It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Space Waste and Earth Garbage: 2015 and Beyond

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   


Almost 20,000 pieces of space debris are currently orbiting the Earth. This visualisation, created by Dr Stuart Grey, lecturer at University College London and part of the Space Geodesy and Navigation Laboratory, shows how the amount of space debris increased from 1957 to 2015, using data on the precise location of each piece of junk.

www.space-track.org...

All I could think about after watching the people in Time Square return home was the amount of garbage they left behind. The city helped in creating the mess and the large teams of sanitation workers certainly had their hands full.



Celebrants ringing in the new year left behind tons of confetti and garbage. Last year, crews with the city's Department of Sanitation collected more than 48 tons of debris in wake of the iconic party.

This year, 178 sanitation workers using 26 mechanical sweepers, 25 collection trucks, 38 blowers and 40 hand brooms were in charge of the cleanup and had the streets reopened by 7 a.m.

Humans generate waste. We're also not very smart about what we do with it. Burning, burying or blasting our garbage into space, allows us to adopt an "out of sight, out of mind", mentality without providing any long-term solutions to waste management. Our future is going to stink, literally.

The link below directs you to an interactive time-line that some of you may find interesting.

The story of space debris
(may not work on all devices)

Actually, I had a weird ghosting effect take place.



After a while, the Earth was completely enveloped with debris. It looked like some junk-apiller, weaving a cocoon of garbage around itself, only to emerge ugly and black with rotten banana peels for wings. Sorry, must be the residual alcohol talking, lol.

Curious about the future of our planet, I did a little research and found these interesting facts.


Waste management 2030+
(From: 1/3/2010)


Amounts of waste are largely determined by two factors: first, the population in any given area, and second, its consumption patterns – which are controlled by the evolution of Gross Domestic Product per Capita (GDP/c).

According to the UN, between now and 2025, the world population will increase by 20% to reach 8 billion inhabitants (from 6.5 today). Moreover, by 2050, the total population will be around 9.5 billion, unless specific control measures are broadly adopted. If this becomes a reality then a population of 8-8.5 billion in 2050 may be considered a successful stabilization of numbers.

Is is me, or are they correlating less waste in the future with less people? Unless specific control measures are broadly adopted? It appears they aren't talking about controlling waste, they're talking about controlling the population.

This leads me to believe that even with newer technologies, we will not be able to effectively keep up with the rise in population. The poverty in some heavily population regions just compounds the difficulty in removal and sanitation. The next two paragraphs are very telling...


It is important to note that 97% of this growth will happen in Asia and Africa, which includes some of the poorest countries that have the least capability to absorb it. After 2025 it is expected that Asia will hold more than two thirds of the world’s population. This growth also will boost urbanization of the population (urban population is expected to be around 65% of the total one after 2040), and the creation of extended zones of poverty around and inside megacities. The number of inhabitants of slums will be double around 2025 and will reach 1.5 billion.

Besides overpopulation, a remarkable increase in GDP/c especially in developing countries is on its way. In 2025, world production will have doubled in relation to 2005. By 2050 the world production may again have doubled compared to 2025. The global average GDP/c around 2025 will be more or less one and a half times the current one, and in a business-as-usual scenario it may be fourfold around 2050. Jeffrey Sachs has estimated that in developing countries the GDP/c will be around $40,000 in 2050, which is the same as the USA GDP/c in 2005! It also seems that we are living in a richer world where we will have higher actual numbers of poor people, but less in terms of percentages.

The article poses three questions:

Question 1: Will the expansion of modern waste management systems be capable of handling the increasing amounts of waste generated? Or will the reality be an ocean of new uncontrolled dumpsites, with some islands of advanced waste management but a continent of landfills?

Question 2: How will those advanced technologies become available for countries that are trapped in poverty? Because not all countries will benefit from the global GDP/c growth and the outsiders, for the time being, are more than one billion. And it seems that the gap between those poor countries and the rest of the world is set to grow wider.

Question 3: Is our waste management system capable of handling the plethora of new kinds of waste? Are the current social, political and financial conditions sufficient to resolve the problem of the growing complexity of waste streams?


edit on 1-1-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Here are some more facts and predictions…


As GDP/c goes up, it is expected that by 2050 the demand for agricultural goods will rise by 70% and the demand for meat will double.


It has been estimated that urban food waste is going to increase by 44% globally between 2005 and 2025. During the same period, and because of its expected economic development, Asia is predicted to experience the largest increase in food waste production, from 278 million to 416 million tons.


If present waste management trends are maintained, landfilled food waste is predicted to increase world CH4 emissions from 34 million to 48 million tons (31 million to 43 million tonnes) and the landfill share of global anthropogenic emissions from 8% to 10%.


From 2000 to 2008, the European exports of plastic waste rose by 250%, reaching 2.27 million tones – approximately 5 million tones are annually recycled in Europe. Around 87% of these exports are going to China, including Hong Kong. The global financial crisis seems to have worsened the situation, as the first quarter of 2009 saw a 33% increase in exports compared to the previous year.


Between 1995 and 2007, the amount of non-hazardous waste exported to Asia increased tenfold for waste paper, elevenfold for plastics and fivefold for metals. At the same time, just for a comparison, the amount of paper and cardboard packaging waste recycled has increased from about 24 to 30 million tons and the amount of plastic packaging recycled has increased from about 10 to 14 million tons.


...more than 20 million containers of waste are now shipped each year, either legally or illegally, from the EU to non-EU countries.


Millions of tonnes of plastic waste are floating around Pacific Ocean. It is estimated that more than 80% of this waste is coming from land-based resources and the rest from marine-based resources.

Interestingly enough, I would expect the articles closing paragraph to send chills down any NWO believer's spine. Everybody's opinion will differ in what they believe to be the single greatest problem we face globally, but when written by a globalist, there is only one clear problem at hand…


Our world will be overpopulated and more and more interconnected. The defining challenge of the 21st Century will be that humanity shares a common fate. That fate is already demanding new forms of global cooperation. The paradox of a unified global economy and divided national societies poses the single greatest threat for our planet. And although there are appropriate waste management solutions, the main problem is the global framework that should put them in place where they are most needed. Let’s try to create it.

I admit, the space debris video sent me off on a tangent, but if we don't “clean up” our act soon, we'll either choke to death or drown in a desolate sea of filth.

Just because you keep your space neat and tidy, doesn't mean the rest of the population does and services you or I take for granted don't exist in many parts of the world.

I'd like to say, do what ATS is good at and blame the government (lol), but this time it isn't entirely their faults. Where there is demand, there is production. Production generates waste. We must end our demand for such trivial and useless garbage.

Some seem to think that if we don't modernize the rest of the world through globalism, the larger developing countries will be left to rot, creating a cancer for the rest of us.

When we finally are ready to leave this planet and explore the vastness of space, we're going to find a chrysalis of hardened space garbage that's been slowly developing around Earth, trapping us from within. Again, I hope the future doesn't “stink”.

“You are on the way to destruction.”


edit on 1-1-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Great thread jam packed with info.

Our waste production (here and in space) is a huge concern.

There are some passionate, creative geniuses figuring out solutions (like "Seabins", floating trash receptacles for use in marinas) - but we need more investment and resources before we ruin our planet for good..

Seabins



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I remember the old farm dumps when I was a kid. There was hardly no plastic in them. The meats from the store came wrapped in paper and prepared food was not wrapped in unnatural plastics like it is today. glass bottles were common. The metal cans deteriorated over time and posed little threat to the environment. Glass slowly returned back to the earth which posed little problems. The cardboard and paper might have been bad for the trees but consumption today is much higher because we buy more stuff now than in those days and a lot of new wood products are emerging in mass quantities.. Bad chemistry did exist then as it does today but it was not as widespread and not as bad for the environment because there was less overall in the world.

We are messing up, banning chemicals that we prove bad but not looking at the overall picture. The tipping point is coming soon on this, the climate change is already past the tipping point. So now we need to go way overboard to reverse climate change. The same will happen when our Ecosystem starts to collapse.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

The irony of everything wrapped in plastic was that it was the enviro lobby who wanted us all to switch to plastic because it was to save the trees!

Somehow, I wonder if we're all going to feel the same way about CFL lightbulbs in a few years when the mercury poisoning starts to really be an issue.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



We are messing up, banning chemicals that we prove bad but not looking at the overall picture. The tipping point is coming soon on this, the climate change is already past the tipping point. So now we need to go way overboard to reverse climate change. The same will happen when our Ecosystem starts to collapse.

Then what are we? Bacteria? A virus or a parasite? We seem to care so little about the very life giving essence of this planet, you'd have to wonder if people really have the care to live?

The Earth itself might become so polluted that artificial ecosystems and vertical farming become the norm. This tolerated wastefulness lends to the hemp textile conspiracy and in my crazy mind, many others. Why deliberately trash the joint if most elitists who share the same planet didn't already have a plan B?

I believe they already have the means to live artificially in an end-times scenario and take advantage of the rest of societies growing numbers, poverty and lack of ambition, to work the the mines, fields and factories. They will tolerate sharing the surface of this planet with the rest of us until we are so close, we begin to gnaw on each other.

At that point its either get your ass to Mars or possibly underground. How do you deal with waste underground or in space without amazing technology capable of 100% recycling the crap you make? Part of me thinks we're purposefully led off the plank, I'm just not sure why.

History is already repeating itself. After the third time, you know how it goes...



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: rickymouse

The irony of everything wrapped in plastic was that it was the enviro lobby who wanted us all to switch to plastic because it was to save the trees!

Somehow, I wonder if we're all going to feel the same way about CFL lightbulbs in a few years when the mercury poisoning starts to really be an issue.



Everything you said in that is true. The light bulb thing is half promotion to stimulate the economy and pocket books of campaign contributors.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


The irony of everything wrapped in plastic was that it was the enviro lobby who wanted us all to switch to plastic because it was to save the trees!

Who do you think indirectly funded those lobbyists?

The switch also helped everyone become even more dependent on Big Oil. I should do a thread on the link below if it hasn't been done already. The link to the report is broken, what a surprise.

GOP: Green movement backed by 'Billionaire’s Club'


The environmentalist movement is a front for an exclusive club of shady, wealthy billionaires who get funding from foreign entities, Senate Republicans charged Wednesday in a 92-page report.

The report details the activities of the “Billionaire’s Club,” which it said meets regularly to coordinate donations and control of far-left environmental groups that want to restrict the use of fossil fuels. The donors use “legally suspect” means of controlling the groups that is unique to the left, the report said.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has enabled these groups by hiring former employees and funnelling government money to the organizations.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Well then why not switch back to paper now they we recycle so much instead of those disease carrying reusables?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

I think that we are going to be killed off using chemistry added to our diets. All they will need is one added chemistry and most of us will die. or if they remove one food chemistry we will be their servants. Look at this article, it is about ants but wonder how they can retrofit this new knowledge.

phys.org...

It's only a matter of time now.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
It's like Atlantis all over again.


S+F



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: eisegesis

I think that we are going to be killed off using chemistry added to our diets. All they will need is one added chemistry and most of us will die. or if they remove one food chemistry we will be their servants. Look at this article, it is about ants but wonder how they can retrofit this new knowledge.

phys.org...

It's only a matter of time now.


I'm with you, people love to eat. Death by diet seems an obvious way to weaken us into submission.

I always found this profound as well...

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury


Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.

HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.

Haven't directly ingested the stuff in almost 15 years. My life changed. The stuff is in everything!

Here's a short list of brands that tested positive...

Quaker Oatmeal to Go bars
Jack Daniel's Barbecue Sauce
Hershey's Chocolate Syrup
Kraft Original Barbecue Sauce
Nutri-Grain Strawberry Cereal Bars
Manwich Gold Sloppy Joe
Market Pantry Grape Jelly
Smucker's Strawberry Jelly
Pop-Tarts Frosted Blueberry
Hunt's Tomato Ketchup
Wish-Bone Western Sweet & Smooth Dressing
Coca-Cola Classic: no mercury found on a second test
Yoplait Strawberry Yogurt
Minute Maid Berry Punch
Yoo-hoo Chocolate Drink
Nesquik Chocolate Milk
Kemps Fat Free Chocolate Milk

They fired back with this,


"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, in a statement. "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years.

I like how they think this statement just explains everything away. The damage has already been done and the weapons of control have only evolved to become harder to detect and fight back against. Our sensitivity to light also has a drastic effect on health and wellness. I did two interesting threads related to your link.

Changing behavior through synaptic engineering


"Our studies indicate that switching the sign of a synapse not only provides a novel synthetic mechanism to flip behavioral output but could even be an evolutionary mechanism to change behavior," said Alkema. "As we start to unravel the complexity and design of the neural network, it holds great promise as a novel mechanism to test circuit function or even design new neural circuits in vivo."

Researchers find neural switch that turns dreams on and off

Here is another I did related to artificial synthesis...

Scientists Create Artificial Photosynthesis System

Who needs the Sun anymore when you've got lots of money and power?




edit on 1-1-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

The thing is that a lot of what they discover with all the money they get from the consumer goes to people who want to control us and gain more profits from us. The working man or woman pays for all the research. The money has to come from somewhere to fund science, it is derived most times from what we buy and from our taxes. The cost of everything we buy includes money to fund science. If science creates something, it sells it and the buyer of it passes on the cost to the consumer.

Scientists make good money. They tell us that they save us money, but that usually is not the case. They change things that do not need to be changed, stating it does need to be changed. Then they research a solution for the side effects of their previous changes and have to keep the funding ball rolling.

I like science, real science. The kind where there is no greed or sales pitches involved.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join