• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I'm paranoid that Earth will run out of oxygen.....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The plastic and physical pollution is definitely a huge issue too, there is just so much waste in that regard, and over packaging of everything. Then there's places that just don't dispose of garbage property at all making the problem even worse. Saw a video today of some 3rd world country where they have a garbage truck dumping directly into the river. WTF. Stuff like this should be punishable by death and treated like an act of war. It's essentially terrorism to the planet, which is basically delayed destruction of all of humanity. It's like setting off a very slow nuclear bomb.
 
Red Squirrel said:
The plastic and physical pollution is definitely a huge issue too, there is just so much waste in that regard, and over packaging of everything.
Click to expand...

It's not just that. Recycling is a sham. Facilities are either overwhelmed or are running out of money handling the stuff. So the rest get sent to Thailand. It used to be China, but they said no.

Plus materials are changing all the time. There are like few dozen different plastics out there all with different properties meaning different ways are needed to recycle. You can't put them all into one magical machine and expect recycled material to come out. You have to worry about cleaning, the proper temperature to melt them, and the quality you get from the final recycled material.

Remember the article about how McDonald's paper straws are actually not recyclable? It's Feel Good(TM) recycling.

The internet has made things worse in that regard. Way worse. Online shipping comes in packages with papers having bubble lining. It's fixed with some adhesives so recycle facilities can't handle it. I'm avoiding Amazon now for that reason. I'm a fan of Newegg for their paper packaging.

Corporations are also given different standards compared to individuals. Recycle trucks refused to accept organics because we used a 3rd party biodegradeable bag to line the organic container. Yet in a place I worked we threw everything in the garbage.

Double standards.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
Remember the article about how McDonald's paper straws are actually not recyclable? It's Feel Good(TM) recycling.
Click to expand...

My company partnered with a composting company to deal with all kinds of paper. Apparently there isn't a huge market for paper plus they can more easily handle things like paper napkins and towels. Those fibers are so thin that, apparently, they usually get tossed.

We also switched to compostable plates, utensils and plastic cups
 
That depends on the tree.

Oak and a lot of hardwood are really only alive on the outer layers, the inner layer is not quite dead but effectively not doing anything.

The pine planted by the paper mills is alive through and through and grows year round.

There's no way an oak that is only actually "green" on the outer 20% of the wood is consuming more CO2 in six months than a pine is year round. Further, compare the growth rates of the trees and you'll see that statement is false, there's no way at all an old growth tree is consuming more than the pine planted by paper mills. It's not possible.

Average size on the trees when they're culled by a paper mill are around 10-15 inches across and 70 ft tall, looking at about 20 years of growth and they're replanted within a couple of months.

I'd rather have an old growth forest any day but when you're talking about hundreds of square miles of natural forest vs tens of thousands of square miles of pine planted by paper mills there's no comparison.
 
0ldman79 said:
Plants primary source of mass is CO2. Trees and grasslands are growing between 20 and 40% faster than anticipated.

CO2 production isn't going to somehow magically make trees die off and the vast majority of the civilized world is smart enough to replant trees that they use for pulpwood.

There are more trees in the south than there were 200 years ago, probably ever, because of paper mills.
Click to expand...
Take plants and add co2 then pop them into a sous vide. Good luck.
 
Ken g6 said:
<Farnsworth>Good news, everyone! Now we can get oxygen from the Moon!</Farnsworth>

Or, probably, rocks on Earth, if it were ever necessary.
Click to expand...
That's all OK as long as your not burning a lot of fossil fuel's to process the rocks. Mankind has been addicted to the cheap power and plastics all provided by crude oil, until that changes there will be issues. Actually raising livestock for beef is much worse than driving cars/trucks, a lot of old growth forest in South America has been razed for cattle grazing. this means no more trees to soak up carbon and animals farting out a lot of methane.
 
There is enough free oxygen in the the atmosphere for about 370 years apparently. Nothing anyone alive has to worry about aside from long term environmental damage. FWIW that's Nasa's estimate if there were zero new oxygen production.
 
Red Squirrel said:
We probably have a couple decades before it's a real issue, hopefully by then world leaders take pollution and climate change more seriously. Danger is we are near the tipping point where it's irreversible. The oceans are running out of oxygen fast.
Click to expand...

It's a real issue now. Photosynthesis stops at 104F. If we keep swinging to extra cold temperatures where plants are dormant to extra hot temperatures where plants emit carbon dioxide like the rest of us, then we're already screwed.
 
Midwayman said:
There is enough free oxygen in the the atmosphere for about 370 years apparently. Nothing anyone alive has to worry about aside from long term environmental damage. FWIW that's Nasa's estimate if there were zero new oxygen production.
Click to expand...

A lot of that oxygen is at altitudes that are not practical to get it though. Would be interesting to see what the calculation is if you only consider 2m above ground level, that's where it's critical to have oxygen. Gases tend to spread out though so I guess the real thing to account for is at what point will the oxygen density be too low. I guess at that point we'll be using compressors to try to compress it while filtering out the CO2 and then breethe it from a tank.
 
Red Squirrel said:
A lot of that oxygen is at altitudes that are not practical to get it though. Would be interesting to see what the calculation is if you only consider 2m above ground level, that's where it's critical to have oxygen. Gases tend to spread out though so I guess the real thing to account for is at what point will the oxygen density be too low. I guess at that point we'll be using compressors to try to compress it while filtering out the CO2 and then breethe it from a tank.
Click to expand...

That's why the tall will live longer. They can breathe the oxygen that the short can't reach.
 
BUTCH1 said:
Actually raising livestock for beef is much worse than driving cars/trucks, a lot of old growth forest in South America has been razed for cattle grazing. this means no more trees to soak up carbon and animals farting out a lot of methane.
Click to expand...

I'd rather die sooner and enjoy some cheeseburgers before I go. Which will probably be by heart attack.
 
Scarpozzi said:
Yeah. That and get some fake breasts for the sake of humanity.
Click to expand...

Careful. When you convert silicone to silicon it gives up a anti-electron +e. When +e and -e interact they annihilate and can destabilize nearby particles. You risk a chain reaction if you hit critical mass.
 
0ldman79 said:
That depends on the tree.

Oak and a lot of hardwood are really only alive on the outer layers, the inner layer is not quite dead but effectively not doing anything.

The pine planted by the paper mills is alive through and through and grows year round.

There's no way an oak that is only actually "green" on the outer 20% of the wood is consuming more CO2 in six months than a pine is year round. Further, compare the growth rates of the trees and you'll see that statement is false, there's no way at all an old growth tree is consuming more than the pine planted by paper mills. It's not possible.

Average size on the trees when they're culled by a paper mill are around 10-15 inches across and 70 ft tall, looking at about 20 years of growth and they're replanted within a couple of months.

I'd rather have an old growth forest any day but when you're talking about hundreds of square miles of natural forest vs tens of thousands of square miles of pine planted by paper mills there's no comparison.
Click to expand...
What's so damning about destruction of rainforests (and this is me just riffing on the subject with no official source cited), is that you have the upper canopy and then many layers of ecosystems below those trees. The concept there is that you have REALLY large old trees....and other plants below that thrive and further generate oxygen and absorb CO2. Planting new trees simply won't replace losing those kinds of forests because the old ones go vertical and plants under the canopy are like a multiplier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top