#2, Silver Mining. It turns out mountains don't come labelled as "gold" and "silver-only". As world affluence increases, demand for gold and silver increases. Today, affluent trapped from filters at gold mines produces more mercury than mercury mines. But the only mines "trapping" any mercury are in regulated western economies... most gold mining is in unregulated forests.
Lamps, by the way, have jackshit mercury, less than a fraction of what they had when lamp recycling got started. Billions of dollars are being spent "recycling" lamps which have barely any mercury in them.
At least the recycled mercury saves the environment, right? Oh. Nope. Read the great journalist John Fialka on WSJ 2006. Most of the mercury recovered from the recycling went to alluvial gold mining in Amazon and Congo river basins. http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
I'm an environmentalist, but environmentalists 3.0 need to recognize past mistakes, and correct them, the same as engineers and software coders are expected to do.
That's what we all said in 1982 when Reagan was blamed for cutting the Pell Grant Program (which was replaced by loans). It turns out Reagan may have been right after all. The cost of tuition increases, when all other cost factors (energy, interest rates, salaries, etc.) were controlled for?... Federal Pell grants. The more the feds slopped into students, the higher the college tuition draw. (cue sucking sound).
I suspect that in nations where tax aid for tuition is working, the universities are government owned, and there are too many private colleges in the USA. And to give USA credit, our colleges are admired overseas in part for the competition between private and public enterprise (even if some was for the athletic facilities arms race). I was out protesting Reagan's cuts as a freshman and sophomore, but by the time I was a junior, I realized why Eisenhower included universities in his "military industrial complex" speech. We were patsies. The more our "need" was met, the higher the tuition went. It correlated to aid.
Competition and expense at elite colleges is really tough for my kids. Today, I don't think I would have gotten into the colleges I attended 30 years ago. And I hear most of the parents of my generation griping about competition from incoming foreign students.
No, I say this is good. The USA college tuitions have been going up 3 times the rate of inflation for three decades. While much of the increased annual fees go to "need based" tuition scholarships, the university endowments have funded an arms race on "country club" campuses complexes, the maintenance of which draws from the same tuition and fees. Students are paying for the lavishness. MOOC (massive online open courses) have been proposed as the solution, providing the education without the cost of the colleges' overhead.
As this would trend, the smaller and middle reputation colleges would fold and get privatized (which has not worked well at all). Colleges like, say Hendrix in Arkansas or St. Mike's in VT, are fine schools with good professors, and they'd be the victim if it weren't for an increase in students who can afford to pay the full tuition. If the country club and reputations of US colleges didn't attract foreign full-tuition paying students, the only solution would be more college debt, which is already unsustainable. So if my kid (with better grades, scores, and languages than I had) didn't get into the "A-List" college I attended, I'm satisfied she'll find more people as smart as she is at the less prestigious school, and that all the foreign tuition coming into this program will float all boats.
The only two things most people remember about college are 1) the interesting people they met (friends, faculty, etc) and 2) the debt they leave with. MOOC's only address the latter. More wealthy foreign students paying full tuition addresses both.
Most people don't understand the compliance. There's good and bad, but there's no going back once your industry (candle makers, software writers, barbers, whoever) adapts a standard it invariably becomes a tool of an authority.
Good: What I like about it is that our certifications increase accountability by encouraging recording mistakes. The "routine" of flagging mistakes and finding root causes and formalizing "corrective and preventative action" has been good and improved our company.
Bad: These standards are adapted by many companies in order to reduce competition, take away via consensus unique individual methods for doing things. They become almost like a "union", punishing individual innovation via auditors that view the world inside a "box". Uniqueness and innovation are an increased cost and risk to the third party auditor, and the auditor is ready to adapt the majority interpretation - which is usually to increase barrier of entry into the field of competiton.
As Morris Kleiner, the AFL-CIO chair in labor policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, put it "Occupational licensing has either no impact or even a negative impact on the quality of services provided to customers by members of the regulated occupation."
There are two types of "nuclear waste", actual spent fuel rods which are a real problem, and a lot of "definitional" nuclear waste, like contaminated hard hats, which may or may not be dangerous but may just be landfilled in other nations. TFA implies
Saw on CNN Fareed Zakaria 2 weeks ago that for the former nuclear waste there's a USA technology to use it as fuel. Similar to "breeder reactor" use, but evidently cheaper and safer. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn....
Train transport would have to be modular by the way, using containers that go on trucks before the truck puts it on a train. That's the way most of the containers you see on trains get there. The trains don't actually, like, go up to loading docks. Or even go to most cities at all. See photos here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If they are actually talking about actual train cars, they better first do a study of how many nuke plants have rail spurs!
About 9-10 years ago I was trying to decide whether to accept 4X the price offered for dismantled Floppy Disk Drives as I could get from a USA recycler. I'd heard that the Asians probably burned the FDDs in a fire for crude metal recovery, but it didn't add up. Why weren't they paying 4x the price for other dismantled components? How could they convert MY avoided pollution cost into that much value?
Turns out there was a factory in Kunming (South China) which purchased used floppy disk drives. They used to make new FDDs. I got photos of the factory, fairly modern. When new FDD orders "scaled down" they could no longer afford to manufacture new ones at scale... but they could buy used ones for 4X scrap value, about 1/10 new production value. And the factory in Kunming supplied just about every Floppy Disk Drive people purchased from 2002 on... when FDDs were still offered on units but NO ONE WAS MAKING THEM
This will last about a generation, and a lot of damage is to be expected. There will be soft targets hit. It will last approximately until the Gen2 kids of the Jihadists realize " Dad was an ASSHOLE ". Nazis, Japanese, USA vs. Mexico/Indians... it usually self corrects if Dad gets paddled. Gen2 (or G3) Kids can grow up to be different kinds of assholes (USA no doubt has several generations, I admit) but it's usually an altogether different kind of asshole than grandpa was. Anarchists of 100 years ago did proportionately about the same amount of "terror" as Al Qaeda
If Dad succeeds and gets rich, history shows, all bets are off. Successful assholes breed. Letting dictators rule for several years just gives latent asshole syndrome. So let the assholes get what's coming to them, because the more successful they are, the more we'll elect people to drop bombs on them.
Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.