recyclers

he seemed pretty to know what he was talking about

 

"My son died in Bagdhad, and all you got was a shitty tupperware container."

The slogans might actually work. People will throw money at anything that makes them feel like they're supporting a cause.

 

kinda like here, about 6 years ago the county started its recycling program, before the cities ahd trash collection but if you lived out of city limits like me you had severla county managed dumps( just lots with dumpsters, which unfortunalty many people just took trash an junk an dumped it on the ground there) but now they gave everyone a recycle bin and started countywide trash collection, the downer is your recycle fee is aded to your tax bill so you pay 19 bucks a year wether you use it or not, and trash collection requires a sticker be placed on each bag, stickers that cost $2.00 apiece! the rub is that this trash , and recycleables, you pay to ahve picked up are then SOLD to the refuse company, you pay them to sell trash! The really bad aprt is every 2 years the contract is up for grabs, and the lowest bidder wins, which mneas the cost goes up but they wil accept les and less recyclable materials, now all they take is drink bottles( soda and milk) glass and newspaper, no carboards, recyclable cans or metal or other paper

 

I wonder alot about the costs and benefits of recycling. I am willing to concede that recycling aluminum (and other metals) and plastic could be good. But I suspect recycling paper isnt worth it. Trees are a renewable resource, and there is such a glut of used paper out there that it costs money to convince a recycler to accept it. It also takes alot of chemicals and energy to reprocess it.

I am more convinced that glass is actually a bad thing to recycle. The raw material (sand) is essentially limitless. And it takes just as much heat to make new glass as it does to recycle it. I suspect that the cost of lugging this heavy substance around (collecting it) firmly makes glass recycling a bad idea.

 

The time it takes trees to grow is not an issue. There is an equilibrium, a balance that has been acheived as evidenced by the fact that the US's forest cover is staying about the same year after year.
The reason it MIGHT be better to landfill paper is because

1. Neither landfill space nor tree supply is a dire issue.

2. Recycling paper costs alotta money. Billions of dollars that might be better spent elsewhere.

You merely have to weigh the benefits of recycling with the costs. For some materials, recycling is worth the costs. For other materials recycling is not worth it.

 

With this statement you reveal your ignorance. I find it incredible that someone can lack common sense to this degree. *shakes head*
wow.

 

It's true. Tree farms exist all over the world and can be used in a manner sort of like crop rotation (except on a larger scale), and landfill space is no concern since we have plenty of it.

 

So what you're saying is you like landfills? You want more of them? Are you volunteering to have one in your backyard? I don't know anyone with this attitude, you are quite the anomaly. It concerns most normal people.

Again I'll state that tree farms are not the same as an ecologically sound forest. Recycling paper is a good thing, I assure you. Please refrain from posting nonsense, inform yourself.

 

I wouldn't mind having one of the newer ones around.

If it costs more than regular paper, or needs government-enforced rules to make it competetive, then how is it better?

 

great points. i make sure to never throw away aluminum, and plastic usually goes in the recycling bins, but not paper or glass. overconsumption is the biggest problem by far. if only we'd all eat fresh food and drink water from a reusable container all the time, and wear clothes till they wear out, and have one tv, and use cloth towels, and...

 

metro:"I find it incredible that someone can lack common sense to this degree. *shakes head*
wow."

Then explain, with facts, why you believe this.
At current rates, the next century's landfill space could fit in a landfill thats 20 miles by 20 miles (30kmx30km). How many billions of dollars is it worth to reduce this by 10%, 20%, etc? Keep in mind that the billions to reduce this could be used to reduce this amount of land could alternatively be used to fund alternative energy sources, cancer research, aid to the poor etc. ALso keep in mind that by improving agricultural efficiency by 2% would save a 20 mile by 20 mile space for less than 1 percent of the cost of recycling. Reduced landfill space is not an adequate reason (by itself)to justify the amount of money spent on recycling. There must be more reasons.

Its common sense to realize that some products are more practical for recycling than others. Its common sense to realize that there is only so much human resource (money) to go around. Its common sense to allocate money where it does the most good. I have not said that recylcling paper is foolish. Even though I believe landfill space and tree supply are not serious issues, its possible that energy consumption, water consumption and pollution issues in paper production may justify the recycling paper. I havent seen data to form an opinion on that.

metro:"Again I'll state that tree farms are not the same as an ecologically sound forest. Recycling paper is a good thing, I assure you. Please refrain from posting nonsense, inform yourself."

And where do you get the idea that only old forest has ecological value? Why do you think that tree farms are sweeping across the continent in alarming numbers? You feel so strongly about this issue, what is the factual basis for your opinion? I am not saying you are wrong. If you show me good evidence, I'll side with you.

 

Well, you certainly are an oddity. I've had many a field trip to landfills. Even the new ones are unsightly and smelly and noisy. I encourage you to live by one though, since you don't mind, just don't drill a well. You're truly unique, I'll bet a real estate person would just love you.

 

Where on earth did you get that figure? I don't buy it. Who in the world would want more landfill space? That land can no longer be used for anything (except a ski hill perhaps). It's a waste of land IMO.

Recycling is not more expensive anyways, as long as people participate.
17 trees are saved with every ton of paper we recycle. Other resources included in the savings are: oil, electricity and water.

Recycling an aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV for 6 hours.

Pulp and paper mills are some of the worst polluters, we have several here and several ruined rivers as a result...

Where do I get that idea? From the education I've received obtaining my degree. You too can get the facts from any ecology book. Please do me a favor and read up on it if you really want the facts and are truly interested. I have a feeling that regardless of what I say, your mind is made up.
Tree farms often replace older forests. Do I really need to explain how a tree farm differs from a natural forest? A child could probably point out the differences for you. Tree farms lack plant and animal diversity and are really nothing like natural forests. I'm sorry if this is not easily apparent to you, perhaps I expect everyone to possess the knowledge I do (it just seems like common sense to me), I'll try to assume you know nothing about ecology.

You truly question the value of late-successional forests? The matter is one of biodiversity. Do you feel all forests should be the same? Late-successional forests contain different species than early successional forests. Different species of trees, plants and animals. Is this not an appealing aspect to you? Most tree plantations contain only fast growing species and often other native species are eliminated by the use of herbicides. There is a delicate biological web present in forests, when we disturb that there are consequences. Many animals and insects are dependent on particular trees and plants. By altering the composition of a forest, we make it unsuitable for many animals. Also, mature forests have the capacity to moderate climate and retain water. I suppose you don't "believe" in climate change either.

Plantations in the tropics have resulted in the destruction of native forests. And we all know the value of tropical rainforests, immense amounts of biodiversity.

A natural forest contains a multitude of complex interactions involving soil, water, energy and biodiversity. There are many different types of forests. Whereas tree farms are all very similar.

Tree crops are simply what the paper industry will need to fall back on when the natural forests become depleted.

 

While I was growing the squirrels or birds & I we didn't care if the trees were in their natural environment or in a tree farm. If people would stop buying tons of new stuff that they don't need every year, there would be less to recycle or throw into landfills. Who says every kid needs a brand new bike or toy box full of toys for every holiday. There are enough clothing stores in this country to clothe the whole planet. There used to be commercials on TV that asked people to Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse but I know lots of people who thinks its a waste of time, dumb, or to time consuming.

 

I used to live on Staten Island, you know, where the largest dump in the world is? Have you ever lived near one? Probably not. The Fresh Kills landfill stinks to fucking hell, but only if you're driving down the street right next to it. We have plenty of space in this country, what would be so bad about a few more landfills located away from populated areas?

 

metro:"Where on earth did you get that figure? I don't buy it. Who in the world would want more landfill space? That land can no longer be used for anything (except a ski hill perhaps). It's a waste of land IMO."

I read it first in B. Lomborg's Skeptical environmentalist. The article below refers to the same book and also affirms it.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYQ/is_2002_May_1/ai_88670536
You feel so passionate about this that surely you have another specific number in mind, right?
Landfill space is not dead. It can sometimes be put to good use:
http://www.forester.net/msw_9909_landfil_closure.html

metro:"Recycling is not more expensive anyways, as long as people participate."

Then why do cities fork over big bucks to create recycling programs? It takes alot of resources to collect goods as well as re-procesing.

metro:"17 trees are saved with every ton of paper we recycle. Other resources included in the savings are: oil, electricity and water......Pulp and paper mills are some of the worst polluters, we have several here and several ruined rivers as a result..."

Indeed, which is why I admitted the possibility that these other resource expenditures may justify recycling paper.


Quote eurpancreas:
And where do you get the idea that only old forest has ecological value? Why do you think that tree farms are sweeping across the continent in alarming numbers? You feel so strongly about this issue, what is the factual basis for your opinion? I am not saying you are wrong. If you show me good evidence, I'll side with you.
metro:"Where do I get that idea? From the education I've received obtaining my degree. You too can get the facts from any ecology book."

If you think I am wrong and that old-growth forests are being destroyed so rapidly, be specific about the numbers. If I used the "because I said so" defense, you wouldnt trust that either.

metro:" Please do me a favor and read up on it if you really want the facts and are truly interested. I have a feeling that regardless of what I say, your mind is made up."

My mind is not made up. A simple bit of data (from a reliable source) indicating that old growth forests are quickly vanishing, and I'll change my opinion. I pride myself on my ability to change my worldview when the data warrants.

metro:"Tree farms often replace older forests. Do I really need to explain how a tree farm differs from a natural forest? A child could probably point out the differences for you. Tree farms lack plant and animal diversity and are really nothing like natural forests. I'm sorry if this is not easily apparent to you, perhaps I expect everyone to possess the knowledge I do (it just seems like common sense to me), I'll try to assume you know nothing about ecology."

Define "often" precisely. And how do you define tree farm? The amount of diversity depends on management. A well managed "tree farm" could potential have as many species in it as an old growth forest. What logic dictates that many species cannot live in newer forests?

metro:"You truly question the value of late-successional forests? The matter is one of biodiversity. Do you feel all forests should be the same? Late-successional forests contain different species than early successional forests. Different species of trees, plants and animals. Is this not an appealing aspect to you? Most tree plantations contain only fast growing species and often other native species are eliminated by the use of herbicides. There is a delicate biological web present in forests, when we disturb that there are consequences. Many animals and insects are dependent on particular trees and plants. By altering the composition of a forest, we make it unsuitable for many animals. Also, mature forests have the capacity to moderate climate and retain water. I suppose you don't "believe" in climate change either."

Of course I value old forests. I value newer forests less. But newer forests are not ecological graveyards. The "delicate balance" issue is overstated. Forests are in flux. They withstand fires, floods, tornadoes, temperature swings. They are not on the verge of some sort of ecological collapse.

metro:"Plantations in the tropics have resulted in the destruction of native forests. And we all know the value of tropical rainforests, immense amounts of biodiversity."

Right, rainforests are universally regarded as preferable to plantations.


metro:"Tree crops are simply what the paper industry will need to fall back on when the natural forests become depleted."
At what rate are they being depleted? That is the big question. Is the rate of regeneration less than or smaller than the rate of depletion?

 

Bah, nevermind. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

Bye!!

You weren't contributing anything useful, so shoo!!