I should probably post this on a Wiki, but I'm not sure which one.
Solid waste is a huge environmental issue that I don't see addressed anywhere on the site. I'm thinking Creatures, since the main problem with solid waste is the havoc it wreaks on habitats and ecosystems. Thoughts?
I would be willing to write a little section for this on the wiki, but could use some input about important things to include. I can come up with all kinds of ways to reduce waste, but don't know very much about responsible land-fills or industrial waste (like the kind that just got dumped all over Tennessee, in an episode that seems likely to repeat itself all over the world). Anyone know more about this, or know where I can learn more?
(Also, I don't like how the link for "Start a new discussion" is at the bottom. With Windows/Firefox, I have to scroll to get down there. I would put it at the top.) Reply to comment
I would post a bug on the "Start Discussion" button (just make it a minor/feature enhancement bug).
As far as solid waste, I would recommend putting it somewhere under materials (in Using Energy). Materials looks at recycling and using greener materials, so I have been talking about solid waste there in the vein of "we should reduce this through better materials". The Tennessee incident I would put into making energy, just like nuclear waste should be in nuclear, but in general, I'd say solid waste in Materials. If we want to move it, we can.
As far as where to start, there are a huge number of resources at the bottom of materials (home and science) pages on the wiki that can be starting points. Reply to comment
Essentially, it's that the landfill / waste argument doesn't make the list of critical things that need done to prevent off widespread ecological collapse.
We're taking the view that the big picture should focus on the most critical issues. In some ways, that perspective can be framed by asking "if we magically fix ____ tomorrow, are we still totally screwed?".
If the answer is yes (as I think it is with solid waste disposal), then it's not on the big picture list.
One argument that does hold weight for solid waste is the energy used to produce, transport, and dispose of materials. That's why there's a materials section in using energy. But as far as the waste itself, (and believe me, it hurts me a lot to say this), we're not running out of space at a rate anywhere near the problems in the other highlighted issues.
So that's sort of the background on why it's not on the list. Thoughts? Reply to comment
Yep, that's very true, and smart landfill operators are starting to capture that methane for energy (which doesn't help the greenhouse gas picture very much).
But the picture isn't simple. Those methane releases are mostly coming from organic matter that people could be composting, etc. Depending on how local decomposition went (anerobic vs aerobic), there's a good chance that this push would just shift methane emissions from a point-source at the landfill to decentralized in everyone's back-yard. In those cases, we have zero chance for capture, and the situation's actually worse. Factor in transportation of waste emissions, etc, etc and it gets really messy.
Clearly, all of the issues are nuanced, and there are no black-and-whites. But we do have a strong view and push back toward the environmental movement that recycling, changing lightbulbs, and taking the bus/walking to the store on occasion aren't going to get the job done.
In my (personal, not speaking as SixLinks, LLC) view, the tasks that have been pushed by environmentalists for quite some time are actually counter-productive because they don't take on the critical issues, yet provide people with the feeling that they're making a difference. I want to identify (with data) the key places that we can make a difference, and attack those areas with vigour. Reply to comment
Aerobic: If it's done properly, yes. If it's not (people just toss stuff in a big pile, like, say, I do), it turns anaerobic very quickly. A large-scale home composing program would likely have lots of people like that. City scale's another issue, but requires a additional pickup, storage, and processing infrastructure that's a tough sell to tight city budgets.
Methane shift: exactly. And that makes it a slight improvement (I don't have the actual numbers, but recall that methane's ~ a 4x more potent greenhouse gas). Reply to comment
Honestly, aside from dangerous trash/industrial waste, I'm most concerned with all the trash that has made its way into the Pacific and is threatening oceanic ecosystems.
The "Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch" alone is twice the size of Texas... there's also a Western Pacific Garbage Patch and a giant region of trash connecting the two. And it's all growing rapidly. This greatly inhibits life in the ocean by restricting ranges of phytoplankton and zooplankton. It also poses great danger to the animals that are already there, through tangling/poisoning, etc. “Ninety percent of Laysan albatross chick carcasses and regurgitated stomach contents contain plastics." It's a reasonable speculation that ALL food in the ocean currently contains some plastic.
... and god knows what has sunk to the ocean floor ... or what kind of nuclear stuff has been buried ...
Reducing production/use of plastic would fall under materials, and honestly this probably is impossible to clean up. But if it keeps adding up - and it will if people keep using disposable plastics, which keep inevitably flowing into the sea - then the oceans are dead. We'd probably end up with no fish, no dolphins, no whales, no seals, no sea turtles... lots of jellyfish. Reply to comment
Perhaps this sort of stuff belongs under the list of things you can do to help with biodiversity, reducing your waste. I guess the point I was trying to get at was that the issue with solid waste is that it affects so many things it doesn't really have a solid home here (due to the original list of issues), and so we should focus on it as an issue in the places where it creates issues. Talk about reducing consumption and waste in energy because we want to save energy, mention how and where we dump our trash in biodiversity if biodiversity is suffering large negative consequences that can be slowed, stopped, or reversed, talk about methane release as a factor contributing towards climate change in global warming.
That's just my thought of the best way to work with what we currently have here, but feel free to tell me if you disagree. I like that people are bringing up all of these issues and challenging our initial thoughts. And just so that you all know, me and Steve probably talk about these sorts of issues about what to include and where based on your feedback for about an average of an hour or so a day, so you're opinions are not falling on deaf ears. :) Reply to comment
Yea, that's why I originally thought of putting it under Creatures... I think that works.
I understand Steven's point about this not being *the* crucial thing. I also feel like people might not be so willing/able to make big lifestyle changes to reduce their waste production (although, if they're willing to ride a bike or eat less meat, they'll probably be willing to use a reusable water bottle, or buy big glass jars rather than little plastic ones). But if something isn't done about it, there really are serious consequences, and that's what I was trying to get at. Even if all cars were to go electric at this very instant, wildlife would still be at risk because we are producing a lot of waste, and much of it will never decompose.
I just took the GRE and now I am drunk... so of course I am checking my e-mail. Reply to comment
Understood on the consequences thing, and I hope that someday, we get to make a "the next six links", where we take on those sorts of issues once we've solved this batch.
And I say congrats to being drunk. I would say go ahead and put some stuff in about solid waste dumps as yet another threat to biodiversity, which is where it probably belongs in the scope of the issues we are discussing. It's probably good to let people know that the trash they throw out is harming wildlife in a specific way, the trick is avoiding the whole "I recycle, so the fishes are cool now" idea. And keep making fixes about this sort of stuff (although be ready to defend them against the energy people who will contend that buying a new Sigg every 2 months when you get bored of this one is just as bad). Reply to comment
If you don't have an account, you'll need one. We recognize that this is a pain, but we do it to keep spambots from flooding the site. If this really bothers, you, please let us know. We're listening!
Get the Facts
Do Your Part
Me
My Part
Following
Community
Talk
Even More
Login or Get an Account!
Support SixLinks
Solid waste is a huge environmental issue that I don't see addressed anywhere on the site. I'm thinking Creatures, since the main problem with solid waste is the havoc it wreaks on habitats and ecosystems. Thoughts?
I would be willing to write a little section for this on the wiki, but could use some input about important things to include. I can come up with all kinds of ways to reduce waste, but don't know very much about responsible land-fills or industrial waste (like the kind that just got dumped all over Tennessee, in an episode that seems likely to repeat itself all over the world). Anyone know more about this, or know where I can learn more?
(Also, I don't like how the link for "Start a new discussion" is at the bottom. With Windows/Firefox, I have to scroll to get down there. I would put it at the top.) Reply to comment
As far as solid waste, I would recommend putting it somewhere under materials (in Using Energy). Materials looks at recycling and using greener materials, so I have been talking about solid waste there in the vein of "we should reduce this through better materials". The Tennessee incident I would put into making energy, just like nuclear waste should be in nuclear, but in general, I'd say solid waste in Materials. If we want to move it, we can.
As far as where to start, there are a huge number of resources at the bottom of materials (home and science) pages on the wiki that can be starting points. Reply to comment
Essentially, it's that the landfill / waste argument doesn't make the list of critical things that need done to prevent off widespread ecological collapse.
We're taking the view that the big picture should focus on the most critical issues. In some ways, that perspective can be framed by asking "if we magically fix ____ tomorrow, are we still totally screwed?".
If the answer is yes (as I think it is with solid waste disposal), then it's not on the big picture list.
One argument that does hold weight for solid waste is the energy used to produce, transport, and dispose of materials. That's why there's a materials section in using energy. But as far as the waste itself, (and believe me, it hurts me a lot to say this), we're not running out of space at a rate anywhere near the problems in the other highlighted issues.
So that's sort of the background on why it's not on the list. Thoughts? Reply to comment
I think a lot of this UI will change once search and filtering comes online, but feel free to file a bug! :) Reply to comment
But the picture isn't simple. Those methane releases are mostly coming from organic matter that people could be composting, etc. Depending on how local decomposition went (anerobic vs aerobic), there's a good chance that this push would just shift methane emissions from a point-source at the landfill to decentralized in everyone's back-yard. In those cases, we have zero chance for capture, and the situation's actually worse. Factor in transportation of waste emissions, etc, etc and it gets really messy.
Clearly, all of the issues are nuanced, and there are no black-and-whites. But we do have a strong view and push back toward the environmental movement that recycling, changing lightbulbs, and taking the bus/walking to the store on occasion aren't going to get the job done.
In my (personal, not speaking as SixLinks, LLC) view, the tasks that have been pushed by environmentalists for quite some time are actually counter-productive because they don't take on the critical issues, yet provide people with the feeling that they're making a difference. I want to identify (with data) the key places that we can make a difference, and attack those areas with vigour. Reply to comment
Even capturing the methane and using it as fuel would shift the emissions from CH4 to CO2.
Reply to comment
Methane shift: exactly. And that makes it a slight improvement (I don't have the actual numbers, but recall that methane's ~ a 4x more potent greenhouse gas). Reply to comment
The "Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch" alone is twice the size of Texas... there's also a Western Pacific Garbage Patch and a giant region of trash connecting the two. And it's all growing rapidly. This greatly inhibits life in the ocean by restricting ranges of phytoplankton and zooplankton. It also poses great danger to the animals that are already there, through tangling/poisoning, etc. “Ninety percent of Laysan albatross chick carcasses and regurgitated stomach contents contain plastics." It's a reasonable speculation that ALL food in the ocean currently contains some plastic.
... and god knows what has sunk to the ocean floor ... or what kind of nuclear stuff has been buried ...
Reducing production/use of plastic would fall under materials, and honestly this probably is impossible to clean up. But if it keeps adding up - and it will if people keep using disposable plastics, which keep inevitably flowing into the sea - then the oceans are dead. We'd probably end up with no fish, no dolphins, no whales, no seals, no sea turtles... lots of jellyfish. Reply to comment
That's just my thought of the best way to work with what we currently have here, but feel free to tell me if you disagree. I like that people are bringing up all of these issues and challenging our initial thoughts. And just so that you all know, me and Steve probably talk about these sorts of issues about what to include and where based on your feedback for about an average of an hour or so a day, so you're opinions are not falling on deaf ears. :) Reply to comment
I understand Steven's point about this not being *the* crucial thing. I also feel like people might not be so willing/able to make big lifestyle changes to reduce their waste production (although, if they're willing to ride a bike or eat less meat, they'll probably be willing to use a reusable water bottle, or buy big glass jars rather than little plastic ones). But if something isn't done about it, there really are serious consequences, and that's what I was trying to get at. Even if all cars were to go electric at this very instant, wildlife would still be at risk because we are producing a lot of waste, and much of it will never decompose.
I just took the GRE and now I am drunk... so of course I am checking my e-mail. Reply to comment
Understood on the consequences thing, and I hope that someday, we get to make a "the next six links", where we take on those sorts of issues once we've solved this batch.
It'll be the next startup. When I turn 60. :) Reply to comment
And with that, I'm gonna stick it in the washing machine before I go to bed... Reply to comment
If you don't have an account, you'll need one. We recognize that this is a pain, but we do it to keep spambots from flooding the site. If this really bothers, you, please let us know. We're listening!