/sci/ - Science & Math

Unless your blog talks about how useless recycling is, how current methods of recycling use more resources than that which is recovered, and how it is joke hidden under the guise of green energy, you're out of luck

Reported, hidden, saged.

>>3306356
> how current methods of recycling use more resources than that which is recovered

That depends upon what you're trying to recycle. Recycling aluminium requires vastly less energy than extracting it from bauxite. Even recycling steel is a net gain (if you think that the scrap metal business is some greenie scam, you haven't met many scrap metal dealers).

>>3308123
> Recycling aluminium requires vastly less energy than extracting it from bauxite.

If that were true, then the free market would have been all over that long ago. The fact that it has to be rammed down peoples throats by environazis proves that there isn't any profit in it and we're better off just making more.

Recycling by and large is a fucking sham sadly. They had a great story several months ago on NPR talking about how most recyclers simply ship all of their material to third world nations and just dump it since it's much cheaper to do that than actually try and recycle it.

>>3308136
>environazis
Not who you were talking to, and not that I can necessarily disagree with you since I don't know nearly enough about aluminum and all...

I bet you think global warming is a farce too don't you.

Aluminium is in fact one of the best things to recycle because the heat you need to extract it from bauxite is expensive.

Here in Australia collection depots pay you 10 cents a can and make a profit recycling the stuff. The streets are pretty clean too.

Metal in general is good to recycle. Paper, not unless you're willing to spend more energy to reduce deforestation. Sustainable forested paper though is not worth it to recycle.

Rare earth metals and such probably are but the process is toxic.

mfw /sci/ is full of anti environmentalists.

Are you the same people who bullshit climate change denial whenever it pops up?

And do you really think that preserving natural resources is the same as instituting an authoritarian government? Did you do a Hayek and make yourself believe freedom can't exist without the right to pollute and let others clean up?

>>3308145
> I bet you think global warming is a farce too don't you.

> implying it isn't

>>3308258
Right. You just lost all credibility you might have had. Have a good day. Kindly escort yourself out of /sci/ if you please.

>>3308160
> /sci/ is full of anti environmentalists.
Because environmentalists are anti-human, and /sci/ is full of humans. When the environmentalists are trying to paint humanity as the bad guy that needs to die for the sake of their precious "mother nature," or "gaia," or whatever they're calling their nature deity these days, are you really that surprised that people might have a problem with them? Environmentalists have done more to hurt humanity than any other group in existence.

>>3308160

> And do you really think that preserving natural resources is the same as instituting an authoritarian government?

When the government is coercing you into doing so with threats of violence, then yes, it is instituting an authoritarian government.

>>3308145
Global warming is real, the globe is in fact warming. It is a natural part of the Earth's climate cycles, the environmentalist movement has just jumped on it in an attempt to find an excuse to tear down civilization and force us all back to the stone age. And statists have jumped on the bandwagon to, looking for an excuse to restrict our liberties, raise our taxes, and take even more control over our lives. Global warming is real, "man made global warming" is alarmist bullshit.

>>3308290

How exactly do you preserve natural resources with zero force whatsoever

You're just asking for a Tragedy of the Commons

>>3308279
You're confusing environmentalists with hippies. Environmentalists seek to make the world a better place for humans to live in. Alternative energy, reduced pollution/co2 levels, etc. are all extremely beneficial to society. It's not some sort of black and white scenario where you have to choose between the Earth and mankind.

>>3308279
>Because environmentalists are anti-human, and /sci/ is full of humans. When the environmentalists are trying to paint humanity as the bad guy that needs to die for the sake of their precious "mother nature," or "gaia," or whatever they're calling their nature deity these days, are you really that surprised that people might have a problem with them? Environmentalists have done more to hurt humanity than any other group in existence.
LOL
Haven't laughed like that in ages bro. Good one.

>>3308312

>the environmentalist movement has just jumped on it in an attempt to find an excuse to tear down civilization and force us all back to the stone age.

I am so sick of all this "herp derp stone age" bullshit that gets repeated ad nauseum

The Pentagon, NASA, and NREL do not want us to go back to the stone age

>And statists have jumped on the bandwagon to, looking for an excuse to restrict our liberties, raise our taxes, and take even more control over our lives.

Explain how you would solve the global warming problem with zero state intervention. Or let me guess: everyone's a fucking statist, including those evil motherfuckers at the sewage plants.

>Global warming is real, "man made global warming" is alarmist bullshit.

In other words, you're letting your economic ideology get in the way of scientific facts. Protip: our economies are constrained by the laws of physics

>>3308279

pro-human environmentalist here.

Like it or not we are a part of nature and are dependent on multiple ecosystems for survival.

>>3308258

Prepare your anus

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

>>3308315
> How exactly do you preserve natural resources with zero force whatsoever

If it is an efficient use of resources, then the free market will encourage it and people will do so voluntarily. If it isn't, then it won't, and people won't. That's how.

>>3308404
> watch first video
> starts with Al Gore
Nope.jpg

>>3308331
> Environmentalists seek to make the world a better place for humans to live in.
> Alternative energy, reduced pollution/co2 levels, etc. are all extremely beneficial to society.

> better place for humans
> Alternative energy

Oh wow, you really believe that? Alternative energy is a COLOSSAL waste of money and resources that could be used improving the lives of people in REAL ways. The green insistence on ramming them down our throats is harmful to our society because it pisses away money for NOTHING OF VALUE.

>>3308358
> Explain how you would solve the global warming problem with zero state intervention.

Simple. It's not a "problem" that you "solve." It's a natural part of the Earth's climate cycle. The Earth has warmed and cooled and warmed again all throughout its history, most of the time to far greater amounts than it's changing now, and it's still here. It's not a problem, and there isn't a "solution." It's all just snake oil bullshit, a phoney "problem" made up to justify taking MY money to pay for a phoney "solution."

>>3308421
>>If it is an efficient use of resources, then the free market will encourage it and people will do so voluntarily.

efficient =/= sustainable
seriously

...oh no wait I forgot the free market can fix anything and everything nevermind

>>3308443
>>3308425
>>3308290
>>3308279
If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh all day and quit subscribing to Crichton's "State of Fear" arguments then people might take you seriously.

>>3308458
> efficient =/= sustainable

Sustainable, sustainable, sustainable, that's all you envirofags seem to be able to say. Sustainability doesn't matter, because as soon as resources become a problem it creates an incentive to develop an alternative to compete in the market with the now more expensive resource. Like with wood and coal in Britain. No trees left? No problem, now we use coal instead. Run out of that? Switch to the next thing. And so on. It's not a real problem, it's just a buzz word that the envirofags like to throw around to justify their retarded dogma.

>>3308457
>natural fluctuations
You're a broken record and entirely predictable. Got anything else you dense motherfucker?

>>3308471
Yeah, you're right bro. There sure isn't any problem with using up all the oil till it runs dry. We'll just switch to another resource whenever we run out. It's not like we'd have to develop extensive infrastructure to deal with utilizing a new resource or anything. Hell, we don't even need any time to develop the technology to use those resources either. We'll just dump all the new resources into our oil infrastructure and it will work as smooth as oil.

Do you listen to yourself? You're a fucking moron. Kindly get off of this board.

>>3308465
> If you stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh all day and quit subscribing to Crichton's "State of Fear" arguments then people might take you seriously.

Better than NPR and Hansen. They're nothing but a joke.

>>3308489
>Rush Limbaugh
>Better than NPR
10/10. Raged.

>>3308491
> implying NPR is better
> NPR
> NATIONAL PUBLIC radio
> better than anything
Nope.jpg

>>3308502
> NATIONAL PUBLIC radio
> Emphasizing National and Public as if that's supposed to be an argument
Oh you.

>>3308490
If there is an incentive to switch, an unfettered market will ensure that it happens in an efficient manner.

>>3308489

Who the hell gives a fuck about NPR and Hansen? How about the entire scientific community? Can you name at least one scientific organization that disagrees with AGW?

>>3308471
>>that entire post
>>wow

this is satirical right
you're making satire here

>>Sustainability doesn't matter, because as soon as resources become a problem it creates an incentive to develop an alternative to compete in the market with the now more expensive resource.

because I mean this is pretty good
it really ALMOST sounds like something a libertarian could say

>>3308502
BBC > NPR > everything else

>>3308136
>If that were true, then the free market would have been all over that long ago.

Notice how everything has recycling reminders on it? That's not just to appease the greenies.

Recycled materials cost manufacturers less, which means more profits of them.

That said most people can't be assed to separate their garbage and recyclables much less separate their recyclables. At least in the US, don't know about else where.

>>3308279
>Environmentalists have done more to hurt humanity than any other group in existence.

Religion.

Now go troll somewhere else.

>>3308562
Religious people aren't constantly getting in the way of nuclear power by fearmongering and spreading alarmist bullshit. The enviornmentalists are doing far more to stand in the way of progress, especially with what they've done to the scientific community. These days you have to bow to the environmentalist political agenda, or be suppressed and shunned by the rest of the scientific community. They've taken what should be a community dedicated to advancing HUMANITY, and turned it into just another part of their own political agenda.

>>3308562
Engineers.

Engineers have killed more people in the history of humanity than any other group of people.

I dare you to find a more guilty group of abstractions.

>>3308589
>>3308595

>Got caught under the falling hammer

>>3308589

>>>/x/

>>3308562

Environmentalism IS religion. It's essentially just nature worship. All the talk of "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" or "Gaia" or whatever they're calling it these days is their way of saying "you all need to act this way because my religion demands that you act this way." They're blindly dogmatic in all of their beliefs, be it their insistence that global warming is man made or their mindless opposition to nuclear energy.

>>3308595
Surprisingly I can't really disagree with this...

>>3308605
You're fuckin rich man. You've got me pegged; after reading peer review journals on AGW I go home and pray to Gaia fervently. Specifically I pray that she will wipe this human infestation clean from the Earth so that everything will be purified, etc.

Please never reproduce.

>>3308605

Glenn? Is that you?

>>3308608
Broken dams have killed more people than nuclear bombs and Chernobyl together.

>>3308629
Nukes and nuclear reactors are both products of engineering anyways.

>>3308490
We would have already started transitioning to nuclear power if it weren't for all the greens spreading misinformation and fear. Which is hilarious, because it means we stay on oil and coal, which the greens also hate. They're so irrational that they end up shooting themselves in the foot.

It's like that whole thing with the gulf oil spill. Everyone rushed to blame BP, when in reality they were forced to drill there. The environmentalists had pushed so hard to block drilling on land that the ridiculous government regulations that they ended up imposing forced BP to drill in the gulf, were it was even more damaging.

>>3308629
And the environmentalists still prefer dams to nuclear power. They don't give a damn about people dying, never have, they just follow the tenets of their religion, where nuclear power is evil but apparently dams are fine.

>>3308638
>We would have already started transitioning to nuclear power if it weren't for all the greens spreading misinformation and fear.

Doubtful, politicians in general fuck us when it comes to nuclear. Green politicians are just the most vocal of them.

-wood plastic and paper, burn for energy
-food waist, feed to pigs dumbasses
-glass wash and reuse if feasible landfill otherwise
-aluminum,other metals and lead batteries recycle dumbass
-electronic waist like circuit boards and other batteries land fill for low population dense areas, larger areas stockpile and ship to centralized recycles via rail.