What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[classicman]

couple more ...

Impact: Paper.

The recycling of paper is essential in cutting down on landfills: each day, enough paper is recycled to fill a fifteen-mile long train of boxcars. When this statistic was taken in 1993, only 40 percent of paper used was being recycled. That left a lot that was thrown into landfills. By the year 2000, it is estimated that 78 percent of all paper used in the United States will be recycled, as well as 15 percent of all paper overseas.

Buying recycled paper is usually more expensive than buying virgin paper products, but the government, in an attempt to encourage recycling, presented purchasing mandates that can allow a 10 to 15 percent price premium so that it can compete with other cheaper paper products.

Another factor to consider is water pollution. The making of paper, whether virgin or recycled, uses many thousands of gallons of clean water that can soon become polluted in the papermaking process. Virgin paper creates 35 percent more water pollution than recycled paper. Recycled paper also creates 74 percent less air pollution than virgin paper. However, both types of paper can contribute to contaminating area waters. Scientific evidence shows that fish can experience adverse effects through chemicals that reside in sediment. It can more than three years for any level of toxicity to lower.

Impact: Plastic.

Plastic impacts in two ways: First, it hits the environment in its use of electricity when being manufactured. More than half of the power needed to make plastic bags is generated by nuclear fission. While controversial, it is argued that nuclear power puts no direct harm or detriment into the environment. The only drawback to nuclear power is the radioactive waste, which is, so far, being safely diposed of in deep underground caves. And, in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is subducted into earths mantle and incinerated.

Pertaining to the rest of the electricity needed to make plastic bags, coal fire does pollute. But, plastic can be burned. In fact, the burning of plastic will yield from 10,000 to 20,000 btu per pound, of which 60% can be recovered. As stated above, plastic is burned to create electriciy, hence, we could use plastic to make plastic, and reduce sulphur emissions from coal.

There is the question, though, of recovery of energy by burning plastic. This, too, causes controversy but only because of mental block. If 93% of all oil is burned straight away, why can't the 4% used as plastic have a second life as energy? The burning of plastics isn't without its drawbacks. Inks and additives to some plastics can create dioxins, and emit heavy metals when burned. Also, after being burned, the toxic ash still needs to be disposed of in toxic wase dumps. Another problem with the incineration of plastic is the arguement that the energy produced by the process doesn't justify the misuse of a limited natural resource. The plastics already produced are better utilized by making new plastic materials by recycling.

The second way plastic impacts is through landfills. Plastic will never break down; It will never disappear. Biodegradeable plastic is a misnomer because wood fiber has been mixed with the plastic so when buried, the wood dissolves leaving a million tiny pieces of plastic, instead of one bag. As stated, plastics make up 18% of waste by volume, and 7% by weight. If plastic were to be replaced in its uses by other materials, rubbish weight would increase by 150%, packaging would weigh 300% more, and energy consumed by the industry would increase by 100%. It has been found that the reduced weight of plastic has spillover benefits, elsewhere. Reduction of weight in aircraft saves an average of 10,000 gallons of fuel per plane, per annum, world over. In automobiles, it is directly responsible for doubling the fuel efficiency since the 1970's. Applied to plastic bags, they reduce weight in landfills; They take up less space. This being in light of the discovery that most landfills are air tight, not allowing decomposition, leaving readable newspapers and chicken bones with meat still on them.

Conclusion

The making of paper can waste many thousands of gallons of water, as can the recycling of paper. The human and mechanical efforts and costs are very high, not forgetting the physical cost to loggers and those who work around the numerous chemicals. Plastic is, by comparison, efficient and low energy to produce, and, easily and efficiently recycled. Plastic reduces, recycles marvelously, and in that, is reused. After contrasting the efforts behind the making of paper and plastic, it is our unbiased opinion that plastic is indeed more beneficial to the environment, in that it is less harmful. The next time you are asked the dreaded question, "Paper or plastic?", you can answer knowing that you are making the informed choice.

[Stormieweather]

My concern is less about paper or plastic, but more about reuseable vs disposable. If we used more products that could be used over and over and less that got thrown out after a single use, we could help the environment. I use more metal, glass, and fabric as containers than trash bags, zip loc baggies, saran wrap, or plastic store carry bags. I'm trying to eliminate them altogether, but it's a slow process.

[HungLikeJesus]

That site is obviously highly skewed toward plastic. Look at these words:

Paper -

All cutting, printing, packaging, and shipping, requires additional time, labor, and energy, on top of the already exorbant amounts of capital, electricity, chemicals, and fossil fuels used.

Vs.

Plastic -

The oil drilling operation, itself, has become a rather small and sterile undertaking.

and

Plastic is, by comparison, efficient and low energy to produce, and, easily and efficiently recycled. Plastic reduces, recycles marvelously, and in that, is reused.

and

Plastic comes as a by-product of oil refining, and uses only 4% of the total worlds oil production.

And I don't know where they come up with this:

The electricity used from start to resin/raw material is mostly nuclear.

I highly doubt this is true, though I don't have time to research it right now, but I strongly question most of the statements and conclusions in this article.

The power used in the bag manufacturing, for the most part, comes from coal fire power plants. One interesting note is that approximately 50% of the electricity generated from coal burning power plants is not from coal at all, it is, in fact, wrought from the burning of old tires, they being made of rubber, which is plastic.

[Undertoad]

It's one of those issues where fighting about it is more important than determining truth.

I did learn that most plastic bags in this country are made from natural gas.

[classicman]

I noticed that too HLJ... Thats partly why I prefaced the post.
Personally, I use whats there if I don't have my own there. My biggest issue is two things. 1) I forget to put them in the trunk after unloading the groceries and 2) I forget them IN the trunk when I go to the store.

[Pico and ME]

Its easy to forget until it starts costing you when you do.

[infinite monkey]

Then there's how they'll accost you and demand your receipt as you leave the store because, being unofficial bags, you could very well have stuffed stuff in one of them as you were shopping and gone through the "cashier yourself" lane and be all like 'oh I didn't use that one' or 'oh that's my purse' when all they believe is that you sure look like the kind of person who would steal the latest Adam Sandler vehicle along with a DVD of some fat 'professional' wrestler's many antics.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Then there's how they'll accost you and demand your receipt as you leave the store because, being unofficial bags, you could very well have stuffed stuff in one of them as you were shopping and gone through the "cashier yourself" lane and be all like 'oh I didn't use that one' or 'oh that's my purse' when all they believe is that you sure look like the kind of person who would steal the latest Adam Sandler vehicle along with a DVD of some fat 'professional' wrestler's many antics.

[Lamplighter]

Today was Veterans Day in the US, and similarly celebrated elsewhere.
It is a day to remember the men and women who have served in the military,
and to realize the situations of families who have lost members in times of war.

It's also a time when generations misunderstand one another
because they do not have the same shared experiences.

World War II vets had a view of what life should be,
and molded the US government to fit that view.
To them, the government was not the beast-to-be-starved.
Agencies were created to meet the needs of private citizens.
Unions formed and the seeds of racial tolerance were embedded.
Political parties had their differences, but as viewed today they were definitely "moderate".

Twenty years later, the Viet Nam War drove a wedge between
young men and those WWII vets, who had become "the establishment".
Young men faced decisions about whether to serve in a so-called "immoral war".
Love It or Leave It - Draft Dodgers - Peaceniks - Long Haired Hippies
During all this, the boots-on-the-ground military changed complexion.
The Black and Hispanic communities were enlisted far beyond their numbers,
while college deferments and Canada were ways out for those who rejected military service.
So a military draft was established ---
But when the numbers of dead and wounded hit the middle class,
the anti-war revolt began in earnest.

Thirty-five mostly peaceful years later, the generations are missing one another again.

Support for the military actions in the middle east is flagging.
Military families, and especially the National Guard and Reserve, are stretched to breaking.
This "volunteer army" has almost borne the weight of this war alone,
while other citizens went about their private lives without being affected.

Today, there has been many talking heads on TV, and these issues are being discussed.
Some have said there is a need to involve the entire nation in this war on terrorism.
Involvement seems to mean "skin in the game" and there was discussion of calling for a draft.

But strangely enough, the soldiers of the Viet Nam era are now the officer corps,
and they speak highly of the quality of the current "volunteer" military.

As a liberal, it is hard for me to view the idea of a draft with equanimity.
My own young adult phase came during that Viet Nam era,
and those ideas are the ones that mean the most to me.

If it were a perfect world, a draft could be a way to "distribute the pain"
and to give more citizens a "stake" in the outcomes of political decisions.
But it's not a perfect world.
The "have's" will always find their way out of the "bad",
and the "have-not's" will end up carrying the loads.
.

[classicman]

@Pico - nah - I usually run out and get them at the end. Or I send son2 back for them.

[classicman]

Anyone who has hiked through the woods and seen stone walls should hopefully be aware at how much the land has changed.

There is a lot of that around here as well.

[glatt]

The stone wall obviously means that there used to be open fields there before. Another lesser know sign is when you look at the trees and you see trees with branches reaching out to the sides. In old forests, the trees are all tall with branches that point up reaching for the light through the canopy. In younger forests, where trees started growing in abandoned farmlands, the branches reach out to the sides because the light was all around. When you start to look for it, you can see it easily in different forests. Many forests now are a mixture, where you have older mature trees that are all branched out, and younger trees that are all skinny trying to get to the available light up high.

[ZenGum]

Wow, some thoughtful discussion here.

Reforestation is good, but is it a natural mix of many different species, or a huge monoculture of one or two profitable species?

The forestry companies here are very happy to announce how they replant with "native species", but they certainly didn't leave things how they found them.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

...
The forestry companies here are very happy to announce how they replant with "native species", but they certainly didn't leave things how they found them.

Well, how could they?

[ZenGum]

Mixed plantings. Mix shrubs and ground cover and open spaces, endemic trees. "Native" does not mean the same species that was there before.

They could, but I'm not saying they should. Just noting that "reforestation" comes in different kinds. A timber plantation is unlikely to have rich biodiversity, but does make for more efficient timber production. That is okay by me, but they shouldn't try and spin it as eco-heroism.