Talk:Alternative technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Thanks in advance for all kind comments and feedback, your opinions are valued

I like this page but I feel it needs a bit of work. I suggest some divisions are required into types and areas of alternative treatment technology such as waste management, power generation and others. --Alex 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of "alternatives" gone "mainstream" needed

I was going to add this paragraph to give some concrete examples of technologies that have gone mainstream, but they are all probably debatable in one way or another. If you could think of some better examples or if you can confirm or discount any of these, your help would be appreciated.

For example, unleaded gasoline, unleaded paint, and the recycling of paper and certain metal and plastic cans and bottles have become widely adopted in the United States. What is considered "alternative" may differ by location. For example, according to the 2004 CIA World Fact Book, the US produces 74.1% of its electricity from fossil fuels, 20.7% from nuclear fission, and 5.6% from hydroelectric sources. In contrast, 57.9% of Canada's electricity comes from hydro power.

-- Beland 01:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone suggested the replacement of CFCs with HFCs. That seems like a good example. I'll add it in. -- Beland 02:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They also mention the replacement of propylene tetramer benzene sulphonate with linear alkyl benzene in laundry detergents. See e.g. http://www.chemistry.co.nz/deterghistory.htm . -- Beland 02:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Better for the environment?

I included the phrase "whether or not they are actually better for the environment" because people do actually argue over whether some "alternative technologies" help or hurt the environment. For example, San Francisco recently had a controversy about converting some of its municipal buses to CNG. Advocates on one side said that reduced emissions from buses would reduce air pollutions. Advocates for the other side said that this plan would actually increase air pollution, because testing determined that the buses were less reliable. The presumption being that less reliable transit service would spur more people to drive, pushing up emissions from automobiles. There's another controversy over reliance on more fuel-efficient diesel engines to reduce global warming - apparently some say that increased particulate emissions would increase local air pollution and have an adverse impact on human health. -- Beland 01:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perceptions

some argue that these new technologies are not as safe or clean...this is mainly the oil companies that want your money. Also, some wrong perception are that diesel is dirty and unclean. But the new Biodiesel is very clean and does less harm to the environment than electric automobiles.