Great points, I think Robert missed the original question also...
"What is a solution to the Greenhouse effect?" or "What can we do to fix
the Greenhouse effect?"
If your solution to the Greenhouse effect has the word "recycle" in it,
lets just use a better synonym "procrastinate" instead of the word recycle.
I dont mind pushing the problem on a few hundred generations. I wont
even bring up Social Security, but this list is so off topic all the
time its fun. Dont know how we get any work done.
Jason Hall wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roberto Mello wrote:
You seem to have this thought that recycling only has to do with
"greenhouse gases" and associated levels of carbon in the atmosphere.
My understanding (and if that's flawed, please enlighten me) recycling of the
most common materials (glass, aluminum, paper) saved quite a bit of energy
and raw materials. Most energy we get right now comes from fossil fuels.
Seems to be a win to me.
The only problem is the process of recycling most of these materials
uses more energy and other resources than is saved. While I would love
recycling to be efficient (and with better technology some types can
become that way) for now almost all forms of recycling are actually more
detrimental to the environment than pillaging areas for new sources of
materials.
- --
Jayce^
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
