You Want to Save the Environment? Start Wasting Paper!

If you believe in man made global warming, the best thing you can do is to use as many non-recycled paper products as possible and dispose of them in a landfill.  Why?


Read this:


source: How Stuff Works


Even after a landfill is closed, the trash buried there will remain.

What Happens to Trash in a Landfill?

Trash put in a landfill will stay there for a very long time. Inside a landfill, there is little oxygen and little moisture. Under these conditions, trash does not break down very rapidly. In fact, when old landfills have been excavated or sampled, 40-year-old newspapers have been found with easily readable print. Landfills are not designed to break down trash, merely to bury it. When a landfill closes, the site, especially the groundwater, must be monitored and maintained for up to 30 years!




You’ve heard it before.  Nothing ever breaks down in landfills.  Newspapers that have been in landfills since the Kennedy administration, can still be read plain as day, bla, bla, bla.


Now, read this:


source: MIT Technology Review


Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean

A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.


A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)
One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.
Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.
The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”






You’ve probably seen this before too.  We could combat global warming by liquifying carbon dioxide and storing it on the ocean floor.


And then, we got the chick who wrote the article below.


source: AlterNet  If you ever go through a day and feel like you just haven’t been fed enough crap, make sure to check out AlterNet. ⇽ That’s not a link.  I just used blue underlined letters.  I don’t want you to visit AlterNet.  It scuks.


Does Having a Child Make Me an Environmental Villain?

Those serious about reducing their carbon footprint are forgoing parenthood. Should I feel bad that I didn’t?
I've got some of the standard maternal guilt that is ingrained in our culture: I worry that I am not spending enough quality time with my son, while also worried that I may be a "helicopter" mother. But my main source of guilt springs from the mere fact that I created a person. Specifically, an American person who will inevitably leave a large carbon footprint. It's environmental guilt.
There is a little voice in my head that chastises me every time I forget to bring my canvas bags to the grocery store, when I throw away coffee grounds that should be composted, or when I drive when I could walk or take the subway. The thing is, I'm just too damn tired sometimes. I have a one-year-old.
And that little voice; well, it's actually my husband's voice. I married an environmentalist who bikes to work and stops by the farmers market to drop off our compost twice a week. Usually, I love this about him. He challenges me to be a better person. But in 10 years of togetherness, our most heated arguments have been about my failure to live up to his environmental standards.
Read more.  Don’t fuckin’bother.  Once again, that’s not a link.


All right, all right.  What do we got here?
  1. We don’t need history books or news archives. Whenever we want to check out something from the pre-internet era, all we have to do is just go dig it up in a landfill.
  2. We can save the planet by liquifying CO2 and pumping it down to Davy Jones’ Locker.
  3. Stupid liberal chicks are reusing their toilet paper and tampons in order to save the environment.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
First of all, Maria Luisa Tucker is an idiot, second, burying that corpse of victim you murdered in a landfill wasn’t such a good idea, and third, some (probably all) schemes to combat global warming might be a little pricey, and have potential unintended consequences.
Here’s an idea that won’t cost us anything and just might keep Maria’s home from being so disgusting.
Use as many non-recycled paper products as possible and throw them away in landfills.
Why?
If what is said in the first article is true, throwing paper products in landfills has the same effect as liquifying CO2 and pumping it to the ocean floor, only better.  The CO2 on the ocean floor scheme only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, it is costly and energy intensive.  Plus, we don’t know if huge lakes of CO2 at the bottom of the ocean won't cause problems.
The used paper products in landfill scheme removes CO2 from the atmosphere via the growth of trees and stores the carbon in the form of used paper products, indefinitely. The paper products in landfill scheme has already been tested in the real world, plus as an added bonus, it requires the growth of many trees which produce oxygen.  Oxygen is good, right?  Or are the lefties now against oxygen too?  I have a hard time keeping up with them.
“But don’t we save trees if we use less paper?”
No, Mr. Lefty, who speaks in italics.  Using less paper does not “save” any trees.  If anything, it reduces the number of trees.
“What?  How can that be?”
The trees used to make paper are planted specifically for that purpose.  They’re a crop, just like corn, except it takes them longer to reach maturity, and just like with corn, the people/companies that plant them, try to take into account, the future demand of what products derived from that crop might be.
The higher the forecasted demand, the more is planted, so you see, if there is a general consensus among paper companies that there will be a continuing upward trend of paper consumption in the foreseeable future, more trees will be planted and more oxygen will be produced.  Conversely, if it is perceived that the consumption of paper products will decrease in the future, fewer trees will be planted.    Saying “Don’t use paper products” to “save the trees” is like saying, “Don’t eat Doritos” to “save the corn”.
Liberals are idiots.  Just like with the “War on Poverty”, forced bussing, minimum wage hikes, luxury taxes, (and the list goes on and on) they do damage to the causes/people they claim to care about.






No comments:

Post a Comment