No need to recycle

[Brione Furcas]

I am however pretty hesitant to believe anything the U.S gov says or does, lobby power from the U.N and climate fanatics being what it is.

I suppose this is really the answer I was seeking. You just disbelieve the findings of everyone on one side of the ledger. The mistrust of the experts' conclusions seems rather vague though. How do you think the US government's pressure, or the lobby power of the UN, actually works? Are scientists all over the world tailoring their work to suit the desires of some amorphous group of 'climate fanatics'? Are they just fabricating consistent findings with other people conducting similar studies?

I don't, it is all about money. Billions of dollars spent trying to "fight" the natural cycle of our planet.

This also confuses me a little. It's an easy, generalised claim to make - but how does it work in practice? How is it all about money? Is there some special interest group paying the scientists in numerous countries to publish dodgy studies? Isn't it equally (if not mostly) in the interests of big business to deny climate science, so there is no inhibition of their industrial activities?

It may be true that the official position of any goverment shouldn't automatically be accepted, and that commercial interests can place pressure on researchers (especially where research is funded by an industry). History has shown us examples of both of those problems. But I don't see how those blanket statements are a sufficient answer to the weight of evidence, unless you can really articulate how and why those factors are causing researchers all over the world to reach the same conclusions.

I r rolleh polleh trolleh

Also, I'm hopeless at detecting trolling.

I mean why wouldn't they fudge their evidence to support their narrative, it brings in money for their respective organisations.

[Benito]

Good article.

Yes, we all need to consume and buy less dung, but the flip side is that we need to produce less as a species. That's a problem when our whole world economy is built around growth and production. One of the solutions is that we all work less and produce less, but that's also there's meaningful work around raising wages for the many.

One of the very real American problems is that we've spent the last 100 years designing the country for cars. Our infrastructure is massively inefficient when it comes to how we see each other, how we get to work, how we get our groceries and shop, the distance between our houses, etc. All of that has to change.

The follow-up question to whether you believe or don't believe the US government is, which part? I believe the US military is simultaneously concerned about climate change and the single largest polluting entity in the world. But to me, if we're gonna believe in a conspiracy, it's far easier to believe in a conspiracy of denialism backed by oil companies, denying the research they have done themselves (as is documented with Exxon) rather than to believe in a conspiracy that has extended itself to scientists all around the world (and that there is no evidence for.)

[Enok]

I mean why wouldn't they fudge their evidence to support their narrative, it brings in money for their respective organisations.

I get the notion, but if you're trying to follow the money here I'm fairly certain you could find more blatant examples of greed than climate scientists.

[Dimmu]

MAGA.

[Groderick]

I am sorry, but until the big polluters really decide to cut down on emissions and go green, not much is gonna happen
evn if 2 billion individuals decided to start recycilng, they aren't the really big polluters.

P.S. Just think about how many products you buy from the markets that aren't wrapped up in plastic.

[isabel]

It's like if your house is burning down, you won't think that the act of saying "I'll stub out this cigarette and go without a smoke" is enough, meaningful, or anything but an unreal and bizarre response. Our house IS burning down and unless we see it as our house, we won't do the thing that actually helps, we won't even spend 10 minutes thinking about what that could be, let alone step out of the comfort zone - not the comfort zone of not having to recycle, but the comfort zone of being wrapped in 'personal boundaries' and ignoring that this is far larger than an individual's choice or decision.

[segioda]

Brione is right, it is all about money and lobby groups. They're just on the wrong side.

Oil companies have known about climate change for years. Here's one of many articles on the subject:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

[Aira]

Actually a high water table probably means the cattle dung easily pollutes said water. Even a low water table has this problem, but a high water table, more so.

There's definetely a max to the amount of the dung components any given acre can handle. If you stay below that threshold, it will improve soil and growth. Even small amounts of those components in the water will help plant growth. If there's too much though, algae bloom and other lifeforms tend to die off.

There's heaps of regulations for farmers here based on what the land and the environment can handle and since the 1980s, water quality has been on the rise. One of the newer regulations is that if a farmer has too many cows for the amount of land he owns, he will have to acquire/ lease more land to maintain the balance between dung/acre.

[Astolfo]

Actually a high water table probably means the cattle dung easily pollutes said water. Even a low water table has this problem, but a high water table, more so.

There's definetely a max to the amount of the dung components any given acre can handle. If you stay below that threshold, it will improve soil and growth. Even small amounts of those components in the water will help plant growth. If there's too much though, algae bloom and other lifeforms tend to die off.

There's heaps of regulations for farmers here based on what the land and the environment can handle and since the 1980s, water quality has been on the rise. One of the newer regulations is that if a farmer has too many cows for the amount of land he owns, he will have to acquire/ lease more land to maintain the balance between dung/acre.

What's the official technical term in Dutch for that dung/acre ratio?

[Itesh]

Den hjoofsplaatenlaandt.

As you can see, I am fluent.