Recycling (Going Green)

[ChopperBOY]

I would just like to put mu $.02 in about going green. You have been sold a bill of goods that is based on lies and bad science. Lets take a logical approach to the global condition.

Take for instance the The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as law of mass/matter conservation says that the mass of a closed system will remain constant, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. This is also the central idea behind the first law of thermodynamics.

Now if you read and understand this it basically says that all matter inside of a closed system(eg. the earth) cannot be destroyed nor created but only converted. This being said there is ALWAYS a constant ammount of Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen on this planet and that being said there is ALWAYS a Constant ammount of WATER(in its various forms). Now I know this is a difficult concept to understand but NOTHING you do can effect this planet enough to cause any significant change on a global scale.

If you take a closer look at the motivation behind current "popular" sciences there are Grants, Taxes, Fines, Restrictions set out by these groups and goverment agencies all aimed at taking your Tax dollars to fund these so called agencies and studies used to determine how badly you are poluting the environment. 

So I say why be fooled its obvious that this Going Green is just anouther way that P.T. Barnum's famous quote("There's a sucker born every day") can be applied to all the suckers out there fooled into buying into Going  Green and don't think that large Corporations have not also joined the band wagon just to get a few more bucks out of the consumers wallet.

[John-BBY Community Connector]

Hello ChopperBOY,

You raise some interesting points in your missive that I won’t dispute, but I do want to point out that Earth is not a closed system.  It is acted upon all the time by forces and objects outside our ecosystem, not the least of which is the sun.  In addition, small meteoric bodies are impacting our atmosphere all the time and burning up in it, leaving their traces of elements behind.  At the same time, solar wind and other forces cause small portions of our atmosphere to leech into space.

Even so, with “fixed” amounts of the elements you list, their combination is what can cause problems.  Water, when combined with sulfur from pollutants, becomes sulfuric acid, the active ingredient in acid rain.  Acid rain, as we all know, is severely damaging to our “closed system.”

But I’m willing to accept your point of view on this, even including that the motivation for Going Green is monetary.  Corporations make no bones that Green efforts are profitable and engage in them for that reason.  Is that wrong?

Surely you don’t advocate irresponsibility in the way resources are managed.  Given that there are finite resources in certain essential molecular constants, like clean potable water, is it not in the best interests of everyone – even for-profit corporations – to ensure that it remains clean and potable?  Is it not essential that there are initiatives to preserve ecologies that are required for clean air?  Wouldn’t we be remiss if we continue to use our resources only one time and dispose of them without even trying to repurpose our waste?  Surely you’re not saying that we should not do these things!

Thanks for opening up the debate.  This is an interesting topic.

Regards,

Message Edited by John-BBY on 05-29-2009 05:21 PM

[Nokia]

The second half of your post: opinion, but I see nothing wrong with it.

The first half: not to be insulting, but it seems like you read a conservative political magazine that tried to "dumb down" science.

John is right. The Earth is not a closed system at all. Also, there is not a constant amount of CHON. Surely you understand atomic structure, and what gives an element its properties? Then you'll also remember that elements are transmuted all the time due to nuclear processes.

Also, I believe you're not understanding the difference between elements and compounds. Just because a compound consists of two elements, this does not mean the compound will possess the qualities of its constituent components. Look at table salt. An alkali metal which rips protons off water when in contact with it, and a halogen with one of the highest electronegativities combine to form an unreactive ionic compound. The same is true with CO, CO2, NO, SO2, etc.

Also, many of these compunds do not occur in nature at the same concentrations that human processes produce them at. This is what is causing climate change.

Lastly, we have many, many scientists researching this. All but a very, very minute percentage agree. I don't know about you, but I generally trust people who have doctorates in the field more than some Senator or pundit.

[ChopperBOY]

First of all there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a conservative. Conserviatism is oneof the key elements that has gotten this country as far as it has come today and as successful.

Secondly, clean potable water is an abundant source. Take for instance most of the middle east which utilizes underground water sources as well an desalinization.

As far as climate change it is arrogant to think that you as an individual or as a whole can have any effect on an eco system that in itself has recovered from various ice ages and volcanic states in its existance. The climate will change regardless of how much CO2, CO, NOx we pump into the air.

As I Understand it the earth in its orbit around the sun due to outside gravitation forces and a slight wobble in its rotation (and expansion theory) will and have effected its relative distance to the sun causing periods where the earth is actually closer(hotter) and further(colder) from the sun. Now science in its self is not my problem but false science and consensus are. It goes against scientific theory to have a consensus that is considered fact, were that the case for all science we would still Believe that the world is flat and never have ventured beyond europe.

I understand that it makes people feel good to do things they think are good and feelings play a big role because hey who wants to ruin the earth for other and future generation. I am also very big on recycling not because it is earth friendly but because it makes sense to utilize all sources of materials. I however won't follow blindly a failed political canadate and his propaganda films just to have a warm fuzzy feel good time that will leave little or no measureable acomplishment other than to make some very rich and others suffer because of it.

[ChopperBOY]

BTW thanks for the debate i always enjoy alternative views, and please don't take this too seriously because discussion is how we

expand our horizons.

[Nokia]

I wasn't insinuating that conservatism is wrong. It just sounded like it was out of a conservative magazine.

Ice ages are natural. What humans do is not. If you look at smaller ecosystems, a tiny change can destroy the entire thing. Introduce a single member of a single species and you'll cause it to crash.

The climate will change, but not regardless of our waste emissions, but because of them. When you're removing compounds from the Earth, breaking them down, and reacting them to form new compounds which are already in equilibrium, things will change.

It's useful to look at the Earth as a giant reversible equilibrium reaction. When you add something to one side, the reaction shifts to compensate. The equilibrium point moves further and further out of its original position.

I would not call it a consensus. Very few things in science can be proven beyond a theory. However, they are accepted as law. The climate has been changing since the Industrial Age. It's just that now we have the technology to measure it.

Our orbit has been taken into account by the studies done. Really, unless you're a researcher in this field, there's no new information you can present, since it's all already been considered.

[ChopperBOY · Accepted solution]

I have been meaning to reply to this but decided that 2 people discussing opposite sides of a discussion that has no real answer is a great effort in futility. Others may feel free to discuss further and I may check back in from time to time to see if anything new has transpired. As for now I leave the board open to Discussion by others and Solved as far as we agree to disagree.