Global Warming

[BoneFreak]

Yes, it's a very 2004 topic, but it's been changing recently. There's tons of new things coming out that are "Eco-Friendly", like eco friendly game casings, and Sun Chips' new less plastic packaging, same with less plastic in water bottles.

My opinion on these new products?
(forgive me Telltale, because your SBCG4AP retail box is the eco friendly one)

Less work and effort on packaging, meaning flimsier packaging. Also, it's a way to spend less money, making big companies keep more of their profits.

In short, global warming seems like a scam to me, almost. Scientists have before went up to Al Gore to say their views (which I agree with them), and also say that Carbon Dioxide doesn't even contribute to "Global Warming". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUDWy6T050)

Your thoughts?

[patters]

It doesn't matter either way. Oil needs to be replaced NOW, otherwise we face an incredible change to our way of life. If we don't use what remains of oil to produce efficient ways of obtaining power other ways we are screwed.

I reckon that there will be a push for nuclear fission, which will later be replaced by fusion as the tech isn't quite there. As for cars, biofuels are probably going to replace petrol.

[BoneFreak]

It doesn't matter either way. Oil needs to be replaced NOW, otherwise we face an incredible change to our way of life. If we don't use what remains of oil to produce efficient ways of obtaining power other ways we are screwed.


I know oil needs to be replaced. But we shouldn't be doing it with vegetable oil or whatever. Sure, it's "Eco Friendly", but with all the cars in the world running on it, our food supply would rapidly decrease.

[roberttitus]

Global Warming was something made up by big business to give Hippies another reason to annoy the hell out of us.

Who says suits don't have a sense of humor....

[BoneFreak]

Holy shit.. I just googled "stop global warming" and found this picture:

http://artsytime.com/img/philosophy/stop-global-warming-and-climate-changes/stop-global-warming-and-climate-changes01.jpg

Are they trying to scare us and make us feel afraid?

[Fealiks]

In my opinion, the general public is in absolutely no position to make claims such as "global warming isn't real" or "global warming will kill us all" before doing extensive research. This means reading studies and research in their original publications (rather than reading about them in magazines and newspapers, which are bound to have a bias).

People often hear about one instance of a study that suggests that global warming isn't much of a problem and conclude "scientists have admitted that global warming is made up" (or the other way round), which is just ill-informed.

[BoneFreak]

In my opinion, the general public is in absolutely no position to make claims such as "global warming isn't real" or "global warming will kill us all" before doing extensive research.

Yes, but now, (since I am on the side that it is fake) scientists might just be blowing off money and time by researching stuff that will end up proving that all that research was pointless.

[patters]

I know oil needs to be replaced. But we shouldn't be doing it with vegetable oil or whatever. Sure, it's "Eco Friendly", but with all the cars in the world running on it, our food supply would rapidly decrease.

Hence why I only believe it will be used for cars, and other power coming from nuclear sources, nuclear power is not suitable for cars, biofuels aren't suitable for power plants.

Edit: Also all of the beliefs that it isn't real are c***, based on earlier studies which examined whether it is caused by humans or not, in the same way the ice ages happened.

[Fealiks]

Yes, but now, (since I am on the side that it is fake) scientists might just be blowing off money and time by researching stuff that will end up proving that all that research was pointless.

The point I'm making is that you should question why you're on the side that it's fake. How much research did you do to lead you to this conclusion?

Also, if you're already on one side then you're bound to be more ready to reject anything that disagrees with you. This is another reason why the general public isn't always fit to make decisions like this. Scientists have to approach things without bias and it's imperative that they don't personally care about the result. This will stop them from making decisions based on their feelings rather than empirical evidence and logic.

Another thing to just point out: researchers wouldn't be wasting money no matter what the result. A negative result is still a result, and it still helps to crystallize our vision of what's going on.

[BoneFreak]

The point I'm making is that you should question why you're on the side that it's fake. How much research did you do to lead you to this conclusion?

Also, if you're already on one side then you're bound to be more ready to reject anything that disagrees with you.



I'll break it to you: not much research. But I'm not ready to disagree with everything yet. I really doubt, however, that CO2 is a cause of it (hence the video).

Humans have been around for a long time, and have been breathing out CO2. I don't care how much we breath out, say, annually, but I'm pretty sure it would be enough to have us concerned about global warming in at least 1950, if it were actually the cause.

[doodinthemood]

Looking at scientific consensus, it seems that the earth IS getting warmer, that humans could very well be the cause of that (though there is a small level of doubt) and that we don't have a flipping clue how to make it change back. This seems to be the most defensible set of beliefs, but I'd be darned if anyone past a select few could adequately defend them.

It's odd to have a scientific debate that's so political though. A person's political stance seems to determine what they think about global warming, which cannot be logical.

[BoneFreak]

It's odd to have a scientific debate that's so political though. A person's political stance seems to determine what they think about global warming, which cannot be logical.


It's not odd. It's wrong. The government, in truth, shouldn't really branch into science at all. The government can't (and shouldn't) do more then look over and give views on science, much like the general public. Like with the oil spill. Obama went down to the gulf a couple times, but did that honestly help? No. Just because you see a very famous person and they give their views on something, doesn't mean they're right.

[Giant Tope]

I know oil needs to be replaced. But we shouldn't be doing it with vegetable oil or whatever. Sure, it's "Eco Friendly", but with all the cars in the world running on it, our food supply would rapidly decrease.

Most folks that use biodiesel get it from pre used oil at fast food places who were going to throw it away anyways. That said, I don't think this is the ultimate answer to the problem and we should research and develop new ways of transportation that is lighter on fuel or even doesn't use fuel at all.

A lot of companies are exploiting the whole "eco friendly" thing, and it really bothers me. Especially bottled water plants who are like: OMG LOOK WE'RE USING LESS PLASTIC. They're still using plastics that really shouldn't have been used. Heck, I think the less plastic we use the better. And that isn't even issue about global warming (which really should be referred to as climate change), this is an issue about keeping our home world habitable. Because honestly? This is not okay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch)

It really shouldn't even matter if you "believe" in climate change or not. Honestly, we should all care about this rock we live on, if only for the idea that I don't like breathing or eating pollutions. Even when I was more or less skeptical about the idea of climate change, I still made an effort to waste less, be more efficient, walk or use public transportation, grow a bit of my own food, heck, turn off the lights when I'm not using them. If we all did simple things like that, not only would we be doing everyone a favor by not screwing us over, but you would save so much money as well.

By just ignoring it and saying "WELP, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT SO I WON'T DO NOTHIN'", it seems like you're just lazy. I think the best thing we can do at this point is to try to make our lives more efficient and trust peer reviewed scientific research unless new peer reviewed research has since emerged.

And to get the record straight, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Mansions pretty much never do anything good for the environment (or the person other than feed their ego) unless it's housing several folks at once. Just because you have two solar panels on top of a 10,000 sq f building does not mean you're helping anyone.

Also, a youtube video? Really?

[Psuni]

Disagree with the idea that Global Warming is a direct cause from human life.

Agree with the idea that Global Warming exists, but is a direct cause of the Earth's "cycle" of life.

[taumel]

Some of this posts are scary as unless they don't come from car manufacturers CEOs they offer a rather uneducated, ignorant and stupid point of view. Like those people denying that we landed on the moon.

[Psuni]

Some of this posts are scary as unless they don't come from car manufacturers CEOs they offer a rather uneducated, ignorant and stupid point of view.

And how do you feel about people who create posts that make no sense? ;)

[taumel]

I think i made my point clear how i think about your post already.

[Psuni]

Lol.

[Ray-The-Sun]

"Global warming" is a natural process. The planet has been coming out of an ice age. "Man made" global warming is crap. That roughly sums it up in 3 sentences.

[Giant Tope]

Oh? And where did you get that conclusion from? Just out of curiosity.

[Rather Dashing]

Disagree with the idea that Global Warming is a direct cause from human life.

Agree with the idea that Global Warming exists, but is a direct cause of the Earth's "cycle" of life.

"Global warming" is a natural process. The planet has been coming out of an ice age. "Man made" global warming is crap. That roughly sums it up in 3 sentences.

Why

[doodinthemood]

If you're going to go against scientific consensus, you're going to need a damn strong argument.
Also I like how quotation marks start appearing when someone doesn't agree with a certain aspect of something. Not believing in man-made global warming. Fine. Some scientists agree with you. But gravity isn't man-made, and I don't refer to it as "gravity" when saying something about it.

[Comrade Pants]

Well, Global Warming deniers can stay their course. Whatever. It just means more ocean for Rapture.

[Ray-The-Sun]

But gravity isn't man-made, and I don't refer to it as "gravity" when saying something about it.

No, I'm just putting it in quotations because the currently decided correct term is "Global climate change"

[Everlast]

Global Warming is now a fact proven by the science community, which its only opposition is for the riches, owners of oil, gas, and mining companies. The richer oppose global warming because it would mean replacing oil, and new energy standards that would require a huge expensive investment in changing their company infrastructure. They bought politicians, presidents, and vice presidents. And i wouldn't be surprised democrats aren't in favor of it.

The global warming main issue is that the accumulation of gases in planet earth are creating a sauna like environment that its rising temperatures into even hotter. More gasses are staying on our ecosystem than being released by earth. I think to say Global warming is a myth its pure ignorance and make yourself look stupid. Florida was the 1st warning, and expect more seasons like that, weird winters, weird and irregular summers, drought, floods, and whats worst hunger. Why? because where it used to rain, it doesn't no longer, or happens the opposite extreme raining ruining crops, and fields that are used to make our everyday food.

The only debate is for the rich and upper class to fight and see how can they discredit science and protect themselves financially.

[Fealiks]

Why

This. To pretty much every post in this thread.

[BoneFreak]

The only debate is for the rich and upper class to fight and see how can they discredit science and protect themselves financially.


I'm not rich or anything. In fact, if rich people deny global warming, then not many companies would use Eco-Products.

[KuroShiro]

Well, it's kind of hard to deny the existence of *some* sort of global warming, unless you are stupid and only listen to what politicians and media pundits have to say. I mean NASA has found a pretty persistent increase in global average surface temperature for the last hundred years or so (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/.

The question of whether or not it was caused by humans is only completely answerable by removing all humans from the planet's surface and going to live in space. It makes sense as conjecture due to the upswing in temperature starting around the beginning of the industrial revolution and spiking in the last 50 years. Though it's impossible to know for certain, it seems wise to err somewhat on the side of caution.

[LASD]

I don't get what satisfaction people get from denying global warning. I guess it's easier to think that you didn't contribute to it happening. Nonetheless, Read Giant Tope's post again, he explains really well why it shouldn't matter if you think it's true or not.

Makes me wonder where everyone keeps getting these contradictory "researches". I can't come up with anything than huge companies not wanting to spend money on the environment or yeah, just lazy people not wanting to start recycling.

[doodinthemood]

recycling has nothing to do with global warming. Recycling may well create a greater CO2 output than manufacturing from scratch.

[Alcoremortis]

I think the evidence suggests that global warming is happening. True, it seems to be partly a result of the earth's natural temperature changes, but it is happening quite a bit faster than the temperature change would happen naturally which is a bad thing. I don't think its possible to predict exactly how it will affect us in the long run (ecology is extremely complicated) but I do think it is essential that we reduce our own impact just in case.

[Will]

just in case.

These three words are pretty key. Regardless of what you think might be happening, there is no good reason to NOT try to reduce carbon output.

Yes, natural cycles do exist. Yes, we are currently in an upswing. But there is every reason to believe we could be exacerbating matters if we are not the direct cause of them.

Also, it's pretty absurd to deny the HUGE body of scientific evidence in favor of global warming. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to get you anywhere.

[Psuni]

I agree Will. It's pretty crazy to just write it off entirely.

[Comrade Pants]

These three words are pretty key. Regardless of what you think might be happening, there is no good reason to NOT try to reduce carbon output.

Yes, natural cycles do exist. Yes, we are currently in an upswing. But there is every reason to believe we could be exacerbating matters if we are not the direct cause of them.

Also, it's pretty absurd to deny the HUGE body of scientific evidence in favor of global warming. Burying your head in the sand isn't going to get you anywhere.

It's like denying evolution or something. Jeez.

[splash1]

I built a boat in my basement just in case this hooey is real.

[Alcoremortis]

I built a boat in my basement just in case this hooey is real.

This begs the question of whether you can get it out of your basement. :p

[Avistew]

To answer the OP, I think most "eco-friendly" stuff is just trying to make money out of a current trend, and isn't actually environment friendly. That is, they're potentially "less worse", but that's the most I'd give them.
I can't remember ever buying bottled water, ever. I'm sure that's better than buying a brand that uses slightly less plastic. It reminds me of seeing a biodegradable one-use razor.
They were all "it's environment-friendly", but really, it's still one use, and still polluted lots to produce, whether it's biodegradable or not. It might be slightly better than a one-use non biodegradable razor, but it's not as good as one where you only change the head, which in turn isn't as good as one where you only change the blade, which in turn isn't as good as one that you sharpen, which isn't as good as not shaving at all (in which case you don't even use a razor to begin with).
While every level potentially comes with more hassle or a bigger original investment, you can usually find a middle ground where it's pretty much no hassle compared to the benefits you get.

So, these "better for the environment" products, on the whole, seem to be just second to worst environment-wise, and certainly not some of the best options. I think they're just trying to manipulate people.
Plus they're expensive.

[Soultaker]

I'm not sure what your point is... sure, most eco-friendly products still tax the environment (all products do, really) but does that mean we should fatalistically stop trying to reduce pollution and waste altogether? Every little bit helps!

I agree that in most cases buying an eco-friendly product is worse than not buying anything at all, but let's be realistic: not many people are voluntarily going to make drastic lifestyle changes. Just look at how hard it is to get people to stop using incandescent light bulbs, for example. I can't imagine many people are willing to stop shaving, as you propose, even though that would arguably be the most eco-friendly option. The next best thing is to at least have some eco-friendly alternatives available. In this case, a straight razor might be the eco-friendly alternative to a disposable blade. Why wouldn't they advertise it as such, and why shouldn't you buy it instead of the disposable razors you'd otherwise buy?

I'm often surprised by how wasteful many people are. Simple things like turning off the TV when you're not watching, or putting on a sweater when you're cold instead of turning up the heat, or turning left-over dinner into a nice hot lunch instead of throwing it out, seem completely alien to some people. I'm sure that with very little effort, consumers could prevent a lot of waste, if they would put their minds to it. And to address your "it's expensive" remark: many of these simple measures save (a little) money too.

Of course, not all things advertised as "eco-friendly" really are. As a rule, advertisements are dishonest, so you should always think critically about what is claimed. Still, I still think that genuinely eco-friendly alternatives can help people be less wasteful without requiring big sacrifices in their lifestyle, and I think that's a good thing.

[Avistew]

I'm not sure what your point is... sure, most eco-friendly products still tax the environment (all products do, really) but does that mean we should fatalistically stop trying to reduce pollution and waste altogether? Every little bit helps!

That's not what I meant at all. I also didn't say everyone should stop shaving, I was just saying that on the scale of most polluting to least polluting, one-use biodegradable razors are pretty damn close to most polluting, so calling them "eco-friendly" is a laugh, and that's usually how I feel about products advertised as "eco-friendly".

If you want to choose a razor based on the impact on the environment, a straight or traditional safety razor would be the best option. The traditional safety razors are still widely available, if expensive, and while it's an investment at first you save a lot on the long run because they'll last all your life (or generations if you have someone to pass it on to) and the blades cost next to nothing compared to the more modern style ones (a 100 blade pack for the price of 5 to 10 cartridges). And the blades are 100% recyclable, too.

This is the type of razor I mean, incidentally. Merkur is a good brand.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31tuuopqJIL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

My point was more that there is a broad range of things you can do, and you can find the one that matches you the best. And in a lot of cases, the best option is to just do without something, but we're so used to using it that we don't consider stopping or using a non-disposable version instead. Which I think is sad.

I personally just can't stand the idea of buying all that stuff and throwing it away. It's such a waste. I don't get why there are so many disposable or one use things. Or rather, I get it (the companies get to sell more of them, so they try to convince you it's more practical/healthy/clean/etc) but I don't understand why so many people fall for it and just do it without apparently realising they have other options.

I don't really care what you decide to use in the end, I guess, but I'd feel much better knowing that everybody actually thought about it and picked the option they felt worked the best for them, instead of just using the first thing they could grab. So I'm upset (with the companies) when people buy "eco-friendly" products, thinking that they're doing a good thing when they're not, and might already have better stuff laying around in their homes, but they just don't know to use it.
Heck, just alcohol vinegar, baking soda and washing soda will fill at least 90% of your cleaning needs.

[doodinthemood]

Every little bit helps!

Does it? That seems highly unlikely.

[taumel]

This is about natural sciences (physics, chemistry, ...) and not about some egos. Afterall our world and the way we treat it, will define how we'll have to life in the future. Sadly it is not in human's nature to act for the better in the long run, that is not what we are built for as our lifespan is too short but it annoys me if people who are in a position and know about what's going on, don't use their powers in a responsible not selfish way as well as large parts of mankind just don't have a clue or give a damn about what's going on nor do they want to change anything, pathetic.

[BoneFreak]

I know our actions will eventually determine our fate, and I'm not saying I just don't care at all, I still do some things. Like, I recycle as a normal thing, don't have lights on when I'm not doing anything in a room because that's just pointless, etc. What I am saying, however, is that we've taken it too far.

Like, a whole bunch of people want to plant trees. Well woop-de-doo, they do absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, but would this be such a big ordeal if we didn't cut so many down in the first place? Not to be talking eco-friendly right now, but sometimes we don't need a lot of stuff we build. We take out way too much land to designate for parks, and about 30% of the park could've still been forests or whatever.

And also, if you really want a tree to be taking in it's fair share of CO2, you need to wait about 20 years. And also, isn't nature going to end up getting in the way? A tree could be easily destroyed by ants, lightning, you name it. And then when sticks fall off the trees, what do you do?

You either burn them (more CO2 in the air) or use a chipper and use them for woodchips (using electricity).

Also, there's problems with germs that end up wasting technology. Do we really need automated towel dispensers? Really? Do we think those handles are that dirty? What, are there no people who's jobs are to clean that stuff?

[Giant Tope]

I'm gonna go out and say most parks nowadays were already once processed for, say, farmland and whatnot before becoming parks.

[Alcoremortis]

The reason for automatic towel dispensers is that people supposedly use fewer towels when they have to wait for a fraction of a second.

[Avistew]

Like, a whole bunch of people want to plant trees. Well woop-de-doo, they do absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, but would this be such a big ordeal if we didn't cut so many down in the first place?

Oh, definitely, there is a reason why the order is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The most important is to reduce your use so you don't waste stuff. Then, reuse the stuff you did buy or opt for reusable stuff. Then, recycle what you do throw away, which at this point should be a lot less due to the previous 2 steps.

But if they do cut down trees, then I'd rather have them replant them rather than not. Seems like common sense to me. And usually they just replant them in the same place, since they're using the trees just for that.

And then when sticks fall off the trees, what do you do?
You either burn them (more CO2 in the air) or use a chipper and use them for woodchips (using electricity).

OR you do nothing, and it's used by animals (for nests, dams, etc depending on size) or reabsorbed into the earth. You don't have to just intervene in every single thing that happens, you know.

If you mean specifically in maintained parks, I'm sure they have established what to do with them, sending them to whoever does need the wood chips or wood dust, so it just means less trees are cut down especially to produce said chips or dust because some comes from there.

The reason for automatic towel dispensers is that people supposedly use fewer towels when they have to wait for a fraction of a second.

Sadly, that seems extremely believable to me.

[BoneFreak]

OR you do nothing, and it's used by animals (for nests, dams, etc depending on size) or reabsorbed into the earth. You don't have to just intervene in every single thing that happens, you know.


Yes, but it's much more sensible to pick up all the sticks then to have nature just take them away, taking a tremendous amount of time, and it's the worse off choice because clearly, man does not control nature. We can manipulate it, persuade it, but nothing else.

As of with recycling and that business, my only true concern of why I recycle is so that we don't have such dirty water and get contaminated soil, which is not only bad for animals but for humans as well.

But what on earth led you to talk about recycling when I mentioned planting trees?

[Avistew]

Yes, but it's much more sensible to pick up all the sticks then to have nature just take them away

Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.

But what on earth led you to talk about recycling when I mentioned planting trees?

You said it made more sense to cut off less trees than to cut them off and replace them. You were talking about Reducing, so I did too. Since it's part of a trio (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), I mentioned the other two as well to point out how Reducing is the part with the strongest impact.

[patters]

Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.



Exactly, if you think it's unsightly put it on a compost heap.

[BoneFreak]

Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.


In the rest of that sentence, I explain why more people would pick up the sticks and get rid of them because if nature were to get rid of all of them and use them as nests and whatever, it would take way too long.

Sure, we could just pile them up and leave them like that so we can mow the grass, but is that helping us OR nature?

The answer is simply no. If I were to decide that I would do the preceding, then I would end up having a massive pile, and would only get worse.

On nature's part, sure some mice could go in the sticks and stay there, but then what about the birds? It would be much worse for the birds to get twigs from the pile because most of them are bound to go all the way through the bottom, from little cracks in the pile.

Also, fire (although a "pollutant") is one of man's greatest discoveries. It can get bacteria out of water, heat up raw food to make it healthier, and much more. The second we stop using fire regularly, we make a turn for the worse.

[Rather Dashing]

In the rest of that sentence, I explain why more people would pick up the sticks and get rid of them because if nature were to get rid of all of them and use them as nests and whatever, it would take way too long.

Sure, we could just pile them up and leave them like that so we can mow the grass, but is that helping us OR nature?

The answer is simply no. If I were to decide that I would do the preceding, then I would end up having a massive pile, and would only get worse.
...what.

Okay, look. Here's the good thing about nature. Things we don't use don't just continually pile up forever. We don't have a giant pile of sticks somewhere in the middle of uninhabited woods. You seem to have this idea that when nature drops a stick on the ground, if human beings don't snag it up with all their efficiency and technology, surely the world will soon be covered in sticks.

The great thing about sticks though, is that they're dead tree parts. Like all dead organism parts, they decompose. Decomposition is great in many ways: it removes the clutter of dead things, it takes nutrients from dead things and re-introduces them into the environment, and it has absolutely no negative environmental impact. People don't need to do a damn thing for this process to start. It's really cool.

On nature's part, sure some mice could go in the sticks and stay there, but then what about the birds? It would be much worse for the birds to get twigs from the pile because most of them are bound to go all the way through the bottom, from little cracks in the pile.

Also, fire (although a "pollutant") is one of man's greatest discoveries. It can get bacteria out of water, heat up raw food to make it healthier, and much more. The second we stop using fire regularly, we make a turn for the worse.
...and it's things like this that make me wonder if you're actually having this conversation, or if you're having some parallel conversation with yourself.

[BoneFreak]

...what.

Okay, look. Here's the good thing about nature. Things we don't use don't just continually pile up forever. We don't have a giant pile of sticks somewhere in the middle of uninhabited woods. You seem to have this idea that when nature drops a stick on the ground, if human beings don't snag it up with all their efficiency and technology, surely the world will soon be covered in sticks.




Except, in the woods we don't do anything to manipulate it, besides cutting it down, so obviously we don't go and pick up sticks there. However, when at our back yards, we don't want to mow the lawn with sticks jamming up the tractor/mower, we don't really want to walk around in it, and I'm not going to wait longer to do that stuff, because it seems to be common sense.

P.S: None of my neighbors have a compost bin, and they all burn their sticks as well, or put them all in bags and send them off (where they probably burn as well).
P.S.S I'm still burning my sticks.

[Giant Tope]

how to make a rudimentary compost pile:
step one: gather dead plant matter
step two: put in pile off to the side
step three: wait and stir around
step four:???
step five: PROFIT!!

[BoneFreak]

how to make a rudimentary compost pile:
step one: gather dead plant matter
step two: put in pile off to the side
step three: wait and stir around
step four:???
step five: PROFIT!!

not so sure about profit..

[Rather Dashing]

not so sure about profit..
When you make a compost pile, you gain compost at absolutely no cost. You have to move the sticks, but you'd do that to burn them as well.

When you burn sticks, you gain nothing and it costs you the same effort of moving the sticks and costs you in terms of air quality.

[BoneFreak]

When you make a compost pile, you gain compost at absolutely no cost. You have to move the sticks, but you'd do that to burn them as well.

When you burn sticks, you gain nothing and it costs you the same effort of moving the sticks and costs you in terms of air quality.

I meant money.

[corruptbiggins]

sell the stuff then.

[Rather Dashing]

I meant money.
That's a very narrow view of profit. That's kind of like this hypothetical exchange:

You know, you can get dessert at a bakery.
WHAT NO YOU CAN'T YOU LIAR :mad::mad::mad:
You can get cake at a bakery, though. Cake is a dessert.
I MEANT ICE CREAM.

[Giant Tope]

profit does not necessarily mean money. and also, there are folk around who do sell compost to city folk who may not be able to compost as much.

[BoneFreak]

That's a very narrow view of profit. That's kind of like this hypothetical exchange:

Yet however, profit is more used in the financial sense rather then of a gain. If I say that I meant money, it does not deny it's other uses.

[patters]

I think we may have missed the problem, what kind of leper tree do you have that it losing "sticks" is a problem?

Also what do you do with the grass trimmings and leaves, if nothing you could have an ideal start for a compost heap. Compost is a fantastic fertiliser, so yes, it does help nature.

Do you know any science? Fire ain't all that great, it's the simple exothermic reaction of oxygen and carbon becoming carbon dioxide, nuclear fission is much crazier, which automatically makes it cooler. You make an atom unstable, which causes one atom to split into two (different elements) along with neutrons and photons (packets of energy). Fire is pretty lame.


Also.

Tractor:
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/donna/hands/four_wheel_drive_tractor.jpg

Lawnmower (not tractor):
http://www.childinjurylawyerblog.com/household%20lawn%20mower%20personal%20injuries%20t o%20children.jpg

[BoneFreak]

Tractor:
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/donna/hands/four_wheel_drive_tractor.jpg

Lawnmower (not tractor):
http://www.childinjurylawyerblog.com/household%20lawn%20mower%20personal%20injuries%20t o%20children.jpg


I meant push mower. My bad.

[Avistew]

If you previously bought a form of compost for growing your plants, making your own compost for free is a monetary gain.
Also, if you need to pay for garbage (like, pay per bag you throw away), as some people do, reducing the amount of things you throw away (by putting organic stuff on the compost pile) would also save you money.
And finally, whatever you use to burn the sticks, you probably spend some money on it, be it matches, fire starters or whatever. You'd save money on that, too.

So, yes, it can definitely be a monetary gain. It's cutting off the middle man, too: instead of paying to get rid of sticks, eggs shells and peels, then paying to get some compost to use in your garden, you don't pay for either and turn one into the other.

[Snicklin]

Global Warming was something made up by big business to give Hippies another reason to annoy the heck out of us.

Who says suits don't have a sense of humor....

Win.

[BoneFreak]

Also, if you need to pay for garbage (like, pay per bag you throw away), as some people do, reducing the amount of things you throw away (by putting organic stuff on the compost pile) would also save you money.
And finally, whatever you use to burn the sticks, you probably spend some money on it, be it matches, fire starters or whatever. You'd save money on that, too.


I don't use the bags, but my neighbors do. All I do for a fire is crumple up some papers from the recycling bin (call it irony if you must) and put them in a fire, and most fires will take about 2-3 matches to start, and it's like 1.50 for 200.

[Avistew]

I wasn't talking about buying the bags themselves. In some places, the garbage people charge you per garbage bag you throw away, or just plain have a limit and you're on your own for the rest. In that kind of situation it's useful to be able to limit how much you throw away.

[BoneFreak]

I wasn't talking about buying the bags themselves. In some places, the garbage people charge you per garbage bag you throw away, or just plain have a limit and you're on your own for the rest. In that kind of situation it's useful to be able to limit how much you throw away.

Still, I don't use the bags, so it doesn't concern me.

[Avistew]

The bags are just a measure of volume. If you use bins it's the same. Anyways, I'm assuming you don't pay per volume or you'd know.

[BoneFreak]

I don't.