Pencil campaign

[ouiouiwewe]

There's something on the front page I'd like to comment on. The pencil campaign you/your crew advertised will very likely generate a huge amount of wastes in the end. Although whoever organized this tried to shift the responsibility to the recipients by claiming they will send instructions about donating them to other institutions, it is still a very disgusting display of how people fling away their excesses when environmental issues are already on the rise.

I am not sure what your opinion is, but as a scientist and environmentalist, I feel this is a wrong way of doing things and not a culture to follow (this is presumbly inspired by the nuts campaign by Jericho fans, http://www.nutsonline.com/jericho). Besides, it's not like sending out 10 thousand pencil packages will significantly help with the negotiations.

[JDS]

While I see this campaign as being marginally useful at best, and a complete waste of time, effort, and money at worst, I can't say the tree-hugger argument is very useful. Seriously, it's not like the pencil industry is ramping up and opening new factories to cope with the extra pencil demand. It's less than a drop in the bucket, really.

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

Interesting thoughts... And, yes, the pencils thing is clearly inspired by the Jericho nut campaign. However is it disgusting? In comparison to some of the other things I've seen, the whole pencil thing is very benign in comparison. Frankly, as far as I can tell, the people who organized it were thinking of the environment, much more than the Jericho folk. The pencils come from recycled material anyway, and they'll be donated to schools and teaching organizations, which need pencils anyway.

As for whether or not we'll see more campaigns of a similar nature in the future, we probably will... However, like letter writing campaigns, it'll probably become less and less effective, since they're "used" to it.

As for their effect, they're (reportedly) having some effect. ;-)

[ouiouiwewe]

The pencils come from recycled material anyway, and they'll be donated to schools and teaching organizations, which need pencils anyway. The fact that recycled materials are used doesn't mean it is any less wasteful. Often times, the recycling procedure takes at least as much (or more) energy than making new ones.

As for whether or not the pencils will be put into good use, we'll have to see. After they did conveniently dump the responsibility onto their recipients. And regardless of the fate of these pencils, they are still inevitably supporting a new and wasteful method of protest. This is done by intellectual elites that are behind our mass media no less.

Anyway, I thought it'd be better if the front page puts a less encouraging tone in the advertisement of the campaign, but I doubt I'd see it happening (i.e. WOW JAMIE BAMBER/MARY MCDONNEL WILL STRIP/CALL IF I BUY PENCILS!!!! OMG OMG OMG).

While I see this campaign as being marginally useful at best, and a complete waste of time, effort, and money at worst, I can't say the tree-hugger argument is very useful. Seriously, it's not like the pencil industry is ramping up and opening new factories to cope with the extra pencil demand. It's less than a drop in the bucket, really.

The general public has a tendency of equating "tree-hugging" with environmentalism and resource management. "Tree-huggers" a.k.a. forest conservationists are only a group of environmentalists directed at managing and preserving whatever's left of natural forests. However, when I wrote this, I was speaking from a resource management and sustainability perspective.

Now, you said new factories are not going to be built for this campaign. You are right, but that's not my point. You somehow missed the fact that it requires matter and energy to create pencils. And of course the objective of making such expenditures is really to help out a bid for a better contract rather than fulfilling a necessity (how many North American schools are in dire need of pencils anyway?). In other words, this is a very economically unsound decision if we factor in the natural resources that are being expended (just because they are there and available doesn't mean they are unlimited and free).

[Joe Beaudoin Jr.]

True, but I doubt a bunch of pencils will have much effect on the environment. Think of all the waste people produce whenever they drive a car down the street when walking or even biking would be just as easily sufficient.

Or, to put it another way, think of all the kleenex that was wasted when Tricia Helfer's Playboy magazine came out. Or how many bottles of beer were wasted when people play the Battlestar Galactica drinking games -- or how about football and all the waste that people pick up after the "Super Duper Bowl" in terms of booze, chips, wasteful foam fingers, body paint containers, and other shit. That creates a lot more waste than a bunch of frakkin' pencils.

At least the pencils are going to a good cause to secure livelihood for writers, who are fighting for reasonable residuals so they can continue to be qualified for basic health care and the like.

In my opinion, when looking at the big picture, this whole "sending pencils are wasteful" argument is making a mountain out of an ant hill. Extremely minor issue when compared to the wasteful excesses indicated above.

[ouiouiwewe]

I didn't say it will cause a massive environmental impact. But since you mentioned this, I'd have to say many things in our world are additive. The fact that Tricia Helfer's playboy magazines are generating more wastes is not really a justification for wasting resources on a smaller scale. I mean, following your logic, people should not even worry about E. coli in food or H5N1/SARS infections because they are, by far, statistically insignificant in terms of death.

[JDS]

Now, you said new factories are not going to be built for this campaign. You are right, but that's not my point. You somehow missed the fact that it requires matter and energy to create pencils. And of course the objective of making such expenditures is really to help out a bid for a better contract rather than fulfilling a necessity (how many North American schools are in dire need of pencils anyway?). In other words, this is a very economically unsound decision if we factor in the natural resources that are being expended (just because they are there and available doesn't mean they are unlimited and free).Because trees happen to be plants, they have this convenient tendency to grow more of themselves. I'm not worried that we're headed towards some future in which we have a lack of trees. Carbon in the form of graphite, and clay, are also sufficiently abundant that I'm really not worried.

As long as this use of resources isn't going to restrict my use of those resources, and it's not my money paying for those resources, it's all good.

[ouiouiwewe]

Because trees happen to be plants, they have this convenient tendency to grow more of themselves. I'm not worried that we're headed towards some future in which we have a lack of trees. Carbon in the form of graphite, and clay, are also sufficiently abundant that I'm really not worried.

As long as this use of resources isn't going to restrict my use of those resources, and it's not my money paying for those resources, it's all good.
Hmm... JDS, do you actually have a science background? If so, what is the rate of tree growth compared? And if you are thinking of tree-farming, you should realize that nutrients are not unlimited.

[JDS]

Nutrients can be harvested or synthesized from raw materials.

And tree farming will be vastly improved with biotechnology in the near future. We're going to be able to grow extremely dense stands of very thick, straight, branchless trees that grow faster than normal ones, and we can do it in mostly unused areas like the American plains or the Argentine Pampas or something.

[ouiouiwewe]

Nutrients can be harvested or synthesized from raw materials.

And tree farming will be vastly improved with biotechnology in the near future. We're going to be able to grow extremely dense stands of very thick, straight, branchless trees that grow faster than normal ones, and we can do it in mostly unused areas like the American plains or the Argentine Pampas or something.
LOL... it's not that simple JDS, and I am not trying to be a pessemist... The synthesis of nutrients requires ENERGY (yes, in caps) and at the moment, we really haven't found a very efficient and renewable energy source (and even if we have, it can take several decades to develop and implement). Now since you brought this up, the fertilizers we use extensively these days are really derived from fossel fuels (so in a sense, we are eating oil) and without them the agricultural industry would've collapsed due to its current unsustainable practices, but that's besides the point.

As for biotech, I am not quite sure. I believe there are pretty strong regulations against the use of genetically-modified plants/organisms. I know for a fact that they are banned from being used in the process of bioremediating contaminated lands. Besides, growing them require a lot of resources and not all lands are suitable for growing. This is where the need of fertilizers come in and we know that they aren't free (not only in terms of monetary cost too).

Anyway, try to take the mass media's optimism with a grain of salt.

[JDS]

Regarding energy, we HAVE sources that we're just not using. We need to get back to building more nuclear reactors...plus all of the regular reactors are producing "waste" that is in reality FUEL for fast-breeder reactors that we aren't building (but should be), so we really have an untapped resource there. Plus we have just about endless tidal power that nobody's using.

As for biotechnology, there are a LOT of Luddites in Europe who are even more irrationally scared of it than the American hippies are scared of nuclear power. We don't have those restrictions here in America, and the Europeans will eventually get used to biotech too, they'll have to...it's the way of the future, like when Bronze-age man discovered iron.

Oh and regarding biotech plants needing fertilizers and only growing in some areas...quite the opposite. One of the great advantages of biotech plants is specifically that they can grow where others CAN'T, and they can be designed to be grown without irrigation, fertilization, pesticides, and all those expensive things that many farmers can't afford.

Take the mass media with a grain of salt? I'd suggest you do the same. Most of what I hear about things like biotechnology is that it's some evil dangerous thing that will kill us all (not for any specific reason, just because, well...IT WILL!) I had to do my own research to find out about this.

[ouiouiwewe]

I was like "oh gosh..." when I read your reply, but I do understand that the general public tend to simplify processes in "complex systems" (there's a definition for that which most people overlook) into linear cause and effect relationships...

Nuclear power: I did mention "even if we have [renewable energy source], it can take several decades to develop and implement". But personally, I am rather skeptical about how efficient this piplining between reactors would be. 'Even if' radioactive wastes is not a problem, there are also other pollutions associated with nuclear power (namely heat waste and such). Then there's also the issue with cost efficiency - is this setup good enough to support the entire world? Just because something exists doesn't mean it necessarily fit.

Biotech: The concerns about transgenic organisms are not unfounded actually. No, they probably might not kill people directly, but plants and microorganisms have this very nasty tendency of passing genetic materials to their wild counterparts. This can lead to biological invasion and disruption of local ecology as certain wildlife suddenly become much more invasive before. So again, no, it is not some stupid excuses made up by some melodramatic biologists.

As for genetically-modified plants being able to grow in places where others can't, that's a no-brainer (which is why they can be very invasive). This is not to say they don't need nutrients though. I mean, there is lots of potential in biotechnology, but for the time being, we are not advanced enough to construct and control a ideal benign agricultural system (through genetic engineering) that everyone has been dreaming of.

[JDS]

Well I do simplify things for the purpose of explanation because I'm not writing a paper here...just making my basic points.

Nuclear: I don't know which inefficiencies you're referring to, but as long as you're getting "free" fuel to use in the fast breeders that doesn't have to be mined out of the ground or extracted or anything and can be fed from one reactor to the other with very little processing, it should be more efficient than other sources. Heat waste isn't a major problem, it's not that difficult to dissipate with proper systems. You just have to bother to construct them instead of dumping hot water directly into your trout stream. As for cost efficiency, that's largely a regulatory problem and an economy of scale problem...governments are really standing in the way of making nuclear power widespread and cost effective.

Biotech: The important feature of transgenic plants is that most of the changes are specifically suited to agriculture...they're maladaptive in the wild. A trait for broad-spectrum herbicide resistance, for example, gives a plant a selective advantage when the farm it's growing in gets blanketed with herbicide and all the weeds die but the biotech plant survives...but out in the wild, that herbicide resistance wastes energy and the plants without the trait will successfully compete against it. For plants with traits that could be ecologically disruptive, common-sense procedures to avoid planting them near biocompatible wild species will be important.

Now I'm not saying that an entire biotech agriculture system is ready to roll out tomorrow, but we have the technology to design it, and it would be ready a lot sooner if there weren't so many luddite organizations like Greenpeace trying to scare people.

[frakk`up]

technology is the cure!

[Aset]

We don't have enough Plutonium or Uranium to sustain nuclear energy as a fuel source for longer than at best, 100 years. Nuclear is not the long term answer.

[JDS]

We don't have enough Plutonium or Uranium to sustain nuclear energy as a fuel source for longer than at best, 100 years. Nuclear is not the long term answer.In 100 years fusion reactors will be online and we won't need any more fissile material.

[Aset]

That's a nice theory, but they would have to be doing a lot more research on it than they're doing right now.

[JDS]

We're bringing a new research reactor online in the next few years...in 100 they'll be viable.

[ouiouiwewe]

Nuclear: Well fast-breeders are costly at least partly due to their intrinsic designs. You say that governments can do this to minimize the risk and can do that to maximize the cost-efficiency. Well, how close do you think we are to this stage? Be realistic.

Biotech: Unfortunately, we weren't necesarily talking about herbicide resistant plants. We were talking about transgenics that have increased growth and metabolic efficiencies so that they could grow in nutrientionally poor areas. The notion of keeping away biocompatible species is difficult if not possible, by the way especially if the transgenic or biocompatible organisms have long-range dispersal properties.

And no, I am not saying your points are necessarily bad, but you are giving the green peace people too little credit.

[JDS]

Nuclear: Well fast-breeders are costly at least partly due to their intrinsic designs. You say that governments can do this to minimize the risk and can do that to maximize the cost-efficiency. Well, how close do you think we are to this stage? Be realistic.There are no serious risks with modern reactors, it's all just a question of efficiencies, cost effectiveness, and ease of use (NOTE: This does not apply to naval reactors...they can blow up). I think we're closer than most people realize if only we would put the proper effort into implementing these technologies. Right now all we're doing is throwing up roadblocks when we could be making progress.

Biotech: Unfortunately, we weren't necesarily talking about herbicide resistant plants. We were talking about transgenics that have increased growth and metabolic efficiencies so that they could grow in nutrientionally poor areas. The notion of keeping away biocompatible species is difficult if not possible, by the way especially if the transgenic or biocompatible organisms have long-range dispersal properties.Actually the most useful transgenic properties ARE things such as herbicide resistance, natural organic targetted insecticides, resistance to rotting, and other things that are maladaptive in the wild. Increased growth and metabolic efficiencies are nice too, but not as important. As far as dispersal patterns...that's the joy of transgenics! Those properties can be modified. Think of a dandelion that grew without the fuzz on the seeds...they wouldn't be able to float away on the wind. The organisms can even be made sterile if appropriate.

[ouiouiwewe]

There are no serious risks with modern reactors, it's all just a question of efficiencies, cost effectiveness, and ease of use (NOTE: This does not apply to naval reactors...they can blow up). I think we're closer than most people realize if only we would put the proper effort into implementing these technologies. Right now all we're doing is throwing up roadblocks when we could be making progress. Yeah, well that's the problem with the environment as well. I mean it is certainly reasonable to say "Hey, there are probably solutions" but no, it's really a matter of whether or not they will be developed or used. This brings us back to the original point: No, there probably wouldn't be a significant source of renewable energy in the near future especially with the screwed up politics we have these days (Canada for example...)

Actually the most useful transgenic properties ARE things such as herbicide resistance, natural organic targetted insecticides, resistance to rotting, and other things that are maladaptive in the wild. Increased growth and metabolic efficiencies are nice too, but not as important. As far as dispersal patterns...that's the joy of transgenics! Those properties can be modified. Think of a dandelion that grew without the fuzz on the seeds...they wouldn't be able to float away on the wind. The organisms can even be made sterile if appropriate. Well, pesticide resistance are only necessary if we are considering a contaminated system or agricultural farm lands. The scenario I had in mind is a system with resource-depleted lands. As for dispersal patterns, you can only affect that for the transgenic but not the biocompatible plants from wild. Sterility and self-fertilization are certainly promising additions. But again, I am not stressing that biotech is not useful (else it wouldn't be so big these days), but that it is not as harmless and controllable as you make it sound at this stage.

[JDS]

Ah but you're assuming that we won't get over the paranoia and devote some real effort to progress. I think we will.

Assuming you meant herbicide resistance, the purpose is to be able to spray the crops with low-toxicity broad-spectrum herbicides that kill EVERYTHING except for the resistant transgenics, rather than the current system where you have to spray high-toxicity targetted herbicides on a regular basis to try to kill off the weeds without killing the crops.

As far as biocompatible species dispersing among the crops...well that's one of the great things about the herbicide resistance. Same species, minus the resistance, and it gets wiped out as soon as it sprouts up among the crops.

[ouiouiwewe]

Doubtful. How compliant are US, China, India, and Canadas' to Kyoto standards?

I am a little confused in your use of terminology. Explain what is "low-toxicity broad-spectrum herbicides" because low-toxicity generally means... low-toxicity and non-life threatening effects except in high doses (at least that's how it'd be perceived as in pharmacology).

Ignoring that, let me try to piece together what you are suggesting... So we have this farm that grows GM plants. We spray broard-spectrum herbicides to kill off wild plants that are growing in the local area. Then since the GM trees have enhanced growth pathways, pesticide resistance, and reproductive modifications, they will be the only ones that grow and thrive but do not spread outside of the limits. That seems okay except:
1) Herbicide resistance will be developed naturally in time
2) If herbicide is not too water insoluble or involatile, it will spread to places outside of the farm and start killing wildlife there
3) System is based on the assumption that the GM crop and herbicide are ideal.

[JDS]

We didn't sign Kyoto at all, so we don't need to comply to ANY of it :D

Herbicides basically come in two types. One type is designed so that you can spray it onto crops without killing them. It's only effective on certain kinds of plants, but it's very toxic to the environment in general. You have to spray it over and over again and its effectiveness is still limited. The other type just kills all the plants. You only have to spray it a few times per season and it's not as ecologically damaging. It will also kill the crops...unless you make them resistant.

Regarding your other questions...
1: Maybe so, but we're already using herbicides. Biotech crops just allow us to use better ones.
2: Again...we're already using herbicides. Biotech crops allow us to use ones that kill LESS wildlife.
3: Explain?

[ouiouiwewe]

Yeah exactly, we (Canada and USA) are not willing to have anything to do with Kyoto. Optimistic situation eh?

1) That doesn't address issue with wild plants eventually acquiring herbicide resistance and returning.
2) It really depends on the chemical being used. Considering the danger of interaction with wild plants with GM crops, I'd presume the rate and magnitude of application would be higher.
3) Genetic engineering and pesticide design are rarely ideal processes. The system we are considering assumes the GM and pesticides do perfectly as expected with no side effects. In present date I doubt we are at that level yet (not that we can't reach it in a few decades).

[JDS]

Yeah exactly, we (Canada and USA) are not willing to have anything to do with Kyoto. Optimistic situation eh?Since Kyoto was designed very poorly...I think it's just prudent.

1) That doesn't address issue with wild plants eventually acquiring herbicide resistance and returning.Okay, but neither do our current methods. Biotech plants don't really change anything in this regard.

2) It really depends on the chemical being used. Considering the danger of interaction with wild plants with GM crops, I'd presume the rate and magnitude of application would be higher.No, that's just the point. The transgenic modifications allow us to apply herbicides at a lower rate.

3) Genetic engineering and pesticide design are rarely ideal processes. The system we are considering assumes the GM and pesticides do perfectly as expected with no side effects. In present date I doubt we are at that level yet (not that we can't reach it in a few decades).That's true, but we've been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years before we developed transgenic biotechnology through techniques like selective breeding and hybridization and I'm much more confident in the results from transgenics than the traditional techniques...at least with transgenics, you know exactly which DNA you're getting in the new organism, whereas traditionally you just had to guess and hope. We don't always know what all of the new DNA will do, but it's a lot easier to figure it out when you know exactly what you've changed.

[ouiouiwewe]

Since Kyoto was designed very poorly...I think it's just prudent. Actually, there's no clean way of doing it. Reducing CO2 emission is indeed going to impact the economy. This is one of the mean reasons for Stephen Harper and George Bush not to support it because they don't want to trade future safety to short-term losses, although it is arguable that neither want to believe climate change is correlated with CO2 emission.

Okay, but neither do our current methods. Biotech plants don't really change anything in this regard. Unless a plant is completely sterile, proximity to plants that develop resistance will present a risk of the gene's spread. Also, even if we assume GM crops are completely sterile, there's the issue with horizontal gene-transfer (no, that's not just for bacteria) which we don't understand a whole lot about in plants.

No, that's just the point. The transgenic modifications allow us to apply herbicides at a lower rate. The only advantage I see is that you don't need to sacrifice the crops during the spraying but the dose should be dependent on the chemical's potency and efficacy which is usually different for different species.

Now, assuming the new broad spectrum herbicides can kill other plants at very low doses, that's mean it's more environmentally toxic especially if it is bioavailable and can bioaccumulate.

That's true, but we've been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years before we developed transgenic biotechnology through techniques like selective breeding and hybridization and I'm much more confident in the results from transgenics than the traditional techniques...at least with transgenics, you know exactly which DNA you're getting in the new organism, whereas traditionally you just had to guess and hope. We don't always know what all of the new DNA will do, but it's a lot easier to figure it out when you know exactly what you've changed. There's are difference. Traditional agriculture selects for traits that exist within the natural gene pool or traits that arise from a mutation event. This has three implications: 1) Genetic variation between mother species and mutant is usually very small, 2) the evolutionary course is usually lengthy enough for the environment to adapt, and 3) Extremely intrusive variants are rarely produced. In a nut shell, there's a vast difference in the rate and magnitude of changes and these factors do matter. This also ties in with your point about control over the processes. The problem with molecular biology and other complex system is that it's damn hard to predict the exact outcome of a system just by looking at the preconditions (which is why drugs that take a decade of clinical trials can still kill people and get withdrawn). So let's say you are driving in a familiar neighbourhood during night with the street lights off, would you prefer to travel fast or slow?

[frakk`up]

save the planet! Its the only one with chocolat!

join kyoto you usA(ss):P