Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo
Some recycling is more energy efficient than others. We should recycle things that reduce energy consumption, but there is little benefit to recycling for processes that increase GHG emissions, like the plastic bottle house. Similarly, efforts to reduce plastic use by banning bags and straws will likely end up with more plastic produced and more GHG emissions. All so we can feel good about a new Liberal policy.
We may have lots of space out here but Calgary has three landfills within its limits and does not need to replace them for decades. We are going to burn up the planet well before we run out of space to landfill things, so it is entirely sensible to dedicate our efforts to reducing CO2 use, not to increase the space we have available by a meaningless amount.
Again I want to say I am not cheerleading for landfills, but they are the 'default' option. Any alternative disposal must be compared to that, and if they do not result in a net reduction in CO2 emissions, there is little point of disposing something that way. And the easiest way of achieving this goal is to price the negative effects.
Or we could just have the government throw darts at a policy board, or take votes on what everyone's best guess at what the best way to reduce environmental damage is, even if it is based on no empirical evidence. Personally, I prefer policy that is effective.
|
I can understand your reasoning, but I do see you drawing some conclusions without substantiation, like:
-
"there is little benefit to recycling for processes that increase GHG emissions, like the plastic bottle house"
I did not see data to support the statement that those materials are recycled using a less-efficient method that increases GHG. It seems like you are making an assumption here.
-
"efforts to reduce plastic use by banning bags and straws will likely end up with more plastic produced"
You don't provide your reasoning that banning bags and straws will result in increased plastic production - your statement seems counterintuitive.
-
"Calgary has three landfills within its limits and does not need to replace them for decades"
You bypassed my and MR's assertion that in the Maritimes, we don't have the luxury of huge plots of land for mass landfills. It may not be an issue for Calgary, but it's an issue for us.
I think you're looking at this from a 'reduce CO2 at all costs' point of view, similar to the environmentalists I've heard who are campaigning to battle climate change with a Second World War mentality. I can't argue with this strategy, as it appears to be the best way to accomplish that singular goal.
I tend to look at things with a more balanced point of view, in that we need to consider other environmental issues along with the CO2 issue. In the end, we don't want to have traded one problem for another, i.e. reduce climate change while ignoring the other effects of pollution on people and wildlife.
I don't entirely disagree with your statements, but I don't entirely agree either. I think we can accomplish our CO2 goals without dumping everything into the landfill, we just have to think more carefully about it.
The article I linked to in a previous post also suggested that maybe we need to change the formulation of plastics away from petroleum-based to bio-based. This is an example that shows there could be better options out there, that need to be explored.
I also don't agree with the current governments random plastic ban. I had posted extensively elsewhere in this thread that plastic bag bans are not the best alternative, and that the issue is more complex than that. But the government is looking for the most popular and easiest way out.
There are smarter and more balanced ways to deal with these issues, but it seems most people are involved in an extreme-left vs extreme-right battle, which leaves those of us who have more centered views caught in the middle of a senseless political struggle, while very few of the real problems actually get dealt with. The situation doesn't seem to be improving...
Prev
Linear Mode
