cwbe coordinatez:
101
63533
2727454
8509999

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA
permissions
you: r,
system: public
net: yes

neurons

stats|by_visit|by_K
source
tiamat
K|my_K|given_K
last
commanders
polls

total descendants::18
total children::3
12 ❤️


show[ 2 | 3] flat


krokobox gomont3
dokladna studia http://www.env.dtu.dk/ pre danske ministerstvo zp o dopade roznych typov nakupnych sackov a tasiek
https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf

shocker: platene bavlnene tasky su otrasne.

8. Conclusions
This study identified the best disposal option for each of the carrier bags available in Danish supermarkets in 2017. In general, reusing the carrier bag as a waste bin bag is better than simply throwing away the bag in the residual waste and it is better than recycling. Recycling can potentially offer more benefits in the case of heavy plastic bags, such as PP, and PET.
Reuse as a waste bin bag is most beneficial for light carrier bags, such as LDPE, paper and biopolymer. When reuse as a waste bin bag is not feasible, for example when the bag can easily be punctured, torn, or wetted, incineration is the most preferable solution from an environmental point of view.
In general, LDPE carrier bags, which are the bags that are always available for purchase in Danish supermarkets, are the carriers providing the overall lowest environmental impacts when not considering reuse. In particular, between the types of available carrier bags, LDPE carrier bags with rigid handle are the most preferable. Effects of littering for this type of bag were considered negligible for Denmark. Carrier bags alternatives that can provide a similar performance are unbleached paper and biopolymer bags, but for a lower number of environmental indicators. Heavier carrier bags, such as PP, PET, polyester, bleached paper and textile bags need to be reused multiple times in order to lower their environmental production cost. Between the same bag types, woven PP carrier bags provided lower impacts than nonwoven PP bags, unbleached paper resulted more preferable than bleached paper, and conventional cotton over organic cotton.

For all carrier bags, reuse as many times as possible before disposal is strongly encouraged. This study also calculated how many times each bag would need to be reused in order to lower its associated environmental impacts to the levels of the LDPE carrier bag. The number of calculated reuse times varies if only one environmental indicator is observed, or if all environmental indicators are taken into account.

The results are the following9
:
 Simple LDPE bags: Can be directly reused as waste bin bags for climate change, should be reused at least 1 time for grocery shopping considering all other indicators; finally reuse as waste bin bag.
 LDPE bags with rigid handle: Can be directly reused as waste bin bags considering all indicators; finally reuse as waste bin bag.
 Recycled LDPE bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 1 time for climate change, at least 2 times considering all indicators; finally reuse as waste bin bag.
 PP bags, non-woven: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 6 times for climate change, and up to 52 times considering all indicators; finally dispose with recyclables, otherwise reuse as waste bin bag if possible, lastly incinerate.
 PP bags, woven: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 5 times for climate change, at least 45 times considering all indicators; finally dispose with recyclables, otherwise reuse as waste bin bag if possible, lastly incinerate.
 PET bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 8 times for climate change, and up to 84 times considering all indicators; finally dispose with recyclables, otherwise reuse as waste bin bag if possible, lastly incinerate.
 Polyester bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 2 times for climate change, and up to 35 times considering all indicators; finally dispose with recyclables, otherwise reuse as waste bin bag if possible, lastly incinerate.
 Biopolymer bags: Can be directly reused as waste bin bags for climate change, should be reused and up to 42 times for grocery shopping considering all other indicators. Finally, reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
 Unbleached paper bags: Can be directly reused as waste bin bags for climate change, should be reused and up to 43 times considering all other indicators. Finally, reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
 Bleached paper bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 1 time for climate change, and up to 43 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
 Organic cotton bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 149 times for climate change, and up to 20000 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
 Conventional cotton bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 52 times for climate change, and up to 7100 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.
 Composite bags: Reuse for grocery shopping at least 23 times for climate change, and up to 870 times considering all indicators; reuse as waste bin bag if possible, otherwise incinerate.

This study focused on identifying the number of reuse times based on the environmental performance of the carrier bags. The results obtained on the minimum number of reuse times are intended to raise the discussion among the stakeholders on the effective expected lifetime of each carrier bag. While the calculated number of reuse times might be compliant with the functional lifetime of PP, PET and polyester carrier bags, but might surpass the lifetime of bleached paper, composite and cotton carriers, especially considering all environmental indicators.
In addition it should be kept in mind that the reuse times calculated are held up against a use of a reference bag a single time. If the reference bag is reused, it would mean that the reuse time of the other bags would increase proportionally.
In particular, the results of the present assessment have highlighted the importance of the design of the carrier bag and its functionality, especially for cotton carriers. In order to lower the number of reuse times, designs with light fabric and large volumes should be preferred.
These design differences can largely lower the impacts. However, the required number of reuse times for all impact categories may still be unfeasible and more than the lifetime of the bag.




0000010100063533027274540850999908510236
hojso
 hojso      11.06.2018 - 08:19:43 , level: 1, UP   NEW
Ach jaj. Tieto LCAcka byvaju tazky problem, pretoze pouzivaju ohranicenia, ktore v konecnom dosledku velmi zkresluju skutocny vysledok.

A tym nemyslim len priklad toho, ze podla nich je biobavlna horsia o 30% oproti konvencnej pretoze ma nizsie vynosy. Teda komplene ignoruju vsetky ostantne dopady konvecneho pestovania oproti organickemu.

Ale napriklad nezahrnaju dopady odpadu ako takeho. proste predpokladaju, ze sa vsetko pekne zozbiera, zrecykluje alebo spali v spalovni. Lebo 'Effects of littering for this type of bag were considered negligible for Denmark'. Proste to odbavim vyjadrenim, ze v Dansku nie je problem s vyhadzovanim do prirody.

#skutoksanestal

0000010100063533027274540850999908510183
Cervesnicka
 Cervesnicka      10.06.2018 - 22:59:24 , level: 1, UP   NEW
Čiže ak by som si bola ušila tašky zo syntetických látok a nie bavlny, bolo by to ekologickejšie? To isté sa potom týka aj odevov? (Keď vezmeme do úvahy, že syntetické majú aj vyššiu životnosť...)

0000010100063533027274540850999908510074
krvsh
 krvsh      10.06.2018 - 18:35:54 , level: 1, UP   NEW
celé PDF sa mi asi nepodarí prelúskať, ale keby ste našli nejaký dlhší zhŕňač, dajte prosím vedieť, lebo mi to moc nepoberá hlava (trebárs prečo je organic cotton horší ako non-organic, a ešte o toľko)

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129
pht
 pht      10.06.2018 - 20:41:55 , level: 2, UP   NEW
str 45
The yield of organic cotton farming was assumed 30 % lower than conventional cotton. For the modelling, this implies that 30 % more impacts are considered for the production of organic cotton than conventional cotton. The yield was found to vary in the literature between 20 % and 40 % and according to the geographical location (Forster et al., 2013). Since the Ecoinvent dataset for cotton production is not linked to a specific geographical location, but is based on a global average, 30 % was considered as average value. The selected value influences the contribution of the production process to the overall impacts related to the organic cotton carrier bag.

str 69

In the case of organic cotton (COTorg), production contributed to 99 % of the impact, 98 % and 96% for COT and COM scenarios, respectively. The contribution analysis for the production phase of these bags is provided in Tables 19 – 21. The high environmental cost of the cotton production can be ascribed to the energy and material required, which is responsible for 80 % of the climate change impacts. In general, the results showed very little difference between EOL1 and EOL3, due to the comparatively small weight of the avoided waste bin bag in comparison to the mass (and resources required for its production) of the cotton bag. The same behaviour was observed for all impact categories, as well as for COT and COM, even if with a lower magnitude in the impacts.
The environmental impacts connected to the production of the organic cotton bag (COTorg) were considerably higher than those of the conventional cotton bag (COT). This is due to the fact that organic cotton production does not involve the use of synthetic chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides, which lowers the yield of the cultivation. Eventually, more resources and land are required to produce the same amount of cotton than in conventional cotton cultivation processes

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151
Thunder Perfect Mind
 Thunder Perfect Mind      10.06.2018 - 21:42:36 [2K] , level: 3, UP   NEW
Cotton production uses more chemicals per unit area than any other crop and accounts in total for 10-16% of the world's pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and defoliants).

Tiez myslim ze tuto cast odflakli. Ale ak zaver je ze bavlna, organicka ci nie, je nedobry material z hladiska enviromentalnej zataze, tak to je asi ok.

0000010100063533027274540850999908510074085101290851015108510681
hojso
 hojso      12.06.2018 - 07:57:10 , level: 4, UP   NEW
este raz - jasne konvencne pestovana bavlna. Ale davat to co sa tyka environmentalneho dopadu za jedno s tou z ekologickeho polnohospodarstva, dokonca tej druhej dat pomaly horsie hodnotenie, lebo ma mensi vynos je blbost.

Sucasne pozuit pri porovnanvani alternativ ako jedine prirodne vlakno bavlnu je blbost. Co takto pridat:
- lan
- konopu siatu
- bambus

Cize znova je to o limitoch LCA. Pretoze medialne zjednoduseny nazor tlaceny mediami na zaklade tejto LCA je ze plasty su ekologickejsie. A to je s prepacenim blbost. Inherentne tazko das neobnovitelny zdroj (oil based plastics) ako ekologickejsi ako obnovitelny. Pokial aj jedno aj druhe robis co najlepsie ako sa da. Proste tu neobnovitelnost neokasles. Pretoze ak chces uzavriet materialovy cyklus tak potrebujes bud obnovitelnost alebo prakticky neobmedzenu recyklovatelnost (napr sklo)

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129085101510851068108510687
Thunder Perfect Mind
 Thunder Perfect Mind      12.06.2018 - 08:15:20 (modif: 12.06.2018 - 08:16:00), level: 5, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
Ale davat to co sa tyka environmentalneho dopadu za jedno s tou z ekologickeho polnohospodarstva, dokonca tej druhej dat pomaly horsie hodnotenie, lebo ma mensi vynos je blbost.
suhlasim

Neobnovitelny zdroj moze byt v pohode ekologickejsi (= menej narusajuci prirodne vztahy?) ako neobnovitelny, to je len vec definicie ekologickosti. Zelezo, piesok (sklo), cement, vapno, sol atd atd su neobnovitelne zdroje, to same o sebe nam nic nehovori. Keby sa ropa pouzivala iba na vyrobu materialov (ktore by potom nekoncili ako odpad v prostredi) a nie ako fosilne palivo, bolo by to tiez o dost lepsie ako sucasny stav.
Teraz pises ze plast nemoze byt ekologickejsi ako bavlna, lenze na vyrobu tej (aj "organickej") bavlny sa tiez pouziva ropa (palivo pre polnohospodarske mechanizmy, vyroba energie a chemickych prostriedkov pre dalsie spracovanie, a zrejme aj pesticidy pouzivaju jeden zo vstupov nieco z ropy, such is life) a kludne jej moze byt viac ako ked z nej spravime rovno plast. Takze samozrejme vyroba bavlny moze byt ekologickejsia ako plastu, ale samotna obnovitelnost neimplikuje ze aj naozaj je.

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151085106810851068708510799
ddd
 ddd      12.06.2018 - 12:42:44 (modif: 12.06.2018 - 12:43:12), level: 6, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
energeticka narocnost je o niekolko radov vyznamnejsi faktor ako materialove vstupy fosilnych paliv pri vyrobe. aj keby iba 1% energie bolo z fosilnych paliv, stale by sa ich na energiu spotrebovalo viac ako ako vstupov pri vyrobe chemikalii. co tak pozeram zda sa mi ze, assuming ze vsetka energia je z uhlia, energeticka narocnost je radovo 1kg uhlia/ 1-2 kg rastlinnej produkcie.

0000010100063533027274540850999908510074085101290851015108510291
kujon
 kujon      11.06.2018 - 10:07:15 , level: 4, UP   NEW
Ale horšia ako jednorazové plasty? To mi stále nejde do hlavy.

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129085101510851029108510294
Thunder Perfect Mind
 Thunder Perfect Mind      11.06.2018 - 10:14:25 [3K] , level: 5, UP   NEW
Kvoli bavlne zaniklo Aralske jazero, o.i.
Fakt je to strasne narocne na zdroje, nielen pestovanie ale aj nasledne spracovanie.

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151085102910851029408510343
grzegorz brzeczyszczykiewicz
 grzegorz brzeczyszczykiewicz      11.06.2018 - 12:01:01 , level: 6, UP   NEW
all true, ale aral je predovšetkým jedným z ukážkových príkladov následkov efektivity socialistického plánovania výroby a jeho legendárnej ohľaduplnosti voči prírode a socioekonomickému statusu quo ...

0000010100063533027274540850999908510074085101290851015108510291085102940851034308510344
Best boy
 Best boy      11.06.2018 - 12:03:39 (modif: 11.06.2018 - 12:06:58), level: 7, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
USA dnes https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129085101510851029108510294085103430851034408510346
grzegorz brzeczyszczykiewicz
 grzegorz brzeczyszczykiewicz      11.06.2018 - 12:11:08 , level: 8, UP   NEW
skôr som myslel:
"The construction of irrigation canals began on a large scale in the 1940s.[clarification needed] Many of the canals were poorly built, allowing water to leak or evaporate. From the Qaraqum Canal, the largest in Central Asia, perhaps 30 to 75% of the water went to waste."

more

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151085102910851029408510343085103440851034608510378
Best boy
 Best boy      11.06.2018 - 12:59:30 , level: 9, UP   NEW
Aha, ok. Ja len že to nie je o socializme, v súčasnosti to nie je lepšie. V EU je, lebo sme špinavú výrobu outsourcovali inde

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151085102910851029408510299
Best boy
 Best boy      11.06.2018 - 10:32:47 [1K] , level: 6, UP   NEW
https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510143
ddd
 ddd      10.06.2018 - 21:17:43 , level: 3, UP   NEW
posledny odstavec vyvolava iste pochybnosti - kde skoncili s analyzov dopadov? intuicia mi hovori, ze hnojiva a pesticidy (tazba a long-distance transport materialov, energeticky narocna vyroba, long-distance transport vysledneho produktu, a aplikacia, vratane paliva a amortizacie strojov) budu mat (dramaticky) vacsi footprint ako ten 30% pokles produkcie, ale tak intuiciu mozem mat zle :)

0000010100063533027274540850999908510074085101290851014308510145
pht
 pht      10.06.2018 - 21:20:00 , level: 4, UP   NEW
distribucia/transport a energeticka narocnost je tam tiez pokryta

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510142
ooo
 ooo      10.06.2018 - 21:14:04 (modif: 19.06.2019 - 18:21:47) [3K] , level: 3, UP   NEW !!CONTENT CHANGED!!
.