The dirty reality of what we throw

“The waste is history. The bodies break down, the paper is raised and undone, the treasures can get out or the conquering forces can melt them. But no one steals in a landfill and, therefore, for centuries archaeologists (…) They have rebuilt our history from waste “, Oliver Franklin-Wallis told us And, if he is right (he carries it), one thing can ask us: what will our garbage say? And, even if it seems, that is a key question. Because the image that these waste returns us is terrible. The great cheat of garbage. “Every year We produce 2,000 million tons. They are everywhere, but since it is disgusting, we don’t think about it. ” Franklin-Wallis held A few weeks ago talking about ‘Dump‘(Captain Swing, 2025), but that is to fall short. As he recognizes, it is not a ‘natural and understandable forgetfulness’; on the contrary, “The (international) industry of waste has been an opaque business on purpose“With the accomplice collaboration of governments, management and media companies. Before, in 2028, China I decided to stop buying waste In the middle of the world, everything seemed like a haven of peace and good management. But it was a lie. As Cheryl Katz explained years ago in Wireddeveloped countries that had recycling systems for many years, took advantage of the facilities that gave them countries like China to make the most accessible and cheap waste management. A trap in which we got alone. The negative side is that this pressure dismantled the local waste management industry. To get an idea of ​​the problem dimension: Before that year 201895% of European plastics and 70% of Americans ended up in China. But that “treatment” ended. China decided that it no longer brought to continue importing waste and the international garbage system convulsed. The developed world was found that all structural solutions They were too complex and faces To implement: they required, ultimately, rebuild an industry that had almost completely relocated. Given that, the alternative was to look for new countries that want that garbage: during the last years, millions of tons of garbage have redirected Towards the Gulf of Guinea And, above all, towards Southeast Asia looking for “new landfills.” Nothing has changed substantially and what least obscurantism. In the shadows the monsters grow. And when I use the term “monster” I am not using a metaphor: I am describing reality. Garbage -related crime is already the fourth most important criminal activity in the world (after drug trafficking, human beings and forgery). Moreover, According to the Civil Guardthis type of crime grows at a rate of between 5% and 7% per year. How to get out of this spiral? In which perhaps it is the most valuable part of ‘landfill’, Franklin-Wallis explains what he himself experienced when he finished his very long investigation for “the dirty realdiad of what we threw.” Several of the people I have met in the waste business have shared similar stories: once you really start looking at the waste, you see them everywhere. They become an obsession. After a while, start my mood. After all, as Heather Rogers wrote in 2005“garbage is the visible interconnection between everyday life and deep horrors, and often abstract, of ecological crises.” Therefore, when we talk about these issues, the first temptation is asking “What can I do?” And the answer is complicated. In most cases, all the options we have at our disposal have problems: there are no strategies – and less at the micro – that are fully positive. That, of course, does not mean that initiatives such as the circular economy or responsible consumption strategies do not have a role. Simply, it means that you have to understand the dimension of what we are talking about (and not put more hopes in them than are reasonable). We need macro strategies, Franklin-Wallis says; But above all, we need to get the garbage in light, we need to discuss waste, we need to think about waste. And we need to do it in a way that drives us to improve. It is the only way to find something valuable among so much because. Image | Jilbert Ebrahimi In Xataka | Someone who wants to be the landfill in the world is sought: the global recycling crisis shows no recovery signs

Investing in carbon capture instead of renewable energy is to throw money

The fight against climate change is fundamentally based on reducing the amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. One of the most direct solutions is carbon capture: extract the co₂ from industrial fireplaces or ambient air. So why don’t you finish taking off in front of renewables? Short. Carbon capture technologies are equipment that is placed in industries or outdoors to eliminate pollution without modifying the source. Although it sounds promising, A recent Stanford study It shows that carbon capture is in the long run much more expensive and less effective than direct transition to renewable energy. In addition to improving air quality and stopping climate change, for most countries of the world, electrifying the industry and obtain Energy, compared to a total bet for carbon capture that maintained the consumption of fossil fuels. The study. The researchers compared two extreme scenarios: a world that bets 100% for renewable energies and electrification; and a world that continues to burn fossil fuels, but tries to reduce its impact with carbon capture and improvements in energy efficiency. In contrast to intuition, the most profitable option is by far completely replacing fossil fuels by sources such as wind, sun, geothermia and hydroelectric energy. Because They directly eliminate the use of fuelswhich is the main source of pollutants in the air, and because they reduce energy demand instead of continuing to increase it. More profitable. Clean sources and electrification would not only directly reduce carbon dioxide, avoiding five million deaths a year caused by pollution. Since carbon capture consumes energy, the first scenario would also involve economic savings compared to the other scenario, reducing energy consumption by 54% and energy costs by 60%. The key is the opportunity cost. Using renewable energy to feed carbon capture systems prevents those same energies from being used to replace polluting sources. “If you spend a dollar in carbon capture instead of renewables, you are increasing carbon dioxide, air pollution, energy requirements, energy costs, pipelines and total social costs,” Explains the main author of the studyMark Jacobson. Conclusion. What the study points out is that, although carbon capture may seem an attractive technical solution, in practice it maintains the inefficient and polluting infrastructure of combustion. How to try to empty a bathtub without closing the tap. The substantive problem is not solved: the use of fossil fuels. The researchers conclude that, to face the climatic crisis effectively, it is much more beneficial to abandon the idea of ​​cleaning the air after polluting and betting on a total transformation towards renewable energies. The evidence says that investing in clean energy is not only cheaper, but also the safest option for the environment and global health. Image | Pixabay In Xataka | The big business in which CO2 is becoming captured and burying it underground

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.