Seattle food waste- more greener groupie hypocrisy (recycling, toxic, plastic)
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.
There is one individual who just follows all my posts even though I have him on ignore Sort of like one of those tops that just spins and spins never going anywhere until they tip over and bash themselves all over the place. Easy to see who it is, personal attacks and all hidden behind jibberish.
I know you're talking about me, but I can't figure out how you know what I'm posting if you have me on ignore. Do you think that means I can't see you?
Anyway, I'm not following you around, I'm just responding to what you post here. And I'm not bashing you, because that is not my style. I don't attack people, I attack bad ideas and poor reasoning. But I am definitely going to push back when you bash others, as you do pretty much whenever you post here.
If you have a helpful idea about Green Living, I'd be happy to see it. But as far as I can see you never have anything positive to say, and just come here to bash others.
And since you almost never (never?) have any facts or research to present, and offer no support for your distinctly right-of-center views, I'm more than willing to correct you when you are mistaken, and to challenge weak or fallacious thinking whenever it presents itself.
Quote:
This thing with the food waste is a perfect example of trying to control people. Once again there is a barely hidden agenda behind it all. Someone makes a lot of money from the fact that people are now working for the waste disposal companies.
Sorry, but that is one of those weak arguments I was just talking about. Your standard complaints which you always trot out that 1) somebody has an agenda, and 2) somebody is making a lot of money from this simply don't fly in this case. The city spends a LOT of money collecting and disposing of the city's garbage, and this is part of an overall comprehensive plan to reduce that cost and to be more environmentally sound at the same time.
[quote] You see, it isn't as if the waste disposal operations can't sort the garbage or trash. What they want is to get that labor for free, all in the name of "green groupies" lock step thinking.[quote]
See what I mean? You just can't express yourself without bashing someone! Meanwhile you completely overlook the obvious, that it is far simpler and involved for residents to simply separate their own garbage as they go. It's not hard. Just use the three bins appropriately.
Quote:
If they can get the residents to sort the trash, they don't have to pay anyone to do it. That would be fine except people are paying for trash collection and sorting already. What a scam and racket.
That would be a fine argument except that it's total nonsense. The more individuals do to correctly separate the waste going in, the fewer paid workers it takes to do it afterwards, and therefore the costs are held down. That's very simple logic.
Quote:
Easy way to make money. Start a service, get people to pay for it through mandate, then slowly get the people to provide the service for themselves while still sending them a bill each month, all in the name of green.
Really? When did they start requiring people to drive their own garbage to the dump? And now that the waste stream is being split, to recycle and compost as much as possible, so as to reduce the volume of refuse that goes into the landfill, how are they getting residents to operate the machinery, bale the recyclables, operate the crushers and the front loaders, and do all those other things the staff are hired to do?
Oh, I get it, you must have been joking, because who would believe a rant like that?
Ban wood burning fireplaces while coal plants keep pumping out pollution and fracking is encouraged.
Banning wood burning fireplaces and stoves because they are making the air unbreathable right there is something the local city government can deal with. Trying to close polluting coal plants is considerably more complicated, and has to be dealt with on a state or federal level, especially with the coal industry spending a fortune to oppose every measure to cut back the pollution they cause.
Quote:
Allow pot smoking but ban cigarette smoking because it is considered dangerous.
Not a good example, because this is a health issue, not an environmental one. Cigarettes are proven dangerous, and tobacco smokers cost the taxpayers a fortune in public health costs. Pot smoking is a different matter entirely, with most of the research to date showing it doesn't carry the same health risks.
Quote:
Regulate the farmers but allow the old sewage systems to sit in disrepair.
I don't know what you are referring to here.
Quote:
Can you understand why some view the Green movement as hypocritical?
How is anything you mentioned hypocritical? Are you sure you know what the word means?
And besides, who is this "Green Movement" some of y'all keep mentioning? You make it sound like there's some homogeneous bunch of people who hang out together and do stuff, but from what I've seen there is no single bucket you can put people in, or not even a dozen buckets you can put people in just because they share some of the same environmental concerns. There are all kinds of different viewpoints on everything.
Quote:
This week I was reading a blog encouraging living off the grid. The same blog included comments about their cars and traveling as tourists (by plane). I had to read the article again because I couldn't believe what they wrote. The blog made the people come off as yuppies living a pretend life.
Stop. That's just too much muddled thinking to ignore. First, the blog guy is a guy, not a movement. And from what you said, he sounds like a bonehead. You see, there are all kinds of people with environmental concerns... some young and some old... some rich and some poor... some knowledgeable and some uninformed... some bright and some stupid. They are all the different kinds of people there are, but they simply share a concern that the planet is getting trashed and we need to do something about it. And no, they don't even all agree on how we can make it better. But when one says or does something that seems inconsistent with what they are committed to, remember, that's just an individual, not a representative of a whole group.
Quote:
Again, can you understand why some legislation comes off as being too dictatorial from a special interest group that many can't respect?
What special interest group? Why can't you respect "them"? What did "they" do to you? See what I mean? Generalizations don't work. It's all just people.
I tell you what... as a first step, stop referring to people with concerns about the environment as "greeners" or "tree-huggers" or whatever your favorite label is, because no such group exists
Banning wood burning fireplaces and stoves because they are making the air unbreathable right there is something the local city government can deal with. Trying to close polluting coal plants is considerably more complicated, and has to be dealt with on a state or federal level, especially with the coal industry spending a fortune to oppose every measure to cut back the pollution they cause.
Yes, the wood-burning fireplace ban has made a significant difference in the Denver metro's air quality, along with strict vehicle emissions testing. We are all breathing easier because of it. I'm am absolutely a supporter of these initiatives, even when they are an inconvenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
And besides, who is this "Green Movement" some of y'all keep mentioning? You make it sound like there's some homogeneous bunch of people who hang out together and do stuff, but from what I've seen there is no single bucket you can put people in, or not even a dozen buckets you can put people in just because they share some of the same environmental concerns. There are all kinds of different viewpoints on everything.
Yes. I don't claim to be perfect. For every area in which I make progress, there are a dozen more where I'd like to do better, but I do what I can given my individual priorities and resources. I do not consider that hypocritical or wasted effort.
Last edited by randomparent; 10-03-2014 at 08:33 AM..
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,584 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Actually, the garbage disposal is related because people will make it related. Whenever some law or rule is imposed, a segment of the population will use alternative means to get around it. It is human nature.
Treating waste as different problems because some goes into the sewer and some goes to landfill is the reason problems like this are really solved.
What the green groupies never do (at least it's never been exhibited) is to create or support a comprehensive solution. That is because they never seem to be able to identify the problem.
The problem is food waste or; wasted food. If you address only one aspect of a problem, the problem remains, you've accomplished nothing other than to offload the impact from one area and put it elsewhere.
The problem being cited through, publicly by the very people in charge of enforcing the law, is methane. Food goes into the landfill and through decomp, generates methane. Where have we heard that before? Yes, with cows! Too many cows are farting and that generates lots of methane and holy bat Guano, methane is a greenhouse gas and we can't have any of that.
But what the heck, if it goes down the sewer, that is a different problem right? No it isn't. The source of the material is the same, why not deal with that instead of what goes only into garbage cans?
Stop selling garbage disposals! No garbage disposals, no food waste going into the sewers. We banned plastic bags so why not garbage disposals? Of course it makes no sense (just for the green groupies who were just waiting for that to be said).
So what is the answer? Who knows? One thing is certain, once the green groupies come up with a solution, count on it creating more problems than it solves.
BTW,in case no looked, guess what a lot of those plastic grocery bags ended up being used for? Yes, holding food waste. Then, because the food waste was in a tidy little bag, it could be discarded into the appropriate receptacle. If the grocery bag was made from recyclable material, two problems would be solved. One, the grocery trash bag. It would be reused and then recycled through decomp along with the waste food matter. Second, the waste food matter would end up where the greeners want it, in the right waste bin. Third, all of that would be composted to generate good stuff with which to help the circle of growing.
Nah, that wouldn't give the green groupies anything to rally around. Better to have more problems than fewer. It helps collect money, gives people excuses to have seminars and sell plastic banners and signs. Oops.
Methane is actually a valuable alternative energy source. Some of the watewater treatment plants, such as EBMUD in Oakland, CA are using it to heat the buildings in winter and to generate power to help run the system. Older landfills are capped and the methane captured and pumped for energy production. Letting it out into the air is a waste of a resource.
Methane is actually a valuable alternative energy source. Some of the watewater treatment plants, such as EBMUD in Oakland, CA are using it to heat the buildings in winter and to generate power to help run the system. Older landfills are capped and the methane captured and pumped for energy production. Letting it out into the air is a waste of a resource.
A relative of my husband, who runs a dairy in PA, received a grant to install a digester more than two decades ago. The energy it creates allows them to live entirely off the grid. I'm glad to see progress in this area.
Last edited by randomparent; 10-03-2014 at 08:33 AM..
It's clear that you are confused, because there was nothing "disrespectful" in that OP.
It was a "meta" comment, referring to the latest instance in a rush of negative, critical, bashing posts... the only kind the OP seems to post here. Notice that he fell right into the same pattern right after my response. And he does keeps straining the gnats...
Quote:
In addition, let's chuck the "you're bashing if you disagree with me" nonsense.
Personally I would never stoop to such a childish level, although obviously the OP frequently leans on that complaint. Apparently he sees disagreement with his comments to be a personal attack, while slinging insults around at others with abandon.
I have no problem with any respectful discussion about problems or issues with various environmental actions or proposals. But when every comment here contains mean-spirited slams about people who are concerned with the environment, it cumulatively adds up to a pattern of ridicule that I find offensive, and as far as I'm concerned it is counter to the spirit of the Green Living forum.
But maybe that's just me. I think intelligent people can have polite, respectful debate about anything without name-calling or insults. But there does seem to be a shortage of people here who agree with me on this.
Those demanding other follow rules never seem to be able to take their own advice.
The Seattle food waste rules and laws are a waste of public money. The government has no business telling anyone what to throw away and how to do it if the people are paying for someone to sort it.
That is one of the things few think about. As part of the mandate to have trash pickup, private companies are hired to haul away the waste. When they got the contracts, they agreed to sort the trash. In other words, people pay for trash pick up and the company doing so agrees to pick it up and also to sort it and then implement the final disposal of said trash.
That is great except now the contract is being changed and no one had anything to say about it. If the contract changes, fine, then renegotiate the fees charged to people who are now paying for something they aren't getting.
In the name of the environment, fees have be placed on all kinds of services and good sold without any renegotiation of the implied or written contracted prices.
It is one thing to charge customers for a service but quite another when some part of that service is shoved back to the customer but still charge them as if it were being performed. In the name of the environment though, few will stand up and complain.
Should people sort their trash, especially food waste? Sure, there is nothing wrong with that expectation until you realize that those same people are already paying someone else to do just that. If paying for something you don't get is okay with you, have at it but don't expect everyone to drink the koolaide because it comes in a green glass.
If people are required to sort their own trash, then why are they still paying the same rates as before? There is now less labor involved on the part of the the trash collector so aren't they being enriched through the labor contribution of residents for which they pay nothing? Are the residents now workers for the trash collection companies? That is the effect of these laws and regulations.
Now, under penalty of a fine, people are required to do the work that they are paying someone else to do.
Reduce the rates people pay for trash pickup then. What is the problem with that? I'll tell you: the problem is that there would be less money going into the pockets of some. We all hear the complaints about how the rich keep getting richer. I have absolutely no problem with wealth multiplication except when government is the one that implements the means by which that happens without regard for the very people who also pay for that government.
Ask yourself, can you go to work, tell your employer that instead of doing a certain task that you will not longer do that and instead they will have to do it themselves and that you still demand the same rate of pay? How does that work?
Those demanding other follow rules never seem to be able to take their own advice.
The Seattle food waste rules and laws are a waste of public money. The government has no business telling anyone what to throw away and how to do it if the people are paying for someone to sort it.
That is one of the things few think about. As part of the mandate to have trash pickup, private companies are hired to haul away the waste. When they got the contracts, they agreed to sort the trash. In other words, people pay for trash pick up and the company doing so agrees to pick it up and also to sort it and then implement the final disposal of said trash.
That is great except now the contract is being changed and no one had anything to say about it. If the contract changes, fine, then renegotiate the fees charged to people who are now paying for something they aren't getting.
In the name of the environment, fees have be placed on all kinds of services and good sold without any renegotiation of the implied or written contracted prices.
It is one thing to charge customers for a service but quite another when some part of that service is shoved back to the customer but still charge them as if it were being performed. In the name of the environment though, few will stand up and complain.
Should people sort their trash, especially food waste? Sure, there is nothing wrong with that expectation until you realize that those same people are already paying someone else to do just that. If paying for something you don't get is okay with you, have at it but don't expect everyone to drink the koolaide because it comes in a green glass.
If people are required to sort their own trash, then why are they still paying the same rates as before? There is now less labor involved on the part of the the trash collector so aren't they being enriched through the labor contribution of residents for which they pay nothing? Are the residents now workers for the trash collection companies? That is the effect of these laws and regulations.
Now, under penalty of a fine, people are required to do the work that they are paying someone else to do.
Reduce the rates people pay for trash pickup then. What is the problem with that? I'll tell you: the problem is that there would be less money going into the pockets of some. We all hear the complaints about how the rich keep getting richer. I have absolutely no problem with wealth multiplication except when government is the one that implements the means by which that happens without regard for the very people who also pay for that government.
Ask yourself, can you go to work, tell your employer that instead of doing a certain task that you will not longer do that and instead they will have to do it themselves and that you still demand the same rate of pay? How does that work?
You make a good point, it's similar to picking out items in the store and placing them in bags and other containers and then being charged for the weight of the item plus the bag/container weight. As far as plastic bags go, I choose not to take one, if they want to charge me a nickle for not using one go head.
You make a good point, it's similar to picking out items in the store and placing them in bags and other containers and then being charged for the weight of the item plus the bag/container weight. As far as plastic bags go, I choose not to take one, if they want to charge me a nickle for not using one go head.
If you bring your own container or bag and have it assigned a tare weight, which is what I do, you are charged only for the contents.
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.
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.
It's clear that you are confused, because there was nothing "disrespectful" in that OP. 
