"We believe that the science is quite compelling and that climate change is certainly attributed to human activity and to the substantial use of fossil fuels," Jim Mulva, chairman and chief executive of ConocoPhillips, said Wednesday. The oil company is calling for a federal emissions cap on greenhouse gases and has joined, along with fellow oil giant BP, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. ConocoPhillips’ motives aren’t without self-interest; it wants to help shape the national cap legislation. But critics will have trouble continuing to mock and dismiss concerns about global warming when even oil companies admit that greenhouse gases are a problem in need of action.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
49 Comments
Did the Eagle (or any other MSM outlet) every answer the questions:
1) What does the 50 year histogram of the sun look like? Getting hotter, cooler or the same? Heck, make it 25 years, 10 years. Don’t have one? Hmmmmmm…
2) What does the temperature histogram look like for Mars, Venus, Mercury? Don’t have one? Hmmmmmm….
3) Global cooling in the ’70s and now global warming. Could climate change be cyclical? Haven’t explored/reported that hypothesis? Hmmmmmm…..
4) Wonder why the MSM has no credibility with Americans who look for facts, figures and perspectives? Because, without a sky-is-falling-world-is-ending-little-people-are-getting-screwed-children-are-starving sensationalism spin, papers would not sell!
Faced with the prospect of changing his mind or attmpting to prove the impossible, “Win14TheGipr” immediately goes to work on the proof.
It is called “Stockholm Syndrome”The oil companies know they can pass any tax on to the consumer.The oil companies want a say in any laws that are passed.How come, when an oil company does not agree with the Global Warming hype, you libs tell us to ignore them?What makes them an expert on the subject?Obviously, their point of view is the only thing that grants them any expertise.The profit motive is THERE on both sides of this issue.
No Paul – it is called “facing reality”. Try reading some of the scientific literature instead of far-right websites.
Gipper – each and every issue you have raised has been answered, many times over.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
Sorry. The MSM hates it when they are challenged with that little Dragnet line “Just the facts, Ma’am”.
Climate change? Most likely, but the spin is getting in the way of the facts.
Man made climate change? I’ll need more data than the inventor of the Internet has given us.
Gipper,
1) The increase in the sun’s energy account for only about 1/10th of the recent observed warning.
2) Other planets have different climate systems, orbits, etc. Not applicable to Earth’s climate.
3) Journalists, NOT scientists, predicted global cooling in the 1970’s.http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html“”Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
That was in Newsweek’s 1975 ‘The Cooling World’. The NAS had NO climate “prediction”.
In 1977, scientific opinion converged on global warming, not cooling.http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/timeline.htm
4) A survey shows American’s trust scientists the most for information on climate — see page 5 at http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/YaleEnvironmentalPoll2007Keyfindings.pdfFrom same PDF at http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/environmentalpoll.htmHow serious a problem would you say is global warming?Very serious 56%Somewhat serious 27% (total = 83%)Not very serious 8%Not at all serious 6%
Gipper,
You want data? Then carefully read these.http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdfhttp://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
BenT, BenT, BenT…Answers from a far-left website like yours doesn’t count. Come on, pal. I’m all for conservation. I’m a charter card-carrying Nature Conservancy person. I just approach problems with reason, common-sense, facts, figures and perspectives.
Gipper – I don’t see how you label a professional weather site as “far-left”. They provide the “reason, common-sense, facts, figures and perspectives” you calim you want. As a scientist I would say they (and the further links contained therein) are quite complete.
Paul F. ROSELL,
As a financial planner, you really should do some research.
It’s about meeting the consumers DEMAND, and increasing business PROFITS, not passing “any tax on to the consumer”.
(emphasis added)http://www.yale.edu/envirocenter/yale_epoll2007_pr.pdf“Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, which commissioned the survey, says the United States is in the midst of a “revolution,” in which the business community is embracing the PROFIT POTENTIAL of a burgeoning green consumer movement. And frustrated with the limits of government action, the public increasingly WANTS business to solve environmental problems.
“There’s been a dramatic shift in the business community’s attitude toward the environment,” notes Esty. “Rather than seeing environmental issues as a set of costs to bear, regulation to follow and risks to manage, companies have begun to focus on the ‘upside,’ recognizing that society’s desire for action on climate change, in particular, will create a HUGE DEMAND for reducing carbon-content products. “
And the free market system prevails again. As it should
To a point littlejohn. “External” costs should be internalized. After all, should I be allowed to same money by dumping my garbage in your yard?
Actually, if you live in Sedgewick county, you do
The concluding sentence in that Conoco article was “Many of the companies already have voluntarily moved to curb greenhouse emissions, they said. But the executives noted they don’t believe voluntary efforts will suffice.”
I think what we are seeing here is called hedging their bets.
British Petroleum (BP) has become a Poster Corporation in Europe for their modernization towards alternative energy. That’s a good thing.
General Electric is going green, but at the same time they no it’s only business. America, if you think oil and its products are high now, wait until alternative energies latch on to your pocket book.
Here’s a description of the eco-friendly large Corporate salesmanship:
“It starts with a light bulb. But not just any run of the mill watt-sucker—this is the much-touted CFL, the energy-saver that lasts ten times as long while using only one quarter of the electricity of the average incandescent. Accompanied by a press kit from General Electric’s new “Ecomagination” division, the wonderbulb rests cozily inside a bright green recycled cardboard sleeve covered with big, overlapping words like “sustainability,” “commitment,” “environment” and “conserve.” A corn-fiber string affixed to the packaging attaches a square of biodegradable fiber embossed with the GE logo and embedded with wildflower seeds, along with a little slip of rough, seemingly hand-made paper that bears a note encouraging you to plant the fiber and watch the seeds “burst into beautiful flowers.”
A second slip of paper bears a less lyrical message. “Warning. Lamp contains mercury.””
===================
Oh yes and back to BP.
“Oakland-based CorpWatch lists BP as the world’s second largest oil company. It is No. 4 on the Fortune 500 with 2005 revenues of $267 billion and $22 billion in profit. CorpWatch also ranks BP as the world’s third largest polluter. Their dossier on the company includes a litany of social and environmental abuses from Alaska to Colombia in the form of toxic waste and dumping, emissions, and violent repression of any attempts to organize labor or save ecosystems.”
Yeah, Green company (cough).
======================Conoco Executives are not going green by choice, they are going green because they have drawn the conclusion that the emission standards will become more stringent. They are correct in that assumption and GE merely wants a seat at the table of the righteous companies who appear to be green.==========================Excuse me while I tend to my Sheep as they are leaving methane emitting by products all over the pasture and breathing out way too much carbon dioxide.
Gipper,
A historgram is used in statistics to show frequency distributions in a sample.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histogram
You would probably want to use a line or bar graph for the job you propose.
http://www.mathleague.com/help/data/data.htm
Republican: You reiterated above what I said in a comment here in WE Blog a week or so ago … that is, those florescent light bulbs, both the round bulbs and the “coiled snake” appearing bulbs, contain the warning, “contains mercury.”
Recently Governor Sebelius recommended going to these bulbs as a way of conserving energy. Can’t she read the warnings?
I PREDICT AS A RESULT OUR LANDFILLS WILL SOON BE FULL OF THESE MERCURY-LEAKING FLORESCENT LIGHT BULBS LEAKING POISONOUS MERCURY DIRECTLY INTO OUR UNDERGROUND ALLUVIAL AQUIFERS.
Does anybody have any information to counter this? I haven’t seen this issue discussed anywhere so far.
Wonder how Wichita people would look with a permanent greenish purple glow?
Republican: You reiterated above what I said in a comment here in WE Blog a week or so ago … that is, those florescent light bulbs, both the round bulbs and the “coiled snake” appearing bulbs, contain the warning, “contains mercury.”
Recently Governor Sebelius recommended going to these bulbs as a way of conserving energy. Can’t she read the warnings?
I PREDICT AS A RESULT OUR LANDFILLS WILL SOON BE FULL OF THESE MERCURY-LEAKING FLORESCENT LIGHT BULBS LEAKING POISONOUS MERCURY DIRECTLY INTO OUR UNDERGROUND ALLUVIAL AQUIFERS.
Does anybody have any information to counter this? I haven’t seen this issue discussed anywhere so far.
Wonder how Wichita people would look with a permanent greenish purple glow?
Sorry … double posting due to interference by automated robot guard.
Those automated robot guards are pesky. I much prefer the automated root maids.
Republican,
Thank you for making my point that businesses want to increase profits by being “green”. As always, ‘buyer beware’, and research them.
Assuming coal-fired power, CF lamps over a 5-year lifetime cause emissions of about 2.4 mg of mercury, incandescents = more, about 10 mg.
The 4 mg of mercury in the CF lamp? When burnt-out, wrap bulb in paper or something to prevent breakage, and store in sealed plastic bag. Many cities will accept them at Household Hazardous Waste collection sites.
Info re cleanup if broken, disposal, collection sites at,http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
Cosmos: Why does the packaging for regular INCANDESCENT light bulbs not contain a mercury WARNING? I looked and didn’t find a mercury warning.
I believe all packages of the various FLORESCENT light bulbs do contain the mercury warning.
Regarding taking florescent light bulbs to Sedgwick County’s “Hazardous Waste Facility” about one block south of West High School … I believe those bulbs are placed in their large containers that go directly to the landfill.
I did take a couple of those lamp length florescent light tubes to the Sedgwick County Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility recently and I believe that’s what they told me. My apologies to the cooperative staff there if I am wrong.
JWink,
Incandescents don’t contain mercury. But they use about 4 times the energy as CFL’s, so if it’s from a coal-fired plant, about 4 times more mercury is emitted there. And 4 times more CO2.
If the power is from renewables, there’s less demand on the system.
Incandescents put out more waste heat, so more load on A/C systems during hot days.
JWink and others concerned about mercury:
EPA Did a study that 64% of landfilled mercury lamps showed little mercury in the leachate or air emissions.
However,with that said, it’s the 36 percent that never make the landfill that we should worry about.
The problem comes when mercury lamps are broken in household or workplaces and the vapor spreads.
Or that some mercury lamps end up in incinerators or burn landfills which dramatically worses the spread of mercury contamination.
The best method is using what is called a crusher.
It grinds everything up and the mercury vapors are absorbed through filters and finally activated carbon filter which removes mercury vapors.
The only guide for locally for consumers is here (Forbes Field):http://www.aircycle.com/regulations/kansas/
and here for how it works:
http://www.aircycle.com/
Another comment about compact florescents. I have found that they last MUCH longer – especially in long-term places like the driveway. The fact that i don’t have to go out in the rain and replace them makes it well worth the extra up-front cost. Similar with getting the step-stool out to replace hall lights or the extension ladder for that damned stairs fixture.
Cosmos: I agree with you that using power-saving florescent light bulbs would be hugely preferable to incandescent bulbs.
But what can be done to keep the mercury-containing florescent bulbs from going into the nation’s landfills? This has the potential of poisoning our nation’s water supply in a few years.
Its a real quandry that needs publicity. JWink
Here’s another Website by EPA for consumer level usage and care of mercury lamps.
Never, ever use a vacuum to clean up a broken bulb. It will spread the mercury vapors all over.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Wpsa9wiDeWcJ:www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf+clean+up+for+a+fluorescent+bulb+at+home&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
For compact fluorescents, just take them down the the hazardous waste center, off S. Seneca.
Mark Schooley: As I said several postings above, I took a couple of florescent bulbs to Sedgwick County’s hazardous waste disposal facility several months back. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY — their staff put the bulbs in their large dumpster that goes to the regular landfill.
However this needs to be checked out — my memory might not be correct on this.
I saw an article the other day. All the major computer manufacturers take trade-insand recycle their toxic components. One of the cool things about recycling is for a society that has developed technologies to extract tiny concentrations of metals from dirt, and synthesize plastic from oil, it’s almost always technologically easier to recapture them from manufactured products. Achieving profitability in recycling is a matter of developing large enough scale to pay for the processing equipment investment.
On oil companies “going green” the majors have European markets that signed the Kyoto Treaty. The U.S. hasn’t reached the “tipping point”, but they’re betting it will within the next decade. As others have pointed out, they’ll make money in any case.
However, they also realize that conventionally-extracted oil reserves are going to decline. In addition, some fields, such as Saudi Arabia, although huge, have “sour” (high sulfur) oil, that neither the U.S. nor Europe want–for example, new-generation diesel engines , like Mercedes-Benz Bluetec ultra-low emissions engines, can’t use it. “Sweetening” this oil is expensive.
As new deepwater fields, sand and shale oil have far higher extraction costs than conventional terrestrial wells , their development is only feasible with high charges imposed on buyers.
With dropping-cost wind-generation systems, due to new turbine designs and economy of manufacturing scale, and new-generation higher-efficiency solar generators, there will be cross-over points in which these become close to cost-comparable to oil, and since they’re clean, they will be preferred.
JW, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are right. We don’t even have recyclables waste cans, Consumer hazardous waste management is still relatively young, particularly here. I would suspect that mercury-bulb recycling will get here in the not-too-distant future.
JW,
Here’s what the regs are in Virginia (this popped up at the top when I googled, I’ll look for more ;)
http://www.deq.state.va.us/waste/fllights.html
Fluorescent lights / mercury-containing lamps (universal waste)Virginia previously incorporated language in Part XVI of the hazardous waste management regulations that included mercury-containing lamps as a state-declared universal waste. Amendment 15 of the hazardous waste regulations, Section 9 VAC 20-60-273, incorporates the federal universal waste rule language by reference. Virginia included mercury containing lamps as a state-declared universal waste prior to the adoption of federal standards. General management requirements for these universal wastes (both small quantity handlers and large quantity handlers) are in accordance with the federal requirements as adopted by reference in 9 VAC 20-60-273, with certain additional provisions included from the previous Virginia regulations.
Please note that the “universal waste rule” does not authorize disposal of fluorescent lamps or other mercury-containing lamps in landfills.
There has been some confusion and misinformation on this point. Management of mercury containing lamps under Virginia’s special provisions is based on a “recycling presumption”, i.e., in order to qualify for the reduced management requirements the lamps must be collected or managed for recycling/reclamation within the general guidelines of the federal universal waste requirements.
Lamps that are to be “disposed of” rather than legitimately recycled/reclaimed are subject to full regulation as hazardous wastes if they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. Generators who do not manage their mercury-containing lights under the universal waste conditional exclusion may refer to the previous Virginia guidance paper on fluorescent light management for disposal information.
JW, also see this site:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/FluoresLamps/
If you read the whole Virginia and California regs, here’s the gist: Normally mercury-containing lamps are to be subject to recycling. If this is not possible, e.g. broken bulbs mixed with contaminents, they are treated as hazardous waste. Ben could give much better info on this, but I believe this means that waste that can’t be recycled is put into special corrosion-resistant containers, and stored above or below ground to prevent leaching of toxic substances into soil and groundwater, or it may be perhaps be subject to special incineration methods with toxic-vapor-substance capture.
Where is Ben when you need him? ‘)
JWink,
Probably the best ways to keep CFL’s out of landfills is educate consumers, and make safe disposal more convenient.Perhaps stores could take the burn-out bulbs, like some stores do for ni-cad batteries. Save the original packing to protect the bulb, or use a small box, maybe with padding.
Most of the mercury vapor is absorbed into the glass, phosphor, etc. by the time the bulb burns-out.Newer versions of the old (like 4 foot long) bulbs use a smaller, measured dose of mercury. Some of those run out of mercury vapor instead of the phosphor failing, and will glow pink.
Nebraska regs. Pretty much the same for all states (except Calif:-)):
* Fluorescent light tubes that are generated by a household can be disposed in unlimited quantities in a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill.
* Fluorescent light tubes that do not contain mercury can be disposed in unlimited quantities in a MSW landfill.
* Fluorescent light tubes that contain mercury, but have been determined not to be hazardous waste, can be disposed at a MSW landfill in unlimited quantities.
* Fluorescent light tubes containing mercury that are determined to be a hazardous waste, by testing or knowledge of the manufacturing process, and are generated by a business that is a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator, may be disposed in quantities up to 43 pounds per day at a MSW landfill. This is approximately 75 four-foot tubes. (See Title 132 – Integrated Solid Waste Management Regulations for definitions)
* Fluorescent light tubes that are generated by businesses that are Small or Large Quantity Generators are not allowed to dispose any quantity of tubes determined to be hazardous at a MSW landfill.
But back on track:
Of course oil companies are going to try and cash in on the green movement. They are in business to make money, as ALL businesses are. That does not, IMHO, cover their ass concerning the record profits they are making off the drivers of this country. They should have been doing a lot more and done it sooner.
With over 83% of the people in this country believing global warming is real and a problem, and the other 13% believing if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, guess who will do something about it? Kinda like the last election, huh repub?
Regardless of what proof is offered, what new technologies are brought out to cut greenhouse gases, or how many reputable scientists come out with global warming predictions, there will be those who will disbelieve. I think they’re called republicans. I like the odds.
If you REALLY believe that we have global warmin and that it is manmade then I have some prime farm land for sell 100 miles south of New Orleans. Come on people get real! What did you do, fall asleep during earth science class in school? This is ALL cyclical. The planet goes through phases. The John Q. Environmentalist is afraid of his own shadow!! This planet has warmed up (remember studying what the climate during the era of the dinosaurs was) with parts of the midwest region being tropical to the Great Lakes region on down being buried under ice during the great ice age.
Integrated Solid Waste management. Something Bob Knight derisively called my “mantra” many years ago. We need to look carefully at all aspects of our solid waste stream. RECYCLING – must be a major part. Non-combustables like aluminum, ‘tin’, glass, etc. These materials can be re-used. TOXIC stuff – lead, cadmium, americium, mercury – both as resource recovery AND keeping out of the environment. These are IN the waste stream because they are used in commerce – keep them in commerce.
Now to get my Sierra Club friends mad at me – again. INCINERATION – for much of the combustable fraction. WITH ENERGY RECOVERY. A styrofoam cup or plastic pop bottle looks a lot like oil. Paper looks a lot like wood.
Something I point out to my environmentalist friends is that decomposition of this stuff in a landfill leads to a 50-50 molar mix of CO2 and methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. AND – this use displaces fossil fuels. Incineration is more environmentally sound than landfill. The key – DO IT RIGHT.
plnmkr – have you ever taken a climatology course in grad school? The scientists who study such things seem to come to a rather different scientific conclusion than you do. Perhaps you might benefit from studying the technical literature in the field. I’m not referring to your high school class but a bit further up.
If you can’t beat ‘em – join ‘em.
Or at least make them think you will.
Keep your friends close – your enemies closer.
A smart move by the oil companies.
Ben have you ever studied geology in college? you might understand the planet better and the cycles it goes through. Also, I do not mean geology classes in today’s college classroom but back 20 years ago when proffessors were not afraid to “tell it like it is” and their material was not controlled.
plnmkr,
Please explain why you believe that past natural climate changes PREVENTS human-caused climate changes.
Do you believe it’s 100% coincidence that Earth is significantly warming NOW, shortly after humans have added significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere?
plnmkr,
I think Ben aka Dr. Huie is an Environmental Scientist and is a Kansas Certified Geologist. I’m sure he’ll correct me if my failed attempt at his Curriculum Vitae is in error. :D
Thanks Rep – very close. Actually it is licensed, not certified. planmkr – I TAUGHT geology. And I am NOT afraid to ‘tell it like it is’. Again, i recommend reading technical stuff instead of political.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
You might notice above I mentione Milankovitch cycles. They are a very interesting part of paleoclimatology; studying them has given us a great deal of insight into how climate works and changes.
Remember the other day when the reich-wingers got up on their hind legs and posted a Newsweek article from “Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, Richard Lindzen,” the guy who proudly announces that all his research is funded only by the US gov’t?
Well, his RESEARCH may be funded by the gov’t, but his pay-check is funded by big oil.
Of course.
Here’s a snip from Harper’s and a follow up article:
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics–Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others–who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC.
His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself — his kids’ college tuition, his mortgage payments — have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek — he’s also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal — appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he’s writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
*******
The reich-wing . . . they lie so much, it makes you feel stupid that you even half-way believe them from time to time.
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/50494
The one thing that is really get me is the cost angle, where is the profit either way if the human race become extinct? If the human race is to die a slow burning death, will it really matter if they are employed, can still afford to shop at Wal-Mart or drive a gas guzzling car? Talk about a “Me first” outlook!
Ben: I agree with you, it seems like an efficient INCINERATOR could be constructed but everyone I talk with says it would be way to expensive.
Are incinerators working successfully elsewhere in the country?
Seems like Wichita with the ex-Boeing engineers and metal constructors could design and build a good incinerator.
When I dropped some hazardous household wastes off a few months ago, I asked about incineration. They told me they truck some materials to an incinerator in (IIRC) Arkansas.
JWink – yes, there are many. Some good, some not-so-good. The economics are complicated – one problem here has been the fact that we have a surplus of electricity. That makes selling it (PURPA) difficult. Years ago I had seen the figure of 2 cents per KWH. Compare that to what you pay KG&E (now Westar). Raise that figure to 6 cents and the revenue from electricity triples.
The other revenue stream is ‘tipping fees’ – what they charge the trash dumper. If the WTE facility has to compete with a subsidized landfill (such as Brooks was) then it becomes economically non-viable.
Above I mentioned the idea of ‘internalizing’ costs. By this I mean things like the current clean-up at Brooks. The City is responsible for liability; ALL of that cost should have been incorporated in tipping fees. It was not; the cleanup reserve fund is not sufficient to cover 30-year post-closure costs.
All of these things come together – thus the term ‘integrated’. Separation of toxic metals and other recycleables does two things – provide revenues and keep the crud out of the WTE plant. In effect it is ‘beneficiating’ the fuel in a manner similar to what is done by removing ‘non-coal rock’ from coal. This, in turn, makes the WTE plant run more efficiently.
Because the fuel is difficult to deal with a WTE plant is more costly than a coal plant. However, factoring in fuel costs (rising for coal, NEGATIVE for trash) and the economic picture changes.
If a carbon tax were enacted it might make sense to exempt WTE since decomposition of degradable trash also generates CO2/methane.
Mark – haz-waste incineration is a different process. Done correctly, it can be a good idea. They also use a lot of that stuff in cement kilns.
We have excursioned a bit from the orogonal topic and in this case I think it is not a bad thing. I’d like to take another detour – biofuels. On other threads there has been a lot of discussion about water problems with corn/ethanol and I agree with the concern. So, here I take a very different approach.
Biodiesel from animal products. I think there is some work being done on “turkey guts” to diesel. How about other animal garbage including ‘downed’ animals? Can that be processed to fuels? I don’t know the answer – just tossing it out for discussion.
Part of the reason I like the idea of this comes from some permitting issues I have seen with feeding operations. There is always the question of carcass disposal. Usually they are buried on-site; that leads to water pollution concerns. It seems that if they can be processed this addresses TWO problems – disposal and fuel.
“I’m dreaming of a whiteI R S Deadline —
Just to teach everyone I know
That a carbon tax will be scaryIts not right
Al Gore’s tax just isn’tVery Bright”