By Peter Cochrane, 23 January 2007 14:25
COMMENT
Written in the lobby of a Vancouver hotel and dispatched to silicon.com via a very low cost public wi-fi connection
I know it sounds crusty and boring but thermodynamics was one of the most useful subjects I ever studied. It turned out to hold the foundation insights to almost all processes and mechanisms we confront in the real and information world spanning physical, biological, chemical and data systems.
A second important subject involved the specification, design, analysis and performance of systems. And, as you might guess, this involved applied logic and rigour - and also relied heavily on thermodynamics. For me, an overriding knowledge of these topics set the scene for a lifetime in science, technology and engineering.
It is this background that makes me sceptical of all decisions and policies made on the fly for political, commercial, social, politically correct and/or fashionable reasons. And almost without exception, every time I see or hear something that appears out of kilter with the basic principles governing our universe (that is thermodynamics and systems theory) it invariably turns out to be wrong!
So this is the background that led me to question the politically correct values surrounding recycling. As far as I can see the only thing worth collecting and recycling is aluminium and even here the economic and energy arguments are marginal. Everything else, including paper, glass, tin and plastic, without exception, wastes more energy and creates more pollution than the extraction of raw materials and the creation of new products.
In the region where I live we have been equipped with high-density plastic bins so we can pre-sort our rubbish for the special collection service. It turns out that I have to dispose of well over 10 years' worth of low-density plastic waste in order to create these bins. And where do I get my plastic waste? From the supermarket of course! The culprits are bottled water from Hawaii, protective covers on pears and all the other containers - in every conceivable size and shape - for cosmetics, cleaning materials and food.
So what is the next step? RFID tags on the bins so the owners can be identified and then be charged by the kilogram for waste disposal. Predictably, where this has already been introduced, fly-tipping has rapidly followed and streets, lanes and fields become dumping grounds for rubbish!
Then of course a police force is required to enforce the law and make people pay. They need vehicles to get around and an organisation to run the operation. I'm sure you get the picture. Is this crazy or what? To say the least, someone has lost the plot. Perhaps worst of all, a population that had been pro-tidy and pro-recycling is immediately turned off and alienated.
Over the past year I have challenged several members of the recycling mafia. They vigorously defend the economics and right-mindedness of recycling but when confronted with the real facts, they always collapse back to the landfill argument: we can't keep digging holes. We are running out of space. Pollution is a problem.
On closer analysis it turns out that none of this is true either. Holes are cheap, we have plenty of space and pollution is relatively easy to control. Even a thousand years of rubbish production involves a minimal disposal problem.
The problem is that the very significant and threatening problems we face are not being addressed because they are too difficult. They defy political and media 'one-liners' and there are no obvious solutions at this time.
So what should we be addressing? How about these really critical issues:
- The irreversible conversion and in general, total destruction of non-renewable (in the short and long term) resources such as oil
- Over-consumption of renewable resources such as fresh water
- Economic creation, storage, distribution and use of energy
- The redistribution of waste products and pollution from the first, second and third world under the pretence of being green
- A widespread societal inability to identify the critical issues, comprehend the implications and then take adequate steps to minimise or correct the problem
Might it be that our difficulties are due to a lack of education and understanding across the board? Without doubt! In my estimation the problems we now face as a species are well beyond our innate ability to understand. For sure, our very poorly educated politicians are in no position to make sensible guesses, let alone judgments.
A long time ago I discovered there are always very simple solutions to very complex problems. The snag is they are invariably wrong!
If there are solutions to our dilemmas they lie in the direction of better analysis, models and understanding. Such understanding isn't easily come by because these aren't simple problems - they are complex (in the classical sense) and highly non-linear. And this is no place for the fashionable or politically convenient. We have to focus on the truth.
Finally we are going to have to rethink a couple of words: 'value' and 'economic'. The money alone is too crude a measure of value or economic success. We have to take into account the long-term impact on, and contributions to progress, society and the individual.
Right now we don't know how but we had better find out before we drown in a sea of schisms and beliefs that are not only flawed and/or badly wrong, they are likely to be very damaging in the long-term.
In short, we need good models and computer-assisted decision making in order to take into account the many dimensions of our problem sets, and the overall impact on our planet and its life systems.
Comments
There are 48 comments. Join the discussion
1. Simon Dalling
I agree with almost all the comments on recycling, but here in the UK at the present rate of refuse creation we will have filled all our landfill sites in 12 years. After this we will need to create new sites on good land. A site by me used to be a hole in the ground and is now a mountain. Manufacturers need to create less and more environmentally friendly packaging and people in the UK need to recycle unless they want to live in the shadow of a waste mountain.
2. Simon Cox
Peter - that is a very insightfull commentary. I have been doing my bit for recycling since I was a kid in the 60's but I think your right - we no longer live in a make do and mend society but rather a throw away society. When did you last get your fruit or veg in a brown paper bag? There is too much packaging.
3. anonymous
Reduction of use of non-renewable resources such as oil = recycling materials created from (and by) the oil industry. If people can't reduce their reliance on plastics, etc, then recycling is one of the key ways to address this. Reduction is the first step, as the mantra goes, re-use is the next but recycling is the important third step. Dismissing recycling in one fell swoop is perhaps a touch unnecessary, no?
4. Dr Mark Hosey
The whole subject of waste management is indeed a very complex problem, but that doesn't mean it can't be split into a number of simpler problems to be addressed, studied and solved individually. Bear in mind that in the past humans have often recycled their rubbish when it was economically viable to do so, and it could be again. As you have have pointed out many times, humans are very resourcefull creatures who, if given encouragement, time and financial backing can often make the most uneconomical of projects bear fruit.
We should not shrug our shoulders at the problem and just bury it all indiscriminately in land fills, land fills should be well managed and used for waste disposal only where appropriate! We should at all times strive to be economical with our materials, reuse and recycle where economically viable and invest in technologies that promise economic viability. And if that means taxing the polluters in order to pay for the research and development into better ways of dealing with waste then I'm all in favour of it. Personally I believe the cost of waste disposal should be added as a tax onto every item bought or sold. We should pay for its disposal at time of purchase and the more hazardous or problamatic the materials used the bigger the tax should be.
5. swhitear
A good piece of commentary, but I agree with the previous comment in that dismissing recycling out of hand is rash.
Long term we have no option but to improve efficiency across the board, and remove dependency on finite resources. I can't help but feel we've arrived at recycling from the wrong direction. If the products we use were specifically designed as the first step in a usage cycle entirely devoted to efficiency, we would find the rest of the solution falls into place. We have the technology to create materials that are designed for efficiency of production and recycling first, with usage as a packaging material a far lower priority.
It seems that people are willing to abide by recycling regimes, and genuinely see the point of it. The more beneficial the schemes become, the more the benefits can be trumpeted, the more people will participate with enthusiasm.
6. anonymous
I agree with the general theme running through the last blog in that leaving issues like recycling to the politicians alone is bound to lead to disasters.
Why does every policy this Government introduce has to end up penalising the citizens? Can the politicians show a true commitment to "the cause" and actually introduce revenue-neutral measures? How about actually doing the opposite to charging for rubbish - actually paying householders for collecting the “right” type of rubbish.
It could work like this: the government would levy a flat collection fee on everyone without exception. Then, through the system of “green” credits, accumulated through segregating the recyclables by each household then collected by local council (and employing the existing technology) – the fee could be reduced, possibly to zero. Such system would also dis-incentivise the fly tipping.
Then actively encourage the glass/paper/plastic/etc manufacturers to include at least 20%+ recycled materials in their output...or simply reduce packaging altogether. Through judiciously applied taxation...
How is that for integrated green/ recycling strategy? Of course, the idea of researching the issues in depth should be pursued in all circumstances.
7. Peter Cochrane
Simon = My exactly my experience...and I regularly get defeated by plastic packaging that seems so thick and so tough. I regularly get shops to remove a lot of this stuff and use my hands/pockets instead of another plastic bag. Oh for sensible packaging...Peter
8. Peter Cochrane
Simon = Me too! It sometimes seems that 'progress = more waste' is some kind of immutable law. On the up side we now use a lot less material making cars, TVs, washing machines etc....but the downside is we are manufacturing more!
Methinks we need a better, more sustainable model. Peter
9. Peter Cochrane
Anonymous = I like to recycle, but not when it damages the planet, which it increasingly does. In some cases the damage is down to the stupidity of humans, in others it is fundamentally damaging because it is impossible to satisfy the energy equation. What I was trying to point out is that right now almost all our ideas and formulas for recycling success are fundamentally flawed and damaging the planet. So The Friends of the Earth actually become The Fiends of the Earth! Peter
10. David Moore
I did lots of thermodynamics in my materials degree. However, I cannot see how non-renewable resources such as oil can be disposed of so easily. We have sleep walked into consuming an awful lot of plastic. How can we throw off the addiction?
Aluminium - easier to recycle than spend a lot of energy getting it from bauxite.
Ferrous - use a magnet! Its more concentrated in the waste stream than in the ground so it must be easier energetically. There's been a metal scrap industry for a long time: muck and brass must challenge thermodynamics!
Glass - big energy savings from bottle bank cullet. Litigation got rid of the mass market returnable bottle so we lost out on re-use. UK container furnaces are running on: clear ~30% cullet; ~85% green; and ~30% amber. Recycled glass is THE major raw material.
11. anonymous
A misguided fashion? Recycling is very necessary and just because there may be more important issues you believe are on the agenda, that does not allow us to ignore other issues. Also, where is all this space that you allude to? You are right in that the packaging is wasteful and this should be corrected but as a developed country we need to lead by example. While we are using copious amounts of plastic, we should recycle it so less developed countries will do the same.
12. In Furnace
Do some investigation - you'll find that we sort our rubish and place into nice recycling bins. They gets taken from our door steps on different days, by different lorries, churning out a whole host of polutants.
There isn't the capacity to process the recyclables in the amount we create.
There isn't the demand for this "recyclable" waste, no one wants it, it doesn't make economic sense to recycle most of it, so it gets dumped right back into the same land fill place as the stuff from our waste bins.
In my humble opinion :- A complete WASTE of time.
13. EBGB
I agree with Peter that government driven recycling is about image as much as (or more than) problem resolution.
It's so much easier for them to vary an existing process (local council waste collection) than actually to enforce more rational behaviour.
I'd be surprised if none of Peter's contacts that he challenged over recycling pointed out that it's 3rd on the list in the green mantra "reduce, re-use, recycle".
But in our modern economy there aren't many votes in the first two, are there?
Where is the politician with the power AND the balls to grasp the nettle of reduction being the way out of this? What's the point of switching cars to bio-fuels when the demand will result in yet more rainforest being cleared to produce the crops?
14. EBGB
For me, the benefits of recycling are as follows:
- it makes me think what waste I create,
- it reduces landfill,
- it makes me think what waste I create,
- I choose my purchases based in part on the most "sensible" packaging (none for the majority of fruit & veg; that's what loose product & shopping bags are for), which economically rewards the vendor who provides it,
- it makes me think what waste I create.
Recycling isn't the answer, REDUCTION is. Switch off your monitors, turn down your heating / aircon, unplug your AC/DC chargers for your phones, Blackberries & other gadgets, switch off that light, get your lazy behind out of the car and walk for 15 minutes instead. It won't kill you, and after virtually no time at all you won't even have to think about it.
And maybe, when someone next goes out to buy lunch, they'll even manage to refuse the plastic carrier bag in which they were planning to carry their solo plastic wrapped sandwich. Perhaps even refuse the plastic cutlery? Maybe even use their own mug with water from a dispenser or a tap (remember those) instead of buying another midget plastic bottle?
Or am I just dreaming that a species that invented the production of these problems is bright enough to modify its day to day behaviour in a way that benefits us all?
15. Neil Robinson
Peter's comments are as usual insightful and excellent but I think he misses a crucial point. Whilst the economic arguments about recycycling do not currently stack up, inevitably at some time in the future they will. What is happening now in terms of recycling I personally see more as a learning experience than the solution itself. Yes mistakes are being made but since this is government driven, sadly you can expect for them to make a lot of mistakes along the way before coming up with the right answers. That could easily take 50 years, so starting the process now - even if it's not the right answer is no bad thing. Obviously whether or not it should in fact take governments 50 years or so to work things like this out is another argument in itself!
16. Robert James
Peter, I couldn't agree more.
What politicians seem to do (along with many doctors, unfortunately) is address the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem.
As you suggest, that doesn't only apply to how we handle materials, it also applies to the criminal justice SYSTEM, education SYSTEM, healthcare SYSTEM - all SYSTEMs that need the rigour and understanding that most, if not all, politicians seem ill equipped for.
The media do not help, since they (on behalf of a public that don't know any better) demand quick fixes for complex systems.
Perhaps if there were a way influence the political SYSTEM so that they understood the probem, we might get somewhere!
17. nyabdns
Pete is almost correct. Copper, iron and steel are all viable recycleables. Most of the rest is just trash.
18. Peter Cochrane
Mark = I would like to see the whole package...where we reward industry for creating goods using the least materials and energy. BUT the UK/EU is absolutely obsessed with tax as a solution to everything, and oh how it makes good citizens and consumers so bloody minded, and then they set about confounding governement et al. AND how it cripples our industries and R&D efforts. BETTER I think to get consumers and industry on side - they will happily discriminate between the good and bad products. BUT before that happens we need some clear thinking and leadership from government, which involves telling the truth and not fixing/fudging the numbers to political ends - such as stealth taxation etc. Peter
19. Peter Cochrane
Swhitear = I agree in principle, but rioght now recycling is helping to destroy the planet as it involves the consumption of even more energy. Thermodynamics rules! Peter
20. Peter Cochrane
Anonymous Financial Analyst = At last - someone think +vely instead of punitively. I like it! Peter
21. Peter Cochrane
David = It turns out that most recycled gless doesn't go into new glass products - it is ground up as hardcore in black top and other building products. And Silica (sand) is soooo cheap and plentiful compared to any other resource...Peter
22. Peter Cochrane
Anonymous London = You obviously believe in belief systems and have swallowed all the political lines hook, line and sinker! It is worth reading, thinking and enumerating around this topic. It just doesn't add up!
As for space, this is the old arguments for not building new roads - we have no space - and that isn't true either. Just fly over the UK and look down! Peter
23. Peter Cochrane
In Furnace = Sad to say you are broadly correct! And the problem is I don't see any easy fixes. In the mean time the political engine motors on wasting even more vital energy and resources. Peter
24. Peter Cochrane
EBGB = I have yet to gather all the figures but I suspect all of this is trivial in the waste equation compared to that generated by the inadequate infrastructure, traffic jams, wasted time...and the lack of any real bandwidth to allow tractable alternatives to physical travel. BUT then, I can't remember that last time I saw any joined up thinking/analysis in and around this topic! Peter
25. Peter Cochrane
Neil = I do hope you are right, but I prefer thinking and analysis as opposed to wild guesses and expending energy - quite literally - in the wrong direction. Peter
26. Peter Cochrane
Robert = We seem to live in the age of the quick fix, the one liner, getting into power and holding on is all that matters, and the art of informed debate seems to have died. Peter
27. Peter Cochrane
nyabdns = I tend to agree with you, but wasn't always that way, and it is perhaps more to do with the refinement of our industrial processes, and the fact that it is actually difficult to destroy or contaminate this class of raw material - compared to glass, paper, plastics etal. Perhaps some refinement in the way we design and manufacture could rebalance this equatin somewhat?? Peter
28. anonymous
This is one of your best outcrys for fundamental thought.
My hobby horse is that there are too many people. The world can cope with a billion wrecking it, but more just exchausts it. Your approach says event those that try are wasting their time. Better to find out the real problem.
29. Simon
Someone I know locally is involved with a project to dispose of waste by pyrolysis - not incineration, pyrolysis. The process is relatively simple : stuff a load of waste in a bottle, heat it up (without air) until it breaks down into basic constituents, extract useful stuff from what comes out !
Exactly what comes out depends on what goes in ! Tyres are very good, produce a lot of carbon dust, steel, zinc, and a good quantity of hydrocarbon gases. Domestic waste is also quite good - plastic and paper both produce carbon and hydrocarbons.
The gas is used for two purposes. Firstly to heat the chamber, so it's self sustaining and doesn't need a net input of energy to heat it. Secondly what's left can be burned in a gas turbine to generate electricity.
Exaust emissions are generally below the threshold at which they can be measured so it's clean as well.
The carbon that comes out can be made into small bricks and used anywhere that you would normally use coal - with one proviso that it can contain an amount of various contaminants (such as heavy metals) that were in the original waste feed.
You'd think that public bodies up and down the countries would be keen on such a plant. Feed in all your domestic rubbish, get free electricity and a smaller pile of mostly reuseable material out !
So get how far they've got in selling this ? Well they had a pilot plant running a few years ago when I first heard about it - and since then I've heard absolutely zilch.
30. L to the J
Behind ALL recycling / pollution problems lies one simple fact that will always be the route cause of our problems.
THERE ARE TOO MANY OF US.
The problem is population growth. And this is the most politically un-correct problem there is.
How popular will a government be if they turn round to us and say one child per household?
We will always have governments who are not educated enough, the vast majority of the population will always either not care, or not be aware of the problem. The more people there are, the harder it becomes every year for our governments with their limited knowledge to solve all our growing problems.
This is the underlying problem we need to solve, because until we do, our pollution problems will just keep growing and we will just keep on pumping Co2 into the atmosphere.....
....The earth will keep warming up....
....and when Greenlands ice slides into the sea.....we're all screwed anyway!
But at least we'll have plenty of plastic to float on!
31. Brian Murray
Although I have to say there a number of points raised which I don't completely agree with, this article is a real breath of fresh air!
At long last someone has thought through the issues and is bringing out the real problems which need addressed - as opposed to superficially massaging the symptoms.
One of the overriding mantras which comes to mind has to be - reduce, reuse, recycle. There is obviously a reason why they are in this order and I think this article highlights that we tend to skip straight to the 3rd as being relatively easy to act on.
Addressing the first two are more important but equally increasingly hard to enact.
The real problem is not concerned with the waste we create (albeit fossil and nuclear fuels are prime exceptions here) but regards the ingredients we are depleting in creating the endless stream of 'disposible' products we seem to demand. In effective, it is our 'consumable' society that causes many of the problems, and as Peter points out, not disposing of the evidence.
That said, I would be very interested in the models used to come to the conclusion that recycling is not worthwhile - perhaps the true conclusion is that our recycling methods/approaches are not effective.
Having lived in Switzerland, where they do indeed run a 'pay for what you don’t recycle' rubbish system (by the bag), this can work well if properly managed. While I agree that going to extremes is not the answer, we have to recognise that the american culture is an extreme we are dangerously close to.
That said, it seems to be America who are ploughing their R&D dollars into sustainable energy technologies and backing the innovation in that space, highlighted by the fact that UK investors seem willing to back wind farms but not wind technologies.
This must stop - we must recognise technology and development as a critical part of the solution and invest accordingly! (continued in next Reader Comment...)
32. Brian Murray
(Continued from previous Reader Comment...)
As Peter say's, we need to be very wary of how we manage the more finite resources, aluminium, copper, plastics, etc. We cannot continue to reap the benefits of a way of life and then campaign for the likes of India and China to practice the same. Equally, it is hardly good to set an example of superficial gestures or burying our heads in the sand.
The next steps? The real question everyone would prefer to avoid.
'Reduce', in reality, should be our long term (that is not to say we do not act on it right now!) … but does any company, organisation or even government include this metric in its plans - quite the opposite!
In the meantime, I think technologies such as RFID can only help with the 'Reuse'. It could be in the old fashioned 'money back for empties' sense, or simple that the waste sorting plants could sort materials automatically by their ingredients. The truth is we don’t know the answers yet.
To bring energy aspects into the mix is certainly adding to the challenge but its right to do so. Here again, we seem to have homed in on the easier to fix issue (i.e. creation, albeit not necessarily in a sustainable manner). Colleagues would point to hydrogen as another aspect, supporting the distribution of energy generation without the concerns of national grid connectivity and allow us to re-think our current generation culture.
Localised generation under localised energy economics - now there's an interesting concept! Again, we are still too ignorant on the hows and whats - despite being lobbied for the past two or three decades that this was a problem we had to start addressing!
I would say though, that not knowing the answers to the areas above is certainly no reason to dodge the questions!
I'm not sure education is the root cause (yes, in the broader sense, but not necessarily in the accepted perception of the term) but I do think we need to move away from the two to four year thought patterns of the politicians to manage the problem.
Certainly when it takes an economist (or as a friend of mine refers to them, the single variable modellers) to convey the messages in terms governments understand there must be something drastically wrong!
33. anonymous
How much extra "rubbish" in the form of used computer hardware will Vista cause since it requires higher spec hardware than most currently have? Maybe no one with green credentials should accept its use but insist on computers with lower hardware requirements.
34. Peter Cochrane
Simon (Cumbria)
When I look at these schemes there is a big problem. The heat you have to inject costs more than the materials recovered. It seems thermodynamics uules! Peter
35. Peter Cochrane
L to the J = You might jst be right. But the sum toatal of human demand and pollution turns out to be a few % compared to other natural mechanisms. BUT in a fundamentally chaotic system it only takes a few %!! The reality is we just don't know if we and our activities are responsible or are we part of an natural cycle. The worst feature is we are paying little or no attention in trying to find the truth. And running around like headless chickens aint going to fix it for sure. Peter
36. Peter Cochrane
Brian = Thanks for this insightful commentary - I think you pressed a lot of the more important buttons here. Peter
37. Brian Murray
Re: Anon - Bristol
The crazy cycle of renewing our desktop hardware to meet the needs of the latest OS has already been picked up by the Green Party:
http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,39165530,00.htm
I'm not sure what the ratio between personal & company desktop system replacements is but certainly for the latter I am perplexed as to why thin client solution are not more fully exploited. This avoids the need for hardware refresh (and minimises the effort around OS replacements etc too!)
38. anonymous
Whilst i agree that the current economic case for recycling may be pretty marginal, that is not the whole consdieration. When we visted a local recycling plant the manager pointed out that the classic recycling logo has three arrows, which represent "reduce" "reuse" and "recycle". Most people focus on teh recycle part and get a warm feeling from thinking they are saving the planet. However it would be much better not to consume the item in the first place, next best thing would be to use the other side of all that paper that we stuff into the company's recycling bins. My parents and their generation were always very thrifty and re-used old envelopes as note pads, and always re-used carrier bags. my generation is "blessed" with having dirt cheap stationery so we use post it notes with abandon, and have dozens of carriers in every cupboard. However I have a feeling that my childrens generation may be forced back to the thrifty ways of their grandparents, due to the fact that a lot of resources have been gobbled up by my own generation.
I agree that given the current population growth the reduction of fossil fuels and consumption of water are a more immediate problem. However we should not allow the fact that recycling of waste matter has a slim economic argument, to prevent us from reducing our consumption of raw materials overall, and trying to re-use as much as possible. As this behaviour will reduce the burdon on energy and water requirements.
39. Marx Wilson
The landfill argument may be weak in half-empty places like the USA, but it's a real problem here. And how Peter Cochrane can point up depletion of non-renewable resources on the one hand and decry recycling on the other escapes me- the two are opposite sides of the same coin. Plastics require feedstock, and it's mainly oil-based. If we recycled more plastics, we could reduce dependence on oil.
But the other point being missed is that recycling is option 3. The mantra is:
"Reduce, re-use, recycle". If we're to use RFID tags, let's use them in an innovative way: when stuff goes to landfill, the RFID can be used to identify the *retailer*, or even the *manufacturer*, and *they* pay for the landfill tax. How fast do you think they'd cut down on packaging then?
Another point is that there are "green" alternatives to many packaging items, but there's no real incentive to use them. There are cornstarch-based packaging "beans" to replace the polystyrene ones (and you can feed them to pigs afterwards), and film for wrapping, recycled card, etc. What we need is a packaging tax of some sort.
Some people are making it the supermarkets' problem by removing unnecessary packaging and leaving it at the till. If more of us did this, it would send a message to the most sensitive part of the retailer- the wallet. Also gets round the RFID problem. :)
40. Keith Farnish
Peter
There is certainly a world of difference between recycling and reducing (reuse and recovery lie somewhere in between), but there is still a case for recycling most high density materials. You fail to state your sources for rejecting the recycling of paper, for instance - a person in the UK having their paper or glass sent to India, is obviously wasting their time, but a person in the UK having their paper and glass sent to a regional recycling centre most certainly saves energy, and of course, the source materials (see http://www.recyclenow.com/facts/).
Your heart is in the right place. One good (or partial good) does not excuse another bad. You might like to read my article called "Something, Something and Recycle" (http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/15780) in case you feel that you are alone in your thoughts. But that does not mean that tagging of bins is altogether a bad idea; what we should be aiming for is a reduction in the resources we use, the energy we consume, and the damage we do - as simple as that - and making sure that people don't needlessly create waste is one way of getting there.
41. Peter Cochrane
Brian = In a word - Thin Pipes. Thin clients need lots of bandwidth, and there isn't sufficient to support a ubiquitous commercial operation. Peter
42. Peter Cochrane
Anonymous Milton Keynes = Yikes - you still use paper! An thermodynamics rules I'm afraid - it is much worse than thin - we are causing serious damage by recycling! Peter
43. Peter Cochrane
Keith = It is worth reading up on Entropy... We can only hope to reduce, reuse, conserve...recycling always damages! Peter
44. Brian Murray
Re: Thin Pipes
Thanks for the feedback Peter.
I think I should have been clearer that I was not necessarily talking about home connectivity for the general public (although I'll come back to this one). I was also restricting consideration to desktop services still being provisioned internally, as opposed to via a remote third party.
Given this scenario, it has been a long time since bandwidth represented any issue. Most LANs start at 10/100 Mb/s which is more than sufficient. Thin client provisioning technologies have also progressed and can healthily support most broadband links, for example (many also support dial-up but I generally find this to be more of a theoretical claim!)
It would be interesting to know the extent to which the public and private organisations renewal of desktops generates waste - certainly the introduction of the WEEE makes this a topical issue. I would also note that the impact on power use should not be underestimated.
As regards home use - perhaps it will not be that long, especially as the home PC and home entertainment market coincide, until we see service providers also deliver desktop/software functionality (albeit supported with localised storage)? This will directly depend on the rollout of a national (fibre) network capability to the door/kerb, as you highlight. It will also be interesting to follow the cultural shift, alongside what is already happening with Web 2.0.
45. Mark Base
Learn about how they recycle stuff in Sweden!
http://mdabase.blogspot.com/2007/01/monday-january-29th-2007-recycling.html
46. Peter Cochrane
Mark = Yep - their system doesn't cost in either! Peter
47. Peter Cochrane
Brian = Having just moved a 4GByte file fromone side of this office to the other on a 100M LAN I tend to disagree.
Professional users of all kinds are increasingly using biggere and bigger files with more pics, figs, animation, intereaction etc.
So until we get 1Gbit/s connectivity or so world-wide most of us will continue to lug devices of one sort or another! Peter
48. Brian Murray
Re-4GB file.
Thanks Peter - I can see the issue but this actually adds weight to the move away from localised filing/desktop in two main ways:
Firstly, I am willing to bet removing all the excessive network clutter would have helped your transfer rate.
Secondly, it comes back to the 'reduce' keyword i.e. how often do we really need to transfer files around in an office environment, or out there in the ether if we had access to our full desktop everywhere with connectivity?
Overall, it's about changing the isolated desktop/laptop culture. Absolutely laptops will be harder to address but by no means impossible, or even that difficult.