I got bored and looked up things on recycling, and came across a Penn and Teller video. They cleared a couple of points:
- They claimed that recycling is actually more costly than just throwing it away, since you have to use manpower to sort and get the materials down to a reusable state rather than just dumping it in a landfill.
- They also claimed that the idea that we're running out of landfill space was bullshit, and was made up by the guy who started the recycling movement in the first place. They then went on to say that you only need a [I]35x35 mi² dump about 200ft. high[/I] to meet the requirements for about [I]1000[/I] years of waste. A video was also shown claiming they could take methane from dumps and convert it into a power source, while keeping the all garbage buried underground by the end of the day.
- Lastly they claimed that most of the trees used to make paper are being grown on tree farms, and obviously trees are a renewable source. Penn mentioned that tree population has actually [I]increased[/I] since 1980 rather than the assumed decrease.
So, which side do you stand on? Do you think recycling programs waste money and time? Will you continue to recycle after hearing this argument?
[sub]Also note I didn't hop on the anti-recycling bandwagon after watching the video, I'm just wondering what you guys think of it.[/sub]
If I remember correctly, Penn and Teller went on to say they regretted that episode
I will say though, paper recycling isn't much of an issue, seeing as nearly all paper does come from plantations. The more paper we make, the more carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by the trees needed to make it
[QUOTE=download;36893600]If I remember correctly, Penn and Teller went on to say they regretted that episode
I will say though, paper recycling isn't much of an issue, seeing as nearly all paper does come from plantations. The more paper we make, the more carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by the trees needed to make it[/QUOTE]
It seems paper is the biggest thing I recycle, though I don't see too many products on the market that I use that claim they use recycled paper. Isn't it usually more 'pulpy' than brand new paper?
I've seen that Penn & Teller episode and thought it was decent, though I didn't completely understand the point of pretending to hand out a dozen "new" bins of different colors.
I have heard environmentalists say it's better for the environment to recycle and others say it's cheaper to just toss it.
My opinion is, both could be right. Simply because it's cheaper to throw something into a trash bin doesn't necessarily make it okay for the environment.
No matter how it goes though, recycling is so inherently saturated into our culture that it's impossible to stop. As pointed out in that video, a lot of people recycle because it "feels good" more than any concern for the environment. You can argue money with someone, but arguing against "feels good" is pretty tough to persuade.
In my opinion, this is a non-argument. Recycling is vital in resource sustainability. I belive [I]more[/I] items that are not currently recycled should be recycled. My utopia will have everything recycled. Even food waste will find new opportunities. Old furniture for example can be mulched and used as filler for future furniture. Clothes can be shredded and used the same way, or even other ways.
Anything that cannot be classicly recycled should be ground up and used as filler for something. A lot of the stuff can be used a building materials. Mix it with binders and turn them into bricks, throw it in cement to make some sort of super concrete...whatever. Just get it out of the landfills.
Even if recycling some goods uses more energy than producing it new, then so be it. Burn some of the waste to generate power. Problem solved...well minus the emissions.
Many metals, among other resources are becoming increasingly difficult to mine, and many of them are running out. We have a limited supply... Earth doesn't shit out an unlimited supply of resources to use. Only exploding stars do. We have to reuse and recycle or else all our shit will end up in a landfill somewhere and we will have to start digging through them.
Certain commodities such as paper are arguable since trees are planted and harvested just for their paper. Even so, recycling helps reduce landfill waste. Plus it takes much less energy to recycle paper than it does to make it from wood. Pretty much all is needed is hot water, bleaching agents, that's about it. From wood it takes a lot more effort.
A large problem with landfills is that they harbor disease. Birds, insects, and other rodents come and eat the waste which may and probably does contain disease, then spread them throughout the population. Plus the smell horrible and bring down land value.
Un-maintained landfills also have runoff and huge greenhouse gas emissions. Many modern ones, however, harvest the methane, and many pits are clay-lined, plastic-lined, and have other linings to prevent water seepage.
Stuff in landfills don't really go away or degrade either. The waste is packed so tight and deep that there is no oxygen for the micro-organisms to break any of it down. Paper from 50 years ago at the bottom of the pile can (and has been) dug up to show very little degradation and evidence suggests that most of the stuff will stay in landfills indefinitely.
Recycling is desirable as long as it is a profitable private venture. I wouldn't like taxpayer money subsidizing it, enforcing it, or anything like that.
[QUOTE=Master Kief-117;36924125]In my opinion, this is a non-argument. Recycling is vital in resource sustainability. I belive [I]more[/I] items that are not currently recycled should be recycled. My utopia will have everything recycled. Even food waste will find new opportunities. Old furniture for example can be mulched and used as filler for future furniture. Clothes can be shredded and used the same way, or even other ways.
Anything that cannot be classicly recycled should be ground up and used as filler for something. A lot of the stuff can be used a building materials. Mix it with binders and turn them into bricks, throw it in cement to make some sort of super concrete...whatever. Just get it out of the landfills.
Even if recycling some goods uses more energy than producing it new, then so be it. Burn some of the waste to generate power. Problem solved...well minus the emissions.
Many metals, among other resources are becoming increasingly difficult to mine, and many of them are running out. We have a limited supply... Earth doesn't shit out an unlimited supply of resources to use. Only exploding stars do. We have to reuse and recycle or else all our shit will end up in a landfill somewhere and we will have to start digging through them.
Certain commodities such as paper are arguable since trees are planted and harvested just for their paper. Even so, recycling helps reduce landfill waste. Plus it takes much less energy to recycle paper than it does to make it from wood. Pretty much all is needed is hot water, bleaching agents, that's about it. From wood it takes a lot more effort.
A large problem with landfills is that they harbor disease. Birds, insects, and other rodents come and eat the waste which may and probably does contain disease, then spread them throughout the population. Plus the smell horrible and bring down land value.
Un-maintained landfills also have runoff and huge greenhouse gas emissions. Many modern ones, however, harvest the methane, and many pits are clay-lined, plastic-lined, and have other linings to prevent water seepage.
Stuff in landfills don't really go away or degrade either. The waste is packed so tight and deep that there is no oxygen for the micro-organisms to break any of it down. Paper from 50 years ago at the bottom of the pile can (and has been) dug up to show very little degradation and evidence suggests that most of the stuff will stay in landfills indefinitely.[/QUOTE]
I think you don't really know what a landfill is.
You are describing a dump which is an above ground waste disposal, which aren't in use in at least America as far as I know.
Landfills are underground waste disposal which are much more regulated. They basically use layers of dirt and plastic both above and below the garbage to encase it safely underground. Landfills don't take up that much land. The land above landfills can be replanted with grasses and small plants (nothing with big roots like trees) so things like golf courses can be put above them.
Also if you are wasting energy by recycler you are causing more harm then good. If you can better use that energy, or the resources needed to create that energy to by not recycling than you should not recycle.
Recycling is a very good way to renew used resources that aren't degradable. Paper is the least worries for recycling, but plastic is probably the most needed for recycling due to the waste not being able to degrade quickly enough in the environment. Also paying people for recycling goods is a good incentive to do it. When I lived in California I made a good profit when recycling all my goods once a month. I got enough to buy a movie ticket and eat some popcorn and enjoy 2 hours of entertainment.
I want to be paid to recycle.
Why should I give back the shit I paid for (like packaging) for free, just so it can be sold back to me or someone else?
I'd rather collect my neighbors recycling myself and put it to good use.
I'm just curious as to why some in this thread talk about what is cheaper/the cost of recycling. Capital has nothing to do with recycling, sustainability and that alone has to do with recycling.
[editline]25th July 2012[/editline]
And yeah, plastic that has already been created absolutely needs to be recycled lest we contribute even more to the trash island or the amount of non-biodegradable substances in our soil.
Ah yes, that Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode. That series is a good watch, and definitely does spark some good debates.
I'm mixed but leaning towards P&T on this one. Sure, with aluminum, it's a finite resource, and it makes sense to recycle cans. However, trees are technically an infinite resource if you plant seeds after you cut them down.
The stuff that does come out of the system though is actually interesting.
I still recycle stuff though. Reverse vending machines that pay you make it even more of an incentive to recycle, but sadly, where I live, there are none.
[QUOTE=-Kaider-;36939180]I'm just curious as to why some in this thread talk about what is cheaper/the cost of recycling. Capital has nothing to do with recycling, sustainability and that alone has to do with recycling.
[editline]25th July 2012[/editline]
And yeah, plastic that has already been created absolutely needs to be recycled lest we contribute even more to the trash island or the amount of non-biodegradable substances in our soil.[/QUOTE]
Recycling has a cost of energy and pollution involved. If you end up wasting more energy and creating more pollution by recycling then you aren't sustaining anything.
[QUOTE=Valnar;36940528]Recycling has a cost of energy and pollution involved. If you end up wasting more energy and creating more pollution by recycling then you aren't sustaining anything.[/QUOTE]
That's the point P&T were trying to bring up. You'd actually hurt the environment more than help it with most stuff (with the exception of aluminum cans).
Then we go deeper into conspiracy territory. They and others think that it's all a massive tax grab. The validity on that claim is definitely questionable.
That's exactly why recycling shouldn't be enforced, subsidized nor aided by government. Profitability [B]ensures[/B] that recycling stays sustainable. It's common sense really.
It depends on what we're discarding, honestly. Recycling common household garbage doesn't really provide much benefit besides recovering the materials. Certainly isn't any greener than a landfill. Recycling larger stuff though....car batteries, dead appliances, stuff like that...there's quite the bonus to be had there.
Cars make a great example of something that should be recycled. A car destined to be recycled first goes to a scrapyard. There, they strip every salvageable part from it and warehouse these parts for later resale. These parts go towards keeping other vehicles of that type roadworthy without contributing to the effects of producing new parts, as well as lessening the effects of the recycling itself. Once the car is stripped down to a bare carcass, it's either crushed into a small cube or shredded. Once this is done, it's shipped off to a foundry that melts it down and produces new metals for use in industry.
fun fact: Your kitchenware might be made from an old Ford Pinto!
Recycling soda bottles: waste of time. Recycling machinery: Good idea.
Here in Sweden, everything is sorted before it ever reaches the recycling centers by the people themselves. You sort glass (divided into coloured and non-coloured glass), paper, metal containers, hard plastic and soft plastic. Everyone is cool with it since we're not lazy assholes and it saves a ton of time and money for the recycling centers.
I know this is probably over-simplifying it, but I see no reason not to, so I usually recycle.
here are some facts:
in the US (so probably very similar for the rest of the western world), domestic waste accounts for 3% of all waste produced by the nation. therefore, if every single person in the united states was to recycle absolutely 100% of all of their waste, or produce 0 waste at all (impossible), then the waste of the entire nation would be reduced by 3%. that figure is less than the average statistical margin of error. ergo, if everyone in the US was to reduce their waste output to 0, no one would even notice
therefore i really don't give a shit about my life being made more difficult and more pressure being put on me as a UK citizen to put all my rubbish in the correct bins at the right time and present them at the right time and be threatened with hefty fines if not
but by all means, industrial waste really needs to be looked into
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;37068007]here are some facts:
in the US (so probably very similar for the rest of the western world), domestic waste accounts for 3% of all waste produced by the nation. therefore, if every single person in the united states was to recycle absolutely 100% of all of their waste, or produce 0 waste at all (impossible), then the waste of the entire nation would be reduced by 3%. that figure is less than the average statistical margin of error. ergo, if everyone in the US was to reduce their waste output to 0, no one would even notice
therefore i really don't give a shit about my life being made more difficult and more pressure being put on me as a UK citizen to put all my rubbish in the correct bins at the right time and present them at the right time and be threatened with hefty fines if not
but by all means, industrial waste really needs to be looked into[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/donrti.png[/IMG]
This will help give you more accuracy in depicting our current affairs in the UK.
As long as what you are recylcling doesn't cost less to make than recycle then it should be compulsary
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
