What manufacturing process do you think does the most damage to the environment and how could we fix it?

Question

This could include exhausting or releasing or creating as a byproduct - pollutants, green house gasses, toxins, excessive heat, or any other harmful item or even using too much energy to perform the process, or wasting too much raw product or natural resource.

Answer 1

Making disposable products for consumers. Bottles used to be reused, now they can only be recycled. Mops used to be used over and over, now you buy a Swiffer and toss it after one use. Diapers used to be cloth and were washed and reused, now they are land fill after one used. Stop making disposable products.

Answer 2

The most damaging process would be the removal of anything from it's natural habitat. Whether we talk about oil, mineral, soil nutrients, etc. Once we remove them there is left a void. This alters the molecular density and ultimately changes the gravitational constant of our planet with respect to it's surrounding bodies. This in turn would have those neighboring bodies also interact differently. albeit to a lesser degree, with their other neighbors.

But how much change is too much? If we but move or change a single molecule, we have changed the natural path. This is a natural process of evolution to be sure, but our manufacturing processi have invasively accelerated this change. An alteration that could naturally occur within a million years, is now happening every day.

If we can reduce or even eliminate the extraction of our finite resources, then perhaps the acceleration curve will be a little less acute.

Answer 3

I think that the Federal Government and Lawyers create the most damage to the environment. Neither entity creates anything that can be used by anyone. Manufacturing companies only create what people are willing to buy. The real question is what level of existence do we want to live at? Are we ready to go back to the way the Amish live without electricity, TVs, computers and everything we have including powered vehicles. Since the late 1800s the US has been slowly regulating for the better companies so that the ones that create the most toxins have moved to other countries without environmental laws.

Answer 4

I don't know about the worst manufacturing process but CNW marketing research released data that said dust to dust of all cars and trucks considering the energy necessary to plan the vehicle , to build it , to drive it snd then to eventually dispose of it. THe worst for the evironment was the $375,000 Maibach62 that scored an overall $11.58.For every mile it rolls it cost over $10.00 .THe best was the Toyota Scion XB at $0.48 per mile . Ok but the Accord Hybrid score $3.29 and the Prius was $3.19 while the regular accord was $2.18 Even better was the fact that a Hummer H3 scored better than all three at $1.95. The disposal of the bateries an delectronic components on hybrid and elelctric cars do more damage than driving a SUV.

Answer 5

Easy, the production of heat for electrical generation from a nuclear reactor. The nuclear waste lasts forever and the idiots out in Nevada agreed to let us bury it there until we find an alternative. Guess what, as long as the cost for 'disposing' the waste is no more than the cost of a railcar or tractor-trailer load, there will never be an alternative - until of course when the containers start leaking and Las Vegas is full of three-armed show girls.

Answer 6

There are several good answers here already- but here is my $.02: land-use policies that allow for fragmentation of ecosystems. Unchecked development and "progress" destroys forests, riparian zones, and fertile farmland, and it is dependent on a fickle consumer market. If one area of a state rules that it is ok to develop the last 10 acres of a fragile forest type, because its neighboring areas still have plenty of resources, and the neighbor decides to develop theirs, for the same reasons; then who is checking up to make sure that there is still "enough" total? Who is making sure that total impact of streamside development is not cloggin the waterways with too mcuh residues and silt? Who is lobbying to protect farmland in areas undergoing rapid sprawl?

Jarred Diamond poses the question "what went through the mind of the Easter Islander who cut the last tree?". I think the answer to that is he didn't care, because he was focused on his own immediate needs and was not informed that there were no resources left for anyone else!

We do not yet understand the subtle and complex interactions necessary for all parts of an ecosystem to function. We don't know how far-reaching the disruption caused by digging, chemicals, erosion, and loss of native vegetation is. We need to know, and we need to work with experts in both science and development to develop plans that make allowances for all factors, not just the immediate economic gain from an activity. We need to develop a system whereby resources are allocated appropriately to ensure that the best balance possible between human land use and ecosystem needs are met. If we do not start looking for these solutions quickly, we are going to find our quickly dwindling topsoil depleted of organic nutrients and micro-organisms necessary for stability, and our food production systems may collapse. We will turn around one day and realize that we have developed forests out of existence except for ioslated patches of protected area, where species do not have the natural corridors necessary for migration and living. We will rapidly lose species even as invasives gain more and more of a foothold. the dwindling natural areas will be too stressed to build a healthy defense to climate change, and structures will collapse, creating a ripple effect from soil microbes all the way to the oceans.

Answer 7

Kodak. From upstate New York, you can only fish Lake Ontario at certain times and the fish be edible. For me, I would take that information as "no fish avaiable no matter what" and skip the whole thing. I would just eat a burger. I'd like to know how they have concluded that certains times be better at Lake Ontario. I've wracked my brain and it made zero sense, unless I see this caveat: Maybe at certain times of the year (Christmas, maybe) Kodak uses more ink in processing, hence dangerous fish, to the fisherman. I look upon the whole thing as farcical. If they told me to come come back in February and I could eat the fish, I woudn't bother at all, at any time. No way.

Answer 8

The manufacturing process most harmful to the environment is oil refining.

Every step in the process releases polutants, from the extraction, transport, and refining to the distribution, ultimate use of the product and disposal of it.

Answer 9

Probably paper production. They use massive amounts of chemicals that have to be disposed of and power. None of it is good for the environment as well as log the forests.

We should move away from wood as the source for paper. Grown for paper flax and industrial hemp take far less chemicals and power to turn into paper.

Answer 10

Whatever it is that keeps Cheney alive. I mean geez the guys stronger than the terminator, he just won't die. Ohhhhh...... you wanted a real answer. Okay . . . ahem . . . I think the most damaging thing to the environment is hairspray, no wait that was the 1980's . . . its . . . wait. . . I know this . . . its right on the tip of my tongue . . . how about . . . C. . . yeah, the answer is C . .. or was it B. . . . no it is C, definitely.