Re: 10.06.2018-13:57:04 :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	Re: 10.06.2018-13:57:04
template:	4
parent:	10.06.2018-13:57:04
owner:	krvsh
viewed by:
created:	10.06.2018 - 18:35:54

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63533
2727454
8509999
8510074

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ale horšia ako jednorazové plasty? To mi stále nejde do hlavy.

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129085101510851029108510294

Kvoli bavlne zaniklo Aralske jazero, o.i.
Fakt je to strasne narocne na zdroje, nielen pestovanie ale aj nasledne spracovanie.

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510151085102910851029408510343

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

USA dnes https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis

000001010006353302727454085099990851007408510129085101510851029108510294085103430851034408510346

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

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

https://projects.propublica.org/killing-the-colorado/story/arizona-cotton-drought-crisis

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510143

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

distribucia/transport a energeticka narocnost je tam tiez pokryta

00000101000635330272745408509999085100740851012908510142