Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Green myths (part 1)

You probably know about how we are in the verge of ruining this beautiful planet, how our cars are destroying the air of the earth and contribute to global warming or how recycling is vital for the environment so those poor trees won't be cut down and this way we will save the Amazon that in a few years won't exist anymore and many many more "facts" like these...
I have some great news for you my loyal reader... Let me shower you with some truths and then feel free to search the interwebz to see if I tell the truth and who lies to you all this time. Planet Earth is safe and humans are not so dumb as to destroy it. Some plastic bottles won't make a difference and as George Carlin said, plastic might explain the old philosophical question, "why we are here?" Planet Earth might needed plastic so that's why it made us.

As for all those people running around complaining about how we destroy our planet, you chicken little can stop. We know you complain not because you wanna save the planet but so you won't be inconvenienced in the future. The planet has been here for millions of years and you think we are a threat? Again I quote George Carlin and say to ask those people that are frozen into time in Pompeii if they feel like a threat to the planet or the people that build their houses near rivers or the sea and when they water starts rising above the house, ask them again if they feel like a threat to the planet on their rooftop.

So let's see some common green myths that terrorize you:

Hybrid cars are as friendly to the environment as I am Batman...
Every little green man, from celebrities to environmentalists drive hybrids because they are environmentally friendly right? Let's see some facts:
You will use less fuel choosing an efficient diesel model, which will have correspondingly less emissions, than if you have a hybrid model, which will maybe use a bit more fuel than you expect. A Toyota Prius, for example, (that is the only car that aerodynamically if you open the door while you drive it might tip over by the way) will have zero emissions in the city but when it gets out on the open road it's a different story. When you are going at higher speeds, it has got a small petrol engine and it is quite a heavy car, so you end up working that engine very hard and using a lot of fuel. RTFM... Read the friggin manual before you buy it!

You think I am done? Please continue reading.  
The current battery packs used by hybrids are nickel-metal hydride ones. Nickel mining in Canada has damaged the environment already. Aside from the mining process, the nickel is transported from one point of the globe to another until it reaches Japan where Prius units are assembled. In the shipping alone, the energy requirement balloons because of the fuel used by container ships and locomotive used.
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed
Also because hybrids don't use much fuel people do drive them more so... take some time and do the math... I ll be here...

 Recycling is next or how to pay more than once for something you bought. I mean you buy a cell phone... you use it... and then you recycle it and then it becomes a frying pan or whatever and what you do? you pay for it again! Doesn't sound like a good deal...

Recycling is simply the transfer of producer responsibility for what they produce to the taxpayer who has to pick it up and take it away.
The Keep America Beautiful campaign started a few years after the introduction of disposable bottles in the early 1950s. Soon bottles were everywhere and states were considering bans on disposables. So American Can, Owens-Illinois and Coke got together to basically invent the concept of litter. They said "packages don't litter, people do." (sound familiar?)
Now again I will let you think about what this means...
8 billion dollars are given (from taxes) for recycling... I bet you can give these to save some people instead of the environment. And when we have no more starving people we can also try to save the environment... that needs no saving.
So instead of recycling maybe the companies can find ways to make packages and everything else from materials that don't fuck up the environment. How? I don't care it's their job, not mine. Maybe we can spare some more billions on that cause after we feed everyone?
Also recycling materials need recycling factories, recycling vehicles, water to clean the recycling materials and ... *drumroll* energy! So as an idea it's pretty good... But that's probably all it can be.
Paper doesn't come from the Amazon. It comes from tree farms that trees are planted for that reason. To become paper. What fool would travel to the Amazon and back to just farm wood for paper. Do you know where the wood from your furniture came from? Do some research.

The only things to recycle are glass bottles and aluminum cans

To be continued...