Using Me!

Letter to the council re: Recycling

This is the most recent draft of my letter I am going to send to my local council about recycling. It’s not finished yet. I want to check more facts, provide more references, and check out the status of glass recycling’s usefulness.

But here it is as of now:

Dear Sir/Madam,
On returning home today I discovered that I have apparently had my recycling boxes ‘tagged’ for including inappropriate items in them. This gave me the perfect reason to open a dialogue with you about recycling in the Borough.
From now on I will not be placing any items whatsoever into my Recycling Boxes with the sole exception of Aluminium. There are absolutely sound scientific, environmental and economic reasons for this but before I get to them let me place my decision in context;

When I shop I walk. My car stays at home as often as possible. I have moved house to be closer to my work and when time allows I walk the six miles each way between home and office. I take canvas bags with me and collect a minimal number of plastic bags. When I no longer have any use for something, if it still has any utility it goes either to a charity shop, or is given away on FreeCycle or occasionally is sold on eBay.

However when it comes to recycling I am extremely loathe to toe the party-line because quite simply that is all it is. Government makes a broadly green-sounding proclamation about recycling targets and everyone assumes it is the right thing to do and isn’t it jolly good that the government is taking a lead on this!

Wrong. Completely blindly wrong.

Firstly let us examine what actually happens to the materials we put out for recycling. Initially there is the economic impact. Our taxes pay for the materials to be collected and per ton we pay more for the recycling to be collected than we do for the landfill-bound general waste. It can be as much as three times as much as the cost of collecting regular waste! Given that the companies who are collecting the recycling make a profit from selling the end-products they should be paying us and not vice versa!

Secondly a large amount of the recycling materials that we foolishly pay to have collected never end up being recycled. The companies involved collect their cash and dump the materials directly into landfills. There are documented cases of, for example, a man’s paperwork being put out for recycling and turning up in a landfill in India. So not only, in this example, did we pay to have it collected as recycling but we then exported it several thousand miles, creating even more pollution!
Thirdly and most importantly to the central message of recycling being ‘green’ is that in fact everyone is seriously misguided about the environmental impact of recycling.

Take paper as the first example of this – it is the worst offender. The paper we make in this country from forestry is 100% from renewed sources. This means that the entire cycle from growing a tree, chopping it down, making it into paper and finally putting that into a landfill is a ZERO carbon exercise. Likewise if we instead recycle the paper we keep a net zero carbon process. Actually it is a negative carbon process up until we either burn or allow the paper to completely breakdown in the landfill. Along the way there is pollution caused by the papermaking process and the transport of course. However this is exactly where the two cycles differ. In order to convert wood to woodpulp some pollution is created but in order to turn used paper into pulp a much larger amount of pollution is created. The process is also more expensive, leading to increased costs for the consumer, not to mention lower quality paper as each time the paper is recycled it deteriorates.

So, paper recyling? No thank you. It causes pollution and wastes money.

Moving on we may consider the recycling of Plastics. I note with interest that our recycling collectors will only take a limited selection of plastics. Why only do a fraction of the job? Anyone with a basic knowledge of Chemistry can tell you that if you can recycle one type of plastic you can recycle another. And anyone that cannot work that out for themselves can google it…

http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Plastics.htm

“All types of plastic are recyclable.”

Indeed the instructions on the sheet of materials collected makes even LESS sense when you consider the materials in use. They will collect Plastic Bottles – all but exclusively polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) – but they will not collect Food Trays – mostly PET and PVC, some polypropylene (PP). So they refuse to collect most of the materials that they can and do (allegedly) recycle. And anyway there is no reason not to collect all plastics with recent advances in microwave breakdown of plastics.

However my main gripe is not with the materials included but with the one simple fact that it takes more energy to recycle plastic than it does to create new plastic. A simple undeniable fact. Recycling plastic wastes energy. And please don’t go with the other party-line that the Oil is running out. It isn’t. I have worked in the Oil industry and there is plenty left. Of course it benefits the oil companies for us to think it might because it pushes up the prices and the profits!

Moving on, to glass. Once again the story is the same. Due to the energy costs and pollution created by Transporting, Storing, Sorting and Cleaning it is bad to recycle glass.

And finally Aluminium. It takes a vast amount of energy to create Aluminium from Bauxite but relatively little to reform once made. This is the only recycling worth doing.

Just take a moment to compare Aluminium and Plastics. People already collect Aluminium and have done for decades. You can still collect bags of it today and turn them in for cash. There is money to be made from the used Aluminium so people pay you to get it for them. The economics of a free market at work. Why will no one pay you for a bag of plastic bottles instead? Because there is no money to be made from it, or rather there is so little money to be made from it that it isn’t worth anyone doing it. Some claim this has changed. They say the plastics can be used now to make fleeces and shirts and all sorts of other things. The fact is that items made this way are of a lower quality and higher cost than the original items they replicate. Burying the plastic and continuing to make the other objects properly is cheaper, easier, less polluting and greener.

One very final topic. Yet more scaremongering that is shoved in our faces is the idea that landfills are filling up our countryside or that it is dangerous. Most people would be amazed at how little land it would take to contain all of our waste as a nation for the next century with absolutely no recycling going on. Also any methane produced by such sites can be tapped. It can then be burned for power – a zero carbon process overall since the carbon came from the atmosphere in the fist place. Or there are numerous scientific investigations ongoing to find ways of more permanently fixing the carbon in different ecosystems.

Please may I recommend you read this article which covers the scienctific fallacies that recycling are based on. ‘The Eight Great Myths of Recycling’ is written by a well published Economics professor and makes for fascinating reading.
http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf

I look forward to hearing back from you either with your scientific research debunking my statements or with your plan to prevent wasting taxpayers’ money, wasting energy and creating extra pollution. Until you can do the former I will be unable, in all good conscience, to continue contributing to the pollution and money-wasting that the council’s policies advocate. I will of course continue to re-use and avoid commuting where possible.

Sincerely yours,

Religion as an emergent property of Evolution

In a primitive society it is obvious to see that an absolute belief that X is right and Y is wrong is easier to control and maintain than any kind of philosophical or ethical system that requires complex thought to initiate and continuous explanation. Particularly when it comes to children, an absolute rule is easier to impress on the mind than a logical explanation of why something is not allowed. Thus an invocation of a spiritual authority is a shortcut to a societal framework of law.

So a predisposition towards acceptance of absolute beliefs and a predisposition towards acceptance of gods which enforces those beliefs can benefit an organism’s survival and that of its species.

Now take two societies one of which has the rule “Incest is bad” and the other has no such rule. Or the rules “Be helpful towards others” versus “Be selfish”. Clearly the rules that would benefit the individual and group the most are those that approach utlitarian humanitarianism. “Religions” who’s rulesets approximate this will result in a better survival rate and genetic propogation than those “religions” that are further from it. So in a very real sense the religions themselves evolve, branch, go extinct or survive.

So over the generations the religions that survive will be those that have such rules. Is it any wonder that the basic tenets of the surviving belief systems, from the main religions through all Pagan and Wiccan beliefs have at their core exactly those rules? The philosophy, the back story, everything they are framed within is completely inconsequential to the genetic survival needs and so we should not be surprised that such an array of seemingly disparate belief systems exist. They all serve the same basic purpose – survival of their ‘hosts’.

But the time is well past due for these trappings to be cast off and for humanity to simply be humanitarians. The need for absolute belief systems is long gone. By the time the Ancient Greeks started philosophising is was long overdue. We no longer need to fear the boogey-man to make us behave the way the spirits want us to. We are more than capable of being purely ethical as individuals and as societies.

One thing evolution can say about the future though… useless features tend to get erased. Parts of our makeup go from used to unused to fading to not-even-there. Think about the appendix and the tailbone. Religion will fade away… hopefully.

Why I can't take religion seriously

I don’t want to talk here about specific issues within different Scripture but just about Religion in general and the thought processes that started in my mind around the age of 14 or 15 which ultimately led me to Agnosticism and hence to the state we call Atheism. I may have considered these things earlier but it was around that age that I began to give serious thought to at least some of the issues I’ll outline below.

My very first doubt, and I remember this very specifically, was roused when I realised that there was something intrinsically wrong with having multiple religions. At first I tried to rationalise that every religion was actually worshipping the same God and, despite their differences, that was ok and therefore most people could still go to Heaven. However it soon became obvious to me that the differences were too large and I had to wonder, “If God wanted to be known/worshipped in a specific way SURELY he has the ability to make sure we all know that!?”.

Someone actually told me in church once that no-one in the world had the excuse that they had not been exposed to the true word of God and that therefore everyone had had the chance to decide to follow the right way or not. The unspoken conclusion therefore was that it was just and proper that those who chose not to should go to Hell. This astonished me. Even as a child I could see quite clearly that if I had been brought up as a Muslim or a Hindu and some priest came to my town and said ‘Christianity is right. You better convert now!’ I would be thinking right back ‘No, [insert religion] is right. You are the one who needs to convert!’.

So if there were one true religion and everyone else is wrong then no matter which one is right the vast majority of people are condemned to Hell simply for an accident of birth!

So after this, although I still believed in ’something’, I had already reached the conclusion that none of the religions could be right and that God knew whether you were a good person or not, irrespective of what you had been taught. God would decide whether I would go to Heaven or Hell and no clergyman was ever going to tell me otherwise.

From there to Atheism took a long time – thanks to all that brainwashing! – but mainly it revolved around the nagging thought that if there was a God wouldn’t he make it patently obvious what he wanted? No benevolent God could make things so vague and then punish you for infinity if you got it wrong. There are far too many differences between the various messages preached by the different factions for my previous stance of ‘just be good or bad’ to have lasted for ever. When it came down to it a Utilitarian Humanism approach to life just made more sense. You do good because it benefits you to do so. No God needs to be invoked.

Now many years later with a good deal of thought and reading behind me I still think Epicurus sums it up better than I ever could:

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

Intelligent Design

What is it about Intelligent Design that people hold on to so dearly?

I’m not talking about a rebranding of literal biblical creationism but simply of the idea that the Universe was deliberately created.

The answer is pretty simple. The Universe, the Earth, our own bodies and minds, are incredible. The desire to feel ‘wanted’ is a pretty basic emotion and perfectly rational. We look around ourselves and we think ‘Wow, I really don’t want this to be pure chance and accident’.

And you know what? I have absolutely no problem with people who think this. I will try to explain to them that a Designer causes more difficulty than gives benefit. The benefits themselves are purely emotional and the difficulties only start with infinite recursion but that’s ok. If it comforts you to believe in a Designer in a non-religious way and you partake of an understanding of Science – at whatever level – I’m ok with that.

Of course I don’t believe any of it… to an extent. More on the Matrix Theory later!

The Scale of Solar Bodies

This is a great little video showing the relative sizes of planets and stars. Really impressive!

Click Me!

Roman Catholic Peer? I think not!

From Jumile, please consider signing this Petition if you too are as disgusted by the idea that the former Archbishop of Westminster could become a Peer as I am in light of the recent child-abuse scandals.

Heaven/Hell ?

Simple question… why do Christians believe in Heaven and Hell? Why do they condemn me to Hell?

• If Satan wants you to sin why would he punish you for it?
• If God is all forgiving why would he send anyone to hell?
• If someone is indoctrinated into Hinduism for example and doesn’t convert to Christianity on the say-so of a single preacher, why do they deserve eternal punishment anyway?
• What kind of people would actually agree that a system of rules that involves an eternal punishment for people like those above is a good system and worth ’signing up’ to?

The funny thing is if you ask them why they signed up to a belief system that, hypothetically if such a place were to exist, would send you to Hell they will claim that the rules are not theirs and they are not condemning you. God is doing that and they are blameless! They love you as a brother/sister, they respect you as a Human being, but they are absolutely sure that it’s right and just that you go to Hell – because in their mind that is not their decision. It’s like people who eat meat but wouldn’t ever kill an animal themselves. People who agree with the death penalty but would never carry it out.

There’s a word for that…

Oh, yeah… Hypocrisy.

Of course most Christians get all wishywashy if you try and discuss this with them. Some of the responses I’ve found (yes I really have):

• Fundamentalist: They’re all infidels and must burn in agony!
• Liberal: If they live a good life they’ll go to heaven.
• Scared: Well it’s not my decision. God condemns you not me.
• Brainwashed: If you don’t accept Jesus as your personal saviour you cannot enter heaven.
• Unthinking: *shrug*

Of course if you start debating with the liberal what is good and bad you can inevitably show them that either only Christians go to Heaven or that they stand in direct contradiction of the Bible’s laws. The liberals cover a great swathe of views and attitudes but they’re probably the group that has the most open mind in so far as they’ve already done some thought and realised that not everything can be compatible. Some of them then can be good to talk to and the inquisitive amongst them will likely become Agnostics and Atheists if given enough encouragement and intellectual stimulation. However there are amongst them some with whom having a debate is as useful as punching a wet rag… you can’t pin them down on anything. They’re just SO liberal they’re amenable to everything but without any real commitment at all.

No, it REALLY must be our fault!

Following on from my indignation with the Yosemite Large Tree Population assumptions, also in the news today we find out that Humans were having a severe impact on fish populations as early as 1000AD!

Men Kill Fish!

Again we are not presented with enough data to support the conclusion. Initially they state that fishbones are found in sites all over NorthWest Europe but read carefully and the detailed data and the analysis and conclusion are only drawn from the York site. At York the bones show that freshwater fish being eaten diminished in size as time went on and simultaneously the proportions of sea fish being eaten in the diet increased.

The conclusion is: Man overfished the rivers and lakes and had to turn to the sea for more food. How can you conclude this from one site? Perhaps the other sites back up this conclusion but without further proof I think that is a tenuous conclusion. Perhaps the water course changed? Perhaps changing sea-levels affected the settlement, the fish, the river, or simply the ease of open water fishing?

I found some interesting data while thinking about this:

The oldest source I can find (Josiah C Russel, Medieval Demographics, 1984) states that in 1066 the population of England was 1,100,000.

I had assumed that at the time most of the country was covered in dense forest but that turns out to be incorrect. By 1000 AD most of the forest had been lost.

Men Kill Trees!

It must be our fault!

It really annoys me when something is reported in the press whereby without any proper analysis it is assumed that some problem or phenomena is attributed to Global Warming (GW). Recently in the news, the numbers of large trees in Yosemite National Park has dropped over the last 60-70 years so that must be GW right? 

The article opens with:

The oldest and largest trees within California’s world famous Yosemite National Park are disappearing.

Climate change appears to be a major cause of the loss.

Really quite an aggressive and scare-mongering way to start I think! But if you read further:

The cause is difficult to pin down, but “we certainly think that climate is an important driver,” says Lutz.

So they think that climate is an important driver but nowhere do they provide any evidence. The problem is that the entire article is written to be about GW. Nowhere do they use those words, instead they use the covert secret code ‘climate change’ but we all know they are implying the human impact on the climate through warming.

And even if it is our fault… is this really a story worthy of much interest yet?

“We know that large trees disproportionately affect the ecosystem,” says Lutz. “But what the consequences could be of a decline in average large tree diameter, no-one really knows.”

So that’s a no then…

However I could suggest reasons why the numbers are declining that doesn’t invoke the dreaded GW! Crucially we note from the article that larger older trees are more able to withstand fire than other flora. Now I visited Yosemite in 1994 and at the time they had a policy of preventing natural fires in the park. When this happens the advantage the large trees have from their ability to survive such incidents is negated and they come under greater competition for resources from flora that would otherwise have died or been put back. Thereby some of the trees would have lost the battle for survival and this data supports the hypothesis that preventing fires causes reduction in large tree numbers.

Further, I visited Yosemite again in 2007. Sometime in the late 90’s there had been a massive wildfire in the park. It was severe because of the years and years of fire prevention (causing buildup of dead, flammable material) and in 2007 the devastation was still clear to see. A new policy is now in place to allow natural fires so far as they do not threaten human lives.

So my hypothesis can make a prediction here that will differ from the prediction of the ‘GW is to blame’ hypothesis. If I am right then the future will see an increase in the numbers of large trees back to whatever is a stable level. If their assumption is correct then the numbers will decline as the climate continues to warm up.

Welcome!

Hi and welcome to my new blog. I have run out of patience with my Drupal installations and decided to start over. In the coming weeks I’ll transfer all the articles from my old sites to this one.

Here I will post everything that was previously split over two blogs. Both my generic personal stuff and my Critical Thinking.