You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]0fsgivin0 points
16 points
16 points
(+16|-0)
ago
probably a frank discussion on the economics of the recycling industry...There are some studies showing even the recycling of paper causes MORE pollution than it prevents.
When you factor in everything...The power the recycling plant needs, The gas of the work trucks, even the gas of the workers driving to work. When you start adding it all up you find out its a pointless exercise at best and possibly even wasteful.
[+]christy1 point12 points13 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]christy1 point
12 points
13 points
(+13|-1)
ago
(edited ago)
As with many green programs, they do more harm than good. My company wants me to get LEED accredited, I really do not follow the logic. All locally sourced materials from the same state because of the emissions to transport... unless you're china. If you're China you don't green points for local materials, you get green points for buying materials from the US.
New Seattle building codes: You need occupancy sensors, I'm sure we can all get behind that, right? They turn the lights off when nobody is in the room, saves electricity. IN THE SAME ROOM they now want you to have vacancy sensors... which do the exact same fucking thing. Photoelectric sensors which will dim the lights when it's bright outside... and 50% of the outlets have to turn off if nobody is in a room.. like you have your phone plugged in, go to a meeting, come back and the shit isn't charged. In my opinion, that'll just lead to people daisy chaining surge protectors from the outlets that do work making a fire hazard/overload. The new codes add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price of a building, the parts have to be manufactured, shipped, installed, powered and so on which cancels out the supposed greenness of it.
Exactly. In a free market, if recycling saved on anything (money, resources, labor, etc.) it would be done voluntarily. The fact that some types of recycling need to be subsidized suggests they are not economically efficient and actually more wasteful than simple disposal.
Probably like the mod said: too much post reporting going on. Basically, the mods locked it because their queue was getting spammed by people using the report button as a "super downvote". I could be wrong though. I'll admit, when I briefly skimmed those threads, I didn't see anything controversial or any drama breaking out. Could've changed when I wasn't looking.
[+]HeavyBrain0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]HeavyBrain0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Because its an actually thread with no product shilling and if one of those lands on the front page it takes away a slot that could be used for product placement.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 123_456 0 points 22 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago
Ha. Idiots. Why the fuck would you even lock that?
[–] [deleted] 0 points 31 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago
[–] ethomson92 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
aside from the censorship, i think that's either laziness or cowardice
[–] Grunge 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
that feels so Lannister of them
[–] 0fsgivin 0 points 16 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago
probably a frank discussion on the economics of the recycling industry...There are some studies showing even the recycling of paper causes MORE pollution than it prevents.
When you factor in everything...The power the recycling plant needs, The gas of the work trucks, even the gas of the workers driving to work. When you start adding it all up you find out its a pointless exercise at best and possibly even wasteful.
[–] christy 1 point 12 points 13 points (+13|-1) ago (edited ago)
As with many green programs, they do more harm than good. My company wants me to get LEED accredited, I really do not follow the logic. All locally sourced materials from the same state because of the emissions to transport... unless you're china. If you're China you don't green points for local materials, you get green points for buying materials from the US.
New Seattle building codes: You need occupancy sensors, I'm sure we can all get behind that, right? They turn the lights off when nobody is in the room, saves electricity. IN THE SAME ROOM they now want you to have vacancy sensors... which do the exact same fucking thing. Photoelectric sensors which will dim the lights when it's bright outside... and 50% of the outlets have to turn off if nobody is in a room.. like you have your phone plugged in, go to a meeting, come back and the shit isn't charged. In my opinion, that'll just lead to people daisy chaining surge protectors from the outlets that do work making a fire hazard/overload. The new codes add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price of a building, the parts have to be manufactured, shipped, installed, powered and so on which cancels out the supposed greenness of it.
[–] InfoTeddy 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Uh…ELI5?
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] KoKansei ago
Exactly. In a free market, if recycling saved on anything (money, resources, labor, etc.) it would be done voluntarily. The fact that some types of recycling need to be subsidized suggests they are not economically efficient and actually more wasteful than simple disposal.
[–] Martenzo ago
Probably like the mod said: too much post reporting going on. Basically, the mods locked it because their queue was getting spammed by people using the report button as a "super downvote". I could be wrong though. I'll admit, when I briefly skimmed those threads, I didn't see anything controversial or any drama breaking out. Could've changed when I wasn't looking.
[–] HeavyBrain ago (edited ago)
Because its an actually thread with no product shilling and if one of those lands on the front page it takes away a slot that could be used for product placement.