5 ms·

Like many articles on the same topic, this is very scant on the ecological consequence of burning things. Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn

by bertil 5y ago

Like many articles on the same topic, this is very scant on the ecological consequence of burning things. Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. That’s why ICE car drivers think what they do is fine. If you’d ask them how big is the cloud of toxic pollutants that they emit, they’d struggle to imagine even the scale (it’s a basic estimation based on two numbers that are in front of them at all times). This sentence is alarming and should lead to a lot more investigation than what the article gives them: > “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.” Because dioxin is nowhere near as innocuous as CO2: that’s what Russia used to disfigure the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. I feel like “Oh, yeah, we are releasing a lot of arsenic in the air” wouldn’t be dismissed as casually.

frafra 5y ago
> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.” Three incinerators out of...? And why a potential violation of EU regulation would mean that incineration as a hole is bad? There are plenty of incredibly clean incinerators, with emissions of dioxins and furans so low that you need to accumulate them over multiple days to be able to even detect them sometimes. If you use that recovered energy for heating, you probably avoid emitting other pollutants (even dioxins and furans). The alternative is landfill disposal of non-inert waste, which is way worse than any kind of incineration, and it is very hard and complex to manage properly. There are plenty of landfill disasters.
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  Your last paragraph is simply false.
  - frafra 5y ago
    Which part is false? "any kind of incineration" could be a broad definition, and I should have specified "any kind of incineration process compliant with modern regulation" maybe. I do not know about regulations in the US, but in EU they are pretty strict, thus incineration of non-inhert waste should be done (look for "Waste prevention and management" on the European Commission website) EU waste legislation is based on false premises, according to your comment. There have been plenty of disasters related to landfill disposal. Complexity is also there, as a lot of chemistry happens and toxic subproducts can be generated, even if the waste is not toxic in the first place, just because of interactions with the ground. The sheets used to cover the ground are easy to scratch, costly to replace, and accidental damage is often ignored. Monitoring lasts for decades or more, with greenhouse emissions. The stability of the terrain under and over landfill could also change, as there are processes that run for a long time. I would highly suggest attending a university course on waste management if your country allows you to do that for free and without registration.
post_break 5y ago
"That’s why ICE car drivers think what they do is fine." I'm sorry what? ICE car drivers don't have an option to think most of time because there are no other options. For almost the entirety of driving there have been two options, gas or diesel. Hybrids have slowly started to arrive, electric cars even slower. This idea that everyone is just out there picking ICE cars because they don't care what comes out the tail pipe is a joke. People are broke, finance cars to 96 month terms, for a $17,000 used car. If there were affordable options for hybrid or electric cars sure, but this grand idea that the general public has a choice in the matter grinds my gears.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  You are missing the obvious alternatives: public transport, cycling, walking. I'm sitting on an electric suburban train. I don't know where the energy comes from, but there's a lot less needed than any car.
  - post_break 5y ago
    All of those alternatives are highly dependent on where you live. The comment that I responded to had to do with those picking ICE car drivers, as if there were non ICE car options. Here in America 99% of the time your options are car, or nothing. Public transport either doesn't exist or doesn't go where you need it to if it's even on time. Cycling is dangerous and mostly used as exercise, and walking the distance is just too far. Would I love to cycle to work? Absolutely. Am I willing to risk my life every day to do so? I don't think so. The choices you call on as obvious, are just not depending on location. Tell someone in Texas to try cycling, taking the bus, or walking to work and see what their reaction is. Tell someone in Japan and the reaction is much different.
  - sithadmin 5y ago
    Public transport, cycling and walking aren't a reasonable option for the vast majority of those in the US. I'm just outside of Washington DC (Northern VA, inside the 'beltway') - a locale that ostensibly has some of the best public transit the US has to offer. My neighborhood is highly walkable - any sort of quotidian essential (grocery, pharmacy, doctors, dentists, dining, library, etc.) is accessible within a ~20 minute walk of my home. But without a car, access to locales outside typical walking range is severely limited by public transit service frequency and coverage. The shortest public transit route to my suburban office ~8 miles north? 80 minutes one way, including 30 walking minutes, half of which do not include any paved sidewalks. There are no sane or safe bike routes to this location. It is only a ~15 minute commute by car. My commute to a typical downtown DC office location (Penn Quarter) by public transit alone? 75 minutes one way, again with 30 of it walking. That can be cut to ~50 minutes (inclusive 10 walking) if I drive to the nearest DC Metro station and take the train in, but then I have to rely on a car anyway, and I might as well just do the whole ~35ish minute drive into the city. Taking a bike to the train station would eliminate any time savings, and require dangerous riding on high-ish speed local roads and crossing a busy highway. The situation isn't going to change without investing incredible sums in infrastructure (which probably won't yield improvement for close to a decade, realistically) and massive changes in local zoning and development policy to promote dense development near suburban transportation hubs (never going to happen with NIMBY attitudes and warring municipal interests).
alkonaut 5y ago
> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. What makes you think anyone who suggests this is a good idea is under the impression that incineration makes things go away?
zajio1am 5y ago
> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. In many cases it is, because proper incineration leads to chemical degradation of waste to simpler compounds. There are still some ash and flue gases that needs to be properly handled.

by bertil 5y ago

frafra 5y ago

> “Our recent report found high levels of persistent organic pollutants like dioxins or furans around waste incinerators in three countries.” Three incinerators out of...? And why a potential violation of EU regulation would mean that incineration as a hole is bad? There are plenty of incredibly clean incinerators, with emissions of dioxins and furans so low that you need to accumulate them over multiple days to be able to even detect them sometimes. If you use that recovered energy for heating, you probably avoid emitting other pollutants (even dioxins and furans). The alternative is landfill disposal of non-inert waste, which is way worse than any kind of incineration, and it is very hard and complex to manage properly. There are plenty of landfill disasters.

frosted-flakes 5y ago
Your last paragraph is simply false.
- frafra 5y ago
  Which part is false? "any kind of incineration" could be a broad definition, and I should have specified "any kind of incineration process compliant with modern regulation" maybe. I do not know about regulations in the US, but in EU they are pretty strict, thus incineration of non-inhert waste should be done (look for "Waste prevention and management" on the European Commission website) EU waste legislation is based on false premises, according to your comment. There have been plenty of disasters related to landfill disposal. Complexity is also there, as a lot of chemistry happens and toxic subproducts can be generated, even if the waste is not toxic in the first place, just because of interactions with the ground. The sheets used to cover the ground are easy to scratch, costly to replace, and accidental damage is often ignored. Monitoring lasts for decades or more, with greenhouse emissions. The stability of the terrain under and over landfill could also change, as there are processes that run for a long time. I would highly suggest attending a university course on waste management if your country allows you to do that for free and without registration.

post_break 5y ago

"That’s why ICE car drivers think what they do is fine." I'm sorry what? ICE car drivers don't have an option to think most of time because there are no other options. For almost the entirety of driving there have been two options, gas or diesel. Hybrids have slowly started to arrive, electric cars even slower. This idea that everyone is just out there picking ICE cars because they don't care what comes out the tail pipe is a joke. People are broke, finance cars to 96 month terms, for a $17,000 used car. If there were affordable options for hybrid or electric cars sure, but this grand idea that the general public has a choice in the matter grinds my gears.

Symbiote 5y ago
You are missing the obvious alternatives: public transport, cycling, walking. I'm sitting on an electric suburban train. I don't know where the energy comes from, but there's a lot less needed than any car.
- post_break 5y ago
  All of those alternatives are highly dependent on where you live. The comment that I responded to had to do with those picking ICE car drivers, as if there were non ICE car options. Here in America 99% of the time your options are car, or nothing. Public transport either doesn't exist or doesn't go where you need it to if it's even on time. Cycling is dangerous and mostly used as exercise, and walking the distance is just too far. Would I love to cycle to work? Absolutely. Am I willing to risk my life every day to do so? I don't think so. The choices you call on as obvious, are just not depending on location. Tell someone in Texas to try cycling, taking the bus, or walking to work and see what their reaction is. Tell someone in Japan and the reaction is much different.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  Public transport, cycling and walking aren't a reasonable option for the vast majority of those in the US. I'm just outside of Washington DC (Northern VA, inside the 'beltway') - a locale that ostensibly has some of the best public transit the US has to offer. My neighborhood is highly walkable - any sort of quotidian essential (grocery, pharmacy, doctors, dentists, dining, library, etc.) is accessible within a ~20 minute walk of my home. But without a car, access to locales outside typical walking range is severely limited by public transit service frequency and coverage. The shortest public transit route to my suburban office ~8 miles north? 80 minutes one way, including 30 walking minutes, half of which do not include any paved sidewalks. There are no sane or safe bike routes to this location. It is only a ~15 minute commute by car. My commute to a typical downtown DC office location (Penn Quarter) by public transit alone? 75 minutes one way, again with 30 of it walking. That can be cut to ~50 minutes (inclusive 10 walking) if I drive to the nearest DC Metro station and take the train in, but then I have to rely on a car anyway, and I might as well just do the whole ~35ish minute drive into the city. Taking a bike to the train station would eliminate any time savings, and require dangerous riding on high-ish speed local roads and crossing a busy highway. The situation isn't going to change without investing incredible sums in infrastructure (which probably won't yield improvement for close to a decade, realistically) and massive changes in local zoning and development policy to promote dense development near suburban transportation hubs (never going to happen with NIMBY attitudes and warring municipal interests).

alkonaut 5y ago

> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. What makes you think anyone who suggests this is a good idea is under the impression that incineration makes things go away?

zajio1am 5y ago

> Because things go “puff” and you can’t seem them doesn’t mean the problem is gone. In many cases it is, because proper incineration leads to chemical degradation of waste to simpler compounds. There are still some ash and flue gases that needs to be properly handled.