Levels Of E-Waste Soar In Asia As Gadgets Become Affordable

[Megalith]

Asia needs to step up their e-waste management, as more of its population gets richer and buys more gadgets, which inevitably go into the trash. This reminds me that I still have to figure out how to get rid of my UPS battery; apparently it is too big for Best Buy to accept for recycling.

Levels of electronic waste are rising sharply across Asia, as higher incomes mean hundreds of millions of people can afford smartphones and other gadgets, according to a UN study. The amount of e-waste in Asia has risen by 63% in five years, a report by United Nations University said, warning of the need to improve recycling and disposal methods across the region to prevent serious environmental and health consequences. Ruediger Kuehr, the report’s co-author and head of UNU’s sustainable cycles programme, said: “For many countries that already lack infrastructure for environmentally sound e-waste management, the increasing volumes are a cause for concern.”

 

[blkt]

Anyone need a power supply? Try Batteries Plus for recycling.

 

[tetris42]

The free market at work.

 

[ZLoth]

In my not so humble opinion, electronics recycling should be the choice of last resort for electronics, not first choice (except, maybe, for broken cables ). I have several less-fortunate friends, including a buddy from Arkansas who is broke thanks to a nasty divorce, who get the electronics that I no longer have a need for, such as old memory, old hard drives (securely wiped), and even an old 460 video card.

The other part of the equation is purchasing good quality stuff, and making it last. I wonder how much of the ewaste stream consists of the absolute cheapest electronics that break down three days after the warranty expires.

 

[bos]

They'll just start shipping them to Africa like we do.

 

[hardboner]

Siberia is a good place to bury all this shit

 

[westrock2000]

They'll just start shipping them to Africa like we do.

Get your own Africa, we already declared it America's trashcan!

 

[westrock2000]

Siberia is a good place to bury all this shit

I encourage more digging in Siberia....

There is something up there.....

 

[SvenBent]

In my not so humble opinion, electronics recycling should be the choice of last resort for electronics, not first choice (except, maybe, for broken cables ). I have several less-fortunate friends, including a buddy from Arkansas who is broke thanks to a nasty divorce, who get the electronics that I no longer have a need for, such as old memory, old hard drives (securely wiped), and even an old 460 video card.

The other part of the equation is purchasing good quality stuff, and making it last. I wonder how much of the ewaste stream consists of the absolute cheapest electronics that break down three days after the warranty expires.

That 's kimda my functione in an e-waste recycling facilty.
I'lI get the stuff that the sorting guys believe still holds some value. then i reapir it. reinstall software etc. hten we sell it either to some customers we have directly or by ebay. so we can do more reuse rather than just recycle.

 

[Logan321]

This reminds me that I still have to figure out how to get rid of my UPS battery; apparently it is too big for Best Buy to accept for recycling.

If its a sealed lead-acid battery, try a car mechanic. They should be able to give you a recycling location to drop it off at.

 

[Rustynuts]

If its a sealed lead-acid battery, try a car mechanic. They should be able to give you a recycling location to drop it off at.

Check your city/county recycling center. They probably will accept it for free.

 

[Gigus Fire]

who cares. Trash is trash.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Check your city/county recycling center. They probably will accept it for free.

 

[Ducman69]

This reminds me that I still have to figure out how to get rid of my UPS battery; apparently it is too big for Best Buy to accept for recycling.

This is one thing the government needs to step up to the plate on.

Recycling should be the easiest thing in the world to do, effortless, with massive penalties towards those that dispose of toxic material unsafely. And that means that every city with a population over say 100K should have a free recycling center available for the citizenry to dispose of batteries, cellphones, used motor oil, etc. And you can even reward big companies with tax incentives for putting collection centers at their businesses which they deliver to these free city recycling centers.

Yes, it costs money, but the cost of PREVENTING toxic dumps is infinitely smaller than the cost of cleaning up the mess when someone pours used motor oil down the drain or throws random toxic trash dumped in the woods somewhere.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say, and we can't afford not to have this a priority.

Keeping our environment clean is something I would hope liberals and conservatives can agree on, because nobody wants to be out fishing or hunting with the boys and have mercury contaminated deer meat, and liberals like the feeling of hugging trees and being one with their spirit animals and hippie stuff, so its a win-win.

 

[mullet]

 

[WarriorX]

]

Cool, never heard of vitrification. Hopefully the idea/tech doesn't get buried along with the E-waste...

 

[nutzo]

This is one thing the government needs to step up to the plate on.
Recycling should be the easiest thing in the world to do, effortless, with massive penalties towards those that dispose of toxic material unsafely. And that means that every city with a population over say 100K should have a free recycling center available for the citizenry to dispose of batteries, cellphones, used motor oil, etc.

Out here in California the Goodwill recycles electronics. They even fix & resell usable computers/parts.
The office complex where I work has a yearly recycling even. Makes it easy to just haul the old equipment to the front of the office and drop it off.
(I do try and reuse as much as possible, even offering the obsolete but still working computers to employees)

Now the government mandates soda/water bottle recycling is a complete waste.
I used to just toss the gallon+ water bottles in the recycling bin, but several years ago the state decided to add them to the recycling program & charge a deposit.
Meanwhile half the recycling centers in the area have closed. The ones that are open have limited hours and the workers take long lunches at random times.
Half the time they say they are full and not taking any more can or plastics, even though they are supposed to be open for another hour or 2.
When they are taking recyclables, there is usually a 30+ minute line.
I can easily waste an hour trying to get my $8 deposit back.

 

[HoffY]

you think DNews is a good source for factually correct and valid information? HA! funny cunt!

 

[mullet]

Vitrification

Vitrification is a process used to stabilize and encapsulate high-level radioactive waste. In the vitrification process, radioactive waste is mixed with a substance that will crystallize when heated (e.g., sugar, sand) and then calcined. Calcination removes water from the waste to enhance the stability of the glass product. The calcinated materials are continuously transferred into a heated furnace and mixed with fragmented glass. Upon mixing, the radioactive waste is bonded to the glass material. The melted product is subsequently poured into an encapsulation container (e.g., stainless steel liner). Once the contents cool down, the melt solidifies into the glass matrix. The encapsulation container is ultimately sealed and the waste stored in disposal repositories. Vitrification allows the immobilization of the waste for thousands of years.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

This is one thing the government needs to step up to the plate on.

(Snipped for brevity.)

Much of the western world has a recycling program that encompasses most of what you describe, minus the stiff penalties for improper disposal.

I agree with you on the fines, we make everything we touch stink to high heaven. We seem to live under this delusion that we'll never have to live in our own filth, but we do. It's the stuff you can't smell or taste that can kill you. The number of people who simply snub the amazing recycling infrastructure here in Canuckistan is astonishing, simply because pollution is a conspiracy and recycling waste just goes to the dump (I dun did seen it!!). I won't even start of Asians, east and west, recycling isn't even a concept to so many of them.

I live in what is probably one of the most beautiful regions on our planet, and every summer come cottage season. Fucking Tim Horton's cups and water bottles as far as the eye can see.

But hey, the good lord built the world and the beasts and the fishes for us, right? If we mess it up bad enough he'll just make us another one!

 

[zUg_zUg]

China has toxic waste villages! I think at one point you could see the large pools of toxic waste on Google maps.

https://news.vice.com/article/china...is-just-as-bad-as-its-notorious-air-pollution

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/enormous-rare-earth-toxic-waste-pond/view/google/

 

[ir0nw0lf]

Anyone need a power supply? Try Batteries Plus for recycling.

We have one of those as well as a Battery Source store. At Battery Source if you don't bring in a dead/failing battery you get hit with a core surcharge (or whatever they call it). So we keep a few dead batteries from our UPS units around to avoid that surcharge.

 

[Krab]

Well to be fair our solution to e-waste is mostly just to ship it to poor countries.

 

[Comixbooks]

 

[Azrak]

This reminds me that I still have to figure out how to get rid of my UPS battery; apparently it is too big for Best Buy to accept for recycling.

Yeah. Staples won't take UPS batteries either even though their website says they do. But, my local Walmart accepts lead-acid batteries. They have a cart outside the front of the store hidden behind one of the building posts. You could ask the customer service desk at yours.

 

[zUg_zUg]

In my area, the waste management companies allow 2 free pickups a year. So i'm lazy or have other things i need to toss like beds and couches, Ill call them and schedule a pickup. They will take the large batteries. I had about 5 UPS batteries that no one would take around here and they didnt have any issues with it. They just ask you for an itemized list.

 

[Burticus]

I keep waiting for someone to build a house out of old motherboards and such. Why not crush it down and turn it into bricks? It might be toxic, but it's not like we eat bricks. Well you're not supposed to anyway.

Vitrification is cool, and I see it as a great way to store the really nasty stuff that cannot be re-processed or re-used. I also think molten salt or thorium LFTR reactors (similar, but different) could solve a TON of the nuclear waste problem, since it could RUN off the used fuel rods from the LWR plants. Now we just have to convince the world we need to build these things. So far even billionaires haven't really succeeded on that front either.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ther-billionaires-backing-nuclear-renaissance
http://terrapower.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

 

[blkt]

In my not so humble opinion, electronics recycling should be the choice of last resort for electronics, not first choice (except, maybe, for broken cables ). I have several less-fortunate friends, including a buddy from Arkansas who is broke thanks to a nasty divorce, who get the electronics that I no longer have a need for, such as old memory, old hard drives (securely wiped), and even an old 460 video card.

The other part of the equation is purchasing good quality stuff, and making it last. I wonder how much of the ewaste stream consists of the absolute cheapest electronics that break down three days after the warranty expires.

That 's kimda my functione in an e-waste recycling facilty.
I'lI get the stuff that the sorting guys believe still holds some value. then i reapir it. reinstall software etc. hten we sell it either to some customers we have directly or by ebay. so we can do more reuse rather than just recycle.

Out here in California the Goodwill recycles electronics. They even fix & resell usable computers/parts.
The office complex where I work has a yearly recycling even. Makes it easy to just haul the old equipment to the front of the office and drop it off.
(I do try and reuse as much as possible, even offering the obsolete but still working computers to employees)...

I totally agree. Far too many people trash or recycle things that still work. If it is so reliable after all this time, then someone else will have a use for it. Also, after a period of time things become vintage and suddenly are desirable on the market again.

 

[tetris42]

This is one thing the government needs to step up to the plate on.

Recycling should be the easiest thing in the world to do, effortless, with massive penalties towards those that dispose of toxic material unsafely. And that means that every city with a population over say 100K should have a free recycling center available for the citizenry to dispose of batteries, cellphones, used motor oil, etc. And you can even reward big companies with tax incentives for putting collection centers at their businesses which they deliver to these free city recycling centers.

Yes, it costs money, but the cost of PREVENTING toxic dumps is infinitely smaller than the cost of cleaning up the mess when someone pours used motor oil down the drain or throws random toxic trash dumped in the woods somewhere.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say, and we can't afford not to have this a priority.

Keeping our environment clean is something I would hope liberals and conservatives can agree on, because nobody wants to be out fishing or hunting with the boys and have mercury contaminated deer meat, and liberals like the feeling of hugging trees and being one with their spirit animals and hippie stuff, so its a win-win.

You say liberals and conservatives can agree on this, but when is the last time conservative candidates have supported a cleaner environment, since Nixon, who only did so due to liberal pressure? Every time I hear "less regulation" and "smaller government" this is typically what it means, polluted groundwater, waste runoff, toxins in the air, etc. There are really good reasons some regulations exist. Trump has already stated he wants to severely reign in the EPA, Rick Perry said he wanted to eliminate it entirely.

Hell, it's Republicans in congress stonewalling about any extra spending that Flint still has lead in its water. You would think if ANYTHING both sides would agree on, getting lead out of the water would be it, but no. Now I'm not saying things haven't been corrupt on the democrat side too, with the Obama administration disregarding reports from the EPA on fracking on how badly it pollutes the groundwater, I see that as practically criminal. Hillary wouldn't have been much better. But if you go outside the establishment democrats to the farther left, you have people like Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein who actually had pro-environment agendas. I don't know ANY candidates like that on the right. On the contrary, the republicans have been plain anti-environment for decades now. Unless easing pollution restrictions and getting rid of the EPA and replacing it with nothing is somehow a plan to make things better.

You say conservatives can agree on this, maybe, but they'll go through hell and high water to make sure they elect candidates that are as anti-environment as they come.

 

[Ducman69]

You say liberals and conservatives can agree on this, but when is the last time conservative candidates have supported a cleaner environment, since Nixon, who only did so due to liberal pressure? Every time I hear "less regulation" and "smaller government" this is typically what it means, polluted groundwater, waste runoff, toxins in the air, etc. There are really good reasons some regulations exist.

No, that's what you hear because you watch liberal propaganda outlets like CNN religiously.

The entire conservationist movement was started in the United States by conservatives, with the Republicans promoting and implementing Theodore Roosevelt's plan for national parks, the first in the world and new concept of specifically conserving habitat. You also have to remember that most Democrats were city slickers, the types that live in concrete jungles completely separated from the rural environment that dominated much of the Republican base, that did live out in the more open natural environment, that do regularly go fishing, and that do regularly go out hunting and care about the welfare and cleanliness of that environment, which Democrats by and large are completely divorced from. And Nixon was a devout conservationist, and the one who promoted the creation of the EPA, so where are you getting your nonsense from? He also supported William Ruckelshaus, who under Nixon and again Reagan was one of the most staunch voices of conservationism in the country. Remember the pesticide DDT? Republicans banned that, not Democrats, and it was Republicans that led the charge against acid rain and virtually single-handedly enacted legislation to control it.

And that people like you can blame the completely mismanaged Flint crisis, the bluest blue government that ever existed on Republicans is so laughable that it pains me, because I believe that you believe it. Since 1975 Flint has been managed exclusively by Democrats at all levels of government, and yet people literally want to turn around and blame that disaster of mismanagement on outsiders is so broken from reality that its frankly frightening the mental disconnect that people are able to accomplish. But then again, these are the same type of racist pro-slavery Dixie-Democrats that somehow managed to convince the country that the abolitionist Republican party that fought for the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats were against, including Hillary's best-friend and self-described mentor Robert Byrd tried to filibuster against, were the actual racists! Taking a lesson from Goerring that said the trick of effective propaganda is to repeat a lie so often that people assume it must be true.

And if you look at the highest pollution cities, particularly with respect to proper waste disposal by the citizenry with rampant littering, its almost always deeply blue areas... Democrats! LA, Detroit, New Orleans, Flint, etc...

I think the real problem is that it is so easy to isolate yourself in an echo-chamber circle jerk of like-minded liberal friends and liberal-media, where you get into a contest of who can better vilify Republicans... and then you're so very confused inside that propaganda bubble, that the United States could overwhelmingly put Republicans in power winning the executive, the house, the senate, the courts, and landslide victories in local positions through middle-America. In your mind, the country must have gone insane, because who could elect what you have imagined to yourself are "literal nazis".

Sad.

 

[wizdum]

In my not so humble opinion, electronics recycling should be the choice of last resort for electronics, not first choice (except, maybe, for broken cables ). I have several less-fortunate friends, including a buddy from Arkansas who is broke thanks to a nasty divorce, who get the electronics that I no longer have a need for, such as old memory, old hard drives (securely wiped), and even an old 460 video card.

The other part of the equation is purchasing good quality stuff, and making it last. I wonder how much of the ewaste stream consists of the absolute cheapest electronics that break down three days after the warranty expires.

Before Chromebooks took off, K12 schools were a great way to get rid of some old hardware. A lot of them use thin or thick clients that don't need much power, or they simply run older hardware longer (damn core2duo MacBooks that just. wont. die.). Now with Chromebooks, schools are probably contributing to ewaste even more, by tossing them every 2 - 4 years, instead of every 6 - 8 yerars.

 

[tetris42]

No, that's what you hear because you watch liberal propaganda outlets like CNN religiously.

I don't watch CNN, they're basically corporate propaganda nowadays.

The entire conservationist movement was started in the United States by conservatives, with the Republicans promoting and implementing Theodore Roosevelt's plan for national parks, the first in the world and new concept of specifically conserving habitat.

100% true, although the policies of Teddy Roosevelt doesn't resemble modern Republicans in any way, shape, or form. If we had candidates promoting the same policies he did, I would support them in a heartbeat.

You also have to remember that most Democrats were city slickers, the types that live in concrete jungles completely separated from the rural environment that dominated much of the Republican base, that did live out in the more open natural environment, that do regularly go fishing, and that do regularly go out hunting and care about the welfare and cleanliness of that environment, which Democrats by and large are completely divorced from.

You seem to not be aware that both parties have mutated over the years. Prior to 64 or so, Democrats had the south locked up, they WERE the rural party, it's mostly reversed since then. Look at almost any election map from 1960 backwards if you think I'm wrong.

And Nixon was a devout conservationist, and the one who promoted the creation of the EPA, so where are you getting your nonsense from? He also supported William Ruckelshaus, who under Nixon and again Reagan was one of the most staunch voices of conservationism in the country. Remember the pesticide DDT? Republicans banned that, not Democrats, and it was Republicans that led the charge against acid rain and virtually single-handedly enacted legislation to control it.

Notice how I said SINCE NIXON. Nixon was responding to a lot of pressure in Congress and was worried about losing votes if he didn't appease the liberal portion of the country at the time. Regardless, let's talk about RECENT history.

And that people like you can blame the completely mismanaged Flint crisis, the bluest blue government that ever existed on Republicans is so laughable that it pains me, because I believe that you believe it.

And you believe something I never said, this makes communication real wonderful. Where in my post did I say Republicans were RESPONSIBLE for the Flint crisis? Hint: I didn't. Both parties are badly corrupt, I'm saying Republicans have blocked SOLUTIONS to it now that it's publicly known. So I'm saying the Democrats were criminally incompetent and the Republicans are blocking any sort of solution. How is that supposed to make them look good? If they were ACTUALLY pro environment, they would make a lot of noise how the democrats mismanaged this, then offer to bail them out, with plans on how to fix it, etc., make them look bad and clean things up.

And if you look at the highest pollution cities, particularly with respect to proper waste disposal by the citizenry with rampant littering, its almost always deeply blue areas... Democrats! LA, Detroit, New Orleans, Flint, etc...

That likely has to do more with impoverished areas v. political parties, but hey, prove me wrong! Give me names of republican candidates who have been adamantly pro environment! It's one thing if you happen to be governing in a region that is already in good shape or is already in bad shape and you don't change much or it gets worse. It's another thing to have your PLATFORMS and POLICIES state the direction you're trying to take things in.

I think the real problem is that it is so easy to isolate yourself in an echo-chamber circle jerk of like-minded liberal friends and liberal-media, where you get into a contest of who can better vilify Republicans... and then you're so very confused inside that propaganda bubble, that the United States could overwhelmingly put Republicans in power winning the executive, the house, the senate, the courts, and landslide victories in local positions through middle-America. In your mind, the country must have gone insane, because who could elect what you have imagined to yourself are "literal nazis". Sad.

Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about me, it would be really helpful if you could quote where I said all this shit you're making up. You're so convinced of what I am you're not even reading what I'm saying. Let's make it really clear since you seem to have a hard time understanding what I'm saying:

1. I think CNN, MSNBC, and to a large degree Mother Jones and Huffington Post are largely propaganda outlets now (same for Fox News, Breitbart, etc.). Occasionally you're have articles that have truth to them, but it's by no means the norm.
2. I think both parties are largely corrupt. This means I think the democratic party is largely corrupt. I'm repeating that for emphasis. I also think they're highly incompetent.
3. I'm unaware of essentially ANY pro-environment platforms from the right in RECENT history. Say in the past 20 years, give me some specific platforms that Republicans wanted that would drastically help the environment. On the contrary, the most I know of has been them wanting to move the national parks to be managed under states that won't be able to afford to run them as a move to sell them off to interests in having it developed.

But hey, if you refuse to listen to anything I'm saying, go ahead and keep calling me a CNN zealot who wants Hillary. I support her and that news network about as much as you do.

 

[Ducman69]

I didn't mean to straw man you, I'm just so used to these conversations that I can knee-jerk paint a portrait of how the conversations typically go... so my bad on that. Especially when you bad-mouthed Nixon, when I literally can't think of anyone other than Roosevelt for being greener, who as mentioned created the EPA, the Marine Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Council on Environmental Quality, and on and on, I may have overreacted. As it annoys me that liberals usually think of him as a rootin' tootin' pollutin' criminal, and yet hold the real criminal Hillary in highest esteem, who has done jack for conservationism.

Even Reagan was a big conservationist, with his speech “You’re worried about what man has done and is doing to this magical planet that God gave us, and I share your concern. What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves?” — President Ronald Reagan

And that is a key political divide there on terminology BTW. Republicans never call themselves environmentalists in my experience, as that is generally considered a leftist term. If you're looking for "green" Republicans, look for conservationists. Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for example considers himself a conservationist, and was the one to promote state's rights ability to set emissions standards higher than the national standard for California. Bush and McCain were also conservationists that supported cap and trade policies and supported nuclear power for example, and a big environmental push in Texas from conservatives created the largest wind farm in the US (that I'm aware of) and the "Don't Mess with Texas" anti-litter campaign, which is so popular among conservative Texans that its a household slogan now.

The oil industry had heavily lobbied the Republicans, so you're going to get pro-oil legislation from them, that's a no brainer. Likewise, the alternative-energy industry which also is a multi-billion dollar industry that enjoys massive government subsidies lobbies the Democrats, so you're going to get pro-alt energy from them, even when its environmentally disastrous like Monsanto's ethanol industry from corn, which is probably the least efficient crop possible to turn into ethanol, requiring tons of pesticides, irrigation, and oil use per acre. Democrats also interfere with right-wing conservationist groups trying to protect song birds, again because they are attacking the alt-energy platform that is lining their wallets, and yet go on the offensive and attack the right-wing to protect completely insignificant microscopic fish that play virtually no role in the ecosystem. Its usually not about ideology or the environment, but about money, and that's an issue with climatology as well. You have scientists whose sole job and next grant funding come from promoting global warming, which is a big multi-billion dollar industry, so of course you are going to have climate change scientists arguing that climate change is "The Day After Tomorrow" panic situation because their livelihood depends on it, and those that buck that trend are broke and have to leave the field.

Al Gore is a perfect example, as many consider him the most green politician out there, but when you look at his personal life and how he handles himself and how much he charges for these "speeches", which ultimately are just a form of bribery from alt-energy industry that wants big government grants and subsidies, you see its all a sham.

In any case, beyond the obvious money lobbying from the multi-billion dollar energy industries, oil vs alt, the average Republican is certainly no less "green" conscious than the average Democrat IMO. While there are bad apples like right-wingers with modified big diesel trucks "burning coal", for every sad redneck like this you have a inner-city left-wing hoodrats that throw McDonalds trash out of their windows on the freeway with poorly maintained vehicles burning oil and giving a rats ass.

 

[jardows]

You say liberals and conservatives can agree on this, but when is the last time conservative candidates have supported a cleaner environment, since Nixon, who only did so due to liberal pressure? Every time I hear "less regulation" and "smaller government" this is typically what it means, polluted groundwater, waste runoff, toxins in the air, etc. There are really good reasons some regulations exist. Trump has already stated he wants to severely reign in the EPA, Rick Perry said he wanted to eliminate it entirely.

You mean the same EPA that dumped tons of toxic waste into the Colorado river a couple years ago, destroying an entire ecosystem? Sure, someone who is critical of them must certainly want dirty air and contaminated water /s.

 

[tetris42]

I didn't mean to straw man you, I'm just so used to these conversations that I can knee-jerk paint a portrait of how the conversations typically go... so my bad on that. Especially when you bad-mouthed Nixon, when I literally can't think of anyone other than Roosevelt for being greener, who as mentioned created the EPA, the Marine Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Council on Environmental Quality, and on and on, I may have overreacted. As it annoys me that liberals usually think of him as a rootin' tootin' pollutin' criminal, and yet hold the real criminal Hillary in highest esteem, who has done jack for conservationism.

Even Reagan was a big conservationist, with his speech “You’re worried about what man has done and is doing to this magical planet that God gave us, and I share your concern. What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves?” — President Ronald Reagan

And that is a key political divide there on terminology BTW. Republicans never call themselves environmentalists in my experience, as that is generally considered a leftist term. If you're looking for "green" Republicans, look for conservationists. Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for example considers himself a conservationist, and was the one to promote state's rights ability to set emissions standards higher than the national standard for California. Bush and McCain were also conservationists that supported cap and trade policies and supported nuclear power for example, and a big environmental push in Texas from conservatives created the largest wind farm in the US (that I'm aware of) and the "Don't Mess with Texas" anti-litter campaign, which is so popular among conservative Texans that its a household slogan now.

The oil industry had heavily lobbied the Republicans, so you're going to get pro-oil legislation from them, that's a no brainer. Likewise, the alternative-energy industry which also is a multi-billion dollar industry that enjoys massive government subsidies lobbies the Democrats, so you're going to get pro-alt energy from them, even when its environmentally disastrous like Monsanto's ethanol industry from corn, which is probably the least efficient crop possible to turn into ethanol, requiring tons of pesticides, irrigation, and oil use per acre. Democrats also interfere with right-wing conservationist groups trying to protect song birds, again because they are attacking the alt-energy platform that is lining their wallets, and yet go on the offensive and attack the right-wing to protect completely insignificant microscopic fish that play virtually no role in the ecosystem. Its usually not about ideology or the environment, but about money, and that's an issue with climatology as well. You have scientists whose sole job and next grant funding come from promoting global warming, which is a big multi-billion dollar industry, so of course you are going to have climate change scientists arguing that climate change is "The Day After Tomorrow" panic situation because their livelihood depends on it, and those that buck that trend are broke and have to leave the field.

Al Gore is a perfect example, as many consider him the most green politician out there, but when you look at his personal life and how he handles himself and how much he charges for these "speeches", which ultimately are just a form of bribery from alt-energy industry that wants big government grants and subsidies, you see its all a sham.

In any case, beyond the obvious money lobbying from the multi-billion dollar energy industries, oil vs alt, the average Republican is certainly no less "green" conscious than the average Democrat IMO. While there are bad apples like right-wingers with modified big diesel trucks "burning coal", for every sad redneck like this you have a inner-city left-wing hoodrats that throw McDonalds trash out of their windows on the freeway with poorly maintained vehicles burning oil and giving a rats ass.

Yeah, believe me, I'm NOT for Hillary. I'm not really for Trump either, I think they were both awful candidates, but ultimately I think Trump is less likely to start a nuclear war, and it's hard to beat that.

I mostly agree with what you're saying here. Regarding conservationist v. environmentalist, I guess technically I'm a conservationist also. I don't believe that all nature is holy and cutting down one tree is a sin, blah blah, but at the same time, I think we need a BALANCE between industry and preservation and most importantly, keep the air and water AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE, even if that hurts profits. Most of the talking media heads I've heard trying to promote conservationism are disengenous to the extreme. So they might try to talk like they're really just looking for a balance, while at the same time they're being funded by big energy interests and next thing you know conservationism under them means strip mining a fucking mountain and having the runoff go into the groundwater.

As for Bush, I wouldn't think of him as a great example of conservationist. For example, the Clear Skies act weakened regulations from the Clean Air act and allowed more pollutants into the air. I mean you talk about how big oil lobbies with Republicans, Bush wasn't a part of that?

I am with you in that I hate people on the left who think "buying green" and supporting green companies is the answer. I see those kind of like being able to buy pardons from the church back in the dark ages. We basically have to stop putting less crap into the water and air, and enforcing that is expensive and hurts the economy, which is why you see big money interests coming down against it almost every time.

As for individuals burning coal in their trucks or littering, that's almost negligible compared to industrial pollution. No redneck or gangbanger is going to do anything to give tens or hundreds of thousands of people cancer in their lifetimes. That's really the shit I'm most concerned about. Stuff that causes massive toxicity that's going to come around and bite us in the ass later. Establishment Republicans tend to be pretty clear on their stance on this, which is, they do what industry wants and focus on other issues to divert the public. Establishment Democrats are perhaps worse because they give lip service to this stuff, but then can behave as bad as Republicans.

I can believe some conservatives are concerned about the environment, but I think you really have to hunt for actual politicians on the right that do. If it's the choice between the environment or more business, business wins every time.

 

[tetris42]

You mean the same EPA that dumped tons of toxic waste into the Colorado river a couple years ago, destroying an entire ecosystem? Sure, someone who is critical of them must certainly want dirty air and contaminated water /s.

See this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I was following that when it happened. The mine had been declared a hazard a long time ago, local government hadn't been maintaining it properly, so the EPA got involved to try and do some band-aid maintenance to prevent a spill. Well the irony is thick because there was an accident and ended up causing the very thing they were trying to prevent.

But here's the rub: The EPA was aware of the problem, but didn't have authority to do more until they were asked by the state, which wasn't able to handle it properly. If they had full authority, this likely would have been prevented and taken care of back in the 90s. Yes, the EPA fucked up, yes it looks bad, but here's where people on the right can drive me crazy when it comes to these things: what if the EPA never got involved? I'll tell you what, it would have deteriorate further and the exact same thing would have happened down the line anyway because it was a problem that wasn't being taken care of. If they had been involved sooner, it wouldn't have happened at all. The EPA can be flawed, the EPA can have problems, no argument there. However just getting rid of it with NOTHING BETTER to take its place is just pure stupidity in my eyes. That's the important part. So they fucked that up, but they've cleaned up countless other areas also. You can't just get rid of something that is doing some good, but flawed, and replace it with NOTHING. Plus you always have to look at who is criticizing. If it's someone who stands to get rich by less regulation, maybe they're not a great candidate to evaluate things. In any event, I'll take flawed solutions over NO solutions any day.

 

[jardows]

See this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I was following that when it happened. The mine had been declared a hazard a long time ago, local government hadn't been maintaining it properly, so the EPA got involved to try and do some band-aid maintenance to prevent a spill. Well the irony is thick because there was an accident and ended up causing the very thing they were trying to prevent.

But here's the rub: The EPA was aware of the problem, but didn't have authority to do more until they were asked by the state, which wasn't able to handle it properly. If they had full authority, this likely would have been prevented and taken care of back in the 90s. Yes, the EPA fucked up, yes it looks bad, but here's where people on the right can drive me crazy when it comes to these things: what if the EPA never got involved? I'll tell you what, it would have deteriorate further and the exact same thing would have happened down the line anyway because it was a problem that wasn't being taken care of. If they had been involved sooner, it wouldn't have happened at all. The EPA can be flawed, the EPA can have problems, no argument there. However just getting rid of it with NOTHING BETTER to take its place is just pure stupidity in my eyes. That's the important part. So they fucked that up, but they've cleaned up countless other areas also. You can't just get rid of something that is doing some good, but flawed, and replace it with NOTHING. Plus you always have to look at who is criticizing. If it's someone who stands to get rich by less regulation, maybe they're not a great candidate to evaluate things. In any event, I'll take flawed solutions over NO solutions any day.

Unless you were living here, I'll take your assessment of the EPA being the "good guy" in this situation with a block of salt.

Also, if you think the EPA is actually about responsible management of the environment and protecting clean air and water, you are rather misinformed.

 

[michalrz]

I encourage more digging in Siberia....

There is something up there.....

There was something up there alright.

We dug him up, he does our taxes now. He calls himself Bruce.

 

[tetris42]

Unless you were living here, I'll take your assessment of the EPA being the "good guy" in this situation with a block of salt.

Also, if you think the EPA is actually about responsible management of the environment and protecting clean air and water, you are rather misinformed.

Again, you're dancing around the main point. If the EPA is so awful and terrible, WHO IS the good guy when it comes to environmental cleanup? Again, "doing nothing" is not a solution. You're talking like the mining companies were rushing in to solve this, but the EPA stopped them and made the mistake. The point is this was going to happen ANYWAY the way things were headed.

I'm saying if the EPA had authority to act back in the 90s when it recognized this as a problem, they might have been able to fix this before it eroded into the time bomb that it was. So the ball is in your court: If you think the EPA was the main problem in all this, fine, then what would the SOLUTION have been without them? The way I understand it, they only got involved because the levels of non-solution were so extreme they were the only ones left to step in.

 

[jardows]

Again, you're dancing around the main point. If the EPA is so awful and terrible, WHO IS the good guy when it comes to environmental cleanup? Again, "doing nothing" is not a solution. You're talking like the mining companies were rushing in to solve this, but the EPA stopped them and made the mistake. The point is this was going to happen ANYWAY the way things were headed.

I'm saying if the EPA had authority to act back in the 90s when it recognized this as a problem, they might have been able to fix this before it eroded into the time bomb that it was. So the ball is in your court: If you think the EPA was the main problem in all this, fine, then what would the SOLUTION have been without them? The way I understand it, they only got involved because the levels of non-solution were so extreme they were the only ones left to step in.

Your blind love for the EPA is clouding your judgement. The toxic storage pools that the EPA personnel negligently spilled (it was negligence, not a random accident) existed only because of EPA regulations that required these pools instead of better solutions. Your "poor solution" agency caused the problem in the first place, and then negligently turned it into a disaster.

A "bad solution" can be worse than "no solution." You can easily find a multitude of documentable "solutions" to problems that were far worse than the problem itself.

The EPA is about government control, not providing clean air and water. Sure, the Clean Air Act has that as it's stated intent, but the power and use of such given to the EPA has nothing to do with it.

As far as your "doing nothing" argument, I find that state conservation departments (or whatever they may be called) are much more effective in reasonable and good solutions than the EPA ever is.