Tunn11
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,248
- Location
- Under the highest tree top in Kent
They'll be brought down by a hungry seagull.I bet you'll know when you're flying behind one cos it'll stink of chips.
They'll be brought down by a hungry seagull.I bet you'll know when you're flying behind one cos it'll stink of chips.
The truth is now coming out. How inconvenient.How Al Gore has made $330m with climate alarmism
Warning the world that it is on the brink of disaster has been lucrative for Al Gore.
His wild prediction at Davos that Earth faces 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' is just his latest in decades of climate alarmism.
At the same time, the former VP has been at the forefront of green technology investment that has seen his wealth balloon to an estimated $330 million.
Gore set up Generation Investment Management with former Goldman Sachs Managing Director and close friend David W. Blood.
The mission statement of the investment firm, where Gore collects $2 million in a monthly salary, is to back companies that are making strides towards going green. The firm is worth around $36 billion.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...armism-Former-VP-fortune-losing-George-W.html
maximus otter
I can’t say I’m awfully convinced and what about countries not as massive as America?The Recycling Religion
For decades, we’ve been told: recycle!
Recycling paper (or cardboard) does save trees. Recycling aluminum does save energy. But that’s about it.
The ugly truth is that many “recyclables” sent to recycling plants are never recycled. The worst is plastic.
Even Greenpeace now says, “Plastic recycling is a dead-end street.”
Science writer John Tierney says “Recycling is an industry that uses increasingly expensive labor to produce materials that are worth less and less.”
It would be smarter to just dump our garbage in landfills.
People think landfills are horrible polluters. But they’re not. Regulations (occasionally, government regulations are actually useful) make sure today’s landfills have protective barriers so they don’t leak.
Eventually, landfills are turned into good things: ski hills, parks and golf courses.
But aren’t we running out of landfill space? For years, alarmist media said we were. But that’s not true.
Landfills have plenty of room. In fact, America has more space than we will ever need.
“If you think of the United States as a football field,” says Tierney, “all the garbage that we will generate in the next 1,000 years would fit inside a tiny fraction of the one-inch line.”
Putting garbage in landfills is often much cheaper than recycling. My town would save $340 million a year if it just stopped recycling.
But they won’t, “because people demand it,” says Tierney. “It’s a sacrament of the green religion.”
Worse, some recycling is pointless, or harmful.
“If you rinse a plastic bottle in hot water,” Tierney points out, “the net result is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than if you threw it in the garbage.”
https://www.johnstossel.com/the-recycling-religion-plastic-green-garbage/
gaspode
I can’t say I’m awfully convinced and what about countries not as massive as America?
Probably because of EU rules that are still in place.Landfill is cheap, easy and feasible here in the UK. We don’t do it because…?
We do do it, but we use all sorts of terms to avoid calling it 'landfill'. Along with following existing legislation to reduce it's impact (some already in UK law, some which was introduced EU wide when the UK was part of the EU but has since been retained)Landfill is cheap, easy and feasible here in the UK. We don’t do it because…?
Landfill isn't really a problem in the UK. In fact we've had far more problems here since they've stopped it, because instead of infilling old quarries a short distance away we are trucking stuff all over the world for energy intensive 'recycling' .Surely the argument isn't 'recycling is rubbish, let's have more landfill again'. It should be 'how can we improve recycling?'.
Still plenty of landfill in operation. There are a few sites near me, one of which is particularly large. Don't think I'd want to live near it, and certainly not downwind.Landfill isn't really a problem in the UK. In fact we've had far more problems here since they've stopped it, because instead of infilling old quarries a short distance away we are trucking stuff all over the world for energy intensive 'recycling' .
Although I may be biased because the rats living in the local landfill decided to invade my house about two years after they stopped dumping, presumably it took them that long to consume everything in the dump.
For certain plastics that don't break down with age, turning them into bricks might actually work.Nah. Just bung everything into a plasma converter. Then use the 'slag' that is left over as a building material.
Actually a tourist railway near here uses recycled plastic sleepers. Which I approve of, although I'd like to know the energy cost of the recycling and transport involved.For certain plastics that don't break down with age, turning them into bricks might actually work.
Lego already is and does, I mean bricks that is.For certain plastics that don't break down with age, turning them into bricks might actually work.
Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK. The only laws left are UK laws, passed through parliament.Probably because of EU rules that are still in place.
I do think that it is reprehensible that we don't even try to recycle plastics. The tech exists to do it.
And yet...Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK. The only laws left are UK laws, passed through parliament.
Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK. The only laws left are UK laws, passed through parliament.
As far as recycling plastics, I use a fabric shopping bag made with recycled plastic; you can get lawn edging * garden decoration made from recycled plastics. In fact, there's plenty of things that you can recycle plastics into. The issue, as far as I can tell, is the cost of processing and re-construction.
Incorrect.Since Brexit took place, the EU rules aren't effective in the UK.
But were people driving at that speed anyway? A lot of people drive faster than 70 on normal motorways.Motorway 60mph speed limits remain - despite no evidence that they work
Air pollution speed limits that force motorists to drive at 60mph should end, campaigners have said, after it emerged they have lasted twice as long as originally proposed without producing evidence they work.
Drivers on stretches of the M1, the M6, the M5 and the M602, have been limited to a top speed of 60mph in a bid to ascertain if driving more slowly helps reduce emissions.
But the restrictions, which were only supposed to last between 12 and 15 months, have now been running for more than two years, despite no evidence to show they are effective.
There are even questions over whether the increased congestion caused by the new speed limit may have actually increased pollution.
https://vnexplorer.net/motorway-60m...pite-no-evidence-that-they-work-s7360802.html
maximus otter
Lower speeds are supposed to burn less fuel, but I'm thinking that the pollution levels will be broadly the same. There is probably not a huge measurable difference in emission levels.I expect it is a fallacious argument that a lower speed means less pollution - it most likely takes exactly the same amount of energy to move a given mass over a given distance, regardless of the speed at which it happens, so the amount of pollution emitted would be roughly equal, allowing for stuff like 'drag' and 'friction'.
It is most likely yet another example of the general public having their freedoms impinged upon by a small group of eco-zealots without there being any science to back up their claims.