Rainwater proposed to flush Ex toilets

[doady]

Just because something is more environmentally friendly doesn't mean it costs more money and is less efficient. Usually it is the other way around.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just because something is more environmentally friendly doesn't mean it costs more money and is less efficient. Usually it is the other way around.

But the list of environmental projects included above all cost a lot of money, especially since the existing systems are already in place and usually already paid for, less maintenence costs.

 

[Hydrogen]

Sorry, I went back to the archives and I remembered this quote of yours:

"I have no issue whatsoever with any individual who has concerns with the environment, or with the impact that human activity can have on it."

On that account, then, I was wrong. I apologize.

But I'm still scratching my head as to why you are jumping on Beez's wagon; increasingly, putting the environment behind economics seems to be like joining the flat earth society. You seem to lend your commentary to a disproportionate number of environmental threads, which sometimes comes off like Jesse Jackson jetting around between every civil rights case in the US giving his two cents. That was what I meant about being 'wilfully stubborn'.

You've said that collecting rainwater for toilets is 'impractical', but, every day, your average toilet mixes about a litre of nitrogen-rich urine with maybe a quarter of a pound of pathogenic fecal matter and then uses 60 L of drinking-grade water (if you have a low-flush toilet) to remove it to an overloaded sewage treatment plant. If cities had been plumbed separately from the start this kind of inefficient and, wasteful (pun) nonsense would not be on the map. If we must reduce every decision down to dollars and cents, there is even a case for doing this in the long run, ignoring the case for social responsibility, or even just good PR.

First off, apology accepted.

As for lending my commentary to so many environmental issues, it's due to some five years of employment in environmental policy work. I have a training in environmental issues, worked in the field and have thought a lot about many of the issues, and over time, my mind has changed on a number of them. It's good that other people think about the environment, but they must think critically. It is not an exaggeration to state that environmental groups have, in essence, become an unelected political party, and that environmental politics is too often filled with plenty of rhetoric at the expense of actual facts.

With respect to this specific project, as much as we all find ourselves hating cost-benefit analysis, sometimes they point to ways of getting our cake and eating it too. In other words, we get a good net result without spending large sums of money to achieve it. My agreement with Admiral Beez is on that count. One isolated project like this will do very little for a comparatively high cost. Like it or not, many projects associated withe environmental remediation have a high cost, and these costs have to be measured against the expected benefits. There is only so much money available, and taxing sources are limited.

On the issue of water use - surprise - I'm with you. Of all resources this is the one that is so poorly used and carelessly wasted. Nevertheless, this one small rainwater project won't solve the larger issue that you have described. This effort looks nice, and sounds good, but it is so minor in scale that it can hardly be called a step forward.

In reference to social responsibility, if one wishes to be socially responsible, then one must recognize the myriad of demands that are made on scarce resources - and those resources most definitely do include dollar resources.

 

[rbt]

Your income is just barely sufficient to cover your housing, food and clothing expenses.

When I had that issue I focused very hard on reducing recurring (operating expenses) and invested every dime I could find in that effort. After that I had money for other things.

The city has been short of funds for over 10 years. There is no reason to believe that the province or feds will help out substantially within the next 20 years.

Any capital expenditure with a 10 to 15 year payback or better is fair game and should be jumped on. That, and finding additional revenues within city boundaries, is the only way the issue will be resolved.

I have no idea what the payback is for this project but my benchmark would be the 15 year mark.

 

[Hydrogen]

know their farmers...

While there is a tendency to focus on global issues, most environmental problems are local. I've picked this one out of Andrea's list because of the fact that many local farmers are increasingly becoming retired farmers after being bought out for the eventual development of their land. Our growing population is increasingly occupying the growing lands of the province.

Yes, I'm off topic...sorry.