5 ms·

We need to reduce carbon emissions to zero in couple decades. Burning trash isn't an issue now, but we need to keep in mind that isn't really "green" when decid

We need to reduce carbon emissions to zero in couple decades. Burning trash isn't an issue now, but we need to keep in mind that isn't really "green" when deciding to build more plants. The problem with burning trash is that it turns all of the carbon into CO2. Trash in landfill does produce methane which is worse greenhouse gas, but it sounds like landfill are starting to capture or burn methane. The best option is likely to separate biologic waste and compost it. That produces some CO2 but puts the remaining carbon back where can be used. Plastic doesn't degrade, paper can be recycled, which means most of the carbon is sequestered or reused.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> The best option is likely to separate biologic waste and compost it. That produces some CO2 but puts the remaining carbon back where can be used. Plastic doesn't degrade, paper can be recycled, which means most of the carbon is sequestered or reused. There are also technologies that turn biologic waste and plastics back into a high-quality oil that has a variety of uses. On balance I don't know if this is better than direct burning for energy production, but for more robust plastic recycling it might be.
kragen 3y ago
i thought this was an order of magnitude problem, like when people react the same way to an epidemic that could kill a hundred thousand people or a hundred million, but it turns out to be a sensible thing to be concerned about you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters the amount produced by burning garbage is a few times bigger than breathing https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#addtoc_26 https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#a... has some of my notes on garbage; the high bit is that, in new york, residential and commercial waste is about a tonne per person per year, mostly things like paper and plastic which burn to carbon dioxide and water. so you might emit two tonnes of the dioxide per person per year by burning their trash as explained in https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#addtoc_19 https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#a... a person breathing produces about a kg per day or 400 kg per year, hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions explains that human carbon dioxide emissions are about 35 gigatonnes per year, about 4½ tonnes per person per year now, probably people in new york throw away more garbage and burn more fossil fuels than average, so these numbers are maybe not as close as they appear; but the fossil fuels number doesn't make the potential garbage burnination number totally insignificant like i thought it would
- imtringued 3y ago
  >you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters This is a classic misrepresentation of the problem. Policy makers don't care about how much CO2 you emit as long as it stays within the bio capacity of the planet. I.e. is there a net accumulation of CO2 and yes, yes there is. The CO2 you breathe had to be captured by the plants in the first place and therefore doesn't represent a net accumulation. The CO2 emissions involved in the agricultural processes of the food you eat, however do represent a net accumulation since the fuels were dug out of the ground.
  - kragen 3y ago
    i think that my comment already covers this, except that the policy makers are not people whose judgment is of interest; the only way that they're relevant to this discussion is that they caused the problem in the first place in particular, i said that your emissions from breathing are > hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage the story is a little more complicated, though, because point-source carbon capture is feasible for trash incinerators (and, say, container ships) but not for people breathing, so trash incinerators could conceivably provide indirect atmospheric carbon capture by way of the trees and food that ended up in the garbage. i didn't want to get into these complexities, which is why i didn't go into more detail in my original comment more importantly, though, i don't appreciate being called a fucking liar (even if euphemistically) because i disagree with you about something. people like you are why i always regret engaging on this site. please begin adhering to minimal norms of civility before you fucking comment again

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> The best option is likely to separate biologic waste and compost it. That produces some CO2 but puts the remaining carbon back where can be used. Plastic doesn't degrade, paper can be recycled, which means most of the carbon is sequestered or reused. There are also technologies that turn biologic waste and plastics back into a high-quality oil that has a variety of uses. On balance I don't know if this is better than direct burning for energy production, but for more robust plastic recycling it might be.

kragen 3y ago

i thought this was an order of magnitude problem, like when people react the same way to an epidemic that could kill a hundred thousand people or a hundred million, but it turns out to be a sensible thing to be concerned about you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters the amount produced by burning garbage is a few times bigger than breathing https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#addtoc_26 https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#a... has some of my notes on garbage; the high bit is that, in new york, residential and commercial waste is about a tonne per person per year, mostly things like paper and plastic which burn to carbon dioxide and water. so you might emit two tonnes of the dioxide per person per year by burning their trash as explained in https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#addtoc_19 https://dercuano.github.io/notes/underground-arcology.html#a... a person breathing produces about a kg per day or 400 kg per year, hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions explains that human carbon dioxide emissions are about 35 gigatonnes per year, about 4½ tonnes per person per year now, probably people in new york throw away more garbage and burn more fossil fuels than average, so these numbers are maybe not as close as they appear; but the fossil fuels number doesn't make the potential garbage burnination number totally insignificant like i thought it would

imtringued 3y ago
>you will never reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero per person; people emit carbon dioxide just by breathing. but the quantity determines whether or not it matters This is a classic misrepresentation of the problem. Policy makers don't care about how much CO2 you emit as long as it stays within the bio capacity of the planet. I.e. is there a net accumulation of CO2 and yes, yes there is. The CO2 you breathe had to be captured by the plants in the first place and therefore doesn't represent a net accumulation. The CO2 emissions involved in the agricultural processes of the food you eat, however do represent a net accumulation since the fuels were dug out of the ground.
- kragen 3y ago
  i think that my comment already covers this, except that the policy makers are not people whose judgment is of interest; the only way that they're relevant to this discussion is that they caused the problem in the first place in particular, i said that your emissions from breathing are > hopefully sourced from the air via plants. so, too, is most of the combustible garbage the story is a little more complicated, though, because point-source carbon capture is feasible for trash incinerators (and, say, container ships) but not for people breathing, so trash incinerators could conceivably provide indirect atmospheric carbon capture by way of the trees and food that ended up in the garbage. i didn't want to get into these complexities, which is why i didn't go into more detail in my original comment more importantly, though, i don't appreciate being called a fucking liar (even if euphemistically) because i disagree with you about something. people like you are why i always regret engaging on this site. please begin adhering to minimal norms of civility before you fucking comment again