The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Energy] In the end, we'll still use liquified dinosaur carcasses for something
Posts
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
According to this paper, supplying the current energy needs with PV would require 5.5 million sq km or given a 30 year life span the manufacture of about 180000 sq km / year. I'm guessing that current production is a few orders of magnitude less than that. It's hard to find any sources about specifics, but one source says that a company manufactured about 100MW worth of panels with about 6000 tons of waste product, and another says that about 750000 tons of solar panel-related waste product will be disposed of in CA including 1000 tons of lead and 300 tons of cadmium. There are also byproducts to the production of the silicon crystals needed to make the panels in the first place. While recycling may help, I don't know how much would be reclaimed and the energy costs of that reclaiming
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
So, suggesting industrial hemp as an alternative to cotton or lumber is makes me a hippy stoner. Cool.
You seem like just another person who cheers the status quo, with no real evidence to back up your claims, and so you jump to ad hominem and stereotyping.
Also, it's pretty tough to find studies on something which is still largely illegal to grow, but you know that, which is why you're demanding hard numbers and sourced research, because you know I can't produce much, or that I won't since it would take too much time.
You can change conditions so people have better choices to choose from, educate the populace so their priorities aren't so narrow-minded and market new technology with methods that appeal to people. This isn't the perfect answer, not everyone is going to be effected for various reasons.
Why doesn't she like any other reusable bottles?
The idea that the status quo doesn't need to defend itself is what makes certain arguments fall on deaf ears, especially when powerful interests benefit from the status quo.
You have to be a fake account, a persona manufactured just to piss people off. 75 bottles of water a week is hilarious, because your wife won't even drink from a glass or an aluminum water bottle. Hilarious.
Just because, man, just because. Why not? We have infinite resources and infinite dumping ground and infinite energy to recycle! Live it up!
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/
I'm having difficulty tracking down specific numbers on the fertilizer requirements for tree farming. This one has some specific info about industrial hemp's requirements, and it's not zero. Though, this is pretty much always going to be a thing when industry is attempting to maximize yield.
There is a lot about various trees that do enough nitrogen fixing and whatever that they actively improve soil quality, but I have no clue about how that applies to paper production. Those papers are specifically talking about sustainable farming methods for non-tree crops in nutrient poor soil environments (africa. basically).
Hemp is more productive per acre, but when talking about sustainability that isn't necessarily a huge concern.
Hemp will grow where corn grows, with the big huge bonus benefit of not needing pesticides.
Not to mention, for Ethanol purposed, hemp has four times the density of cellulose than corn by weight.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Hemp-Can-Be-Used-to-Make-Ethanol&id=146067
So uh yeah, there are practical benefits to this thing.
Water is healthy. Filling the environment with plastic bottles isn't healthy for the environment.*
* it is good that they are not all plastic
But we don't do cellulosic ethanol production with corn, we use do sugar production and either leave the cellulose biomass to mitigate soil depletion or use it for feed. In fact, we don't use the cellulose, because it is less efficient.
You are comparing apple seeds and orange juice. That's bad. I don't really have the information to totally correct for that though, and really don't feel any desire to defend corn ethanol because I don't agree with it or its subsidies.
Edit: That link is of very poor quality and has no hard numbers or citations. "Of course if Monsanto Corporation could make terminator hemp seeds which would use less water and provide 20 times the cellulose value that would be very good for Ethanol?" Like this statement here, there isn't anything actually supporting it and it's purely the author's supposition.
And its not like im talking a single or couple bottles of water a day. Litres and litres and litres
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
You're situation is different from Space's wife. It sucks but I can understand why you do that.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
No, but you communicate poorly and give that impression, which is a problem if you want to convince people of things.
We both know that I'm not going to convince you or SFK of anything.
Also, you did claim that I was a hippy pothead, so I doubt I'm the one communicating poorly. It's tough to avoid getting frustrated when people are endlessly defending plastic bottles and insisting that we have infinite resources and infinite time with which to deal with climate change.
I asserted we could use hemp for things which we currently use lumber and cotton for, and you said I was a hippy stoner. That's communicating poorly.
You remind me of typical conservatives whose first go-to defense is "Oh well if you'd just communicate better. If you'd just be more polite. If you would just state our case better." So nonsensical.
Metal bottles + dishwasher?
Space, let's not go overboard with your changing views. You've made some improvements but it's not like you've become a libby lib liberal with your time here. Nor is every progression quick or permanent. You're going to have to do more than the minimum to impress people.
I agree that it can be difficult to change your mind from an argument with someone that is stubborn in their views. That's unavoidable. It's not only up to them to change their mind for you - you have to open your mind to other possibilities first otherwise it doesn't matter how polite or logical they are you'll never be convinced. You need to re-examine your beliefs and ideas, too. Find the flaws in your arguments and if people are giving critiques that make sense take that as a legitimate response to consider, even if their tact is poor. You don't have all the answers.
You're not above being stubborn in your arguments. Which is only going to escalate tensions with the other party. You won't learn anything by doing that.
So, recycling is available, it's just too inconvenient?
I thought you'd said you were going to take them to the store and recycle them.
Geth, infract our friend Tburkle with a major for A) calling someone a troll, and
Infracted @TBurk83 (3 points for 60 days) for "A) calling someone a troll, and
You claimed switching to hemp would alleviate any concerns you have for sustainability of paper products &c. without any real justification for it. That's stupid. I doubt you'll find anyone here who supports the ban on hemp for industrial (or recreational) use. That's different from believing that hemp will be a silver bullet. It will have benefits as well as its own problems that need to be addressed in order to ensure sustainable practices throughout the various products lifecycles and land management.
Eh, it depends on the framing involved. Pointing to advances in technology or pricing in negative externalities creating different incentives that prioritize less consumption of something can be made positively by focusing on an improvement in quality of outcome. More compact development with a mixture of zoning allowed uses will result in less driving and less demand for cars. You can either make this out to be the UN taking our freedoms and Hummers, or as liberating people from congestion. It can also be framed as stealing square footage, or making floor plans that work for you rather than having a butler's dining hall you never use.
Better less, but better.
Which is one of the many reasons why it shouldn't be banned. It still doesn't make the timber or paper industry somehow worse at land management.
Which is one more than we've built throughout my entire existence.