000 a Earth Inwogro_min    Freedom  000s Spacer 3000 Logobanner 25

Home   Energy   Water   Work   Economy    Solutions    Politics   Team   Products   Recycling   Cars   Ships   Aircrafts   Promotion 

World    Pollution   Air   Weather   Violence    Women    Weapons   Psychology    Plants   Animals   Food    Peace   Faith    Imprint 

English
Deutsch

Recycling

The best recycling is the avoidance. So if we produce products which will getting older than 60 years and even then still can be repaired, then we have avoided more CO² than with all other experiments, where the products are aimed to be produced in massproduction again, to realize constantly increasing profits, because this is again, showering without getting wet.

The materials for that are above all metals, ceramics and wood. 

With that we can produce almost all products are usually used in the household.

Still before recycling

The top priority is that it is not allowed, materials, whether solid, liquid or gaseous, to enter nature, which are not occur in nature. Also, no plastic, rubber, silicones, exhaust fumes of all kinds, no micro-particles, no poisons, so no pesticides, anti-fungal agents, solvents, hydrocarbons, gasoline, oils, fats and the like. Above all, no heavy metals, nickel, zinc, cadmium, lead and so on. For example is tire abrasion a very big problem.

The same applies here; the best recycling is the avoidance. So substitutes and methods have to be found for these things that are not recyclable because tire abrasion can not be recycled and it is difficult to collect, it therefore contaminates nature, passes through the food chain, gets that way in our body and that is bodily injury. This is strictly prohibited and will lead to an indictment. The removal of substances from nature is very, very expensive, which is not included in the, at the moment, so cheap prices. It has to be hard-acted here, the prices were to low and the profits were too high, both parties, producer and customer have to pay for the cleaning afterworth.

How should recycling be done?

Of course NOT by simple shred, grind and down cycling because in the end of this chain remains a stuff for the stove, poison gets into the environment when burned, which is strictly prohibited. The melting out of valuable metals from telephones and PCs also causes such a poisonous burn, that is body injury.

All substances must be dissect at the atomic level and returned as elements to the production process.

All this can not be done under a capitalist system. For here is NOTHING subordinate to the health of the people, as it is written  in most of the basic laws of the countries but only the maximization of profits.
The capitalist system has led to what is now.

We should have thought of that from the beginning. The governments, which bear the responsibility for the health of the population, should not have allowed products that can not be fully recovered back in the end.

What people want and would like to have is not up for debate. It can only be wanted or be had, which does not damage other creatures. If that is not the case, we can also hand out handguns again, allow murder and manslaughter, but therefore set certain limits. Who is killing two or three beings is in the range of limit, after it, it costs 30 Dollar per being.

I use these images with full intention to show how pointless we are acting still at the moment.

We can not just put things together but also disassemble them. This is of course possible. The company Hoechst AG in Germany wanted to accomplish this. I know it because I was directly involved in it. The laboratories were already standing and were completely furnished. Especially in the early years of the German “Social market economy”, this would have been
still possible.

Chemistry, Source: https://de.freepik.com000s Spacer 1Point X

But exactly at the point X of the development chart, profit must be decoupled from growth due to capital development. This automatically leads to the cessation of any innovation. Therefore, capitalism is a real barrier to innovation after reaching saturation. Because the German so called social market economy was not a real social market economy and even the little bit, whatever was social there, prematurely dismantled any research in this regard was stopped. Instead, they digging for new resources every where, in poor countries and on the seabed. Innovations apply in the capitalism, the so-called free market economy, which, however, we can see, is not at all a free economy, as a high-risk investment. It means a made investment has to throw off even more rent and this is only possible if even higher profits can be achieved. A vicious circle, whose interruption is only possible if the raw materials are scarce or the legislator demands that the toxic waste of the production should no longer simply be led into rivers or thrown around in the area or buried somewhere. That's one of the reasons why they want to go to the moon again and now to the Mars. In order to mine there from raw materials which are slowly becoming scarce. These are the rare materials for the production of electronics. That's just one reason, the other is warfare from space. The other way to escape the end point of the capitalism. Because every crash is no chance, but leads to even greater concentration of capital in the few winners of the crash, which makes further economic activities very difficult or even impossible. Unfortunately, I fear that only a complete destruction and devaluation of all assets and a total naturchaos on top of that would create the suffering pressure for a new beginning ... maybe this way we would get closer to the circular economy ... So far, the simulated formula aplies of social compatibility and:

It is said that it is too expensive. I say, and everyone I seriously talk to about it agrees: "If many capital owners are involved in the production and sale of the products who secure constantly increasing returns under contract, it is too expensive". Recycling means financially liable to the garbage for the consequences of this production, which would actually be completely normal, only then would the products be so expensive that nobody could buy them and would unless they last for a correspondingly long period and the producers would just live from the earningsof the produktion, like their workers and employees and do not want to make ever increasing profits.

Under the existing circumstances, the producers make these profits and the products are apparently so cheap that anyone can afford them, but that is only a mirage. In reality, the cost is hidden in the cost of removal and the cost of the environmental damage. As a rule, the community removes all the garbage, for which we pay, of course ...these are the medium-term costs. Real recyclable materials such as various metals in electrical and electronic scrap are taken out by companies that have to work again with constantly increasing profits, but the large mass of built-in elements is combined incinerated with the rest of the domestic bulky waste and the majority of the plastic waste or the electrical and electronic scrap is shipped to Africa and burned there without any filter systems. This is where the long-term costs of this handling arise.

How much junk this really is we are often not even aware of because we are not used to thinking in such dimensions. If we were to throw our annual garbage in a heap, we would have a mountain the size of Kilimanjaro in Africa. As I said, every year. About 80% of this is incinerated and only 20% is recovered.

Source: 3Sat Television000s Spacer 1Source: 3Sat Television

What a gigantic waste and pollution of the environment in terms of CO2 and many other poisons, in addition to the fact that the new production of components, materials and plastics is also always associated with CO2 emissions.

But there is another way!

For example batteries: You can actually recover more than 90% of the raw materials from batteries and use them again directly to create new batteries.

Source: 3Sat Television000s Spacer 1Source: 3Sat Television

The technology is the key. Not shredded and only take out what appears to be valuable or that could be sold well to a dealer, but actually dismantle it and recover the raw materials using mechanical and chemical processes.

This should be planned from the beginning, during production, then the dismantling will not be so expensive afterwards and we should not think about where we will still rare in the future Metals could be obtained, but rather rise the price of the relevant raw materials, through adapted diminished, funding quotas so that the extraction of raw materials bound in the product is worthwhile and a company can make a living from it. The same applies to oil, which is currently being extracted from the soil and the seabed using increasingly adventurous and environmentally harmful methods. Oil is far too good to be wasted in single-use products and as fuel, and as such only causes more problems. We should end this section of time once and for all.

More on this topic:

https://www.3sat.de/wissen/wissen-aktuell/wissen-aktuell-kampf-der-muellflut-100.html 


(Just in German language)




To the top     To the top

Home   Energy   Water   Work   Economy    Solutions    Politics   Team   Products   Recycling   Cars   Ships   Aircrafts   Promotion 

World    Pollution   Air   Weather   Violence    Women    Weapons   Psychology    Plants   Animals   Food    Peace   Faith    Imprint