Environmental Waste Solutions

Environmental waste solutions explained

In all nations the public and their council's staff in council offices are continually seeking out new environmental waste solutions. As time goes on these are becoming more and more sophisticated in order to protect our environment.



The problem is that once an environmental waste solution has been found for one problem science and industry tends to create a new chemical or product which in some way is hazardous and needs a new environmental waste solution to avoid damage to the environment.



We hope you like this video which we produced for you







Waste is generated in all sorts of ways. Its composition and volume largely depend on consumption patterns and the industrial and economic structures in place. Waste is considered to be the by-product of both natural and artificial processes: manufacturing, chemical reactions, and even events in biochemical pathways.



But how do we distinguish the main products of an activity from its by-products? Waste is directly linked to the human development, both technologically and socially. The composition of different wastes has varied over time and location, with industrial development and innovation being directly linked to waste materials.



Waste is not just waste - it can also become a resource and a material supply for another person. The underlying philosophy for the European environmental policy is now to regard waste as a resource, and if this is pursued to its logical conclusion it can in theory provide an environmental waste solution by effectively eliminating waste.



However, one waste for which most of us would say there is no satisfactory environmental waste solution is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is not just the material left after it has been used and becomes ‘spent’. Nuclear power stations and reprocessing plants release small quantities of radioactive gases (e.g, krypton-85 and xenon-133) and trace amounts of iodine-131 to the atmosphere. However, they have short half-lives, and the radioactivity in the emissions is diminished by delaying their release.



Nuclear power then also leaves us with those spent reactor core materials to dispose of. If you carry out controlled fission in a nuclear power station, you get long-lived radioactive waste, and that poses a long-term hazard to the environment unless it is dealt with properly.



E-waste is another form of waste material for which society is seeking satisfactory environmental solutions. E-waste is a popular, informal name for electronic products nearing the end of their "useful life". Computers, televisions, VCRs, stereos, copiers, and fax machines are common electronic products. Most of these are laden with toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium that can leach into water, soils and the atmosphere, posing significant environmental and human health risks. However, many of these products can be reused, refurbished, or recycled so the obvious waste solution is to return these goods to the original manufacturer who can best reprocess and re-use the materials and by so doing also save on use of the earth’s resources.



Plastic is an increasing burden on our landfills and recycling efforts. Wouldn't it be great if we could just zap the plastic and make it go away? That’s is not going to happen of course, but the all pervasive nature of plastic bags for example in the sea and daily injury being to thousands of all types of creatures through ingestion and stomach obstruction, even sometimes suffocation, is alarming. If we knew years ago the damage and the extreme difficulty in finding an environmental solution to the plastic litter problem we would maybe not have allowed these bags to be sued as much as they have been.



Municipal waste, when properly managed, does not pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment. This one of our society’s environmental waste solutions is carried out at high cost but is being done quite satisfactorily in most developed nations. Many municipalities are said to now spend 40% of their operational budget on waste-related activities according to one internet report, and the worry is that these are services which often in some poorer nations benefit commercial, high and middle income areas only. Other internet sites suggest that estimates show that 10 million chronically poor people rely on waste picking for their day to day survival - and that definitely needs an environmental waste solution and fast!



So once we have created the waste, there is no easy environmental waste solution to its disposal. The only answer is not to create waste in the first place. Zero waste is a great concept as an environmental waste solution which also produces more jobs for less investment than any other waste management strategy. It also reduces toxic pollution as it incorporates clean production. Zero Waste is a way of thinking, and a path to travel, rather than an absolute. Subscribing to Zero Waste does not mean instantly eliminating every last piece of waste whatever the cost.



Steve Evans brings you a ton of information encouraging recycling at his blog site. Come take a look and leave a comment now! Also visit 'The Environmental Waste solution blog'.

Creating a Cleaning Environment

For a Cleaning Environment for future generations

A cleaning environment is one where the pollution of the past is remediated and cleaned with time to remove existing historic risk to the environment and public health. A cleaning environment implies a return of the natural endemic local ecology, and is an ideal to strive for.



'Save the Planet' is the subject of the video below.







We need to create a cleaning environment if our marvels of science and technology are going to be matched, and not outweighed, by many current tragedies, including human starvation in some parts of the world and extinction of other life forms. Global warming is taking place and is an increase in the Earth's average temperature. This, in turn, causes climate changes. Global warming also could cause droughts and disrupt agriculture.



A cleaning environment means not despoiling the remaining parts of the world which are still undeveloped. Globally, indigenous people inhabit areas with some of the highest remaining biodiversity on the planet and are actively being engaged as partners in biodiversity conservation. Issues of sustainable development, resource management and ecological restoration all include native stakeholders.



Global harmony is possible, yet confrontations take place more often than meaningful dialogues for peace. Our science and technology has done much good, but if we are not careful its unimagined polluting effects will be matched, if not outweighed, by the many, including depletion of resources which is destroying the possibility for people to bring up children in a clean environment.



In some parts of the world extinction of other life-forms is growing apace. It is ironic that exploration of outer space will now only take place at the same time the earth's own oceans, seas, and freshwater areas while they grow increasingly polluted and their life-forms are still largely unknown and where known are probably misunderstood.
However, it is not impossible to return to a green and clean environment. Obama will soon take over the Presidency and clearly intends to take very positive action.



The world became weary that Bush would ever rein in the polluters and close the so-called grandfather loophole as the air in Texas becomes ever smoggier. Never forget though that Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009.



In the US the general public are beginning to take on-board their profligate use of energy. Just look at recent statistics in the US for big car sales. SUV sales are down by 50%, car sales are down 50%, but small, fuel efficient cars, hybrid cars, diesel cars are up 40%.



So here we can start to shift our thinking. The US may soon start to take her place among the nations seeking a clean, or if not clean, then cleaning environment



Greenhouse emissions do not poison people, or lakes or woods, in the direct or obvious way that noxious chemicals do. But at least in the medium term, they clearly alter the earth in ways that harm the welfare of all and the poor more than the affluent.



One relatively clean energy technology cited as a possible stop-gap while renewable energy sources can be fully developed is nuclear power. It is the rich industrialized countries like France, Sweden, Japan (and many others) who are the biggest users of nuclear energy. Although new nuclear technologies reduce the problem of nuclear waste-management, and make it much more manageable, many in the west prefer to force oil-based energy use in oil-poor countries like India.



A method of cleaning technology is carbon sequestering of CO2. Carbon sequestering is obtained by chemically binding the CO2 in a material that will not dissolve in water or release CO2 with time. This eliminates the need to sequester pure CO2. IF the power generators sequester their CO2 they won’t need to buy carbon credits. Carbon credits have been called the modern day Papal indulgences for rich people. We don't accept hypocrisy from our preachers, they say, so I don't give eco-preachers an easy ride on this hypocrisy. Carbon credit administration is so bureaucratic and expensive that it is hard to justify perpetuating, on that basis alone, but in reality it will not bring us the cleaning environment we need and seek.



We talked about Nuclear energy as a part of cleaning the environment. Is it really so bad? It brings economic benefits from new jobs created to run new plants. It is like adding $500 million a year to the economy for each new plant brought on line. Nuclear currently accounts for about 20% of electricity generation in the UK. When all nuclear plants except Sizewell B in Suffolk are closed by 2020, the nuclear contribution will fall to some 4%. Many say that to burn coal would mean replacing this capacity would be a backward move and far from moving to a cleaning environment be the opposite.



Science doesn't reveal the best course of human actions. It gives us information that is factored into decision making. Now the decision making needs to be that of guiding the scientists away from any technologies that are not sustainable and do not promote a cleaning environment.



Steve Evans has some great information and ideas on the environment and waste. Go visit his web sites for more articles like this one. For waste and recycling go to the Waste-rs Blog. Also visit The Environmental Waste solutions blog plus Environment to Waste solutions.