U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-02-2018, 10:50 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,431,855 times
Reputation: 3112

Advertisements

Properly disposing of trash in a landfill is sufficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2018, 11:49 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,038,709 times
Reputation: 5940
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
- there are three RRRs -- reduce, recycle, and reuse.

less trees are cut down,

"in a geological" timeframe is irrelevant. .

A] 3 R's; excellent thought. We should conserve for conservation's sake. Cf- the parable of the grasshopper and the ants.


b] Trees are 100% recyclable naturally. Trees are grown commercially as a crop. They just take 20-30 yrs to reach harvestable size. Nobody is helped by saving trees. Many people involved in the lumbering & related businesses are hurt economically by "saving trees." BTW- there's actually more trees in the US now than at the time of the Pilgrims, thanks to commercial lumbering operations.



3] Yours is a self-centered point of view. Geologic time scales are the only ones that really count. The planet is 3.5 billion yrs old. Life on the planet is 3 billion yrs old. Humans have been here 100,000 yrs. We personally will have lived and died in less than 100 yrs. Not too important, are we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 12:46 PM
 
312 posts, read 144,964 times
Reputation: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
A] 3 R's; excellent thought. We should conserve for conservation's sake. Cf- the parable of the grasshopper and the ants.


b] Trees are 100% recyclable naturally. Trees are grown commercially as a crop. They just take 20-30 yrs to reach harvestable size. Nobody is helped by saving trees. Many people involved in the lumbering & related businesses are hurt economically by "saving trees." BTW- there's actually more trees in the US now than at the time of the Pilgrims, thanks to commercial lumbering operations.



3] Yours is a self-centered point of view. Geologic time scales are the only ones that really count. The planet is 3.5 billion yrs old. Life on the planet is 3 billion yrs old. Humans have been here 100,000 yrs. We personally will have lived and died in less than 100 yrs. Not too important, are we?

Check on the 3Rs. Agree.

<nobody is helped by saving trees> disagree
Everyone is helped by saving trees. Trees are natural carbon sinks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
Last time I checked, the many people involved in lumbering and related businesses are included in the benefits from carbon sinks.

For information on how climate change is and will continue to impact natural forests, see my citations at post #138 in the following thread: Colorado fire season topic thread-2018

One of the unfortunate conclusions is that in areas devastated by forest fires since 2000, scientists are observing forests struggling to regenerate themselves and, in some areas, without human intervention (i.e., planting young trees), the forests will never be the same. So deforestation may become the rule. In which case conserving forests becomes more important.

<more trees now in US than at time of Pilgrims>: can you cite a peer-reviewed scientific article supporting this view? I am ignorant of the data supporting this conclusion, but would welcome something to read on it.

<. . . self-centered point of view> not at all. I recognize geologic time scales, the age of the planet, and that humans came late on the scene. I don't care when we came and when we leave. While humans are here, it is advisable to work together to treat the environment -- air, water, and land -- in a way that supports human life, as well as the other life of all other species.

Last time I checked, trees are quiet important for a number of species -- avian mainly, but mammals and reptiles as well. Perhaps the logging industry and related businesses are guilty of being self-centered.

BTW, do me a favor: since geological time scales are the only ones that matter, please respond to this post in 34,566 years. I'm not going to continue this interaction, but thank you for your time and your posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2018, 06:02 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,769 posts, read 1,038,709 times
Reputation: 5940
Your heart is in the right place but your knowledge level hasn't caught up.


Most of the problems with forest fires in the US stem from the ill advised Smokey Bear campaigns of the 50s & 60s and continuing, stupid restrictions on land use on US public lands more recently. Forest & grassland ecosystems require periodic fire to remain healthy. (Did you know Sequoia seeds can't be released to germinate unless they've been in a fire?)



If fires don't occur frequently, then too much fuel accumulates and any subsequent fire will become hot enough to ignite the large trees in a forest or kill the bacteria & fungi deep in the soil on a prairie. Most of the out-of-control fires occur on restrictively controlled public lands, not on well maintained private lands. World-wide, wild fires are decreasing in numbers and severity. It's only in the US with its restrictive policies that it continues to be a big problem.



Who says carbon sinks are good? Life (photosynthesis) will cease if co2 levels fall down to 160ppm. We're at 410 now and the average for Earth's history has been ~3000ppm. Life flourished during the Carboniferous with co2 levels 6000ppm. Study the physics: co2 ceases to cause increased warming at levels above 450ppm (the phenomenon of extinction of absorption).


Re: forest coverage now vs historic-- do your own homework like I did.



Best to wait until you're fully educated before you form any strong opinions, particularly if actions based on your opinions will divert attention from where it's really needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2018, 03:45 PM
 
312 posts, read 144,964 times
Reputation: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeIsWhere... View Post
OP, I think it's a great idea (and thank you for the link) however in my long lifetime I have worked in the food industry (which required an ANSI accredited Food Manager Certification) and I'm not sure how food establishments would feel about transferring their food into your container.

Just curious, if you have used your container in such a manner yet and if so, what have been your results thus far?
I wanted to report back on my results. Since I am new in Montrose (CO), I went to a new restaurant. It is named Mimo's. Located on S. Townsend Ave, it appears to be a family-owned restaurant, casual dining. You do sit down (if you wish), and they will bring the food to your table.

At any rate, I scanned the menu and ordered a plain burger and fries to go. I asked the waitress who was taking my order if they would be so kind and put my order in my reusable container. She said no problem, and I explained that I was just trying to cut down on waste.

Right before my food was ready, she asked if I needed ketsup, or plastic utensils, and I said no thank you. She brought out (from the kitchen) my container and said do you need a bag? I said I didn't, so in this case, I was able avoid the waste not just of a styrofoam food container, but the accompaniments as well.

I plan to return there in the future, and carry out Mexican food next time. I recognize that a major chain restaurant may have a different policy, but I don't see any problem.

Go for it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2018, 08:18 PM
 
Location: East of the Mississippi and South of Bluegrass
4,453 posts, read 3,733,448 times
Reputation: 9587
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
I wanted to report back on my results. Since I am new in Montrose (CO), I went to a new restaurant. It is named Mimo's. Located on S. Townsend Ave, it appears to be a family-owned restaurant, casual dining. You do sit down (if you wish), and they will bring the food to your table.

At any rate, I scanned the menu and ordered a plain burger and fries to go. I asked the waitress who was taking my order if they would be so kind and put my order in my reusable container. She said no problem, and I explained that I was just trying to cut down on waste.

Right before my food was ready, she asked if I needed ketsup, or plastic utensils, and I said no thank you. She brought out (from the kitchen) my container and said do you need a bag? I said I didn't, so in this case, I was able avoid the waste not just of a styrofoam food container, but the accompaniments as well.

I plan to return there in the future, and carry out Mexican food next time. I recognize that a major chain restaurant may have a different policy, but I don't see any problem.

Go for it!
Appreciate your posting back on your experience, thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2018, 09:49 AM
 
312 posts, read 144,964 times
Reputation: 1243
Here is another (and perhaps my final--who knows?) update.

Yesterday I went to Chili's and ordered an old-fashion burger to go. I told the waitress (at the "to go" order counter) that I didn't want any mustard, ketchup, plastic silverware, and not even a styrofoam container. I handed her my reusable container and simply asked if they could put the burger and fries in it. She said "no problem" and took the container back to the kitchen.

I went out and ran errands for ten minutes or so and came back to pick it up. The guy asked if I wanted a plastic bag and I just said no. I left with the meal in my reusable container.

Don't be shy; just be polite. A little thing -- a spark -- can start a forest fire. Start some green sparks in you lifestyle . . . it can become contagious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2018, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Floribama
14,778 posts, read 31,200,459 times
Reputation: 13550
I mix my styrofoam with a little paper and burn it, but I don’t have close neighbors so it’s not an issue for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2018, 04:26 PM
 
312 posts, read 144,964 times
Reputation: 1243
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Properly disposing of trash in a landfill is sufficient.
The basic problem is that most trash does not end up in a landfill. If it did, there would not be several gyrii of plastic floating in the oceans.

Not to mention the mounds of trash all over the ground -- in cities, rural areas, national parks, where ever humans set foot.

Like all the crap I cleaned out of Arbor Hills Nature Preserve (Plano, TX) several years ago. After six weeks of picking up trash 3-4 hours every week, I quit, overwhelmed. I made a dent, but maybe only got 10-15% of the trash. And Plano has an excellent recycling program, to go along with trash collection, and the city makes an effort to educate people in "green habits."

BTW, I would like to propose that your urban planners buy the land around where ever you live -- I think it would be a great place for a landfill. Since trash disposed in landfill is sufficient, I can't see you having any objections to living next to a landfill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by southernnaturelover View Post
I mix my styrofoam with a little paper and burn it, but I don’t have close neighbors so it’s not an issue for me.
Apart from the danger of wildfires -- and I recognize that you probably are vigilant to avoid such, burning trash and styrofoam is producing and releasing more "greenhouses" gases into the atmosphere. I'd rather you bury it than burn it, but I'd really rather you do neither.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2018, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Floribama
14,778 posts, read 31,200,459 times
Reputation: 13550
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post



Apart from the danger of wildfires -- and I recognize that you probably are vigilant to avoid such, burning trash and styrofoam is producing and releasing more "greenhouses" gases into the atmosphere. I'd rather you bury it than burn it, but I'd really rather you do neither.
I never buy food that comes in styrofoam containers, so the only time I burn it is when I have some that was used as a packaging material, which isnít very often. When I do burn it I mix it up with other stuff so it burns HOT and complete and doesnít leave that sooty residue behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top