| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Stuffing our environment
Apologies from the outset if some people don't see this as the correct
newsgroup for the following rant. I have however observed some very sensible people on the group with commonsense advice. Moreover, imo, people who engage themselves in gardening for food generally display some environmental awareness. If the topic isn't appropriate I will take it elsewhere. Also, apologies if my language gets too strong for any. I am despondent at present about the way we treat our earth. We pollute our soil, our water and our air. We spread toxic crap onto the earth, we spread vast amounts of chemicals where we please and farm to deplete the topsoil. We flush all manner of crap in to our water ways and we draw off vast amounts of water to sustain our, imo unsustainable, lifestyles. We pump huge amounts of pollution into our air, we suffer air degredation and poisoining as a result. We create huge amounts of waste, much of it petroleum based, with our throw away lifestyles. I see people landfilling green waste, the earth is awash with plastic bags, we consume things with a shelf life of years or even months. Not content with that we encroach into the few nature areas we have left through deforestation, deep water bottom trawling and the draining of wet lands. A term used is environmental tipping point, where the earth simply gives up. When does gradual degredation turn to breaking point. How big an ecological footprint do people want. If anyone has basic commonsense solutions to some of these issues, ones you can apply to your household, please feel free to raise them. Maybe I will learn something I can do to lessen my impact and reduce my ecological footprint. Thanks for your patience. rob |
Stuffing our environment
rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or
take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it yes, but like all wounds, it will heal. Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's short inhabitance and everything will be OK :-)) Mike |
Stuffing our environment
"Mike" wrote in message ... rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it yes, but like all wounds, it will heal. Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's short inhabitance and everything will be OK :-)) Mike a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root our future existence is the focus of my post. rob |
Stuffing our environment
a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root our future existence is the focus of my post. rob Get rid of money then :-)) |
Stuffing our environment
George.com wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it yes, but like all wounds, it will heal. Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's short inhabitance and everything will be OK :-)) Mike a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root our future existence is the focus of my post. I'm very sympathetic to your pov and I think that people are becoming more and more aware of the need to respect the world in which we live AND its resources. However, I think too, that to all too many such thinking is a luxury because poverty does not tend to enable grand gestures. Nor of course, does greed. I don't begin to have any answers to this but when you have people destroyng rain forest so that they can have land to farm on or timber to sell and at the other end of the scale, a country like USA refusing to sign up to the Kyoto treaty, there's still one helluva struggle going on. Nonetheless, I'm an optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to get there. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon |
Stuffing our environment
.. Nonetheless, I'm an
optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to get there. -- Sacha You must be joking or have your head in the sand. Maybe both. |
Stuffing our environment
The message
from "George.com" contains these words: Apologies from the outset if some people don't see this as the correct newsgroup for the following rant. I have however observed some very sensible people on the group with commonsense advice. Moreover, imo, people who engage themselves in gardening for food generally display some environmental awareness. If the topic isn't appropriate I will take it elsewhere. Also, apologies if my language gets too strong for any. I am despondent at present about the way we treat our earth. We pollute our soil, our water and our air. We spread toxic crap onto the earth, we spread vast amounts of chemicals where we please and farm to deplete the topsoil. We flush all manner of crap in to our water ways and we draw off vast amounts of water to sustain our, imo unsustainable, lifestyles. We pump huge amounts of pollution into our air, we suffer air degredation and poisoining as a result. We create huge amounts of waste, much of it petroleum based, with our throw away lifestyles. I see people landfilling green waste, the earth is awash with plastic bags, we consume things with a shelf life of years or even months. Not content with that we encroach into the few nature areas we have left through deforestation, deep water bottom trawling and the draining of wet lands. A term used is environmental tipping point, where the earth simply gives up. When does gradual degredation turn to breaking point. How big an ecological footprint do people want. If anyone has basic commonsense solutions to some of these issues, ones you can apply to your household, please feel free to raise them. Maybe I will learn something I can do to lessen my impact and reduce my ecological footprint. Thanks for your patience. rob Once we have burnt all the oil in around 30 or 40 years. That will make us stop and think just a wee bit more. |
Stuffing our environment
"Sacha" wrote in message oups.com... George.com wrote: "Mike" wrote in message ... rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it yes, but like all wounds, it will heal. Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's short inhabitance and everything will be OK :-)) Mike a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root our future existence is the focus of my post. I'm very sympathetic to your pov and I think that people are becoming more and more aware of the need to respect the world in which we live AND its resources. However, I think too, that to all too many such thinking is a luxury because poverty does not tend to enable grand gestures. Nor of course, does greed. I don't begin to have any answers to this but when you have people destroyng rain forest so that they can have land to farm on or timber to sell and at the other end of the scale, a country like USA refusing to sign up to the Kyoto treaty, there's still one helluva struggle going on. Nonetheless, I'm an optimist and I think people in the 'enlightened' world are beginning to get there. too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess we have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter balance the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than many and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely unsustainable. The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife brings back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and doesn't even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its ingrained in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through someones window. rob |
Stuffing our environment
too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess we have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter balance the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than many and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely unsustainable. The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife brings back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and doesn't even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its ingrained in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through someones window. rob rob I was recently on a World Cruise and called in at Port Kelang in Malaysia to visit Kuala Lumpur and the road from Port Kelang to KA, the journey takes about an hour, 'was' lined on both sides with Rubber plantations. I say 'was' because for as far as the eye can see, these have been grubbed out, the land built up and houses and houses, and flats and flats and factories and factories are being built. The UK is no longer the manufacturing nation of the world, hasn't been for a long time and what was left, Maggie Thatcher destroyed, the manufacturing is over on the other side of the world and that is why they are ripping the place up to build houses, factories and accommodation. But think on a bit, all of these rubber plantations ripped out. Synthetic unbiodegradeable plastic to replace it? Adding to your concerns? and Sacha says we are now considering the environment more? To coin an ex net nannies favourite expression, "I think not" Look around you in this country. Houses going up on virgin soil and rain which 'did' land on said soil and soak into the water tables, now down the inaddequate drains and into rivers and after flooding the low lands, and the house which have been built on them, out to sea. I wonder why we have a hose pipe ban in force in April ??????????????????? Solution? Get rid of money. Mike |
Stuffing our environment
"Mike" wrote in message ... too slow, way to slow at present rates I believe to turn round the mess we have made. Sure, people are becoming aware and efforts are being made to clean up some of the damage we have done but that doesn't counter balance the continuing degredation going on around us all. I am more aware than many and I am changing basic things but my lifestyle is masisvely unsustainable. The lack of significant change frustrates the hell out of me. My wife brings back fking plastic bags from the super market by the truck load and doesn't even think about it despite all the times I tell her not to. Its ingrained in collective psyches. It makes me want to throw a brick through someones window. rob rob I was recently on a World Cruise and called in at Port Kelang in Malaysia to visit Kuala Lumpur and the road from Port Kelang to KA, the journey takes about an hour, 'was' lined on both sides with Rubber plantations. I say 'was' because for as far as the eye can see, these have been grubbed out, the land built up and houses and houses, and flats and flats and factories and factories are being built. The UK is no longer the manufacturing nation of the world, hasn't been for a long time and what was left, Maggie Thatcher destroyed, the manufacturing is over on the other side of the world and that is why they are ripping the place up to build houses, factories and accommodation. But think on a bit, all of these rubber plantations ripped out. Synthetic unbiodegradeable plastic to replace it? Adding to your concerns? and Sacha says we are now considering the environment more? To coin an ex net nannies favourite expression, "I think not" Look around you in this country. Houses going up on virgin soil and rain which 'did' land on said soil and soak into the water tables, now down the inaddequate drains and into rivers and after flooding the low lands, and the house which have been built on them, out to sea. I wonder why we have a hose pipe ban in force in April ??????????????????? Solution? Get rid of money. Mike all of my roofs drain into soak holes, no storm water. Eventually when I figure out a way they are going to collect water for the garden. Big problem, retrofitting an existing house in an asthetically allowable way. I don't have the luxury of starting from scratch. I will get there and probably a hell of a lot quicker than most others but even then it may be too late. I have a company car which costs me nix to run but requires me to drive for the job. I won't change the job so the gas goes with the car. If things were different I would be driving a 20 year old merc run on waste vege oil. Most people who have the option don't think of it. rob |
Stuffing our environment
I have a company car which costs me nix to run but requires me to
drive for the job. I won't change the job so the gas goes with the car. If things were different I would be driving a 20 year old merc run on waste vege oil. Most people who have the option don't think of it. rob as I said it's money. You are more than likely unable to change your job for financial reasons/committments. You could tell the company that you don't want their car and that they could pay you milage to run your old Merc, BUT, they get a good deal from the Leasing Company to provide you with a car and to pay you milage would be expensive for them, plus, with an old car, the possibility of your unreliability and not earning your keep. Money issues left right and centre there. I organise reunions for ex service people and the company I use did have their own coaches, nice big brand new all singing all dancing ones. They had to be on the road to earn their keep. Not always possible, so the company got rid of them and hire in. I was with the General Manager on Tuesday finalising a reunion in Torquay next weekend. She just send an office email to the coaching manager, '2 coaches Saturday Torquay to Exeter am return pm. Sunday possible coach for sightseeing tour. Don't know how many, will notify Friday night. Get them laid on' No capital expenditure for the company. Money money money again rob I am not argueing with you, I am 100% with you. I have a huge South facing sloping roof and I live on the south part of the Isle of Wight. Water in the garden hose laying around gets too hot for the hand. What could that roof do for my water heating? Even in the winter, behind glass in my garden room it is hot. BUT, money money money again, how long before I get my investment back? ;-)))) Mike |
Stuffing our environment
"Mike" wrote in message ... I have a company car which costs me nix to run but requires me to drive for the job. I won't change the job so the gas goes with the car. If things were different I would be driving a 20 year old merc run on waste vege oil. Most people who have the option don't think of it. rob as I said it's money. You are more than likely unable to change your job for financial reasons/committments. You could tell the company that you don't want their car and that they could pay you milage to run your old Merc, BUT, they get a good deal from the Leasing Company to provide you with a car and to pay you milage would be expensive for them, plus, with an old car, the possibility of your unreliability and not earning your keep. Money issues left right and centre there. I could chuck my job Mike but it is a job I love, provides so many benefits and genuine job satisfaction. Part of that job satisfaction is independance. I had to battle hard to get it. The job does pay well and that is helping us pay down a mortgage at a stupid rapidity. I would work for $20 k less, such is the quality of the job. Once the house is paid off we will renovate and I can look at retro fitting low flow showers, maybe a composting toilet or at least a low water flush, investigate some form of rain water harvesting and grey water usage, higher spec insulation etc. Being a mature house in a mature suburb it needs to fit with existing asthetics, the house needs to retain its value (although I intend being acrried out of here in a box) and the history of the suburb is something I really appreciate. Money does get in the way of somethings. I think those who believe liberal free market capitalism is the 'natural order' of things are naive, such as Robert Fukuyamas book 'The End of History' (although he has since repented). The pathways open to humanity are varied and broad. To me being a socialist these days is very much being an environmentalist. Capitalism may survive, it has a habit of doing that, however the free market will undergo a series of jolts if environmental degredation continues (and I think it will). If we survive I see a world based on localism and local democratisation. Heaven knows at least here, in New Zealand, we are so removed from world economies and our trading markets that we won't be able to be global. We may not end up in the stone age however we may end up with a society 50-100 years back in time in many senses. Stone agism is a worst case scenario, continuing on our merry way with technology and science providing us miracle solutions (is to me fking naive) optimistic. Some of the dull witted libertarians I know think all will be sweetness and light in the future. If we survive in a lower tech/lower horizon world that to me might indicate success. Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account for something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put another way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same energy demands as 2006. rob |
Stuffing our environment
Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account for something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put another way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same energy demands as 2006. rob but rob you are using your natural resources as well which is detrimental to your environment and you are not such a developed (in the industrial/suburban sprawl way) nation. http://www.mikecrowe.photosite.com/a...2ndLeg/?page=4 show the geysers at Rotorua which used to be a lot higher, but as the guide said, 'they are now being used to heat our houses'. What happens when they give up? Mike |
Stuffing our environment
"Mike" wrote in message ... Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account for something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put another way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same energy demands as 2006. rob but rob you are using your natural resources as well which is detrimental to your environment and you are not such a developed (in the industrial/suburban sprawl way) nation. http://www.mikecrowe.photosite.com/a...2ndLeg/?page=4 show the geysers at Rotorua which used to be a lot higher, but as the guide said, 'they are now being used to heat our houses'. What happens when they give up? Mike yeah, thanks Mike, thanks a bunch. It was an article in a magazine pointing out how we are cumitatively rooting NZs environment that threw me into this slough of despondency in the first place. Nice of you to throw me a lifeline, with a lead weight attached. The following discourse is not uk gardening as an advanced warning. More so how NZ is doing environmentally. The geysers are actually doing better than they were 20 years ago. The government capped many many back yard home heating systems as they were drawing off too much thermal heat and dampening down the geysers. They are certainly no where near the level going back 100 years but are showing good signs of good health. In fact, in recent years hot pools and steam vents have started popping up in parks and peoples gardens showing the thermal activity is increasing. If you are talking about using natural resources faster than replacement (sustainability) you are indeed correct. One latest issue is water. In the drier parts of the south island water is being drawn off faster than it is replaced. ancient aquifers are running dry. The water is going in to irrigation for pasture mainly. Show me the logic of that. Other natural resources are being conserved, that is one area NZ is doing quite well. Land and wetlands are being locked away in national parks, native forests no longer logged, increasing marine reserves. We are also starting to invest quite heavily in wind power generation (though still a small % of total demand) although nimbys still exist. One example was the wind turbines may 'scare the horses'. My view on that is short and to the point. Whether this balances up the depletion of natural resources I do not know. I would suspect not however things are getting more in to balance. Eg, we dig up a coal seem but place more land in to a national park or create a new marine reserve. We hunt for more natural gas but also build a large wind farm. More of a concern however is air quality (worsening), water quality (disgusting deterioration), increasing consumer wastes, plastics etc etc. We are cleaning up past decades of DDT, copper, arsenic etc poisoining of land. Good. We continue to pump nitrates into our water ways causing infestations of water weeds. We are a new country with a short history of european colonisation (200 years) however we have gone a long way down the line of environmental degredation. Pity we didn't learn from europe with their centuries of destruction. We seem to emulate it but do so a whole lot quicker. We are still one of, it not the, cleanest country on earth however that is down to our recent development and low population. People are wising up, I just wish they would wise up a hell of a lot faster. rob |
Stuffing our environment
g'day george,
count australia in there as well mate maybe even more so not sure? i did send a reply to your original post 1 via the return format in this program the other i sent to the e/mail addy ) in your original signature line. not sure if you got them (both the same text)? still would welcome chat with you about self changes, up to you i am on the same wave length as you, just think that as important as this topic is these av' garden forums/groups don't generate the sort of open discussion needed to lead to what can be done. you are welcome to contact me through our web site. len http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/ "George.com" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message ... Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account for something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put another way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same energy demands as 2006. rob but rob you are using your natural resources as well which is detrimental to your environment and you are not such a developed (in the industrial/suburban sprawl way) nation. http://www.mikecrowe.photosite.com/a...2ndLeg/?page=4 show the geysers at Rotorua which used to be a lot higher, but as the guide said, 'they are now being used to heat our houses'. What happens when they give up? Mike yeah, thanks Mike, thanks a bunch. It was an article in a magazine pointing out how we are cumitatively rooting NZs environment that threw me into this slough of despondency in the first place. Nice of you to throw me a lifeline, with a lead weight attached. The following discourse is not uk gardening as an advanced warning. More so how NZ is doing environmentally. The geysers are actually doing better than they were 20 years ago. The government capped many many back yard home heating systems as they were drawing off too much thermal heat and dampening down the geysers. They are certainly no where near the level going back 100 years but are showing good signs of good health. In fact, in recent years hot pools and steam vents have started popping up in parks and peoples gardens showing the thermal activity is increasing. If you are talking about using natural resources faster than replacement (sustainability) you are indeed correct. One latest issue is water. In the drier parts of the south island water is being drawn off faster than it is replaced. ancient aquifers are running dry. The water is going in to irrigation for pasture mainly. Show me the logic of that. Other natural resources are being conserved, that is one area NZ is doing quite well. Land and wetlands are being locked away in national parks, native forests no longer logged, increasing marine reserves. We are also starting to invest quite heavily in wind power generation (though still a small % of total demand) although nimbys still exist. One example was the wind turbines may 'scare the horses'. My view on that is short and to the point. Whether this balances up the depletion of natural resources I do not know. I would suspect not however things are getting more in to balance. Eg, we dig up a coal seem but place more land in to a national park or create a new marine reserve. We hunt for more natural gas but also build a large wind farm. More of a concern however is air quality (worsening), water quality (disgusting deterioration), increasing consumer wastes, plastics etc etc. We are cleaning up past decades of DDT, copper, arsenic etc poisoining of land. Good. We continue to pump nitrates into our water ways causing infestations of water weeds. We are a new country with a short history of european colonisation (200 years) however we have gone a long way down the line of environmental degredation. Pity we didn't learn from europe with their centuries of destruction. We seem to emulate it but do so a whole lot quicker. We are still one of, it not the, cleanest country on earth however that is down to our recent development and low population. People are wising up, I just wish they would wise up a hell of a lot faster. rob |
Stuffing our environment
Yes, got your email thanks Len. I have gone to your website and had a shufty
through. I am not as far advanced as you but note some of the tips you give and have stored some away for possible use. I am looking to the simple changes first, some of the bigger issues are a matter of timing but I will get to these later on. As an example, you have recipes for home cleaners, detergents etc. I cant be bothered with elaborate systems for that type of thing. I use a basic washing soda/borax or baking soda mix and sometimes vinegar as a fabric softener. I find it works well and is really simple to mix together and store. About the only thing I would take a lot of time over is bio-fuels if I had the vehicle to run them in. I guess I am just frustrated that more people are not quickly moving to embrace simple changes. I can't establish a marine reserve myself, neither can my neighbour or work mates. We can change the way we do things at home however. It fairly ****es me off more are not. If you have things to add or discuss feel free to email me. I am looking very locally at the moment and changing things around me and with me (and my wife) that I can practically change. My immediate focus is (very) locally as opposed to anything globally. For example, Howard should sign Kyoto (and repeal his new labour laws) but I don't waste too much time in angst over it as I can't change it myself. I can tell the checkout operator I don't want a plastic bag and why. I just wish I could also tell the person next to me to dump their 10 plastic bags, stop killing my earth, and use some boxes instead. rob "gardenlen" wrote in message ... g'day george, count australia in there as well mate maybe even more so not sure? i did send a reply to your original post 1 via the return format in this program the other i sent to the e/mail addy ) in your original signature line. not sure if you got them (both the same text)? still would welcome chat with you about self changes, up to you i am on the same wave length as you, just think that as important as this topic is these av' garden forums/groups don't generate the sort of open discussion needed to lead to what can be done. you are welcome to contact me through our web site. len http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/ "George.com" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message ... Currently the availability of bio-fuels in New Zealand would account for something like.25% of the current energy demands of our nation. Put another way, it would take 400 years of bio-fuel growth to produce the same energy demands as 2006. rob but rob you are using your natural resources as well which is detrimental to your environment and you are not such a developed (in the industrial/suburban sprawl way) nation. http://www.mikecrowe.photosite.com/a...2ndLeg/?page=4 show the geysers at Rotorua which used to be a lot higher, but as the guide said, 'they are now being used to heat our houses'. What happens when they give up? Mike yeah, thanks Mike, thanks a bunch. It was an article in a magazine pointing out how we are cumitatively rooting NZs environment that threw me into this slough of despondency in the first place. Nice of you to throw me a lifeline, with a lead weight attached. The following discourse is not uk gardening as an advanced warning. More so how NZ is doing environmentally. The geysers are actually doing better than they were 20 years ago. The government capped many many back yard home heating systems as they were drawing off too much thermal heat and dampening down the geysers. They a re certainly no where near the level going back 100 years but are showing good signs of good health. In fact, in recent years hot pools and steam vents have started popping up in parks and peoples gardens showing the thermal activity is increasing. If you are talking about using natural resources faster than replacement (sustainability) you are indeed correct. One latest issue is water. In the drier parts of the south island water is being drawn off faster than it is replaced. ancient aquifers are running dry. The water is going in to irrigation for pasture mainly. Show me the logic of that. Other natural resources are being conserved, that is one area NZ is doing quite well. Land and wetlands are being locked away in national parks, native forests no longer logged, increasing marine reserves. We are also starting to invest quite heavily in wind power generation (though still a small % of total demand) although nimbys still exist. One example was the wind turbines may 'scare the horses'. My view on that is short and to the point. Whether this balances up the depletion of natural resources I do not know. I would suspect not however things are getting more in to balance. Eg, we dig up a coal seem but place more land in to a national park or create a new marine reserve. We hunt for more natural gas but also build a large wind farm. More of a concern however is air quality (worsening), water quality (disgusting deterioration), increasing consumer wastes, plastics etc etc. We are cleaning up past decades of DDT, copper, arsenic etc poisoining of land. Good. We continue to pump nitrates into our water ways causing infestations of water weeds. We are a new country with a short history of european colonisation (200 years) however we have gone a long way down the line of environmental degredation. Pity we didn't learn from europe with their centuries of destruction. We seem to emulate it but do so a whole lot quicker. We are still one of, it not the, cleanest country on earth however that is down to our recent development and low population. People are wising up, I just wish they would wise up a hell of a lot faster. rob |
Stuffing our environment
g'day george,
you had a post in the alt.pc group as well i had nearly forgotten hey chuckle. the attitude in that group is pretty indicative of waht occurs in these um earth friendly chat thingies. that group a few years ago was very viable always heaps of new posts every day new members coming in all the time lots of help and assistance for the newies and the oldies a good friendly crowd. then the dark forces arose and they are still there here as well and the group karked it over night very sad realy, about the only post there now are the spam porn ones. in the past you would ahve a couple of dozens responses to your original post and my guess the thread would still be active. anyhow we are in the same region with similar control problems. len http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/ snipped |
Stuffing our environment
George.com wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message ... rob don't worry. The Earth has been here for 36,000,000,000 years give or take a year or two and man has only been here the thickness of a coat of paint. Nothing, repeat nothing man can do will destroy this earth, spoilt it yes, but like all wounds, it will heal. Come back in 36 thousand million years and there will be no sign of man's short inhabitance and everything will be OK :-)) Mike a point of clarification required to my post Mike. Exactly, the earth will exist in some way beyond our existence. My angst is us living within its carrying capacity as opposed to forcing an ecological melt down that all but sends us back to the stone age, thereby giving the earth time and space to recover from our stupidity. The issue of us pulling back before we do root our future existence is the focus of my post. rob Try 'beyond the Stone Age' as in back to dust! We have no future existence unless you mean by our molecules passing through the dust and water tables to be part of other things. It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. We do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ? Richard. -- Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html |
Stuffing our environment
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. .... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems very doubtful at any time. In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth solely for man's use. .... We do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ? .... The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there. Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on cold hard facts. michael adams .... Richard. -- Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html |
Stuffing our environment
"michael adams" wrote in message ... "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. ... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to deal with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of the earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for Gods creation involves environmental care. rob |
Stuffing our environment
michael adams wrote:
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. ... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. Of course, as you say capable but tied to our roots, hence the term 'human animal' and the animal that we are, we just use bigger tools to sort out differences or our own greed fro the want of other's property or inheritances. New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems very doubtful at any time. In that case we may well understand the 'senses' of plants also and start shitting on the land once again, to form part of that symbiotic nature built up between man and flora. In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth solely for man's use. We do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ? ... The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there. Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on cold hard facts. michael adams ... I don't deny the moral aspect of the human structure which is an inward looking concept as it puts man at the centre of his own world ("how do 'I' relate to the world") but I was taking an external stance, looking in on man whether from that meteorite we were worrying about some five or six years ago and that would reach here in about fifteen years now, or some virus that too has a survival plan of its own which involves us as a host. After all, we're only the dinosaur Mk II waiting to happen and it's no big deal. It's been a great ride and especially as we are in the uk.rec.gardening group we should be even more aware that there are seasons to *every*thing! Richard. -- Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html |
Stuffing our environment
"George.com" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. ... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to deal with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of the earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for Gods creation involves environmental care. .... I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter. * an actual location in Israel/Palestine/Jordan/? Just like all Fundamantalists, these people - quite possibly Bush included are quite happy to die early in the belief they're destined for heaven. They wiped out the Native Americans on that pretext and its quite possible they're willing to wipe out the entire world as well I personally put my faith in Big Mac Whoppers, Triple Burger Kings, and unsustainable health care costs, bringing the land of the free to its knees before we ever get to that stage. The lure of frying onions will prevail. But that's another matter. michael adams nil desperandum .... rob |
Stuffing our environment
"Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... michael adams wrote: "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. ... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. Of course, as you say capable but tied to our roots, hence the term 'human animal' and the animal that we are, we just use bigger tools to sort out differences or our own greed fro the want of other's property or inheritances. .... Indeed we're also the only species capable of immorality. The rest of creation is incapable of either moral or immoral acts. Animals act solely on instinct, or exhibit those behaviour patterns which have given them an advantage in the survival game. Its quite possible that what we term morality are merely behaviour traits which enable large social groupings such as ourselves to co-exist. Nevertheless we need to tell ourselves we're responsible for the way we act, whatever its actual basis, whereas animals don't. They just get on with life without any reflection whatsoever. .... New aspects of animal intelligence are being demonstrated all the time, such that at some time in the future there may be misgivings about their being slaughtered for food, but the possibility of animals ever being shown to embrace generalised concepts of morality seems very doubtful at any time. In that case we may well understand the 'senses' of plants also and start shitting on the land once again, to form part of that symbiotic nature built up between man and flora. .... The senses of plants like the senses of animals don't embrace complex self consciousness. Plants sense light in the sense that they grow towards it, and a chimpanzee looking in a mirror may eventually come to realise that the image is of itself and so start grooming itself in the mirror. But it's doubtful if that amounts to actual self consciousness. Animals will naturally feel emotions of fear and fright because it's those feelings which motivate them to flee from predators. For similar reasons they will feel pain, because escaping from a source of pain is a useful defence machanism. It's generaly thought immoral nowadays, to subject defenceless animals to gratuitous fear or pain. Plants cannot move and so have no feelings in that sense because such emotions or sensations would have no survival value. .... In the absence of religion, an appeal to man's special nature is the only possible defence there is against wanton wickedness such as deliberate acts of cruelty to small children or animals to name the most obvious examples. While man may indeed have sufficient general intelligence to exert dominion over most of the natural world, it's only the ability to form moral principles - often running directly contrary to religious teaching which leads him to question the morality of wiping out entire species, or being cruel to animals etc. Which in the view of many religions were put on the earth solely for man's use. We do not, and as soon as we lay back and say of oursleves "we've had a good innings" then all will be fine - without us. After all, as individuals we all have a time when it ends and no amount of crying and screaming at the end will change that, so why not as a group ? ... The moral qualms arise because man as a species may feel a moral responsibility, not felt by any other part of creation as far as we know, for wiping out entire species of wildlife in the process. The fact that this is merely a working through of evolutionary mechanisms, and that species are dying out all the time in any case, including out own, is neither here nor there. Man alone is capable of feeling responsibility for things. Morality like religion is based on sentiment - the story the human race needs to tell itself, in order for life to be meaningful, rather than on cold hard facts. michael adams ... I don't deny the moral aspect of the human structure which is an inward looking concept as it puts man at the centre of his own world ("how do 'I' relate to the world") but I was taking an external stance, looking in on man whether from that meteorite we were worrying about some five or six years ago and that would reach here in about fifteen years now, or some virus that too has a survival plan of its own which involves us as a host. After all, we're only the dinosaur Mk II waiting to happen and it's no big deal. It's been a great ride and especially as we are in the uk.rec.gardening group we should be even more aware that there are seasons to *every*thing! .... Not if we manage to conquer time. The final frontier. Along with plenty of heat resistant teflon. Then every galaxy in the Universe will be our oyster. Through the black holes as well, with even better Teflon. That was the dinosaur's big mistake IMO. michael adams .... Richard. -- Two updates tools for 3D Studio Max http://www.kdbanglia.com/maxtools.html |
Stuffing our environment
"michael adams" wrote in message ... "George.com" wrote in message ... "michael adams" wrote in message ... "Richard Brooks" wrote in message ... It's only through the human ego 'you are the Shepherd and master of all you survey' shite written in the bible by man and man alone that has percolated to these times that we feel that we have a special place. ... I beg to differ. The human race believe they have a special place because a far as is known, they alone are self-conscious in any highly developed sense*, they alone believe themselves to be aware of the feelings of others, and they alone are capable of forming abstract moral principles. Regardless of religions which, in the views of some, are merely belief systems designed to as to satisfactorily explain some of the above features. The fact that such features may in fact be a "fortuitous" concomitant of spare brain capacity is neither here nor there. a lobby group of fundamental US pastors has been formed urging Bush to deal with global warming on the understanding that god made us custodians of the earth, something we are not doing so well at. They argue that caring for Gods creation involves environmental care. ... I wouldn't want to base any argument of what US pastors claim or don't claim. Apparently one branch of Christian Fundamentalists in the States believe Armaggedon* is only around the corner in any case - in the Holy Land. Israel has a special place both biblically and geo-politically. Some aspects of US Middle East policy really are a Crusade although quite where this puts mainly non-christian Neo-Cons is another matter. sure, a number of the fundamental christians in the US are extreme right wing in their politics and economics. In their warped logic god and looney tunes libertarianism are one and the same. If you take away their belief in god you are simply left with wacko right wing nutters who believe the free market is infalliable, that it is never prone to failure and that any form of government intervention is a sin. These economic alchemists probably see no need for governments to do anything about environmental degredation as their free market will solve all problems. Their degree of faith in the mystery working of the market almost amount to witchcraft, something the bible frowns on. Other more enlightened US christians obviously do see a place for environmental issues in their faith. rob |
Stuffing our environment
g'day george,
on the plastic bag issue i have a different outlook, i tend to think laterally and outside the square and comfort zone, those attributes make it easdy to adopt change needed for earth friendlier living. for 1.. where did the push come from for consumers to adopt change? from the governements of our countries is where, and they where preasured by vested interests namely the retailers of groceries. the price of those "free" plastic bags has been factored into every item you buy. s for me i would waqnt to see the retailers drop the prices of all their range before i would consider change, or it just simply becomes more profit for shareholder. 2.. those so called dreaded plastic bags break down very quickly in direct sunshine, you could put them in a wire container and in a month they will be nothing but dust. 3 the so called enviro' friendly bags are made of polymers (alomost impossible to break down), and when they are in total use paid for by the consumer they too will end up as litter but they will last longer, plus those green/blue/red whatever coloured bags are made in china. just for me i think we need to tread carefully when something is thrust upon us by the very people who are crueling our environment with their excesses. there are plenty of other real issues to get the public behind, i feel anyhow just how i see it. we use those bags to collect household (non-reusable/recycle) waste into saves buying just as equaly bad bin bags, which don't break down as quickly as do those recycled plastic grocery bags. in permaculture anything that we create that will rot or break down stays on site, and plastic shopping bags are low on the priority of waste off site product there are lots of wrapping from grocery stores that have to be dumped so we also need to be aware of "if you can't recycle it on sight in your garden then don't bring it home", would rather see more paper wrapping used. the hidden problems film wraps. polystyrene, plastic food containers. we need to return to grease-proof paper, glass containers, tin containers. but food processors are pushing more and more porduct into plastic containers agin they don't break down, and recycling plastics is itself an unfriendly process. take care my friend len http://www.users.bigpond.com/gardenlen1/ snipped |
Stuffing our environment
"gardenlen" wrote in message ... g'day george, on the plastic bag issue i have a different outlook, i tend to think laterally and outside the square and comfort zone, those attributes make it easdy to adopt change needed for earth friendlier living. for 1.. where did the push come from for consumers to adopt change? from the governements of our countries is where, and they where preasured by vested interests namely the retailers of groceries. the price of those "free" plastic bags has been factored into every item you buy. s for me i would waqnt to see the retailers drop the prices of all their range before i would consider change, or it just simply becomes more profit for shareholder. 2.. those so called dreaded plastic bags break down very quickly in direct sunshine, you could put them in a wire container and in a month they will be nothing but dust. i prefer to reduce Len before I look at reuse or recycle. Whilst waste can be disposed of in various ways I think it best to try and avoid it altogether where possible. If the plastic coming in is cut down so the waste going out is cut down. 3 the so called enviro' friendly bags are made of polymers (alomost impossible to break down), and when they are in total use paid for by the consumer they too will end up as litter but they will last longer, plus those green/blue/red whatever coloured bags are made in china. Plastic bags can be reused at the shops, the enviro bags I have are natural fibres. Yes, they do come from China however our oil to make the plastic bags are also imported. The miles travelled by the enviro bags is similar to the miles travelled by the plastics. I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a week) and smaller bags to pick up dog crap when I walk my mutts. That is conceivably the only usage I can see. Larger plastic sacks are useful for carting things in bulk however I have few of those and do not get them thrust at me everyday I make a purchase. rob |
Stuffing our environment
"George.com" wrote snip I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a week) snip I do that too. Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen. The bigger places also do large boxes made of recycled plastic that you buy and then use each time you shop. I recall my local Sainsbury's providing paper sacks at one time but that didn't seem to last long. I think people probably didn't find them durable enough, e.g if it was raining, and handle-less bags are not much good for anyone without a car needing to carry shopping home. I've also read that paper sacks use more resources to make and transport than plastic ones. -- Sue |
Stuffing our environment
"Sue" wrote in message reenews.net... "George.com" wrote snip I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a week) snip I do that too. Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen. we have those too Sue however I would rather reduce on the manufacture than recycle. Reduce comes before recycle on the enviro hierarchy. A large national retailer of cheap(ish), often made in china products, has plastic bags with a large RECYCLE emblazened acorss them with a much small reduce and a far smaller reuse. I simply tell the checkout operator no plastic bags please and why. I use a cardboard box for groceries that the supermarket puts out after stacking shelves. rob |
Stuffing our environment
The best way is to reduce packaging use and change our life style. The
marketing communication promote wrong behaviours as cool models for people. TV ask to all consumers to buy a lot of useless stuff every day. I never see a sit com where the actors say stupid to someone because he has a big polluting car or because someone forgot the light on.. etc.. The first problem is our culture. I usually don't buy products with useless packaging I prefer buy product using my own bag and so on.. We have to work on comunication. On the other side, according to the oil higher price plastic price is rising up very fast. So the plastic scraps value is now higher than one years ago. If everybody knows that plastic scrap has value and that it's better recycle than disposal. Try to check some waste stock exchange www.recycle.net www.wastexchange.co.uk |
Stuffing our environment
Sue wrote: "George.com" wrote snip I use large supermarket plastic bags for bin liners (I need about 1 a week) snip I do that too. Over here the major supermarkets provide a bin for recycling their old used plastic bags. Perhaps you could get them to do the same where you shop. If enough people demanded it they should listen. The bigger places also do large boxes made of recycled plastic that you buy and then use each time you shop. I recall my local Sainsbury's providing paper sacks at one time but that didn't seem to last long. I think people probably didn't find them durable enough, e.g if it was raining, and handle-less bags are not much good for anyone without a car needing to carry shopping home. I've also read that paper sacks use more resources to make and transport than plastic ones. over here in Ireland plastic shopping bags used to be everywhere; we have bad litter problems and the plastic bags were a very visible sign of that; you got them all over roadsides and in hedges and fences etc. We spent years trying to ask people to use re-usable bags or boxes etc. That had almost no effect but it did allow me to feel very superior everytime I asked for no bag and used my backsack for small purchases. Eventually, the solution was very direct and simple. It became illegal to give plastic bags away for shopping. You could still get them but you had to ask for them and pay a tiny fee (15cents a bag or so). It worked overnight. They have disappeared from the countryside (at least the fresh ones have). Now, whenever you go to the supermarked, you have to remember to bring 4 or 5 reusable ones (made of cloth/canvas of some kind and that last about a year) or get boxes or buy your bags. At first you can never remember to bring teh bags; now it is second nature. It really worked. Des in Dublin -- Sue |
Stuffing our environment
wrote over here in Ireland plastic shopping bags used to be everywhere; we have bad litter problems and the plastic bags were a very visible sign of that; you got them all over roadsides and in hedges and fences etc. We spent years trying to ask people to use re-usable bags or boxes etc. That had almost no effect but it did allow me to feel very superior everytime I asked for no bag and used my backsack for small purchases. Eventually, the solution was very direct and simple. It became illegal to give plastic bags away for shopping. You could still get them but you had to ask for them and pay a tiny fee (15cents a bag or so). It worked overnight. They have disappeared from the countryside (at least the fresh ones have). Now, whenever you go to the supermarked, you have to remember to bring 4 or 5 reusable ones (made of cloth/canvas of some kind and that last about a year) or get boxes or buy your bags. At first you can never remember to bring teh bags; now it is second nature. It really worked. Yes I think that would certainly change things. I agree it's awful to see the amount of plastic blowing around and stuck in roadside hedges etc but sadly it's true that it takes a charge, however small, to concentrate people's minds on not being careless with most resources. I'm sure it would encourage me to remember to take bags to reuse more often. I can't see the big supermarkets doing it here on their own initiative though, as they'd each be wary of the others gaining some advantage in pricing, so it probably would need legislating for. When you think about it lots of seemingly minor law changes like that could have quite big results in lots of ways. -- Sue |
Stuffing our environment
The message ews.net
from "Sue" contains these words: Yes I think that would certainly change things. I agree it's awful to see the amount of plastic blowing around and stuck in roadside hedges etc but sadly it's true that it takes a charge, however small, to concentrate people's minds on not being careless with most resources. I'm sure it would encourage me to remember to take bags to reuse more often. I can't see the big supermarkets doing it here on their own initiative though, as they'd each be wary of the others gaining some advantage in pricing, so it probably would need legislating for. The Co-op (and Sainsbury iirc) provides "bags for life" for a single payment of 10 p each. It's strong plastic and lasts multiple uses; when it wears out they give you a new one in exchange for the old one which is recycled. If you buy 6 bottles of wine the Co-op provide free , even stronger foldable bags with divisions for 6 bottles. With the internal sections cut out, those bags last indefinitely. For the diehards who use neither, their flimsiest plastic carriers are biodegradeable. We used to carry car-shopping home in used cardboard cartons but supermarkets here are no longer allowed to keep them stacked where the public can take one..fire hazard or some such rubbish. Janet. |
Stuffing our environment
Janet Baraclough wrote: The message ews.net from "Sue" contains these words: Yes I think that would certainly change things. I agree it's awful to see the amount of plastic blowing around and stuck in roadside hedges etc but sadly it's true that it takes a charge, however small, to concentrate people's minds on not being careless with most resources. I'm sure it would encourage me to remember to take bags to reuse more often. I can't see the big supermarkets doing it here on their own initiative though, as they'd each be wary of the others gaining some advantage in pricing, so it probably would need legislating for. The Co-op (and Sainsbury iirc) provides "bags for life" for a single payment of 10 p each. It's strong plastic and lasts multiple uses; when it wears out they give you a new one in exchange for the old one which is recycled. If you buy 6 bottles of wine the Co-op provide free , even stronger foldable bags with divisions for 6 bottles. With the internal sections cut out, those bags last indefinitely. For the diehards who use neither, their flimsiest plastic carriers are biodegradeable. We used to carry car-shopping home in used cardboard cartons but supermarkets here are no longer allowed to keep them stacked where the public can take one..fire hazard or some such rubbish. clearly, in your case, you already do the right thing. In Ireland quite a few people used to do this but the great majority (like in UK I presume) did not and plastic bags got everywhere. Now most people do it like you and all it took was a small law change. It really worked (make it illegal to give plastic bags for nothing; you must charge for them). Janet. |
Stuffing our environment
|
Stuffing our environment
. Its the public who won't stop littering unless forced.
Janet MESS!!! You have seen nothing unless you have been to Sri Lanka. We called in at Colombo on our recent Round the World Cruise on Aurora and we were shocked at the litter and mess in the streets. And what did they do when it got tooooooooooooooo bad? Pile it up against a wall/lampost/telephone pole and set fire to it!!! By the way Janet, you may recall you took a poke at me before I left on the World Cruise, and put the report up about Aurora's 2005 World Cruise problems, well I am delighted to say that the World Cruise this year, all 3 months of it, went off without a hitch :-)) Mike -- ------------------------------------------------ Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association www.rnshipmates.co.uk International Festival of the Sea 28th June - 1st July 2007 |
Stuffing our environment
"K" wrote in message Janet Baraclough writes The message .com from contains these words: It really worked (make it illegal to give plastic bags for nothing; you must charge for them). I don't dispute it worked, only (Sue's claim) that UK supermarkets will take no action unless forced: they already do take action. They haven't taken the critical action of withdrawing the free plastic bags. snip Yes, those were the ones I meant. I believe Lidl charge for the flimsy carriers (or used to) but I can't see any of the Big Boys doing so unforced, unless by some miracle they can all agree to do it simultaneously. The 'bag for life' was a good initiative, I agree, and perhaps needs some re-promotion. I've had them from Sainsbury's and Waitrose and they really do last and last. -- Sue |
Stuffing our environment
K wrote:
Janet Baraclough writes I don't dispute it worked, only (Sue's claim) that UK supermarkets will take no action unless forced: they already do take action. They haven't taken the critical action of withdrawing the free plastic bags. It's not a supermarket, but I'd like to draw attention to B&Q, which withdrew free plastic bags over a year ago – mainly as a cost saving but also for the environmental benefits. I've noted on recent visits that the lack of bags doesn't appear to bother people. I was also in Homebase today and they didn't offer me a bag (for my one small item) either. Rhiannon |
Stuffing our environment
On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:42:02 +0100, Rhiannon Macfie Miller
wrote: It's not a supermarket, but I'd like to draw attention to B&Q, which withdrew free plastic bags over a year ago – mainly as a cost saving but also for the environmental benefits. I've noted on recent visits that the lack of bags doesn't appear to bother people. I was also in Homebase today and they didn't offer me a bag (for my one small item) either. Which is all jolly lovely if you happen to have turned up in your car and you can push your purchases on a trolley to load up. Not providing bags other than those of thimble size is hopeless for people who may be walking, cycling or taking public transport (the more environmentally friendly forms of transport) who need something convenient to carry their purchases home in. And yes if it was a planned visit you might take a bag with you but their policy does not work if the visit is an impromptu one. Something tells me they have their environmental priorities back to front if they continue to locate themselves in places best served by cars but then ration plastic bags for those people who have legitimate need of them. -- Paul C |
Stuffing our environment
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:42:02 +0100, Rhiannon Macfie Miller wrote: It's not a supermarket, but I'd like to draw attention to B&Q, which withdrew free plastic bags over a year ago – mainly as a cost saving but also for the environmental benefits. I've noted on recent visits that the lack of bags doesn't appear to bother people. I was also in Homebase today and they didn't offer me a bag (for my one small item) either. Which is all jolly lovely if you happen to have turned up in your car and you can push your purchases on a trolley to load up. Not providing bags other than those of thimble size is hopeless for people who may be walking, cycling or taking public transport (the more environmentally friendly forms of transport) who need something convenient to carry their purchases home in. As one who has done quite a bit of shopping by bike in the past, I can say that plastic bags are not the easiest of carriers to use on a bike. Most people who cycle regularly will have a rucksack or panniers. (Actually, my local B&Q has put up a wire bin by the door which is full of bags from other shops, presumably brought there by customers. It's good because there is a dearth of facilities to recycle placcies around here.) Rhiannon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter