Posted on 07/22/2021 9:19:55 AM PDT by White Lives Matter
Africa is a very large continent, and there are plenty of blacks who have nothing to do with South Africa or Rhodesia. They might have a better chance if Western Governments were not actively trying to mess them over.
I would agree with him, or at the least would not argue with him. I don’t believe we will make it to the 23rd century either. The way the future generations are being dumbed down by the Government I seriously doubt that the future generations will have the intelligence to make it out of this century.
But not in Bill’s day, I suspect.
Why? Is he not Capt. Kirk!? :)
He’s talking about 200 years down the road. Maybe climate change isn’t going to get us, but something else could. Looking at how things have been going lately, Captain Kirk could well be right.
That’s the point- DDT was *never* about harm to humans, but harm to birds. But so many posters here say ‘well it didn’t hurt me’-well, no. you or I can practically drink the stuff. Other animals in the ecosystem, such as birds, not so much
Shatner is you typical Canadian Lib. He is right though. He wount make it to the 23rd century. Doubt he’ll make it to the next decade. He is just trying to live long enough to piss on Sulu’s grave. Lay off the donuts Bill!
A green card holder nonetheless. Oh, and they sent a brigade to Korea as well. Just an observation that so many of the tough guys skate when it comes to the tough duty. The guys like Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin or Ed Asner are few and far between. Of course for this example perhaps James Doohan would be more appropriate.
Shatner drank the overpop koolaid.
Other than some kooky leftleaning beliefs, he is still comes across as a personable guy. Could probably enjoy a beer with him.
As usual, recycling has a degree or part of it that has value/utility. Recycling gold, silver, copper, and aluminium for example.
But then politicians and government buerocracy got involved. Today you have economically non-viable (essentially subsidized) programs that are in some cases even counter productive to the environmental cause!
When you recycle, you often as with paper use more water than if you just make new paper. With glass you have a 20% loss, lower grade end product, and use more power. But a few less trees (that were planted for the purpose of being harvested for wood) didn’t need cut down when you recycled the paper. You did save some sand, because we all know this planet has a dire sand shortage when you recycled the glass.
***Some of these recycling programs accomplish little to nothing “in the sum of all factors.”***
As usual again, it was the private sector that started recycling. Then it became political, and now much of it is stupid. Politicians dream up stupid shit like in Germany:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_(symbol). Basically a massive tax on everything because “gubbermint” is in the business of redistribution, that’s all they do. Some may “feel good” about themselves, politicians sold themselves, and a few businesses are making money off it, but did they really help the environment? No. Why?
Because most of the time, the most cost effective answer is also the environmental one. When you add costs, it’s because you’re adding logistics, resources and labor beyond the worth of the recycled product. You are building in MORE use of a resource elsewhere.
The media likes to use the exception to show that the interests of business and the environment are exclusive, but that is simply not true. Sure, it’s cheaper to throw old batteries in a lake than to dispose of them properly, but those are the exceptions. Where you work, unless it’s the government which actually promotes waste (example: end of fiscal year shopping sprees), is your business looking to save or waste every penny on electricity, fuel, water uses, paper uses, miles driven, packaging materials used, cost on freight??? Money itself in most cases is the tool which will logically create an outcome, but the 10% exceptions and ideology drive things in the environmental camp today because those making these idiotic rules don’t have to pay for it. Others do and usually they are hidden to the consumer. Why do you think they like to build these costs into a supply chain and not actually come out with a fee collected from everyone like a sales tax? How popular do you think these would be?
“Fifty years ago, I read Rachel Carson‘s Silent Spring,” he explained. “I remember vividly. What she said was going to happen has happened.
We may not make it to the 23rd Century, but for entirely different reasons.
He’s senile, Jim.
Same here but judging by his nose at different times in his life, I think he likes something a bit stronger but I’d join him no matter what the beverage.
Everyones nose grows as they get older. Whether they drink or not. Or drugs.
The ears get longer and the nose keeps growing, and facial bones get thicker.
The simplified version-
Some recycling efforts are not worth it economically (they only exist because of permanent subsides), and if you calculate all the energy as well as resource expenditures, you realize it’s not worth it.
This is a very old article, but it explains it well and nothing has changed specific to glass recycling:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/5703.pdf
In the meantime, recyclers also advertise and of course want to ensure the government gravy keeps flowing (because many of these recycling programs need tax money infused month after month). So you read about 0 loss in glass recycling, 0 quality loss in glass recycling... All these new websites popped up magically when people began asking questions a few years ago if this even made any sense...
These claims are all based on shifty definitions and excluding all the variables. In some cases, recycling adds new energy or water needs not required when using virgin materials. There are claims of saving 1/3 of the power when recycling glass, when it’s more like 13% and that is under favorable conditions.
I once did a calculation for a teacher that was trying to frighten our son’s middle-school class with this crap. I wish I could find the spreadsheet, but I could always do it again.
Basically, if you fill the dry land in Texas with “classrooms” of average size, only one story tall, and put families of four in classrooms until you reach 7 billion - about 6 of 10 classrooms will be EMPTY. Everyone on Earth is in Texas, and all the rest of the planet can be used for cattle, crops, etc. I know, not practical, but a stunning calculation.
Actually the birds in the study were given a diet low in calcium, known to produce thin shelled eggs. The thin shelled eggs were then blamed on DDT. see:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/02/11/how-poisonous-is-ddt
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116727843118861313
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.