On 2 Sep 2007 at 19:48, Robert Seeberger wrote: > I suspect that minimizing pollution from energy generation is a more > immediately achievable goal. Industrial and manufacturing sources > entail a much greater dedication in that it means much greater changes > to our lifestyles.
No, not really. The first means, bluntly, nuclear power plants. 5-6 years minimum to build those. A good degree of industrial polloution is controllable by regulation of acceptable levels and helping companies set up sustainable processes - for example, recovering valuable but toxic metals used in catalysts like silver is often cost-neutral, but could come with a tax break which makes it revenue-producing and thus attractive to shareholders. There's also a huge case for rubbish sorting plants rather than expecting everyone to sort their waste to a great degree. It simply doesn't happen as-expected. For example, trial pay-as-you-throw systems have ended up with reduced recycling rates and increased poloution, as a LOT more people then use small "garden incinerators*" to ash organics, paper, cardboard etc... not to mention increased dumping and tipping of waste, and so on. (*burning this sort of waste is only a good idea, environmentally, when you do it at a rubbish sorting plant, for power) AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
