Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mandatory Composting in San Francisco. Also, Mandatory Birkenstock Purchasing.
Remember the '80s, that golden time when a garbage barge cruised
from New York to Belize and back, looking for a place to dump its
load? What turned out to be a jurisdictional
dispute with some bad PR management nonetheless delivered
symbolism too good to pass up, and wound up igniting fears that we
were running out of space for our trash.
Thus, the vogue for recycling took off. Children everywhere came home from school and nagged their parents to "reuse, reduce, recycle." (Sorry mom, I know that was probably really annoying). Eventually, though, recycling became more like a civic duty and less like a moral imperative.
But now 1980s fashions are back, and it was only a matter of time before landfills became our enemies again:
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish. The city eventually wants to eliminate waste at landfills by 2020.
Not to worry, though. The city of San Francisco is on the case! And this time, it's even grosser than rinsing out your tuna cans:
San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation. Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for compost—everything from banana peels to coffee grounds.
Next step: Night soil collection?
|6.12.09 @ 11:53AM|#
"San Francisco this week passed a mandatory composting law that
is believed to be the strictest such ordinance in the nation.
Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash bins,
including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for
compost-everything from banana peels to coffee grounds."
That makes me so angry I can't even type a post about it. Liberals
are not your friends and are not nice people.
shecky|6.12.09 @ 11:58AM|#
For fuckssakes, John, is there anything you won't shit your
pants over?
Plenty of places have three color coded trash bins already, with
the yard waste bin being a de facto compost bin.
|6.12.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into
methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system,
collected scraps will be turned into compost. . .
Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If
decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won't decomposing in
your backyard do the same?
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.12.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Can anyone direct me to a good study of the utility of
recycling?
The impression I've always had is that for anything other than
aluminum it's a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling.
Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I've never looked at
anything rigorous demonstrating that.
|6.12.09 @ 12:01PM|#
"Plenty of places have three color coded trash bins already,
with the yard waste bin being a de facto compost bin."
And it is a total imposition on people's freedom and privacy. Fuck
you. My garbage, what I eat and what I throw away is none of your
damned business. If George Bush wanted to search everyon's garbage
in the name of stopping terrorism, you would go bizerk. But if
liberals want to do it in the name of making a meaningless and
stupid gesture about global warming, you are a ok. People like you
are unworthy of your freedoms. I guess that is why you are losing
so many of them. It would be funny if you weren't taking mine with
you.
|6.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#
This is pretty much having your asinine roommate, who thinks he
knows everything about the environment despite having no scientific
training, dictate your behaviour to you.
Par for the course for San Francisco then.
Zeb|6.12.09 @ 12:06PM|#
John, really? This is the thing that is going to make you go apoplectic today? I mean for one thing, this is San Francisco, so this is probably the least crazy and restrictive thing they have done this week.
|6.12.09 @ 12:09PM|#
I visited PEI (in Canada) last Christmas and was appalled to see
that they have four bins. Paper recycling, metal recycling,
compost, and trash that is none of the above (I tended to throw my
used tissues in there).
It was nice to come back to the US where I didn't have to sort my
trash beyond removing the pop cans.
I should have known that I would have only had the briefest of
respites...
shecky|6.12.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Yes, John. It a total imposition on America's liberty to use
three waste bins rather than one.
Your dementia has gotten the worst of you.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.12.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Eventually, though, recycling became more like a civic duty
and less like a moral imperative.
Among San Franciscans, is there a difference?
|6.12.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won't decomposing in your backyard do the same?
Hush now.
Actually, in a properly covered and sealed landfill organic matter
does not decompose. Or it can be allowed to decompose and
with proper venting the methane gas can be collected and used for
fuel, although sewage treatment plants are a better source. Some
sewage treatment plants run almost entirely on power generated with
the methane gas they produce.
I'm not really sure about how much usable methane can be collected
from a landfill. And I'm too lazy to look it up.
JB|6.12.09 @ 12:11PM|#
shecky, yes, that's what the word 'mandatory' means. It is an
imposition on liberty.
How about I make it mandatory that you stop being a fuckbag?
|6.12.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Fascitis, this article might go some way to answer your
questions. Apparently, Minnesota actually makes a profit off its
recycling, although less so nowadays due to reduced amounts of
lucrative newsprint in the recyling stream.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/36569/newspapers-recycling-newsprint
Punk|6.12.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Ok, lemme make sure I understand...
If we don't eat the food and throw it out, it ends up in a landfill
and causes methane evilness.
If we eat all the food, we "evacuate" it causing methane gas. (I'm
sure we can argue about a bean to methane ratio and then regulate
them separately)
If we compost it, evil again.
So, I guess the answer is to not grow any food or eat it. That
works.
|6.12.09 @ 12:14PM|#
John, relax. I'm almost always on your side around here, but
this is not that big a deal. For one thing, SF has had the
three-bin system for years: blue for recyclable, green for
compostable, black for remaining garbage. The system is not new the
way the article says. What's new are the fines.
Also, KMW's dates are off: not counting the recycling pushes for
the major wars, the modern trend began in the late '60s and took
off in the '70s.
|6.12.09 @ 12:15PM|#
If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won't
decomposing in your backyard do the same?
Sure, but if you have to go to a lot of pointless effort, you have
the right to feel morally superior to those environment hating Bush
voters who guiltlessly just send their garbage to the landfill.
Dello|6.12.09 @ 12:16PM|#
@Isaac--"Some sewage treatment plants run almost entirely on
power generated with the methane gas they produce."
My wife's father spent his career in waste water treatment, and as
it turns out MOST plants in the US are 75% or more power
self-sufficient.
Oh, and Seattle has had the 3 can system for months already.
|6.12.09 @ 12:16PM|#
By the way in the Italian towns I've been in they have no
individual trash collection. Residents are required to carry their
waste to public waste stations, one every few blocks or so, and
deposit it in the various bins.
There are separate bins for each color of glass as well as metals
and paper and so on.
We've got a long way to go before we reach that level of
regimentation.
Jordan|6.12.09 @ 12:18PM|#
(Sorry mom, I know that was probably really annoying)
KMW - 19 years old?
I had the same experience as her and I'm 25.
How about I make it mandatory that you stop being a fuckbag?
That's a bridge too far.
T|6.12.09 @ 12:19PM|#
I'm so glad I live in a suburb of Houston. We will be the last place in America to give a rat's ass about any recycling beyond a purely voluntary effort.
|6.12.09 @ 12:20PM|#
Thanks for the number, Dello. I didn't want to overstate the case but I though it was somewhere in that neighborhood.
Tim|6.12.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic
material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won't
decomposing in your backyard do the same?
Yes, and at least in a landfill they can burn the methane in gas
turbines, converting to CO2, which while a greenhouse gas is much
less potent than CH4, and getting some free energy out of it.
shecky|6.12.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Garbage collection is virtually mandatory in just about every
city in the country. Yes, that's why Americans are falling to
slavery. What Would John Galt Do?
C'mon you guys. The crazyness around these parts is just getting
too thick. Or maybe it's the stench of that uncollected waste that
you freedom loving refuseniks are hoarding from Obama bin Lyin's
prying eyes.
Jordan|6.12.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Garbage collection is virtually mandatory in just about every city in the country.
If you mean sorting your garbage, then I'm going to need a
link.
eutocius|6.12.09 @ 12:27PM|#
@John - yeah, your garbage and what you do with it is your business. once you decide to pay the city to carry it off and store it for you, it's theirs.
|6.12.09 @ 12:28PM|#
My apartment building in Seattle has just started (purely
voluntary) composting. The thing is, it doesn't make much sense. It
still releases methane, and then it has to still be transported
from here to somewhere that will use it such as a farm or a
vineyard.
If people want to do it voluntarily, that's cool, but please don't
pretend it's anything but purely symbolic and possibly even
counterproductive, if your goal is to reduce greenhouse gases. One
garbage truck going to the dump uses a lot less gas than several
trucks going to multiple farm/vineyard locations.
|6.12.09 @ 12:29PM|#
And it is a total imposition on people's freedom and privacy. Fuck you. My garbage, what I eat and what I throw away is none of your damned business.
Who owns the landfill? You?
If you don't throw your trash into a landfill, where will you put
it? In my yard? Your yard? Will I have to smell it? Will the flies
it attracts come into my house? If you keep it in your yard and I
live right next to it, then it's my business.
If you send it to a landfill, then it's the landfill owner's
business how you deliver it to them.
|6.12.09 @ 12:30PM|#
If you mean sorting your garbage, then I'm going to need a
link.
Garbage sorting wasn't even mandatory in my Kommune (kind of like a
county) in Denmark when I was there. I did however keep my beer
cans for my highly impressive beer pyramid.
|6.12.09 @ 12:33PM|#
"I mean for one thing, this is San Francisco, so this is
probably the least crazy and restrictive thing they have done this
week."
I can't really argue with that. But it kinda proves my point.
As far as the points about who owns the landfill, this applies to
everyone. I ought to be able to contract with my own landfill
operator and not have the government telling me what to do with my
food.
Beyond that, as pointed out above, this is a pointless gesture. Is
it the end of the world? No. But it is one step closer to a world
where what we eat, what temp we keep our thermostat, what car we
drive, what clothes we wear and nearly every other personal
decision we have is made by the government, which is of course
exactly what the people behind this measure want to happen.
|6.12.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Actually, Tim, burning CH4 is going to give you a hell of a lot
of water vapor too.
And of course, water vapor's harmless.
No, wait, some scientists think water vapor's an even worse green
house gas than CO2.
And we thought CO2 was harmless for years, too.
:)
For what it's worth, all of my food scraps go in a compost heap. A
few months and I get the nicest organic fertilizer you could
want.
It's not a religion, just something that lowers my gardening
budget. And something that I think kinda needs to stay
voluntary.
|6.12.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Water vapor is in equilibrium with liquid water. You're not going to increase the total water vapor content of the global atmosphere (for very long) by simply pumping out water vapor. It will eventually condense and no longer be a GHG.
|6.12.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Also, for what it's worth, Seminole County, Florida has one of
the most extensive recycling programs in the state. It's also the
most Republican dominated.
They look like a bunch of hippies compared to their Democrat run
neighbour, the City of Orlando.
And of course Florida's state government is one of the most
Republican in the nation and recycling is mandated for every local
government.
As note above some barely meet the minimum requirements.
Oh, good point, Oatwhore. Hmmm, what an interesting name.
Rhywun|6.12.09 @ 12:56PM|#
I've never understood why garbage can't be separated at some central location rather than forcing residents to do it much less productively. It really seems to me to more about the "feel good" effect than anything else.
Mike Laursen|6.12.09 @ 12:58PM|#
The impression I've always had is that for anything other
than aluminum it's a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling.
Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I've never looked at
anything rigorous demonstrating that.
There was a decent market for shipping scrap paper overseas to be
used in packaging, but it's been hurt by the current recession.
|6.12.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas. Under the new system, collected scraps will be turned into compost that helps area farms and vineyards flourish.
by decomposing and relesing methane gas.
I know others have already pointed the above out, but one would
thing that the fucking newspaper would point it out to their
(mostly) sciece illiterate readers.
And Isaac has it right. When I had a yard, I did composting for the
exact same reason. It's free fertilizer. It should be
voluntary.
If nobody has been caught stealing compost yet, I'd be
surprised.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Jesus, these are the kinds of bullshit things that make us smart folks on the left cringe. It must be how Palin makes smart folks on the right cringe (when they're not jerking off to her swimsuit pics...)
Hacha Cha|6.12.09 @ 1:05PM|#
why aren't they capturing and selling the methane like some landfills currently do?
|6.12.09 @ 1:07PM|#
I've never understood why garbage can't be separated at some central location rather than forcing residents to do it much less productively.
That's how Seminole County does it. You get one bin. You can
request additional ones, but they're all the same color.
Green.
Some other local governments have two, one for paper and one for
bottles and cans.
There was a decent market for shipping scrap paper overseas to be used in packaging, but it's been hurt by the current recession.
At one point that was about the only thing in the shipping
containers on those ships going back to China, from what I've
heard.
|6.12.09 @ 1:11PM|#
but one would thing that the fucking newspaper would point it out to their (mostly) sciece illiterate readers.
I suspect that most journos are not that much more science literate
that their readers.
[gratuitous cheap shot]Especially ones that write articles about
recycling.[/gratuitous cheap shot]
|6.12.09 @ 1:20PM|#
MNG, I have come to believe that a sensible recycling program
has a place in any well run waste management program. Some
practices make more sense some places than others, and some are
just stupid anywhere. Composting and/or mulching yard waste makes
sense, food scraps don't make the cut. Except as noted above for
the individual gardener willing to do the work.
For better or worse waste management in any urban or suburban area
has become a government function, for public health reasons among
others.
Contracting out the collection and haulage will probably reduce
costs but I accept the fact that it will still be goverment run in
the end.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 1:23PM|#
So, to echo a few others, I don't understand how this reduces
the amount of methane which is produced by the decomposition of
food scraps.
MNG,
I would imagine that this ordinance will have a lot of people
buying food disposal units.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 1:25PM|#
Isaac,
For better or worse waste management in any urban or suburban
area has become a government function, for public health reasons
among others.
I don't see any reason why such services can't be run privately,
and run by multiple entities to boot.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Seward
I don't want to speak for Isaac, but perhaps the government should
supply some kind of mandate or inducement and then private firms
should compete to actually do it...
Gimlet|6.12.09 @ 1:27PM|#
Eight years ago, my wreched ex-spouse moved to Ess Eff expecting
utopia.
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, stupid bitch.
Gimlet|6.12.09 @ 1:28PM|#
"Residents will be required to have three color-coded trash
bins, including one for recycling, one for trash and a new one for
compost-everything from banana peels to coffee grounds."
I wonder how much oil and energy went into the making of all those
extra bins?
Seward|6.12.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Isaac,
Also, I have personal experience of garbage services being
exclusively run by private entities.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 1:29PM|#
It's not that I am against this sort of thing, but mandating it
is what turns a lot of normally pre-disposed folks off to this sort
of thing.
I think maybe incentive programs might be better...
Tony\'s Roommate|6.12.09 @ 1:30PM|#
"This is pretty much having your asinine roommate, who thinks he
knows everything about the environment despite having no scientific
training, dictate your behaviour to you."
Fuckin' tell me about it...
|6.12.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Hang on a minute. Compost is just decomposed organic material. If decomposing in a landfill releases methane, won't decomposing in your backyard do the same?
Only if you do it wrong. Methane is produced by anaerobic bacteria
such as would be present in a landfill. But, if the city is running
a properly aerated compost pile it should greatly reduce methane
emissions.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 1:32PM|#
erm, an incentive program, while ostensibly less forceful, still
forces people to subsidize what are essentially futile
efforts.
This provision is offensive on two bases: it forces people (that's
one) to engage in futile, feel-good efforts (that's two), under
penalty of the law.
An incentive program would only negligibly solve the latter, but
not really.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 1:33PM|#
Oh, I almost forgot to say that Penn & Teller did a great episode on recycling. As I recall they did one of their "studies" and they were able to get at least some people to sort their waste into like eight or ten bins.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 1:44PM|#
TAO
Is this part of your "since we can't make India and China do
anything it's stupid for us to do anything" line of thought?
Forty-Two|6.12.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Gimlet,
It's been 8 years. Time to let go of that anger. Learn to love
again.
|6.12.09 @ 1:54PM|#
I don't see any reason why such services can't be run privately, and run by multiple entities to boot.
Political inertia is the primary reason. There is still a strong
attachment to the notions of natural monopolies and economies of
scale.
One loses one's outrage at government when one has well run
municipal services.
Of course, the Sherriff is still a prick. But he runs his
department better than most. And absent the WOD and every other
nanny intrusion that has resulted in the criminalization of just
about everything he and his deputies would likely be splendid
fellows (and ladies).
I try to save my outrage for real abuses. I tend to find the antics
of hippies in San Fransissyco (as my former boss whose mother an
sister live there calls it) mildly amusing.
I saw the P&T episode. I really like Penn but his humor does, -
how can one say it? - tend to be less than subtle.
And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to
reduce costs. If it doesn't reduce costs, it's not worth it.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 1:59PM|#
MNG - no, I'm just saying that a subsidy for a sorting program
at the central level isn't terribly different from a mandatory yet
decentralized sorting program. And incentivizing people to do this
at the user level is essentially building artificial costs that
(surprise!) would penalize the poor, who have less time on their
hands to sort their own refuse.
I mean, it's gotta start somewhere...
That's a good rationale for rights and ending unjust institutions.
I don't see CO2 production as inherently immoral or even
immediately (or even long-term!) imperiling, threatening or
aggressive.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Isaac,
I think by political inertia you probably mean all the lessons of
public choice economics.
And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to
reduce costs. If it doesn't reduce costs, it's not worth
it.
Well local and county governments involve themselves in all sorts
of costly things that don't reduce costs. I like how I heard
recently PJ O'Rourke put it (and here I paraphrase), it isn't that
local government is any better than the federal government, it is
that the former is easier to run away from. :)
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:02PM|#
"I don't see CO2 production as inherently immoral or even
immediately (or even long-term!) imperiling, threatening or
aggressive."
Yea, I know, but no offense if the majority of Americans go with
all those hard science guys that disagree and not with the law
student on this one!
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:05PM|#
*eyeroll*. I mean to the level of doing anything about it. It is not sufficiently imperiling, threatening or aggressive to lead to the inevitable limiting of production, trade wars and possible, actual wars.
|6.12.09 @ 2:05PM|#
I think by political inertia you probably mean all the lessons of public choice economics.
Yeah, that's it.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:06PM|#
"a subsidy for a sorting program at the central level isn't
terribly different from a mandatory yet decentralized sorting
program"
I see your point, but I see important differences between a program
where I can refuse and lose out on some benefit and one where
refusal is met with a punishment. One doesn't give me extra, the
other takes from what I got...
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:07PM|#
MNG,
Well, I myself am not particularly comfortable with thousand and
hundred year predictions. Indeed, it was similarly complicated
mathematical modeling by regulators and banks that made similar
predictions about the nature of bank assets that was part of the
problem with financial sector's troubles. A lot of that modeling
included things like thousand and four thousand year risk
predictions.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:08PM|#
by the way, the majority of Americans
agree with me. There are other, more pressing problems. Global
warming ranks dead last.
I see important differences between a program where I can refuse and lose out on some benefit and one where refusal is met with a punishment. One doesn't give me extra, the other takes from what I got
Except that the "benefits" have to be funded by somebody, and they
will be funded by people who "refuse" to participate, meaning that
it's "taking from what you got" anyway.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:08PM|#
Well, saying that it's not worth wars is not to say its not
worth taking some measures to limit it.
Getting China to follow our copyright laws is not worth a war in my
book, but I'm all for the many lesser options available to get them
to do so...
alan|6.12.09 @ 2:09PM|#
when they're not jerking off to her swimsuit
pics...
I would but I can't get her voice out of my head long enough to
sprout a sapling, if you know what I mean.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:10PM|#
MNG,
So, that would be my primary complaint with the sort of climate
model predictions I have been seeing. A hundred year prediction on
any subject ought to make one raise an eyebrow or two.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"by the way, the majority of Americans agree with me."
That's nice. But we have even better gauges of public opinion
called 'elections' and the side saying we are going to do something
about all this won the last few...
"they will be funded by people who "refuse" to participate"
But it tends to be spread out, as long as it's less than the
punishment would take, then its better.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:11PM|#
MNG - look at the international kerfuffle over online poker, something arguably not that important in the "overall picture" to your everyday Joe and Joan. We cannot even get nations to agree to that. We cannot get nations to effectively enforce out copyright laws, but you still want to unilaterally decrease American productivity and cross your fingers that China's going to do the same thing.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:13PM|#
Seward
I won't debate the science of it, because ultimately neither you
nor I are qualified to evaluate it worth a hoot.
Policmakers have to canvass expert opinions on these kinds of
things and make choices. They can't always wait for 100% consensus,
not do I want them "figuring it out for themselves."
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:13PM|#
But we have even better gauges of public opinion called 'elections' and the side saying we are going to do something about all this won the last few..
What?! That poll is a poll about where the legislative and
executive priorities ought to be set. It is not enough to say "we
elected Democrats so we give them carte blanche permission
to do anything and everything about global warming."
There are a bevy of reasons why people voted for Democrats last
election. You cannot just look at the election results and draw out
the conclusion that the people gave a mandate to do something about
global warming. The priorities poll puts paid to that.
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:16PM|#
MNG,
Not that public opinion means squat outside of some fairly discrete
areas...
...but what happened in the last two elections doesn't say much
about what most people think about climate change as a priority.
Indeed, that is part of the problem with democracy in a really
large country; it tends to just mow over the diversity of thought
in any coalition to achieve victory, while also putting one faction
of such a coalition in charge once that victory comes about.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:19PM|#
TAO
If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the lower
they are the better. Us cutting back ours makes them lower than
they would be if we had not done so, regardless of what China and
India do. As I said, it's a start.
As for the election, the winners were quite frank about what they
were going to do in this area when they ran, and they are going to
do it. If the people were much opposed they could have voted
otherwise. It must be that even those that think it not important
or don't agree with them must not have had very strong feelings
about it...
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:20PM|#
MNG,
Policmakers have to canvass expert opinions on these kinds of
things and make choices. They can't always wait for 100% consensus,
not do I want them "figuring it out for themselves."
Not to be too cynical, but what policymakers do is look for a
crisis so that it can help them achieve their primary goal;
election or re-election or appointment or re-appointment. This is
why time and time again you see policymakers jump for policies
which can paint them as the good guys, where they can aid discrete
populations, etc.
|6.12.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Yea, I know, but no offense if the majority of Americans go
with all those hard science guys that disagree and not with the law
student on this one!
Not to be too much of a dick, but I wouldn't call climate science
"hard" science though MNG. I mean climate models aren't quite the
same as when I measure some light scattering in my lab ...
|6.12.09 @ 2:22PM|#
The impression I've always had is that for anything other
than aluminum it's a net resource/energy waste to bother
recycling.
A good rule of thumb is this: if the local bums aren't searching
through trash cans looking for the stuff, it is currently not
cost-effective to recycle it. If it was somebody would be buying
it. That being said, I have not put a food item in the trash can
for years; it is too easy to compost and give yourself a
self-righteous pat on the back. It is easier still when you have a
goat farm behind your fence. I can throw the entire Thanksgiving
leftover pile, including turkey carcass over the fence and it will
be gone in minutes.
[Italian] residents are required to carry their waste to public
waste stations, one every few blocks or so, and deposit it in the
various bins.
There are separate bins for each color of glass as well as metals
and paper and so on.
I've been to cities all over the United States that do that.
zoltan|6.12.09 @ 2:23PM|#
If the people were much opposed they could have voted
otherwise. It must be that even those that think it not important
or don't agree with them must not have had very strong feelings
about it.
Bullshit. I'm sure many people voted for Obama thinking he would
stop killing brown people, which figures as far, far worse than
global warming to most people. (Of course, he lied about that, too,
big surprise.)
Seward|6.12.09 @ 2:23PM|#
MNG,
Anyway, as much as I like chatting, I have other stuff to get on
with. Have a better one.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:24PM|#
And ranking action on global warming low as a priority doesn't
mean disagreement on the need to take action in a particular way,
btw.
I wouldn't expect public opinion to be too deep on this, as the
negative consequences of not acting are, as suggested by those who
make this claim, not immediate...That kind of thing tends to
engender lukewarm feelings...
But a good leader can't always be that way. Our leaders have a duty
to protect us from what they, with expert opinion, conclude is a
terrible, but non-immediate, threat.
Of course, in a democracy, not in actual opposition to such action
by the people...But that's not present here.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:27PM|#
dbcooper
I don't think you'd be a dick in saying that, but you wouldn't know
much about what your talking about. The conclusions of these
scientists have been supported by professional science
organizations that we would certainly agree are "hard" scientists
aplenty, and who would know better how to evaluate the claims of
the field of climate science better than anyone here.
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"And of course Florida's state government is one of the most
Republican in the nation and recycling is mandated for every local
government."
Hmm- I might be misunderstanding what you mean by this (unless it's
a recent development), but there are certainly some good-sized
municipalities in FL that don't mandate (or even have) curbside
recycling. St Pete, for one. Unless they instituted it in the last
year or so.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#
If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the lower they are the better.
No, not necessarily. Actually, not at all. Assume that the United
States is able to cut its CO2 production from 22m to 20m (which is
almost a ten percent cut). Not only is that a commensurate 10% cut
production (or increase in the cost of doing business), but that 2m
cut will probably not achieve anything in terms of AGW. If there's
a critical mass of CO2 cuts necessary to achieve a certain goal, it
may be that the 2m cut achieves nothing other than to place the
United States at a competitive disadvantage and a transfer of
wealth from this nation to other nations who haven't undergone such
draconian measures.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 2:33PM|#
The conclusions of these scientists have been supported by professional science organizations that we would certainly agree are "hard" scientists aplenty, and who would know better how to evaluate the claims of the field of climate science better than anyone here.
lol. I'll expect you to defer to the "hard" science of economics
and economists then, from now on.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:37PM|#
If your critical mass theory is true, then yes. At least you
were good enough to use the words "if" and "may."
However, there is a "getting the ball rolling" part to this.
Consider Prohibition. In one sense, towns that declared themselves
dry could have been seen as wasting their time, because other towns
would just increase their drinking, or folks could just drive to
the non-dry town. But the process has to start somewhere. By
declaring your town dry you at least cut down on the drinking that
would have gone on there were it legal there (some people might
decline to drive to the next town, etc). And it illustrates a
change to other towns. It affects public opinion. Sooner you later
a majority of towns are doing it, and then the national government
is in a stronger position to do something...
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Us cutting back ours makes them lower than they would be if
we had not done so, regardless of what China and India do. As I
said, it's a start.
That's not true, if the activity being reduced is an industrial
activity that simply shifts its location.
And "it's a start" is not an argument for action. If you want to
start expropriating property and limiting economic activity, it
damn well better be for an effort that works, or has some
chance of working. If the very models you're relying on to justify
your policy say that your corrective action won't make a damn bit
of difference in the end, then your corrective action is not
justified.
And ranking action on global warming low as a priority doesn't
mean disagreement on the need to take action in a particular way,
btw.
The reverse is also true. Acknowledging that the claims made by
climate scientists have a general scientific validity does not
constitute an endorsement of any and all corrective policies.
|6.12.09 @ 2:39PM|#
Aha MNG, but I am qualified to read the literature and interpret
the quality of the modelling and make qualitative comparisons with
the claims. You are making the logical fallacy of assuming that
since there are "hard" scientists, such as classical physicists,
involved that climate science itself must be a "hard" science. This
is a mistake that many people who do not have much experimental
scientific experience could easily make - it is really an extension
of the argument via authority fallacy.
And their are quite a few eminently qualified fellows who would
agree with my "AGW may very well exist but climate predictions can
be rather dubious and valid publications that do not fit the
established narrative can be overlooked" stance.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:39PM|#
It is quite amusing to see folks here rave about the liberal ignorance of the "findings" of economics, and then turn around and provide such heightened skepticism to the findings of most climate scientists, findings which have been endorsed by pretty much every major scientific professional organization in the developed world...
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 2:41PM|#
"If bad things happen from increased C02 emissions, then the
lower they are the better. Us cutting back ours makes them lower
than they would be if we had not done so, regardless of what China
and India do. As I said, it's a start."
This isn't true. If we push production to China it might actually
result in higher emissions. Beyond that you're completely ignoring
the fact that there might be some trade-offs involved. If cutting
emissions by a certain amount prevents a very small, perhaps
unmeasurable harm, but causes a much larger harm, then it is not
"better", as far as I'm concerned. So, even granting you all your
premises, what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#
By the way, on the topic of the thread, I wasn't able to
determine via a quick Google search whether San Francisco's
residential garbage pickup is municipal or private.
If it's private, then the policy is unjustified and I agree with
John's somewhat heated opposition to it.
If it's municipal, then they can pretty much collect the garbage
any damn way they want, really - that's the downside to empowering
municipalities to provide monopoly services.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"The reverse is also true. Acknowledging that the claims made by
climate scientists have a general scientific validity does not
constitute an endorsement of any and all corrective
policies."
Of course, I hope I've not implied otherwise, as either a normative
or empirical matter.
"if the activity being reduced is an industrial activity that
simply shifts its location."
Sort of a "zero-sum" industrial environment, eh?
"but I am qualified to read the literature and interpret the
quality of the modelling and make qualitative comparisons with the
claims"
Perhaps so, but again, forgive me if I think that the scientific
organizations who have looked at this and come to different
conclusions are right here and you may be wrong...
|6.12.09 @ 2:43PM|#
baldanders
The state has mandated that all municipalities in Florida adopt
recycling programs. The deadline for 75% compliance is something
2020 so if St Pete isn't recycling yet they're just behind everyone
else.
As I have said, the only justification for recycling in my book is
cost reduction and the only incentive should be, your taxes will
bew lower if you recycle.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:45PM|#
"If cutting emissions by a certain amount prevents a very small,
perhaps unmeasurable harm, but causes a much larger harm, then it
is not "better""
Well fucking duh! Do you really think I would find that causing a
much larger harm in order to prevent a very small harm is correct?
The debate is over whether this is the case, and as I've said it's
a debate few here are likely qualified to answer.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Hell, I'd say there is more disagreement among economic analysis over the wisdom of the stimulus than there is over the findings of the IPCC. In fact, there may be more for it than against!
|6.12.09 @ 2:49PM|#
MNG - you have not understood my argument. I am not saying that AGW does not exist. What I am saying is that Climate Sciences are not "hard sciences" such as physics, materials science, etc. It would be a rather bold claim that climate scientists can achieve the level of rigour that the traditional "hard sciences" can achieve in a laboratory setting. This I do not think is a claim made by these scientific organizations you refer to.
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 2:50PM|#
It is quite amusing to see folks here rave about the liberal
ignorance of the "findings" of economics, and then turn around and
provide such heightened skepticism to the findings of most climate
scientists, findings which have been endorsed by pretty much every
major scientific professional organization in the developed
world...
Look, it seems reasonable to me that since planets with different
atmospheres experience different climates, that changing the
composition of the atmosphere has the potential to change the
climate.
But the problem is devising and measuring the performance of a
corrective policy, because then we move pretty strongly into the
realm of the non-falsifiable.
If we take no action and global warming doesn't happen, AGW
advocates can and will just say, "It hasn't happened yet, but it's
about to happen" or "It hasn't happened yet because of that volcano
last year" or "It hasn't happened yet because of the strong El Nino
this year" or whatever. Proof that AGW is occurring to the extent
predicted in the models can be indefinitely deferred.
If we take any particular action and AGW happens anyway, advocates
of increased government power will just say, "Well, we should have
been given more power, so then we would have done 'X', and that
would have made the difference and stopped AGW".
If we take some action or set of actions and AGW doesn't happen,
then AGW advocates will stand up and say, "We're heroes! We stopped
global warming!" but it will be difficult or impossible to say if
their claims are true; we will have no way of ultimately knowing
what the climate would have been if we had not proceeded as we
did.
Do you see the sort of quandary we encounter, once we start trying
to manage a system larger than our own civilization?
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:51PM|#
There's also something to be said about having "clean hands"
yourself (though as a utilitarian it's hard for me to put too much
stock in it).
Refusing to own slaves in the South may have been met with "well,
someone else will just buy those slaves, your refusal won't make a
dent in the overall slave population and you are putting yourself
at a competitive disadvantage", but I would still hope I would have
done so...
Rhywun|6.12.09 @ 2:53PM|#
And, of course, in the end the only reason for recycling is to reduce costs. If it doesn't reduce costs, it's not worth it.
One of the first (and happiest) things Bloomberg did when he got in
office was to cut the number of recycling bins from three to two.
He said the city was losing money by recycling paper and so we're
not gonna do it. That didn't last long. I dunno if he was pressured
to do it by busybodies or if it really became "worth it", but soon
we were back to three bins.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:53PM|#
db
I don't want to get bogged down in a fruitless debate over which
sciences deserve the label hard and which do not. I submit that
certainly the climate sciences are at the very least as "hard" as
the economic sciences upon which libertarians in particular hang so
much on, but my point has been that scientific organizations that
you and I would readily agree are made up of "hard" scientists have
examined the claims and findings of groups like the IPCC and found
them satisfactory....As I said, excuse me if I take their word on
this over dissenters...
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Well fucking duh! Do you really think I would find that
causing a much larger harm in order to prevent a very small harm is
correct?
Yes.
You just openly said that the US should initiate policies that
restrict greenhouse gases, even if it makes no difference to AGW,
and even if other nations don't go along, because it would "get the
ball rolling".
Since doing so would have negative effects on people in the United
States, you did in fact advocate imposing a harm greater than the
harm you prevent. [By definition, since you want to do this even if
it prevents no harm at all.] As a "start".
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:56PM|#
fluffy
You really don't think these concerns were brought up, considered
and rejected for good reason by groups like the IPCC and the many
that agreed with their findings? That all of these diverse
scientists could not "see" that we are dealing with non-falsifiable
claims?
Or maybe they know more than you (or I) whether these are
non-falsifiable claims?
|6.12.09 @ 2:57PM|#
a.. barge cruised from New York to Belize and back, looking
for a place to dump its load?
[insert your dirtiest joke here] [badum-bing] ...why I gotta tell
ya
someone had to go there, although I only went halfway
(thats what she said) [badum-bing]
MNG|6.12.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Wrong fluffy, first, I'm not sure that this is all it will do
(your post as well as TAO's is littered with "ifs" and "buts"), but
secondly if it in fact "gets the ball rolling" then it may address
a greater harm than that which would occur from the measures to be
implemented.
C'mon, that wasn't hard.
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Refusing to own slaves in the South may have been met with
"well, someone else will just buy those slaves, your refusal won't
make a dent in the overall slave population and you are putting
yourself at a competitive disadvantage", but I would still hope I
would have done so...
True, but in that case, the act of owning even one slave,
undertaken by even one person in the world, would have been an evil
it would be worthwhile to undo. And thus any one person freeing his
slaves would be a good.
In the case of AGW, every person's individual production of CO2 is
not an evil it would be worthwhile to undo. If all of
humanity but me died in a plague this year, I could make as much
CO2 as I wanted for the rest of my life and it would not have any
impact on the climate whatsoever. The production of greenhouse
gases is not an individual evil analogous to owning slaves
because AGW is the result of aggregate greenhouse gas production,
not any individual's production.
|6.12.09 @ 3:02PM|#
In Austin, TX, we have single stream recycling. You can fill
your recycling bin with just about anything but plastic bags, pizza
boxes or food scraps. I'm amazed at how soon the bin fills up and
how empty our trash can is.
However, there's a bit of a whoops. We didn't build a recycling
facility so the stuff is trucked hundreds of miles away every other
week.
Keen observation from writer who noted that what street folx are
collecting is a clear sign of what's profitable to recycle.
If gov't wants to raise some big money and help street folx
simultaneously, they'd put a deposit tax (maybe 5 or 10 cents) on
plastic bottles of water. People who buy this stuff (why?) won't
care about a slight price increase. My guess is that the income to
government would far exceed Pigovian taxes on cigarettes.
Every other year or so we plant veggies and thus make a compost
pile. Should I expect to be jailed?
Ah, San Francisco, hub of fascism.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:03PM|#
And this could be said of almost any predicted event we may want
to address. Think of Social Security. Under current projects it is
supposed to be insolvent by some date (let's say 2050, fuck if I
keep up with that). Folks recommend fixing it.
If we take action and it is fixed everyone will say, we fixed it,
when the processes under the projections could have simply
changed.
If we take action and it is not fixed those evil pro-government
types will just say "we needed to take more aggressive
action."
If we take no action and it gets fixed then those bad dudes will
just say "it's just around the corner."
It's an intractable problem involving non-falsifiable claims!
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 3:04PM|#
You really don't think these concerns were brought up,
considered and rejected for good reason by groups like the IPCC and
the many that agreed with their findings? That all of these diverse
scientists could not "see" that we are dealing with non-falsifiable
claims?
Or maybe they know more than you (or I) whether these are
non-falsifiable claims?
The IPCC really doesn't make any claims about changes to prediction
models for AGW based on minor public policy changes. It's not that
precision an instrument. The science is genuine, but it's much more
humble than that.
Wrong fluffy, first, I'm not sure that this is all it will do
(your post as well as TAO's is littered with "ifs" and "buts"), but
secondly if it in fact "gets the ball rolling" then it may address
a greater harm than that which would occur from the measures to be
implemented.
C'mon, that wasn't hard.
Wrong.
You simply don't get to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of any
particular policy by making reference to policy changes that aren't
part of your plan, but which you hope might take place if
people are encouraged by your "start".
That's crap.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:05PM|#
What if it could be shown that in freeing your slaves your
production would simply be "taken up" by those who did not (with
their competitive advantage), who would then export more slaves, in
fact the exact number you freed (since they are taking up your
slack)?
I'd still like to hope I'd not own them.
Given the aggregate realities of CO2 production and its likely
effects, to excessively continue to produce it, knowing it will add
to this aggregate, is a wrong.
|6.12.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Damn. The priests only ever asked you to show up for an hour's
lecture at church on Sunday.
The progressives want us ALL to live in the monastery.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:08PM|#
"You simply don't get to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of any
particular policy by making reference to policy changes that aren't
part of your plan, but which you hope might take place if people
are encouraged by your "start"."
Like the dry town in my example? Were they fools?
They won in the end (well, for a while)
And, as I've said, thats only one reason to support this, the other
is that your ifs and buts are wrong, and decreases by one
industrial nation will not inevitably be offset by matching
increases by others but will lead to actual reductions overall
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:09PM|#
MNG - again, Fluffy dismantled your slavery analogy pretty well.
Individual CO2 production cannot, by definition, be an individual
wrong analogous to slaveholding.
This just is not a case of "every little bit helps" like cancer
donations or something.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Actually throughout much of history ecclesastical courts and such enforced a host of f*cked up priestly laws on the populace on Mon-Sat as well...
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:11PM|#
decreases by one industrial nation will not inevitably be offset by matching increases by others but will lead to actual reductions overall
Again, it is a fact that, absent a drastic cut in CO2 emissions
from the United States, that unilateral action on behalf of the US
will do nothing to solve the problem! You're asking the United
States to damage itself, regardless of what the other "prisoners"
do because confessing is the "right thing to do."
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:11PM|#
I guess I'll just repeat things if folks won't read them:
"Given the aggregate realities of CO2 production and its likely
effects, to excessively continue to produce it, knowing it will add
to this aggregate, is a wrong."
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:13PM|#
I read it the first time, MNG, and I'm disputing it. If the wrong is a global aggregate, it is not demonstrable that an individual nation's contribution to that aggregate is wrong.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:14PM|#
"Again, it is a fact that, absent a drastic cut in CO2 emissions
from the United States, that unilateral action on behalf of the US
will do nothing to solve the problem!"
It is? Where did you learn that? I hate to be the guy asking for
citations, but that's a pretty crucial empirical claim for
resolution of this debate, so citation, puh-leeze (and please, no
AEI or such)
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Really?
If the growing aggregate effect of producing X is going to harm us
all, then it is not wrong for an individual to, knowing that, to
excessively produce X?
That's incredible!
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 3:16PM|#
"They won in the end (well, for a while)"
Really? I mean they might have won in the sense that they were able
to get a policy they wanted enacted as law, but they lost
completely in terms of achieving what they ostensibly wanted to
achieve with that policy. People may well have drunk more, and more
destructively, during Prohibition. And you'll note that the moral
suasion you're so fond of didn't have much effect on Canada.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|6.12.09 @ 3:18PM|#
The impression I've always had is that for anything other than aluminum it's a net resource/energy waste to bother recycling. Depending somewhat on local conditions. But I've never looked at anything rigorous demonstrating that.
Glass goes up and down a lot, but is sometimes cost effective,
too.
I liked swillfredo pareto
heuristic. Those guys have a real incentive to know what pays
at any given time.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Let's assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one
person's use of water excessively will make the water go below the
water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire
supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it
in though.
It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his
car three times a day?
Incredible!
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:21PM|#
"People may well have drunk more, and more destructively, during
Prohibition."
They drank less overall. Liver deaths went down. Etc.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060972610/reasonmagazineA/
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:22PM|#
well, by that logic, the aggregate paying of taxes makes us all
individually responsible for the Iraq War.
Look, most of the IPCC reports I have read state that it's
impossible, absent drastic economic and quality-of-life reductions,
for any one nation, sector or technology to reduce the effects of
global warming.
That just seems like common sense to me.
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Let's assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one person's use of water excessively will make the water go below the water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it in though.
It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his car three times a day?
See, so what you're saying is that if you don't cut down your CO2
production to the lowest possible level, you are individually,
morally responsible because you're adding to the "aggregate". I'll
hold you to that.
Better get off the Internet, dude! You're killing the planet!
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:26PM|#
"well, by that logic, the aggregate paying of taxes makes us all
individually responsible for the Iraq War."
???? That seems , charitably, pretty inapt to the low-water town
situation above...
The Angry Optimist|6.12.09 @ 3:28PM|#
no sir. See, it's not as if your individual taxes are going to pay for the Iraq War, but our aggregate taxation is. Ergo, you are individually contributing to the system, and it is immoral for you to do so.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Just because we are not willing, or able to do everything we
possibly can to address a wrong doesn't mean we should't do
something.
Of course it is immoral to not cut your carbon footprint down,
unless you think that any cuts you make will be for some reason
offset by subsequent increases by others (caused by your decision
to cut them down).
I mean, really, ain't it immoral for that guy to continue to water
his lawn?
If it helps, I can make his water use involved in some courageous
Randian capitalist enterprise...
MNG|6.12.09 @ 3:33PM|#
We pay our taxes under duress.
The dude washing his car three times a day does not. Neither is
they guy who refuses to do something about his carbon
footpring.
This is one of the reasons why it's inapt.
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"They drank less overall. Liver deaths went down. Etc."
That link doesn't have much to say on the subject, though the book
might. Anyway, let me ask you this. Do you think that the net
effects of Prohibition were positive? I think that's a pretty hard
case to make.
Your analogies to water shortages aren't very apposite for a number
of reasons. Among them is the fact that using water is generally
going to reduce the amount of water available by a linear amount.
Another is that a more appropriate question might be "If there's a
water shortage do you think that it would be better to wash your
car three times a day, or to pay someone else to wash it three
times a day." That's really just the tip of the iceberg though. The
only reason to make analogies like this that I can see is to shift
the ground of the debate to one where your arguments have more
merit than they do when discussing carbon emissions.
|6.12.09 @ 3:37PM|#
MNG | June 12, 2009, 3:33pm | #
We pay our taxes under duress.
The dude washing his car three times a day does not. Neither is
they guy who refuses to do something about his carbon
footpring.
It would be easier for me to move to switzerland and pay my taxes
to a neutral country than it would be to meaningfully lower my
carbon footprint.
christy|6.12.09 @ 3:58PM|#
I would expect nothing less from the city of nutjobs. Way, way too much government involved in every aspect of ourlives folks. We need to vote them ALL out, each and every officeholder across the country, next election cycle. They are all, with rare exception, incompetent buffoons and need to go. New mantra: "yes we can - kick them to the curb."
|6.12.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Fluffy, SF garbage and recycling is contracted out to private firms: http://www.sfrecycling.com/
Fluffy|6.12.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Like the dry town in my example? Were they fools?
Yes, they were. On multiple levels.
Let's assume there is a water shortage in the town. No one
person's use of water excessively will make the water go below the
water line (or whatever that point is) and destroy the entire
supply forever. The effects of aggregate excessive use will do it
in though.
It would not be wrong for an individual, knowing that, to wash his
car three times a day?
I favor the use of price as the mechanism to control
consumption for all commodities.
If the guy is willing to continue to pay the increasing price for
water to put on his lawn, that's his business and it is absolutely
not an immoral choice to do so.
In the case of AGW, if a legitimate plan could be put in place with
a realistic chance of making a difference on greenhouse gas
emissions world-wide, I can see myself agreeing to a carbon tax,
if the was equally applied to each and every molecule of
CO2 produced by everyone, with no exemptions, permits,
"cap and trade" schemes, etc. That tax would effectively substitute
for the absent price mechanism to control this externality - AND,
once the tax was in place, if you wanted to just pay the tax and
keep on producing the same amount of carbon as before, it would not
be immoral to do so.
It is? Where did you learn that? I hate to be the guy asking
for citations, but that's a pretty crucial empirical claim for
resolution of this debate, so citation, puh-leeze (and please, no
AEI or such)
Call up any scientist who is a global warming advocate. Ask him if
he can guarantee that global warming will be stopped if,
say, the US cuts its emissions to 75% of its year 2000 total, and
then keeps it there - but specify that you can't give him any data
at all about the emission growth rate in any other country. Try
it.
Forty-Two|6.12.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Call up any scientist who is a global warming advocate. Ask him if he can guarantee that global warming will be stopped if, say, the US cuts its emissions to 75% of its year 2000 total, and then keeps it there - but specify that you can't give him any data at all about the emission growth rate in any other country.
You don't even need the uncertainty of rates in other countries.
The models aren't good enough for anyone to guarantee anything.
BeesInTheBrain|6.12.09 @ 6:49PM|#
@MNG
Most climate scientists? Pretty much every major scientific
professional organizaion? Care to provide your sources for these
statements and the numbers behind them? I for one would prefer to
not turn off my brain and critical reasoning based solely on the
reason that "Three out of Four Scientists recomend Trident for
their patients who chew gum".
Paul|6.12.09 @ 7:31PM|#
Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into
methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas.
And they don't do this in your compost bin.
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 8:12PM|#
"And they don't do this in your compost bin."
Well, what they do in your compost bin isn't really the question.
But it should be noted, for the benefit of a few posters upthread,
that they don't do much of this if they are properly composted. At
the scales I'm familiar with (which range from kitchen refuse to
small industrial, but nowhere near as large as the facilities you'd
need to compost SF's waste stream) you really want your composting
accomplished by aerobic organisms. Basically, this generates a lot
of heat and does a lot of the work of sterilizing the compost for
you. This doesn't generate much methane, but it does generate
CO2.
I have nothing against composting- all other things equal I'm for
it, and I've certainly done a lot of it, and used a lot of it. But
my reasons have nothing to do with GHGs, and I'm not crazy about
the idea of mandating it. I mean- there are a lot of things I think
are good ideas, but if you mandated all of them you'd have a
suffocatingly regulated society.
|6.12.09 @ 8:15PM|#
Paul
Joel H, at 1:32pm, provides and answer to your question.
Seriously, It kind of helps if you read all the
comments.
Dammit, baldanders posted while I was composing my missive, making
the whole thing almost pointless.
baldanders|6.12.09 @ 8:38PM|#
Isaac: well, at least you kind of got me over the FL regulation
issue. I'm glad I qualified that comment as much as I did (I did
kind of have the sinking feeling that you might be discussing a
mandate coming down the pipeline)- I have to admit that I don't pay
much attention to the antics of state governments these days. I
split my time between too many places to pay attention to them
all.
Another commenter above (sorry, too lazy to find out which)
suggested that methane could be captured from landfills. I do know
quite a bit about small to medium scale composting facilities, but
I'm afraid I know less about landfills. Still, my understanding is
that he was correct about that. If that's the case, and if it is
widely done then, purely on the basis of GHGs, mandatory composting
is counter-productive. In any case I find it really hard to believe
that kitchen refuse is a significant source of greenhouse
gases.
BeesInTheBrain|6.12.09 @ 11:38PM|#
Paul
|Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast |and
turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse
|gas.
|
|And they don't do this in your compost bin.
Actually in the first 10-15 year about 75% of food and yard waste
fails to decompose. As Dr. William Rathje, who started The Garbage
Project, states,
"Degradation, next to Santa Claus, is our most popular
myth,"
The argument for composting is that a properly maintained compost
process
produces very little methane. It does however produce CO2,
which the EPA has decided is "biogenic" CO2 (think magic pixie CO2)
and thus shouldn't count as a GHG. Of course that makes it
difficult to compare the creation of GHGs between the two, but hey
how can reality compete with Santa Claus and the Biogenic
Fairy.
baldanders|6.13.09 @ 12:49AM|#
"The argument for composting is that a properly maintained
compost process produces very little methane."
Hmm- well, I think that is a very poor argument for composting. A
much better argument is that we are short of soil amendments that
are as good as compost. Like I said above, compost is generally a
good thing, all other things being equal.
But it's important to recognize that there's no way to get enough
compost to fertilize all our fields. We are able to feed the global
population because we are able to draw on stores of nitrogen that
have been deposited over eons.
Look, I grew up farming organic produce. By MNG's standards none of
you motherfuckers are at all qualified to argue with me. ;) The
thing is that you lose nitrogen over the complete cycle. You get
some back from, of all things, lightning. But you get it back
_slow_.
This is a much bigger issue than global warming, IMHO. Agriculture
is a bitch, from an environmental standpoint, and people who think
that LISA is some sort of cure are fucking delusional. But we have
to eat.. we have to eat. And beyond that, I'm not going to become a
vegetarian. I have to eat meat. Or at least- I'm going to eat
meat.
Mike Laursen|6.13.09 @ 2:09AM|#
I mean, really, ain't it immoral for that guy to continue to
water his lawn?
Who knows. He may have a good reason. Maybe he hosts a soccer
league for orphans every weekend.
OK, that's unlikely, but what you care about in this situation is
aggregate water usage, correct? A great way to do that is to let
the price of water reflect its availability. Most people will use
less of it when it costs more. Sure, there might be a guy here or
there who is buying up a bunch of it, but why should everybody be
so interested in that's guy's ethical standing when he's not having
a significant effect on total water usage?
|6.13.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Yes, please don't call the water police on me as I go out to frolic in my sprinkler with my dragon pal figment and the professor. It's been a long time. I'm coming home.
Caitlin Grey|10.15.09 @ 8:35PM|#
Hi this is Caitlin Grey from Youth Radio in Oakland. We're doing
a story about San Francisco's mandatory composting and we're
trying to find residents of San Francisco with different views
about the new mandate. Would anyone be willing to be interviewed
on this topic? If you are interested please email me at
platenry007@hotmail.com or my producer Charlie at
charlie@youthradio.org, or you can call Youth Radio at
510-251-1101 and ask for me (Caitlin) or Charlie.
Thanks!
Caitlin Grey (Youth Radio)
Leah|10.21.09 @ 2:40PM|#
This makes perfect sense! Bravo San Fran. Cities across Canada have been doing this for years, and with great success.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245