worse for the planet? There is the energy use, water pollution, and transportation. Have there been studies about this kind of thing?

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Funny, but true.

Oh please. Get real. Not supported by ANY EVIDENCE? What a load of sh!t. Get your head out of the sand.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Oh please. Get real. Not supported by ANY EVIDENCE? What a load of sh!t. Get your head out of the sand.

Well, there is actually a fair amount of scientific evidence that DOES exist that the earth's temperature rises and falls all on its own. Its been doing that for millions of years (which obviously means the earth is capable of doing it without the need for internal combustion engines or chlorofluorocarbons).

Without going into it too much, I found links here, here, and here.

Yes, there are those who disagree. I believe that the majority of the change is a result of natural occurrences.

We certainly aren't helping things at all and we SHOULD be doing what we can to reduce our collective carbon footprint (or whatever the label du jour is), but it isn't the situation that Al Gore wants everyone to believe.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Yes, there are those who disagree.

That's like saying, "Here are some links to people who have evidence that aliens do exist. There are those that disagree..."

It's the ones that claim NO evidence for human-caused/exacerbated climate change that are in disagreement. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that there is a preponderance of evidence for the plausibiliy thereof.

There is no evidence that conclusively proves that humans are the cause of current climate change. I will grant you that, as will any reputable scientist in the field. What there is is, A) Overwhelming evidence that the climate IS changing, and B) Overwhelming theoretical and laboratory evidence that human activities can plausibly contribute to those changes. That the byproducts of our use of resources on this planet strongly correlate to the climate changes that are being observed. Enough to stop and say, "You know, seeing as there's a pretty damn good argument that we ARE at least making things worse, maybe we ought to avoid that, and, you know, not doom ourselves to extinction. Just in case."

Are there people who overstate it, or state it in misleading terms? Yes. But that's not a good enough reason to react with, "It's all bullsh*t."