Recycling, useful or useless?

[Kur]

While posting a reply in the global warming thread, I mentioned that recycling was another big hoax so it prompted me to start this debate.

Nearly everyone you meet would probably say that recycling is a great thing not only for the environment, but to also save money and lower the price of goods which can be made from recycled materials.

I challenge this idea.

I have always had my suspicions. I know that recycling aluminum cans pays you money. Recently copper has become a decent market as well. But what about paper, glass, plastic, wood, other metals, all the junk you have to separate into all those bins and cans in your front yard? Why can't you haul a stack of paper to the recycling center and make a few dollars?

Because it costs more to recycle paper than to make new paper. Same with plastic, glass, and all that other junk.

Not only does it cost more to recycle all those things, but think of the expenses in added transporting, fuel, drivers, hand separators, and all the people at the factory needed to keep the process of melting down a bottle into pellets and melting them again to form new bottles. And the fuel burned by the recycling factories and power companies to power it all.


I would like to turn the debate over to a couple of gentlemen who have the resources to get some evidence to back all these claims I have made. Not to mention it is much easier to post some video links than to type it all out and I am short on time.

So please watch the following videos for a slightly more comprehensive explanation of my points... don't worry, they are very entertaining as well as informative.

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAuU5JjRyQ
Part 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if2MfYqJgAI&feature=related
Part 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtex699GyEc&feature=related

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

You're under the mindset that, because recycling is not efficient now*, it never will be.

Recycling is a good idea. Because we have a system where our mechanical energy is limited and must be purchased, recycling, for now, is not good in practice. The earth only has so material we can use; if we reach a point where we have a lot left over and little to reap, recycling is essential if we want to make more products.

 

[Eor]

To include Bull****! as a reliable news source is laughable, it's an entertainment show, nothing more. They rarely do actual fact-based debunking, instead, just presenting their own arguments without letting anyone who can propose a counter argument hear it. They might have a valid point in some episodes, and I agree with them on most of what they say, but their show is no more valid to base a debate on then The Daily Show.

Besides that, here is something that debunks their entire thing on recycling paper http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=62

 

[Crimson King]

With Bull****, they do have some good episodes where they present facts and such that it's hard to disagree, particularly PETA and legalizing pot. But, when you get into stuff like recycling and a few others, yeah, it gets a little grey. For the most part, the show is not intended to be an unbiased look at anything, but it's their opinion on things.

Recycling? I have no real opinion on it and I recycle mostly out of habit.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Generally ryceling isn't about energy efficency...


It's a less energy efficent substitute for depleting the supply of something that is more important then energy. For instance, with paper it means that you can cut down less trees. Energy can be produced using more different types of material then paper. Therefore the decision is made based not on energy and monitary efficency, but protection of certain resources,

 

[AltF4]

A lot of recycling isn't the kind done by consumers, too. Industry does a LOT of recycling with their own products.

Manufacturers use scraps from various other products to use in their assembly lines. It's certainly a profitable practice when done that way. Though typically there are regulations on how much of a ratio you can have for Recycled material to New Material for various products.

(You can't have milk cartons made entirely from bottles that used to house bleach!)

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Recycling isn't always about energy. Recycling paper is much worse for the environment than making virgin paper because of the extra chemicals required to treat it. But it keeps the paper from filling landfill space.

Critics point out that the recovered gases from paper and other organics created during decomposition have been used in natural gas facilities and homes.

The only materials that are really energy and resource efficient are metals, the energy it takes to acquire and process raw ores are much larger than those of recycling already processed metals.

So its a question of do you want to have more toxic wastes or more landfill space?

 

[Kur]

There is NOT a landfill space shortage. And old landfills are simply covered over and become future parks, or residential areas. So recycling purely for the purpose of reducing landfill space is a waste of time and money. It is also important to note that most of the waste you put in your recycle can every week ends up in landfills anyway.

I never said that Bull**** was a purely unbiased source of information. I just used that show to present some of the arguments I would make against recycling because I didn't have time to type it all out myself.

And the argument for recycling paper to save trees is also not valid. I believe it was pointed out in the show, but there are millions of trees being planted for the express purpose of making paper. Reduce the amount of new paper being made and you reduce the amount of trees on the planet.

And the argument that "recycling is not efficient yet, but it will be, so we should do it anyway" is flawed. Why waste the time, money, energy, and resources on an inefficient system that isn't doing any good? Why not spend far less money in a laboratory setting and work on making recycling efficient, then introduce it to the public as a working system that really does save money, energy, and resources?

It is akin to selling people a car before the wheel is invented. Sure you look and feel great sitting in your shiny BMW, but without wheels, you aren't really going anywhere.

 

[adumbrodeus]

And the argument for recycling paper to save trees is also not valid. I believe it was pointed out in the show, but there are millions of trees being planted for the express purpose of making paper. Reduce the amount of new paper being made and you reduce the amount of trees on the planet.

What was there before?

I'd venture it was trees.


The more non-recycled paper we use the more tree space we have tied up in maintaining production, therefore the less trees on the planet.

If we recycle, those areas can be left alone.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

And the argument that "recycling is not efficient yet, but it will be, so we should do it anyway" is flawed. Why waste the time, money, energy, and resources on an inefficient system that isn't doing any good? Why not spend far less money in a laboratory setting and work on making recycling efficient, then introduce it to the public as a working system that really does save money, energy, and resources?

It is akin to selling people a car before the wheel is invented. Sure you look and feel great sitting in your shiny BMW, but without wheels, you aren't really going anywhere.

You left the impression that recycling in general is useless by not giving it any room for merit.

Where did I say we should continue with our current form of recycling?

 

[Gamer4Fire]

What was there before?

I'd venture it was trees.


The more non-recycled paper we use the more tree space we have tied up in maintaining production, therefore the less trees on the planet.

If we recycle, those areas can be left alone.

Actually, tree use also increases land use of trees. In other words, the more trees we use the larger forests become for future use.

 

[Kur]

Actually, tree use also increases land use of trees. In other words, the more trees we use the larger forests become for future use.

Not only that, but the more trees we cut down for lumber, paper, toothpicks, chopsticks, whatever, the more we plant in their place. Logging companies plant anywhere from 5-10 (possibly more) trees for every one they cut down.

So using more new paper not only increases land use, but also tree density.

It is a completely renewable resource. Recycling only means less trees are being planted in the long run.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Not only that, but the more trees we cut down for lumber, paper, toothpicks, chopsticks, whatever, the more we plant in their place. Logging companies plant anywhere from 5-10 (possibly more) trees for every one they cut down.

So using more new paper not only increases land use, but also tree density.

It is a completely renewable resource. Recycling only means less trees are being planted in the long run.

The number is closer to 1.1 for every tree cut down. For every ten trees they cut down, they plant like eleven.

 

[blazedaces]

The number is closer to 1.1 for every tree cut down. For every ten trees they cut down, they plant like eleven.

I'm actually only asking out of curiosity since I don't know (couldn't find a source though I tried) even if this number is the case isn't it a result of the fact that not all seeds actually become trees? Another words I'm sure (while I highly doubt they calculated it) they plant enough so that hopefully at least 1 grows from the one cut down...

-blazed

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They don't plant seeds, they plant sapling (small trees).

 

[blazedaces]

They don't plant seeds, they plant sapling (small trees).

Oh... interesting. Do you know where I could find a source of more information on the subject?

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

Actually, tree use also increases land use of trees. In other words, the more trees we use the larger forests become for future use.

However, while they are saplings the beneficial effects of trees are greatly diminished. Things like air processing, holding soil in place, etc. A forest of sapling doesn't really do much to solve that issue until it's fully grown... only to be cut down again.

And then you have wildlife in the area that depend not only on tree in general, but specific types of tree. Replacing old trees with new results in a lot of local fauna being destroyed.

The number is closer to 1.1 for every tree cut down. For every ten trees they cut down, they plant like eleven.

Sounds like overcrowding the trees...

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Actually, tree use also increases land use of trees. In other words, the more trees we use the larger forests become for future use.

However, while they are saplings the beneficial effects of trees are greatly diminished. Things like air processing, holding soil in place, etc. A forest of sapling doesn't really do much to solve that issue until it's fully grown... only to be cut down again.

And then you have wildlife in the area that depend not only on tree in general, but specific types of tree. Replacing old trees with new results in a lot of local fauna being destroyed.

Both of your points are moot. If you've ever been to a nursery, you'd see rows upon rows, sometimes miles of trees from three years old to twenty years old or older, depending on the species of tree being harvested. They aren't trying to hold soil and the air processing is negligible anyways since most oxygen comes from algae in the ocean (which covers three quarters of the Earth).

And to say that appropriating new land to grow more trees destroys the local fauna is also ridiculous, since old growth and other types of forests are protected against logging and aren't cut down and replanted at all.

The number is closer to 1.1 for every tree cut down. For every ten trees they cut down, they plant like eleven.

Sounds like overcrowding the trees...

Actually, tree use also increases land use of trees. In other words, the more trees we use the larger forests become for future use.

Emphasis mine.

Gee, a-dumb-rodeo, it was in your own reply to my post. We use those areas that weren't forest before and they become forest when we start planting trees there.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Both of your points are moot. If you've ever been to a nursery, you'd see rows upon rows, sometimes miles of trees from three years old to twenty years old or older, depending on the species of tree being harvested. They aren't trying to hold soil and the air processing is negligible anyways since most oxygen comes from algae in the ocean (which covers three quarters of the Earth).

And?

The cut trees were holding soil in place, the new ones are incapable...

The cut trees were processing carbon dioxide, the new ones are incapable.

And this disagrees with that point how?

And to say that appropriating new land to grow more trees destroys the local fauna is also ridiculous, since old growth and other types of forests are protected against logging and aren't cut down and replanted at all.

Ummm, yeah, forcibly changing the biosphere results in different local flora or fauna being preferred, whether it's planting or cutting down trees.

Old or young the biosphere adapts due to these changes.

Emphasis mine.

Gee, a-dumb-rodeo, it was in your own reply to my post. We use those areas that weren't forest before and they become forest when we start planting trees there.

So says you...

Source please.


Also... a-dumb-rodeo? Could you think of something more childish?

 

[memphischains]

Recycling? I have no real opinion on it and I recycle mostly out of habit.

That's the same for me. At work all of the lunch items are recyclable, and I'm pretty sure I have never seen a "trash" can in the lunch room.

Plus my mom makes me do it with all the cans of soda and crap

 

[XxXBlueKillaXxX]

I know im not a moderator or anything but memphis, ur not supposed to post ur sig in the debate hall

 

[Grandeza]

I never stopped to think about how useful it was or wasn't. I only do it out of habit due to my teacher's making me otherwise I have to dig in the garbage and put it in it's respective trash can.

 

[Kur]

However, while they are saplings the beneficial effects of trees are greatly diminished. Things like air processing, holding soil in place, etc. A forest of sapling doesn't really do much to solve that issue until it's fully grown... only to be cut down again.

And then you have wildlife in the area that depend not only on tree in general, but specific types of tree. Replacing old trees with new results in a lot of local fauna being destroyed.




Sounds like overcrowding the trees...

When the old trees are cut down their root systems are left in the ground. It takes several decades for them to degrade to the point of not holding soil. By then the newly planted trees root systems have spread far enough. It is also a point to make that most of the soil holding is done by the plants that live between the trees such as grasses, bushes, and other smaller plant life. By the way, nobody has seen any dust storms blowing through a new growth pine forest.

A tree of any age can process oxygen into the environment. And it has been pointed out that the logging companies plant more trees than they harvest. The vast majority of logging is done on pine trees, which grow relatively quickly anyway.

Animals could care less how old the trees in their area are. A few years ago everybody made a big fuss about the spotted owl. They claimed it only built nests in old growth areas and because of that the old growth areas should be left alone.

As it turns out the owls don't care. As long as the tree is of a certain hight, they build their nests in old trees, young trees, dead trees, and even in things that aren't even trees.

A squirrel will find a new tree to call home being as they often switch trees anyway.

Animals are a bit smarter than you give them credit for.

 

[Pure-???]

It may very well use up more energy, but one thing remains solid: It keeps the paper/metal/plastic from ending up in a land fill or a dump. it keeps us from filling up the planet with all the crap we throw away.

 

[manhunter098]

It doesnt take more money to recycle all plastics. Those plastics marked as 1 & 2 are actually profitable to recycle. Anything else though doesnt benefit anyone.


Im not sure if I remember the numbers for glass though, I think it depends on if they have to sort the colors or not. If people actually seperate their glass into colors correctly, then I think its profitable to recycle, otherwise I dont think it is.


Recycling steel and copper is profitable if I recall correctly.


Recycling aluminum can be profitable, but it all depends on the collection methods, as the actual reprocessing of aluminum is actualy VERY profitable, since making aluminum even with newer methods is a rather expensive process.



Either way if INDUSTRY were to actually seperate wastes and sell them to other companies that can use their byproducs as raw materials, then we wouldnt have to recycle much at all, and it would boost our economy substantially.



Oh and Paper recycling FTL. Growing Kenaf to be made into paper is much better. It grows extremely fast and you can get at least as much paper per acre (if not more) as you can from trees if I remember correctly.

 

[Kur]

It may very well use up more energy, but one thing remains solid: It keeps the paper/metal/plastic from ending up in a land fill or a dump. it keeps us from filling up the planet with all the crap we throw away.

There is no shortage of land fill space and when landfills are full, they are converted into residential areas, public parks, and wildlife refuges.

The planet can not be 'filled up' with our garbage.




manhunter098

Yes, some materials are profitable to recycle, but most are not. The fact is that we do not get paid to put our blue cans out every week. And most plastics do cost quite a bit to recycle because they can not just melt a bottle and form it into something else. There are many steps that require large amounts of fuel for shipping, large amounts of money to pay workers for sorting, large amounts of energy for burning, melting, forming, re-melting, re-forming, distribution, and re-filling.

The only reason most companies recycle is so they can put the little logo on their products, hoping people will buy from them because they are a 'green' company.

Very few products turn a profit from recycling, with aluminum cans being the biggest exception.

 

[manhunter098]

Well recycling on an individual basis often fails in a number of ways. However like I said, if industry were to either use byproducts from one industry as the raw materials for another, or to recycle waste they could probably turn a profit in the long run, not to mention a plus for the country in the form of less water pollution and a reduced need for landfills.

 

[Pure-???]

There is no shortage of land fill space and when landfills are full, they are converted into residential areas, public parks, and wildlife refuges.

And that sounds extremely healthy. living on top of our garbage.

 

[OffTheChain]

Recycling is one of those things I overlook every now and then but actually think it will be useful more down the road, I make the effort to do so whenever I can/remember but from what I've hear its not useless at all, not sure how anyone could feel that way.

 

[manhunter098]

@ Pure: It really depends on the garbage in the landfill. If its toxic then of course its going to pose problems. But if you just have paper products, plastics, wood products, some metals (no Mercury or Cadmium) and other normal trash then there really isnt too much of a health issue with building on the landfill. However you cant really grow crops over a landfill, so it definitely encourages urban sprawl (which is bad) by making people build outside of cities (since nobody wants a landfill IN their actual city.

 

[Kur]

And that sounds extremely healthy. living on top of our garbage.

Oh please. There is nothing wrong with it at all.

Most of the garbage in land fills is non toxic and degrades over a period of 20-30 years.

By the way, have you ever been to a residential construction site? You would be surprised what is buried in the yards of suburban homes these days. Roofing tiles, nails, plastics, wood, broken tools, bricks, fast food waste, cleaning chemicals, and any other thing you can think of. It is all just covered over by a few feet of dirt and you are living right on top of it right now.

Not much different than a land fill really.

And plants have no trouble growing over land fills either.

 

[manhunter098]

Well I wasnt talking about plants, so much as crops, which would still technically grow just fine over a landfill, but due to the possiblity of toxins in the wastes (which can be regulated, but its pretty tough to enforce without spending TONS of unnecessary money), I wouldnt risk groing things for food on top of one. I suppose we could still grow cash crops on landfills though without having to worry too much about safety.


The real problem with putting everything in landfills though is that it is REALLY expensive to adequately protect any groundwater near the landfill site, and to prevent leachate from seeping into any water that isnt necessarily underground, but still nearby.

 

[Kur]

Well I wasnt talking about plants, so much as crops, which would still technically grow just fine over a landfill, but due to the possiblity of toxins in the wastes (which can be regulated, but its pretty tough to enforce without spending TONS of unnecessary money), I wouldnt risk groing things for food on top of one. I suppose we could still grow cash crops on landfills though without having to worry too much about safety.


The real problem with putting everything in landfills though is that it is REALLY expensive to adequately protect any groundwater near the landfill site, and to prevent leachate from seeping into any water that isnt necessarily underground, but still nearby.

Which is why land fills are built on lands that are not suitable for crops, or near underground water tables.


Something else they do with old land fills is let them sit for 20 years or so and open them up again. After 20 years most of the trash is degraded and the land fill is used again.

 

[manhunter098]

I wouldnt say that so I live in Florida, EVERYTHING is near the water table, we still have land fills, but they must be monitored, lined, etcetera in order to make sure that the waste doesnt infiltrate our groundwater.

Landfills will be built near water tables, they may get as far away from that water table as possible but they still need to be close enough to the city or town, or whatever in order to be useful. There isnt always land that will be perfectly suitable for a landfill in an area where one needs to be built, and so compromises have to be made.

Also depending on how garbage is compacted in a landfill, and how it is sealed, many things that would normally biodegrade quickly if left out in the open, do not do so in a landfill that has been sealed, of course some things will biodegrade, but when sealed off a landfill has less access to molecular oxygen, which slows the process of decomposition.

Something else to add, is that in these times, we have fertilizers and all sorts of things that help to make land that isnt viable for growing crops, capable of doing so. While its more costly, as population rises we will need to take up more and more crop land, as we can only do so much with genetic engineering of crops to have a higher yeild per acre, so we will need to convert more and more land into land that is suitable for growing crops. When I mentioned not being able to grow crops on a landfill (or rather it not being exactly safe) I was looking more towards it being a problem in the future. Hopefully population growth will slow and more reuseable materials can be found so we dont need landfills as much, but its still a potential for problems in my opinion, just not right now.


Either way I like the concept of recycling (except paper, so biodegradable ink and no bleaching FTW), and its something that needs to be invested in, so that we can find more effecient ways to recycle materials. After all, if its economically viable, then EVERYONE wins when something is recycled (the environment included). Furthermore, I think it best to keep current campaigns for recycling going, so that as technology does improve for recycling materials (as it will inevitably do) people do not need to be put in the mindset to recycle, since many of them will already be used to it.

 

[Kur]

I wouldnt say that so I live in Florida, EVERYTHING is near the water table, we still have land fills, but they must be monitored, lined, etcetera in order to make sure that the waste doesnt infiltrate our groundwater.

Landfills will be built near water tables, they may get as far away from that water table as possible but they still need to be close enough to the city or town, or whatever in order to be useful. There isnt always land that will be perfectly suitable for a landfill in an area where one needs to be built, and so compromises have to be made.

Also depending on how garbage is compacted in a landfill, and how it is sealed, many things that would normally biodegrade quickly if left out in the open, do not do so in a landfill that has been sealed, of course some things will biodegrade, but when sealed off a landfill has less access to molecular oxygen, which slows the process of decomposition.

Something else to add, is that in these times, we have fertilizers and all sorts of things that help to make land that isnt viable for growing crops, capable of doing so. While its more costly, as population rises we will need to take up more and more crop land, as we can only do so much with genetic engineering of crops to have a higher yeild per acre, so we will need to convert more and more land into land that is suitable for growing crops. When I mentioned not being able to grow crops on a landfill (or rather it not being exactly safe) I was looking more towards it being a problem in the future. Hopefully population growth will slow and more reuseable materials can be found so we dont need landfills as much, but its still a potential for problems in my opinion, just not right now.


Either way I like the concept of recycling (except paper, so biodegradable ink and no bleaching FTW), and its something that needs to be invested in, so that we can find more effecient ways to recycle materials. After all, if its economically viable, then EVERYONE wins when something is recycled (the environment included). Furthermore, I think it best to keep current campaigns for recycling going, so that as technology does improve for recycling materials (as it will inevitably do) people do not need to be put in the mindset to recycle, since many of them will already be used to it.

Landfills are designed to degrade waste quickly.

And it sounds as though you are concerned that there won't be enough space in the future to hold landfills and crops. Really, have you looked at how much land is used as land fills compared to the population which utilizes it? It really does not take much space at all. Even a huge metropolitan area like the Phoenix area uses just a few landfills. The landfill which services Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Gilbert, and Fountain Hills, with a combined population of about 1.5 million, uses only 200 acres of land and is capable of servicing those cities in the future when they have higher populations.

I really wouldn't worry about landfills running out of room.


And when I said "land not viable for crops" I wasn't just talking about soil with low nutrients. I was also talking about land with high rock content, bad geography, and any number of other features that make it impossible to grow large fields of crops.

And when you say "Hopefully population growth will slow" What exactly do you mean by that? There is only a few ways that can happen. Either people start dying younger, or people stop having kids. Should we become like China and make it law that you can not have more than one or two children? This is exactly the kind of scare tactics you see all over the media. The truth is that we are not over populated. We have plenty of room for landfills and crops, and houses, and all that for years to come. Shoot, you could take every person on earth and give them a 2500 sq. ft. house and they would all fit in Alaska with room to spare. Of course there would need to be more room for crops, markets, etc. but you get the idea. We humans are not taking up nearly as much space as the liberal environmentalists would have you believe.

 

[Johnthegalactic]

Some recycling is useful some seems to do more harm than good.
Metals are a limited resource, although some are very plentiful, so recyclingthese make sense.
Plastic is synthetic, and is easier to reproduce, but still, it seems logical to recycle, due to the huge time it takes to degrade.
Paper, is renewable, but recycling it, is more complicated than melting metal or plastic and reshaping it.
Ink, lining, and whatever else you can put on paper must be removed, quite often through chemical processes that may harm the environment.
My idea is, recycling paper in a safer way, burn it into ashes, then the ashes may be used as dirt, probably requires fertilizers(safe ones of course), and grow a new tree in this dirt.
There, the paper has been recycled without chlorine and whatever else they use to clean paper up.
Recycling=beneficial, but has to be done right, or it can be harmful.

and the burning thing, just an idea, i am no recycleaddict, and feel uncomfortable recycling paper because I think it can be harmful.
But metal, that can be reused, and plastic, it is synthetic, so let's keep it out of nature and in the recycling bin.
Paper, it degrades, if you are obligated to recycle it well, I don't know what exactly to do, but i would rather plant a tree in ashes than wash some paper in chlorine.

Just my input.