6 ms·

They refer to 'thousands of gallons of chain-and-bar oil... carried into the forests' every year Is this quantity significant?

thrower123 5y ago
No. You run maybe a pint of bar and chain oil through a big felling saw in an entire day of running it. More transmission and hydraulic fluid leaks from logging equipment constantly.
- nkurz 5y ago
  > You run maybe a pint of bar and chain oil through a big felling saw in an entire day of running it. Without getting into whether it's actually a significant pollutant compared to other sources, I think your estimate is considerably low. I'm usually worn out before I can cut for a whole day, but I've gone through more than 2 quarts in a day. And here's someone professional who says he goes through a gallon a day of bar and chain oil with a similarly sized saw (possibly because he's able to keep going longer): https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=46008.msg662305#msg662305 https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=46008.msg662...
  - thrower123 5y ago
    I'd say your oiler needs adjusting.
xhkkffbf 5y ago
Or does it matter that the petroleum came from the forests, the deserts and some underseas equivalents? Petroleum is a natural thing. There are no doubt problems with the refined versions of petroleum but natural oils have issues too. The right solution might still be to ban petroleum oils from this job. But it seems foolish to pretend they are any less natural than vegetable oils.
- sonofhans 5y ago
  It’s true that literally everything on Earth is natural by definition, either naturally-occurring or produced by natural forces like erosion or beavers or humans. But that’s tautological, and not interesting. Refined petroleum does not occur naturally and is toxic to all life. Vegetable oils are produced by stepping on or chewing nuts or vegetables. There is no comparison.
  - User23 5y ago
    > Refined petroleum does not occur naturally and is toxic to all life. Not all life[1]. [1] https://iscsales.com/item/55-gallon-oil-eating-microbes-lfs-1/ https://iscsales.com/item/55-gallon-oil-eating-microbes-lfs-...
    - userbinator 5y ago
      Not all petroleum either. I bet a lot of people here have a jar of refined petroleum they apply to their skin regularly.
  - wyager 5y ago
    > Vegetable oils are produced by stepping on or chewing nuts or vegetables. Not really. Rapeseed/Canola oil in particular involves extensive use of solvents, bleaches, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- protastus 5y ago
  > Petroleum is a natural thing. Cyanide is also a natural thing. Is it compatible with complex life in this planet? No. Natural occurrence is not a sufficient measure for compatibility in an ecological context.
sonofhans 5y ago
By “significant” I take you to mean, “causing enough harm to be noticeable.” I don’t know the answer to that. Consider that chainsaws are only one of many polluting tools that people use in forests, e.g., snowmobiles, generators, of course cars. There are many non-petroleum pollutants as well, like lead ammunition and trash. I believe it’s a useful practice to reduce harm from each of these as much as possible. That reduction might come from banning them outright to small changes like using vegetable oil as chainsaw lube. The opposite approach is requiring harm to be demonstrated by each of these small things in order to encourage or require change. This has gotten us roughly to where we are now, with much wilderness in the country despoiled by human practices. All of us are better served by being conservative in this context: by intentionally doing the least harmful things possible, and looking for ways to improve.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  A key piece of advice in performance optimization is to profile first. The same should apply to environmentalism. Some interventions have orders of magnitude more impact than others, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise
  - kyralis 5y ago
    I repeat that wisdom about performance optimization more frequently than my coworkers probably like, but it can still be taken too far. If you have two approaches that are equally clear and equally easy, take the one that you expect to be more performant. In this case, we have two lubricants that are apparently interchangeable. One we know has potential downsides (petroleum based oils are known to be harmful to the ground when spilled; this is part of why we have laws against doing so); one does not. Pick the one that doesn't, since all else is effectively equal.
    - seoaeu 5y ago
      Even in that situation it is still worth asking what order of magnitude the performance difference will be. If a junior engineer codes up the slower one, should they rewrite it or is it not worth the time? I just don’t understand why environmentalists sometimes get so indignant when asked about the effect size of the interventions they call for. There’s a million low effort lifestyle chances that would be better for the environment, it is a totally fair question to ask if we want to maximize impact
ralusek 5y ago
Being pedantic, any quantity >= 2000 would be "thousands", so...maybe?
- sethammons 5y ago
  Reminds me that I like the phrase "only a fraction of $x does $y." People seem to ignore 9/10 and 200/1 are fractions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

thrower123 5y ago

No. You run maybe a pint of bar and chain oil through a big felling saw in an entire day of running it. More transmission and hydraulic fluid leaks from logging equipment constantly.

nkurz 5y ago
> You run maybe a pint of bar and chain oil through a big felling saw in an entire day of running it. Without getting into whether it's actually a significant pollutant compared to other sources, I think your estimate is considerably low. I'm usually worn out before I can cut for a whole day, but I've gone through more than 2 quarts in a day. And here's someone professional who says he goes through a gallon a day of bar and chain oil with a similarly sized saw (possibly because he's able to keep going longer): https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=46008.msg662305#msg662305 https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=46008.msg662...
- thrower123 5y ago
  I'd say your oiler needs adjusting.

xhkkffbf 5y ago

Or does it matter that the petroleum came from the forests, the deserts and some underseas equivalents? Petroleum is a natural thing. There are no doubt problems with the refined versions of petroleum but natural oils have issues too. The right solution might still be to ban petroleum oils from this job. But it seems foolish to pretend they are any less natural than vegetable oils.

sonofhans 5y ago
It’s true that literally everything on Earth is natural by definition, either naturally-occurring or produced by natural forces like erosion or beavers or humans. But that’s tautological, and not interesting. Refined petroleum does not occur naturally and is toxic to all life. Vegetable oils are produced by stepping on or chewing nuts or vegetables. There is no comparison.
- User23 5y ago
  > Refined petroleum does not occur naturally and is toxic to all life. Not all life[1]. [1] https://iscsales.com/item/55-gallon-oil-eating-microbes-lfs-1/ https://iscsales.com/item/55-gallon-oil-eating-microbes-lfs-...
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Not all petroleum either. I bet a lot of people here have a jar of refined petroleum they apply to their skin regularly.
- wyager 5y ago
  > Vegetable oils are produced by stepping on or chewing nuts or vegetables. Not really. Rapeseed/Canola oil in particular involves extensive use of solvents, bleaches, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfk2IXlZdbI
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
protastus 5y ago
> Petroleum is a natural thing. Cyanide is also a natural thing. Is it compatible with complex life in this planet? No. Natural occurrence is not a sufficient measure for compatibility in an ecological context.

sonofhans 5y ago

By “significant” I take you to mean, “causing enough harm to be noticeable.” I don’t know the answer to that. Consider that chainsaws are only one of many polluting tools that people use in forests, e.g., snowmobiles, generators, of course cars. There are many non-petroleum pollutants as well, like lead ammunition and trash. I believe it’s a useful practice to reduce harm from each of these as much as possible. That reduction might come from banning them outright to small changes like using vegetable oil as chainsaw lube. The opposite approach is requiring harm to be demonstrated by each of these small things in order to encourage or require change. This has gotten us roughly to where we are now, with much wilderness in the country despoiled by human practices. All of us are better served by being conservative in this context: by intentionally doing the least harmful things possible, and looking for ways to improve.

seoaeu 5y ago
A key piece of advice in performance optimization is to profile first. The same should apply to environmentalism. Some interventions have orders of magnitude more impact than others, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise
- kyralis 5y ago
  I repeat that wisdom about performance optimization more frequently than my coworkers probably like, but it can still be taken too far. If you have two approaches that are equally clear and equally easy, take the one that you expect to be more performant. In this case, we have two lubricants that are apparently interchangeable. One we know has potential downsides (petroleum based oils are known to be harmful to the ground when spilled; this is part of why we have laws against doing so); one does not. Pick the one that doesn't, since all else is effectively equal.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    Even in that situation it is still worth asking what order of magnitude the performance difference will be. If a junior engineer codes up the slower one, should they rewrite it or is it not worth the time? I just don’t understand why environmentalists sometimes get so indignant when asked about the effect size of the interventions they call for. There’s a million low effort lifestyle chances that would be better for the environment, it is a totally fair question to ask if we want to maximize impact

ralusek 5y ago

Being pedantic, any quantity >= 2000 would be "thousands", so...maybe?

sethammons 5y ago
Reminds me that I like the phrase "only a fraction of $x does $y." People seem to ignore 9/10 and 200/1 are fractions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]