PDA

View Full Version : Ban going too green


BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 12:54 PM
I'm sick of the FRA (federal rail association) is making it hard for us guys at NRE and the other railroads in the country cause of the stupid strict going green laws that reduce locomotive horse power,fuel use,and unit count on trains.
what your guys thoughts?

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 12:55 PM
I think the green regulation in the US are a joke and need to go much further.

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 12:55 PM
No such thing as 'too green'.

Etc.

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 12:56 PM
What's wrong with going green? Rather that than kill the atmosphere and the environment more tbh

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:00 PM
What's wrong with going green? Rather that than kill the atmosphere and the environment more tbh

Well a eco unit is 300 hp weaker than a locomotive build in the 90s
that's one thing why I don't go green

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:02 PM
Well a eco unit is 300 hp weaker than a locomotive build in the 90s
that's one thing why I don't go green
Can you prove that that is directly the result of the regulations and not changing needs?

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:05 PM
Lets the genset switch is 1500 hp the GP38-2 is 2500 and burns less fuel and has more traction effort and the GP38-2 was built in 60s

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:05 PM
Well a eco unit is 300 hp weaker than a locomotive build in the 90s
that's one thing why I don't go green
... You realise that the energy produced from renewable energy sources would easily power electric rails and trains, would practically pay itself off in months, and redistribute jobs and stabilise the economy right?...

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:11 PM
Nope think about this what has more tractive effort
Some cheap electric crap that last a day or a SD45T-2 that was built 45 years ago and is power by a diesel engine that has a tractive effort of like 6 of them.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:13 PM
Nope think about this what has more tractive effort
Some cheap electric crap that last a day or a SD45T-2 that was built 45 years ago and is power by a diesel engine that has a tractive effort of like 6 of them.
Well if it is cheap crap it probably wouldn't xD Maybe the issue is the money they're investing then? Also, I don't see what harm this has caused?

dxcxdzv
August 25th, 2016, 01:18 PM
Oh God arguing that "green" is not good because you work at the NRE and see a slight difference in hp power of locomotives ... the bias is so big you can't see it without quitting the Earth.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:20 PM
Me ether
the thing is mainly the way people see older units

Leprous
August 25th, 2016, 01:20 PM
Nope think about this what has more tractive effort
Some cheap electric crap that last a day or a SD45T-2 that was built 45 years ago and is power by a diesel engine that has a tractive effort of like 6 of them.

What is more effective? Raping the climate and making the ice caps and the glaciers melt or actually investing in electric trains (like every European country ever) and actually making an effort to not look like the big bad climate rape machine?

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:21 PM
Oh God arguing that "green" is not good because you work at the NRE and see a slight difference in hp power of locomotives ... the bias is so big you can't see it without quitting the Earth.

Cause Newer stuff also don't last long and is just a waste time and money
If we had companies like Alco going green would be a joke again.

What is more effective? Raping the climate and making the ice caps and the glaciers melt or actually investing in electric trains (like every European country ever) and actually making an effort to not look like the big bad climate rape machine?

I would rather have locomotive that kill few tree than have a crappy green unit on the main line barely pulling a short tank train

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

dxcxdzv
August 25th, 2016, 01:23 PM
Cause Newer stuff also don't last long and is just a waste time and money
If we had companies like Alco going green would be a joke again.
This is still irrelevant.

There is a difference with ecologic technology and "fragility" of the technology.
You'll realize one day it is far from being a waste of money, and I'll go even further, far from being a waste of value (I'll explain that if needed).

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:23 PM
Cause Newer stuff also don't last long and is just a waste time and money
If we had companies like Alco going green would be a joke again.
That isn't necessarily because it is more green however what harm has these caused? Reducing the amount of carbon we put in the air is greatly important and we must make sacrifices.

I would rather have locomotive that kill few tree than have a crappy green unit on the main line barely pulling a short tank train
Kill a few trees? Are you talking about acid rain or the coal? Also you are very ignorant if you think that is the only problem.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:26 PM
That isn't necessarily because it is more green however what harm has these caused? Reducing the amount of carbon we put in the air is greatly important and we must make sacrifices.

Alco was pretty clean for its time and some of them still run under tier 2 rule and with that most of the older stuff is very clean and not much climate damage was done same when steam was around what damage did that cause other than being scrapped not much.

Leprous
August 25th, 2016, 01:26 PM
I would rather have locomotive that kill few tree than have a crappy green unit on the main line barely pulling a short tank train

And who says an electric train is crap? Belgium has a fully electric train line including all cargo trains, works fine here. Oh same for idk all of Europe. I don't see how trying to save the planet is a bad thing.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:28 PM
Alco was pretty clean for its time and some of them still run under tier 2 rule and with that most of the older stuff is very clean and not much climate damage was done same when steam was around what damage did that cause other than being scrapped not much.
Yeah it was 'clean for it's time' in a time where nothing was clean? xD The fact is it pumps carbon into the air and that is a massive problem.

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:28 PM
Nope think about this what has more tractive effort
Some cheap electric crap that last a day or a SD45T-2 that was built 45 years ago and is power by a diesel engine that has a tractive effort of like 6 of them.

>Some cheap electric crap
You realise that it costs nearly $87 million dollars to run electric trains, right?...

>or a SD45T-2
Only like, 250 of those were produced, and the Diesel engine was an extreme problem for the crew with overheating and over exertion right?

Literally everything is wrong with continuing to use fossil fuels, for the economy and for the earth, but I guess your job is too precious right?

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:29 PM
And who says an electric train is crap? Belgium has a fully electric train line including all cargo trains, works fine here. Oh same for idk all of Europe. I don't see how trying to save the planet is a bad thing.

Cause they pull very short trains and are very light and have smaller grades than here in America
trains here are a mile long weigh a crap ton the rolling stock is heaver.

>Some cheap electric crap
You realise that it costs nearly $87 million dollars to run electric trains, right?...

>or a SD45T-2
Only like, 250 of those were produced, and the Diesel engine was an extreme problem for the crew with overheating and over exertion right?

Literally everything is wrong with continuing to use fossil fuels, for the economy and for the earth, but I guess your job is too precious right?

And the Sd45-T still is in use in yards. The GEVO is better than electric power and no banning fossil fuels would kill a lot of jobs and loss of money.

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button next time. ~Mars

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:34 PM
And the Sd45-T still is in use in yards. The GEVO is better than electric power and no banning fossil fuels would kill a lot of jobs and loss of money.

Again, all jobs would be redistributed in constructing water powered dams, wind turbines, solar panels, maintaining such things, and converting fossil fuel powered objects and lines into energy efficient. Plus, it would cost WAY less than the money we spend importing oil and coal, and the amount of money spent on equipment and maintaining health and pay benefits for workers.

Please bring up a VALID argument.

Going green won't kill your job. It hella won't kill the environment, and it HELLA WONT kill the train and railroad industry.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:36 PM
Again, all jobs would be redistributed in constructing water powered dams, wind turbines, solar panels, maintaining such things, and converting fossil fuel powered objects and lines into energy efficient. Plus, it would cost WAY less than the money we spend importing oil and coal, and the amount of money spent on equipment and maintaining health and pay benefits for workers.

Please bring up a VALID argument.
Cause power of being green is the way to go think bout how many electric locomotives would it take to power a 160 car coal train 300 miles?

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:37 PM
Cause power of being green is the way to go think bout how many electric locomotives would it take to power a 160 car coal train 300 miles?

Uh like 1? Do you know how electricity works?

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:39 PM
Nope it woul take more than one cause you haft to havfe force to pull up a grade,power to pump air in to brakes,horn,and keep the train from running away or derailing
I know how railroading works.

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:40 PM
Nope it woul take more than one cause you haft to havfe force to pull up a grade,power to pump air in to brakes,horn,and keep the train from running away or derailing
I know how railroading works.

Obviously not. Because trains have more than one car right?... Regular, coal powered trains I mean?

Now, imagine, yes, use your brain and imagine, a world where instead of using coal to power those trains, you use ELECTRICITY!

Crazy right? Almost painful even?

Sorry.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:42 PM
Nope it woul take more than one cause you haft to havfe force to pull up a grade,power to pump air in to brakes,horn,and keep the train from running away or derailing
I know how railroading works.
Electricity can do that easy xD When you need more things done, just add a few more watts xD Something engineers can easily do. I know this, because it has been done.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:42 PM
they have one tinder
the world would suck
I think diesel is what we need its funny but true. look up EMD on youtube to see what I mean

Electricity can do that easy xD When you need more things done, just add a few more watts xD Something engineers can easily do. I know this, because it has been done.

Also depends on the unit some are AC and some are DC

Posts merged. Please use edit/multi quote buttons next time. ~Mars

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:44 PM
they have one tinder
the world would suck
I think diesel is what we need its funny but true. look up EMD on youtube to see what I mean
Please link us, EMD on youtube throws up so much different stuff. Also you're ignoring the fact that across Europe, electric trains are the norm.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokmkn_tEmU This is a EMD SD series locomotive with a EMD 710 prime mover in it.

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:48 PM
they have one tinder
the world would suck
I think diesel is what we need its funny but true. look up EMD on youtube to see what I mean

What the fuck does this even mean?

>The world would suck
The world already sucks. The worlds going to suck even more in the next 10 years when all coastal cities are flooded and more than a million species go extinct. But again, your job is just too fuckin precious right? You realise that you WONT lose your job if we switch to green/renewable energy right? Or do you just refuse to believe that fact?

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:49 PM
Also depends on the unit some are AC and some are DC
Do you know what that means? Engineers can use either, they use AC if they need to use transformers as transformers can be used to produce higher voltages. Power is voltage x current, so the higher the voltage, the lower the current for the same power.

dxcxdzv
August 25th, 2016, 01:50 PM
Also you're ignoring the fact that across Europe, electric trains are the norm.
I was actually really surprised to learn that electric trains aren't a thing in the US.
That's really disturbing.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:51 PM
What the fuck does this even mean?

>The world would suck
The world already sucks. The worlds going to suck even more in the next 10 years when all coastal cities are flooded and more than a million species go extinct. But again, your job is just too fuckin precious right? You realise that you WONT lose your job if we switch to green/renewable energy right? Or do you just refuse to believe that fact?

My job is more important I don't care about the flooded places cause they don't affect the NRE at all or our customers.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokmkn_tEmU This is a EMD SD series locomotive with a EMD 710 prime mover in it.
That doesn't prove the point you used that video to justify?

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:52 PM
I was actually really surprised to learn that electric trains aren't a thing in the US.
That's really disturbing.

We don't have the high speed trains like in Europe, but many subways in cities (NYC for example) run on electricity (but the electricity I'm 99% sure is produced by fossil fuels)

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:53 PM
I was actually really surprised to learn that electric trains aren't a thing in the US.
That's really disturbing.

we did and Amtrak has few older ones like the Acela but in the old days we had one like the GG1 and LITTLE JOE

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:53 PM
My job is more important I don't care about the flooded places cause they don't affect the NRE at all or our customers.

Are you fucking serious

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:54 PM
My job is more important I don't care about the flooded places cause they don't affect the NRE at all or our customers.
So you're defending using old tech that pumps carbon into the air because you don't care about the people it hurts and you are afraid to lose your job?

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:54 PM
Are you fucking serious

We care mostly for our jobs cause its a dying art that you cant replace a city you can.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 01:56 PM
We care mostly for our jobs cause its a dying art that you cant replace a city you can.
Then why not say that from the beginning rather than this?
Also depends on the unit some are AC and some are DC
Do you know what that means? Engineers can use either, they use AC if they need to use transformers as transformers can be used to produce higher voltages. Power is voltage x current, so the higher the voltage, the lower the current for the same power.

Sailor Mars
August 25th, 2016, 01:56 PM
We care mostly for our jobs cause its a dying art that you cant replace a city you can.

My job is more important I don't care about the flooded places cause they don't affect the NRE at all or our customers.

You're either trolling or legitimately fuckin dumb right now...

You realise its people's LIVES right?...

CITIES RIGHT?

CITIES AND LIVES THAT YOUR INDUSTRY AND JOB THRIVE OFF OF RIGHT

dxcxdzv
August 25th, 2016, 01:56 PM
We don't have the high speed trains like in Europe, but many subways in cities (NYC for example) run on electricity (but the electricity I'm 99% sure is produced by fossil fuels)
Yeah subways seem obvious.

I am conscious that the railroad network in the US is way larger than in Europe and so the electrification does represent a significant cost. But since it started at the begining of the XXth Century I would have expected that the US already was in a state of advanced electrification.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 01:56 PM
We don't care bout going green and I rather see the outcome of the true America locomotive not some shit electric I know for a fact that a rebuilt locomotive will last 50 more years compared to the electric units
How many of you even been in a locomotive shop anyways.

Then why not say that from the beginning rather than this?

Do you know what that means? Engineers can use either, they use AC if they need to use transformers as transformers can be used to produce higher voltages. Power is voltage x current, so the higher the voltage, the lower the current for the same power.

That's why we use AC mostly DC would burn the crap out of unit.

Use the edit/multi quote button. ~Mars

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 02:00 PM
That's why we use AC mostly DC would burn the crap out of unit.
They use both DC and AC, I also don't see how this is relevant? I said that electricity can power all that it needs to, because it does on electric trains and you said no because of AC and DC?

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 25th, 2016, 02:03 PM
>Some cheap electric crap
You realise that it costs nearly $87 million dollars to run electric trains, right?...


He's probably commented on the quality of electric engines and equipment. As someone experienced in both internal combustion and electric engines, electric engines are far worse when it comes to maintenance and total life. They are generally cheaper made, and parts for them are very expensive. Having something that is strong, needs minimal maintenance, and can last for decades is very important, and electric engines don't come close.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 02:03 PM
You're either trolling or legitimately fuckin dumb right now...

You realise its people's LIVES right?...

CITIES RIGHT?

CITIES AND LIVES THAT YOUR INDUSTRY AND JOB THRIVE OFF OF RIGHT

Our imcome is from small railroads and scrap not cities

He's probably commented on the quality of electric engines and equipment. As someone experienced in both internal combustion and electric engines, electric engines are far worse when it comes to maintenance and total life. They are generally cheaper made, and parts for them are very expensive. Having something that is strong, needs minimal maintenance, and can last for decades is very important, and electric engines don't come close.

and plus whats wrong with 5000hp of diesel engine rolling down the tracks.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 02:07 PM
and plus whats wrong with 5000hp of diesel engine rolling down the tracks.
-_- The carbon it pumps into the air...

I think electric trains are better anyway tbh.

Emerald Dream
August 25th, 2016, 02:07 PM
Unless there's an actual debate here, instead of "I'm a train fanboy, and that's my reason" - this thread is going to be locked.

BNSF8865
August 25th, 2016, 02:11 PM
-_- The carbon it pumps into the air...

I think electric trains are better anyway tbh.

2% of smoke in a locomotive exhaust is carbon.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 02:12 PM
2% of smoke in a locomotive exhaust is carbon.
Can you prove that? Are you including carbon in molecules like CO and CO2?

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 25th, 2016, 02:37 PM
I think electric trains are better anyway tbh.

What I don't think people get about electric cars and vehicles, is that the electricity isn't always better than gas or coal. A significant portion of power stations in the US are fossil fuel ran. Transferring that to electric power and using that for cars is actually more of a waste than just gas.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 02:41 PM
What I don't think people get about electric cars and vehicles, is that the electricity isn't always better than gas or coal. A significant portion of power stations in the US are fossil fuel ran. Transferring that to electric power and using that for cars is actually more of a waste than just gas.
I know the production of the electricity isn't clean. Wasted energy during transporting is limited thanks to transformers and high voltages so I would doubt if it is worse than the transport of hydrocarbon fuels however I agree there needs to be more green electricity produced.

Porpoise101
August 25th, 2016, 03:48 PM
Again, all jobs would be redistributed in constructing water powered dams, wind turbines, solar panels, maintaining such things, and converting fossil fuel powered objects and lines into energy efficient. Plus, it would cost WAY less than the money we spend importing oil and coal, and the amount of money spent on equipment and maintaining health and pay benefits for workers.

Please bring up a VALID argument.
I will be devil's advocate and say that it will take a while for things to be redistributed. It takes time and money to re-"train" an entire industry (pun intended). That loss in efficiency has many costs associated with it, not limited to making whatever travels on those trains stop moving. It could be really bad and cause some severe short term problems.

BNSF8865
August 26th, 2016, 03:16 PM
I will be devil's advocate and say that it will take a while for things to be redistributed. It takes time and money to re-"train" an entire industry (pun intended). That loss in efficiency has many costs associated with it, not limited to making whatever travels on those trains stop moving. It could be really bad and cause some severe short term problems.

also how are we going to stop almost a million or so locomotives from being in use

jamie_n5
August 28th, 2016, 06:55 PM
Well the ecologists have declared total war on all fossil fueled things. There are plenty of great alternatives to fossil fuel but the thing is that big oil is fighting to keep their business going.

Uniquemind
August 28th, 2016, 07:01 PM
Nope think about this what has more tractive effort
Some cheap electric crap that last a day or a SD45T-2 that was built 45 years ago and is power by a diesel engine that has a tractive effort of like 6 of them.

Given that the partnership between railroad-oil have had many communities have tarsands oil cars massively blow up flattening communities and causing massive hearing loss.

I'm not sympathetic to the current design of the railroad infrastructure.

#nosympathy

Find another job if you need more income.

BNSF8865
August 28th, 2016, 07:24 PM
Cause railroading is the life blood of the country. We as a railroad family do the best we can to be safe its people who don't do any thing good for our infrastructure we are more important than you think.

Leprous
August 29th, 2016, 12:45 AM
Cause railroading is the life blood of the country. We as a railroad family do the best we can to be safe its people who don't do any thing good for our infrastructure we are more important than you think.

So that's a reason for not using electrical trains? I don't see how in the current world with climate changes you can have these type of reasons for keeping trains that blast carbon in the sky.

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 01:15 AM
Cause railroading is the life blood of the country. We as a railroad family do the best we can to be safe its people who don't do any thing good for our infrastructure we are more important than you think.

The question I raised was not of the importance of the industry.


The question is has humanity gotten lazy and complacent for profit's sake? That to me is evil.

Have inventors and industry leaders pushed constantly for the safest tech, or have they comfortable relied on what is cheaper quality, that "gets the job done", yet allows others to pay a price.

I have said in other threads, I don't consider tragedies that humans COULD have prevented by taking the hard road, instead of an easy one, as accidents. I call that complete neglect, and for the workers claims of nostalgia does not suffice to justify staying with old technology when old lazy safety standards, probably soft standards due to industry lobbyists, influence government as much as they do (as does all sectors of big industry).

Flapjack
August 29th, 2016, 07:19 AM
Cause railroading is the life blood of the country. We as a railroad family do the best we can to be safe its people who don't do any thing good for our infrastructure we are more important than you think.
Having carbon regulations and switching to electricity will not effect any of that.

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 08:21 AM
Having carbon regulations and switching to electricity will not effect any of that.

That and installing automatic breaking systems as fail safes to prevent train collisions and derailments, and train car explosions that flatten downs and deafen everybody. (See a relatively recent tragedy in Texas, and in 3 other states)

Let the record show I'm being harsh here also because I am personally at risk within a blast zone if such a tragedy happens to my town. I will likely die along with my town If such a tragedy happens to me locally, and my research has shown the railroad-oil industry partnership to be woefully inadequate despite their claims of them being "safe".


Perhaps OP is a grunt, and is just being fooled by upper management. If so he should state as such, but should understand the underbelly of his bosses and his industry.

That's only fair, and I can leave this thread on a neutral note.


---

On a SIDENOTE: the best thing the Earth can do is stop cutting down the Amazon Forrest, because that part of the planet is what replenishes the oxygen supply of the planet and eats carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

But that involves Brazilian, Rio De Janinero politics and local complaints they need to deforest to build and industrialize. (This was discussed during the Olympics commercial breaks).

candorgen
August 29th, 2016, 11:47 AM
I'm skipping most of this thread because I know a battle has been held :P .

I don't see how we can be 'too green' at all - since being 'green' means reducing/stopping unnecessary pollution of many kinds, that we need to ban it makes no sense to me at all.

Uniquemind
August 29th, 2016, 10:45 PM
I'm skipping most of this thread because I know a battle has been held :P .

I don't see how we can be 'too green' at all - since being 'green' means reducing/stopping unnecessary pollution of many kinds, that we need to ban it makes no sense to me at all.

I think my side of the argument won especially after many contributed and joined in respectfully.

phuckphace
August 30th, 2016, 04:07 AM
there's nothing wrong with reducing pollution and waste output but it's important to keep in mind that corporations use the "eco-friendly" label as a marketing gimmick to make the public think they give a shit about the environment (they don't: if the EPA didn't exist you would need a radiation suit to go outside). the actual reason corps go "eco-friendly" in most cases is simply because they can boost their profit margins by cutting corners in production quality with flimsier results and call it "green."

before quantity over quality and artificial obsolescence took over, you could buy pretty much any consumer product such as a desk telephone that weighed as much as a bundle of bricks and would last 40 years in a room filled with tobacco smoke. since products were sturdier and longer lasting you didn't need to buy replacements as often and thus send more waste to the landfills. even better: you can regulate emissions from factories a lot easier when the factory is down the road and not far off in the smogged-out Orient.

MUH CHEAP TACOS did climate change, QED

candorgen
August 30th, 2016, 06:48 PM
there's nothing wrong with reducing pollution and waste output but it's important to keep in mind that corporations use the "eco-friendly" label as a marketing gimmick to make the public think they give a shit about the environment (they don't: if the EPA didn't exist you would need a radiation suit to go outside). the actual reason corps go "eco-friendly" in most cases is simply because they can boost their profit margins by cutting corners in production quality with flimsier results and call it "green."

before quantity over quality and artificial obsolescence took over, you could buy pretty much any consumer product such as a desk telephone that weighed as much as a bundle of bricks and would last 40 years in a room filled with tobacco smoke. since products were sturdier and longer lasting you didn't need to buy replacements as often and thus send more waste to the landfills. even better: you can regulate emissions from factories a lot easier when the factory is down the road and not far off in the smogged-out Orient.

MUH CHEAP TACOS did climate change, QED

Oh yes, agreed. Saw that for quite a while, only now do some documentaries come up showing this in action.

So much for Starbucks' 'fully recyclable' coffee cups.

phuckphace
August 30th, 2016, 07:28 PM
Walmart's plastic shopping bags are another example. they used to use the thicker and more durable blue ones, but then switched to the thinner white ones that use less plastic but also rip easily and create even more waste. they also replaced all their old store lighting with "eco-friendly" light bulbs ostensibly to reduce their carbon footprint but in reality they realized that fewer shekels to the power company means more shekels for the Walton's coffers

phuckphace
September 8th, 2016, 07:46 AM
Walmart's plastic shopping bags are another example. they used to use the thicker and more durable blue ones, but then switched to the thinner white ones that use less plastic but also rip easily and create even more waste. they also replaced all their old store lighting with "eco-friendly" light bulbs ostensibly to reduce their carbon footprint but in reality they realized that fewer shekels to the power company means more shekels for the Walton's coffers

also daily reminder that """"""""""""""""""""""""eco-friendly""""""""""""""""""""""""" light bulbs aka florescents contain mercury, which is one of the worst pollutants that isn't just straight up nuclear waste. think about this for a sec: incandescent bulbs used "too much" energy (bad for the environment) so we switched to bulbs filled with poisonous heavy metals that are released back into the environment after consumers, ignoring warnings, throw them in the trash. HURR DURR

and THAT is why some people don't trust "green" bullshit, even if we can all agree that pollutants shouldn't be intentionally dumped. even with environmentalism being one of the main focuses of my own platform, I don't listen to establishment environmentalists and you shouldn't either

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 03:52 PM
they used to use the thicker and more durable blue ones, but then switched to the thinner white ones that use less plastic but also rip easily and create even more waste.
In Ireland, eco-friendly stores did the opposite.

I think that's just Walmart being Walmart. Obviously - on net - people probably spend more on bags.

candorgen
September 8th, 2016, 04:00 PM
also daily reminder that """"""""""""""""""""""""eco-friendly""""""""""""""""""""""""" light bulbs aka florescents contain mercury, which is one of the worst pollutants that isn't just straight up nuclear waste.

It isn't a pollutant if it does not get released into the environment, but nevertheless

[...] released back into the environment after consumers, ignoring warnings, throw them in the trash. HURR DURR

you're right that it isn't helping at all with people doing the wrong actions.

[...] incandescent bulbs used "too much" energy (bad for the environment) [...]

They used more than other technology that would do effectively the same thing, hence "too much".

LED bulbs are the way to go. They're lighting up the room as I type. :D


I don't listen to establishment environmentalists and you shouldn't either

There's a lot of sneaky people who are in it more for the money than the actual environment, granted.

The crops grown for 'bio-fuel' are a very good example, there's absolutely no environmental point to the thing at all if forests are being cut down to grow them.


In Ireland, eco-friendly stores did the opposite.

On the subject of Ireland and environmentalism, I'm sceptical of the carbon tax, if no alternative is being given to most people to actually make an economic incentive that appeals to the majority of the population.

phuckphace
September 8th, 2016, 06:33 PM
It isn't a pollutant if it does not get released into the environment, but nevertheless

uh that's exactly what happens fam...light bulbs are very easy to break and especially so after they're tossed in the garbage and then stirred around in the back of a garbage truck for a few hours

LED bulbs are the way to go. They're lighting up the room as I type. :D

the capitalists are already regretting this because LEDs last so long. given that LEDs contain extra circuitry to function, you can expect them to start adding a chip that automatically fries the bulb after say, a year. please insert shekels to continue~

candorgen
September 12th, 2016, 04:11 AM
uh that's exactly what happens fam...light bulbs are very easy to break and especially so after they're tossed in the garbage and then stirred around in the back of a garbage truck for a few hours

Yes. I'd be in favour for used bulbs being taken awa separately, with strict penalties on those who dump bulbs that haven't already broken to release the pollutants.


the capitalists are already regretting this because LEDs last so long. given that LEDs contain extra circuitry to function, you can expect them to start adding a chip that automatically fries the bulb after say, a year. please insert shekels to continue~

I wouldn't be surprised actually.