Recycling

[BOB SAGET!]

Recycling is processing used materials like paper and plastic into new products.

But just how beneficial is recycling, do the pros out weigh the cons? I'm going to challenge my self because I know everyone is going to disagree with me. I say recycling isn't very beneficial!

I want your thoughts and opinions on recycling....

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Can I have a more detailed explanation as to why you state recycling is not beneficial? I would also like a list of the cons so I can be more informed as to your opinion on the subject.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Right now I'm way too lazy to write a huge post. I believe recycling everything except for aluminum isn't beneficial.

Before I make a major arguement, I must ask you this....why do you recycle? Tell me the benefits and I'll disprove them all later.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Because it helps the environment.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What about Steel? What about Paper? What about Plastic? They all save energy and are beneficial to the environment.

It turns out that there is a limit to the stuff we can get out of the earth. There is a finite amount of Iron, a finite amount of Oil, and a finite number of trees to get our paper from. So these precious resources don't just run out, we need to reuse the stuff we're already using.

[sarcasm]Yeah... I can see you disproving that recycling saves resources...[/sarcasm]

 

[manhunter098]

It only helps the environment if you are recycling some types of plastic or aluminum (I heard steel mentioned, but I am not sure if we use it enough in throw away goods to make it worthwhile anymore). In other cases it actually burns more fossil fuels because of transportation and processing than simply making more.

Always recycle your aluminum though. That is always a win for the environment.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

What manhunter said, it increases energy use for transportation, sorting, storing, and cleaning.

So it actually takes more energy to recycle a plastic bottle then to make a new one.

I'll post a lot more tommorrow

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What manhunter said, it increases energy use for transportation, sorting, storing, and cleaning.

So it actually takes more energy to recycle a plastic bottle then to make a new one.

Does it? I doubt you're factoring in the transportation and refining of the oil used to make the plastic bottle.

The oil has to travel from say Saudi Arabia, all the way to the USA and the get refined. It then must turned into plastic and then manufactured into a bottle. For recycling, it has to go to the recycling collection facility and then get turned into pebbles and for remanufacturing. I don't see your point. Added to the fact that oil is running out; Peak Oil, it seems prudent to recycle plastics.

With paper it doesn't, definitely. In fact, it is estimated that 81000km^2 of forestland can be saved by recycling half the world's paper waste. Furthermore, paper recycling saves energy, The Bureau or International Recycling claims that recycling paper reduces the amount of energy used by 64%. The Energy Information Administration claims a reduction of 40%.

However, some argue that recycling paper actually increases fossil fuel use, because pulp mills use waste wood to power themselves, while recycling uses power from the local grid. However, I honestly doubt that this is an actual improvement in greenhouse gas emissions, because making paper from scratch involves logging, which 9% of the time is from old growth forests. This releases plenty of CO2. And degrading paper releases methane which is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2. Now this is captured in the large landfills, but not in the smaller ones, so methane still enters the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the EPA has found that making recycled paper creates 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making paper from scratch.

So I don't see why you'd be against recycling paper.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling

 

[Sucumbio]

There's a point when recycling gets problematic: about 25-35% of total trash recycled is a safe goal, and far more realistic in terms of quantity. "Is zero waste, which means recycling nearly everything, achievable?” No, nor should it be.

There are several categories of recyclable materials: type (recycle standard scale 1-5, 5 being best) - details

Plastic (4) - though seemingly obvious, there are actually only a few types of plastic that can be recycled or that contain recycled plastic.

This shows the various symbols that identify plastic types. Of these types 1 and 2 are widely accepted in container form, and type 4 is sometimes accepted in bag form. Code 7 is for mixed or layered plastic with little recycling potential. #5 "open top" containers (yogurt, cottage cheese, strawberry baskets) are hard to avoid buying, and mostly useless for recycling. Many curbside collection programs won't complain if these are placed in a bin, but they won't recycle them either.

Glass, Steel, Aluminum Cans and Foil (4) - Glass bottles must not be mixed with other types of glass such as windows, light bulbs, mirrors, glass tableware, Pyrex or auto glass. Ceramics contaminate glass and are difficult to sort out. Clear glass is the most valuable. Mixed color glass is near worthless, and broken glass is hard to sort. These are reasons why glass recycling can be difficult and may seem too costly in the long run, but the cost is mostly upon people's time more than anything.

Scrap aluminum is accepted in many places. Other metals are rarely accepted. So definitely do those soda cans, but other metals you may as well not bother unless you're sure your town's recycling center is equipped properly.

Aseptic Packaging (Drink boxes, soy-milk containers) (2) - Aseptics are made from complex layers of plastic, metal and paper. The aseptic industry has spent millions in public education on the issue of aseptic recycling, including distribution of classroom guides and posters like "Drink Boxes are as Good on the Outside as They are on the Inside" and "A Day in the Life of a Drink Box" (lol!). The actual recycling process, unfortunately, is very expensive and awkward, and is therefore only available in very few places.

Paper (5) - Most types of paper can be recycled. Newspapers have been recycled profitably for decades, and recycling of other paper is growing. Virgin paper pulp prices have soared in recent years prompting construction of more plants capable of using waste paper. The key to recycling is collecting large quantities of clean, well-sorted, uncontaminated and dry paper. This again requires more time for people to pay attention and make an effort.

Old refrigerators, Heat Pumps & Air Conditioners (2) - Most people are too lazy to care about the CFCs that may be in their old units, but this chemical should absolutely be recycled -before- disposing of the appliance. Most appliance removal specialists will preform this service, but your town garbage man won't and as a result may not even take it away (hopefully). Proper CFC removal is mandated internationally.

Single Use Batteries (Alkaline, Heavy Duty) (2) - The Copper Top, unfortunately these cannot be "recycled" much rather they are collected nowadays and stored in a special landfill. Using these at all is just not a good idea if you can help it.

Rechargeable Batteries (other than car batteries) (3) - A far better alternative, low self discharge battery such as Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH), Lithium-ion (Li-ion) or Nickel-cadmium (NiCAD), all of which are rechargeable and easily recycled if they become defective. Though most cities have banned these from entering landfills due to the toxic chemicals (cadmium poisoning for instance), there is not necessarily a convenient drop point for these.

Motor Oil, Tires and Car Batteries (5) - A must to recycle and by law in most states, these are easy to recycle. Though charges can apply such as Walmart's $0.05/quart oil fee or a $1.00 state tire recycling fee, this is a small price to pay for avoiding hazardous waste issues.

Compost (5) - Rather than purchasing manure, just make your own! Collecting yard waste (leaves, grass clippings, etc.) will contribute quickly to a compost heap, and provide an excellent source of soil nutrition for any gardening requirements.

On another note:

Biomass briquettes - made of various sorts of raw material including rice husk, bagasse, ground nut shells, etc. use has increased as industries realize the benefits of containing pollution with favorable economics. Briquettes provide higher calorific value per dollar than coal used for firing industrial boilers.

In summation, it's important to recognize when recycling does more harm than good, which is the case with a few of the above examples. But when the only "cost" is effort and time spent, well, there's little I can find to support that being evidence enough to warrant stopping that particular recycling.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I contributed the following text to Wikipedia around seven months ago.

The term downcycling was also used by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their 2002 book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.

As we have noted, most recycling is actually downcycling; it reduces the quality of a material over time. When plastics other than those found in soda and water bottles are recycled, they are mixed with different plastics to produce a hybrid of lower quality, which is then molded into something amorphous and cheap, such as a park bench or a speed bump... Aluminum is another valuable but constantly downcycled material. The typical soda can consists of two kinds of aluminum: the walls are composed of aluminum, manganese alloy with some magnesium, plus coatings and paint, while the harder top is aluminum magnesium alloy. In conventional recycling these materials are melted together, resulting in a weaker—and less useful—product.

This also applies to plastic water bottles. The cap of the plastic water bottle if I remember correctly is PVC (polyvinyl chloride) whereas the body of the plastic water bottle is PET (polyethylene terephthalate). According to the resin identification code provided by Succumbio, they relate to #3 and #1 respectively which means they shouldn't be mixed. This is often why people want you to remove the caps from plastic water bottles before you put it in the recycle bin.

On another note, depending what gets accepted as recyclable material is usually dependent on whether or not your local district can receive a profit from the effort required to recycle such material. If there is a possibility for profit by selling the material back to a local company or producer, then it is likely that the district will accept that material as recyclable goods.

The fundamental message is to honestly just re-use anything as much as possible. A plastic water bottle is better off being refilled 30-40 times, rather than buying new bottles and recycling them every time you need a drink.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The fundamental message is to honestly just re-use anything as much as possible. A plastic water bottle is better off being refilled 30-40 times, rather than buying new bottles and recycling them every time you need a drink.

Exactly, it's cheap as well. It saves money, time, effort, energy and the environment. There's literally nothing to lose from it.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I contributed the following text to Wikipedia around seven months ago.



This also applies to plastic water bottles. The cap of the plastic water bottle if I remember correctly is PVC (polyvinyl chloride) whereas the body of the plastic water bottle is PET (polyethylene terephthalate). According to the resin identification code provided by Succumbio, they relate to #3 and #1 respectively which means they shouldn't be mixed. This is often why people want you to remove the caps from plastic water bottles before you put it in the recycle bin.

On another note, depending what gets accepted as recyclable material is usually dependent on whether or not your local district can receive a profit from the effort required to recycle such material. If there is a possibility for profit by selling the material back to a local company or producer, then it is likely that the district will accept that material as recyclable goods.

The fundamental message is to honestly just re-use anything as much as possible. A plastic water bottle is better off being refilled 30-40 times, rather than buying new bottles and recycling them every time you need a drink.

I was going to post the exact same thing from Cradle to Cradle, lol. In my opinion, it's a horrifically bad book (had to read it for school before freshman year) but that's one of the few things from it that I found interesting.

Also, Saget, where you at? You keep promising to post "more" later, but nothing has really happened.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I was going to post the exact same thing from Cradle to Cradle, lol. In my opinion, it's a horrifically bad book (had to read it for school before freshman year) but that's one of the few things from it that I found interesting.

The book is made out of plastic, yet doesn't have a resin identification code on it.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

ive been busy with school, lol

Does it? I doubt you're factoring in the transportation and refining of the oil used to make the plastic bottle.

The oil has to travel from say Saudi Arabia, all the way to the USA and the get refined. It then must turned into plastic and then manufactured into a bottle. For recycling, it has to go to the recycling collection facility and then get turned into pebbles and for remanufacturing. I don't see your point. Added to the fact that oil is running out; Peak Oil, it seems prudent to recycle plastics.

With paper it doesn't, definitely. In fact, it is estimated that 81000km^2 of forestland can be saved by recycling half the world's paper waste. Furthermore, paper recycling saves energy, The Bureau or International Recycling claims that recycling paper reduces the amount of energy used by 64%. The Energy Information Administration claims a reduction of 40%.

However, some argue that recycling paper actually increases fossil fuel use, because pulp mills use waste wood to power themselves, while recycling uses power from the local grid. However, I honestly doubt that this is an actual improvement in greenhouse gas emissions, because making paper from scratch involves logging, which 9% of the time is from old growth forests. This releases plenty of CO2. And degrading paper releases methane which is a greenhouse gas many times more potent than CO2. Now this is captured in the large landfills, but not in the smaller ones, so methane still enters the atmosphere.

Furthermore, the EPA has found that making recycled paper creates 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making paper from scratch.

So I don't see why you'd be against recycling paper.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling

There are often a lot of subsidies placed on recycling sites which hides the true cost. Recycling the plastic bottles require a lot of energy. The plastic bottles quality becomes poorer and poorer everytime it's recycled. It costs more money for the local government to recycle then to throw the plastic away. So I doubt it's saving much money, if it's saving money at all.

Today most trees are grown specifically to be made into paper. Just like many people grow tomatos to make tomato sauce. Are tomatos endangered because we use them so often?

Most of the virgin pulp used to make paper is grown on tree farms. Those farms wouldn't of existed if we haven't used those trees to make paper. Infact we have more trees today then we had 70 years ago.

The fact is..... recycling does not save trees!

Trees are a renewable resource and infact, recycling paper is bad for the environment. Recycling is a manufacturing process.

A truck picks up the paper, maybe a second truck. It gets taken to a recycling centre that uses a lot of energy. This energy causes polluting smoke which damages the environment. More paper is taken to a paper mill, which can be over 100 miles away. The ink is removed and the paper is bleached. Which leaves behind a toxic chemical substance.

Landfills do produce methane gas, but what the people who work there do is collect the methane gas and then they send it over to an energy station where it produces electricity for homes.

http://www.appalachianwood.org/forestry.htm
http://www.recyclenow.com/why_recycling_matters/how_is_it_recycled/paper/
http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm
http://www.methanetomarkets.org/landfills/index.aspx

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There are often a lot of subsidies placed on recycling sites which hides the true cost. Recycling the plastic bottles require a lot of energy. The plastic bottles quality becomes poorer and poorer everytime it's recycled. It costs more money for the local government to recycle then to throw the plastic away. So I doubt it's saving much money, if it's saving money at all.

I never said it was saving money. Secondly, cheaper doesn't mean better. Coal is cheaper than solar power. Hint: It's worse.

And it really depends on what plastic you're talking about, as Sucumbio pointed out. And it also takes plenty of energy in the process of creating the plastic, refining the oil, transporting the oil, transporting the plastic - these all use up energy.

Today most trees are grown specifically to be made into paper. Just like many people grow tomatos to make tomato sauce. Are tomatos endangered because we use them so often?

Most of the virgin pulp used to make paper is grown on tree farms. Those farms wouldn't of existed if we haven't used those trees to make paper. Infact we have more trees today then we had 70 years ago.

The fact is..... recycling does not save trees!

Okay, I'm going to dispute that for a number of reasons. Firstly, as I said earlier, it is estimated that 81000 square kilometres of forest land can be saved if half the world's paper were recycled. So it's looking like it saves trees.

Secondly, most of the virgin pulp does not originate from tree farms. Only 16% is, around the world. 9% is old growth forests, and the rest is third generation and second generation forests. So, 9% of what we're logging is irreplaceable, you can replace it with second and third generation forest, but that's nowhere near as biodiverse.

And that point about how we had more trees? It seems as if that's a relatively biased source you've got it from. And furthermore, that doesn't take into account the massive drop-off in the level of old-growth forest. Plantation forests don't support wildlife, to anywhere near the extent that old-growth forests do. It's a monoculture, and unfortunately, replacing forest with monoculture is bad for the environment. Biodiversity takes a hit.

And then I realise, that in the 1940s there probably weren't as stringent restrictions on logging as there are now, and that recycling wasn't occurring then. So I don't really see your point.

Trees are a renewable resource and infact, recycling paper is bad for the environment. Recycling is a manufacturing process.

Yeah, I thought manufacturing paper was too, when I last checked.

A truck picks up the paper, maybe a second truck. It gets taken to a recycling centre that uses a lot of energy. This energy causes polluting smoke which damages the environment. More paper is taken to a paper mill, which can be over 100 miles away. The ink is removed and the paper is bleached. Which leaves behind a toxic chemical substance.

Yeah, as opposed to making new paper, which actually uses more energy despite this. You've got to cut down the trees, wood-chip it, take the wood chips to the pulp mill. Then you've got to turn the wood-chips into into pulp, and then turn it into paper. The forest your getting the wood can be a long way away. This process actually uses more energy than recycling. In fact De-inked recycled paper is actually the most efficient source of material for making paper. And according to the EPA, "Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity — enough energy to power the average American home for five months."

About the whole pollution point? As I said earlier:

Furthermore, the EPA has found that making recycled paper creates 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making paper from scratch.

Landfills do produce methane gas, but what the people who work there do is collect the methane gas and then they send it over to an energy station where it produces electricity for homes.

Yeah, but only 55% of the methane emitted is actually captured.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling
http://www.ecology.com/features/paperchase/index.html
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/182/1/Recycling-energy-savings.html
http://www.shredfast.com.au/office-recycling/paper-recycling.html
http://www.oberlin.edu/recycle/facts.html
http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/basics/index.htm#benefits

I have a number of credible sources backing up my claims that recycling saves energy, trees, and is beneficial to the environment. That's the reason I'm taking this position.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

****, ive been busy, Ill counter your arguement when I can.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I never said it was saving money. Secondly, cheaper doesn't mean better. Coal is cheaper than solar power. Hint: It's worse.

And it really depends on what plastic you're talking about, as Sucumbio pointed out. And it also takes plenty of energy in the process of creating the plastic, refining the oil, transporting the oil, transporting the plastic - these all use up energy.

So you do admit it's cheaper......



The benefits of recycling certain plastics don't out weigh the downfalls. A lot of energy is used to recycle plastic, don't forget that a lot of plastic gets recycled in China. It's shipped half way around the world to be recycled. I don't see how that differs much from oil being imported here. We can do a lot more with the oil then just use it to make plastic.

kay, I'm going to dispute that for a number of reasons. Firstly, as I said earlier, it is estimated that 81000 square kilometres of forest land can be saved if half the world's paper were recycled. So it's looking like it saves trees.

Secondly, most of the virgin pulp does not originate from tree farms. Only 16% is, around the world. 9% is old growth forests, and the rest is third generation and second generation forests. So, 9% of what we're logging is irreplaceable, you can replace it with second and third generation forest, but that's nowhere near as biodiverse.

And that point about how we had more trees? It seems as if that's a relatively biased source you've got it from. And furthermore, that doesn't take into account the massive drop-off in the level of old-growth forest. Plantation forests don't support wildlife, to anywhere near the extent that old-growth forests do. It's a monoculture, and unfortunately, replacing forest with monoculture is bad for the environment. Biodiversity takes a hit.

And then I realise, that in the 1940s there probably weren't as stringent restrictions on logging as there are now, and that recycling wasn't occurring then. So I don't really see your point.

Who made that estimation? I bet it was the EPA.

According to your statistics we don't get much of our paper from old growth forests. Cutting down those trees isn't very smart. Since most of our trees don't come from old growth forests anyway recycling won't help matters. For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. The more trees we have the more oxygen they send out and the more carbon dioxide they take in. I do know that matured trees do a better job at releasing oxygen (unless they're too old, then they do the opposite and must be cut down,) but for the amount of trees we plant on tree farms and other areas we may be able to overcome the loss of the amount of oxygen lost from the very tiny bit of cutting of matured trees. Then again recycling paper just adds more polution anyway so we won't be helping the old growth forest release more oxygen by sparing so few of them. How exactly would recycling help old growth forest? If you want more trees in the world, recycling does the opposite. I agree with you on biodiversity, but the point is that we use so little from these forests anyway. Recycling won't really help.

Also:
"In fact, the reason recycled paper costs more than fresh paper is because it uses more energy. In a free market economy, prices reflect production costs. Production costs include the cost of energy required, which is greater for recycling paper. Have you noticed that recycling centers pay for scrap aluminum but not for scrap paper? Recycling aluminum saves an enormous amount of energy. Businesses recognized this, saw they could produce aluminum cheaper by recycling, and so were willing to pay for scrap aluminum. Thus, in a free market a rule of thumb is: if it saves energy to recycle something, someone will pay you for it.

Now some recycling centers do pay for scrap paper, but not because it is profitable. The government is trying to promote recycling, and to do this they must subsidize it with tax money. In others words, if you are paid for scrap paper, you are paid with your own tax money to support an inherently wasteful process."

Yeah, as opposed to making new paper, which actually uses more energy despite this. You've got to cut down the trees, wood-chip it, take the wood chips to the pulp mill. Then you've got to turn the wood-chips into into pulp, and then turn it into paper. The forest your getting the wood can be a long way away. This process actually uses more energy than recycling. In fact De-inked recycled paper is actually the most efficient source of material for making paper. And according to the EPA, "Recycling 1 ton of paper saves 17 mature trees, 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, and 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity — enough energy to power the average American home for five months."

About the whole pollution point? As I said earlier:

Furthermore, the EPA has found that making recycled paper creates 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making paper from scratch.

Making paper from trees is a lot simpiler then recycling it. Recycling adds more steps. You seem to ignore the energy consumed by gathering the waste paper and transporting it to a recycling site. Recycling newspapers require much energy in order for old ink to be bleached from the pages. This leaves behind a highly toxic substance. This toxic waste amounts to about half a liter for each telephone book recycled. The burning of hydrocarbon fuels causes more air pollution.

"After a while, though, the tree reaches a point where it reaches a balance. The cast off leaves or needles fall and begin to decay. This decay process produces carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide used up by the tree eventually reaches parity with that being thrown off by decaying matter. When the tree dies, the balance shifts completely toward carbon dioxide production. If, however, the tree is turned into other products, the cycle changes."



The problem with the EPA is the amount of political interference involved which can make many statistcs regarding recycling faulty:

"WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists complain they have been victims of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" with low morale, especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they “suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science.” He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences."

Sources: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24276709/

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/recycle.html
http://julesmay.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/why-recycling-is-bad-for-the-environment/
http://www.lockjawslair.com/2005/06/02/paper-recycling-is-bad-for-your-butt-and-the-world/

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So you do admit it's cheaper......

I never said it was cheaper. I was saying that cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better.

The benefits of recycling certain plastics don't out weigh the downfalls. A lot of energy is used to recycle plastic, don't forget that a lot of plastic gets recycled in China. It's shipped half way around the world to be recycled. I don't see how that differs much from oil being imported here. We can do a lot more with the oil then just use it to make plastic.

Like I said earlier, there is a lot of energy that goes into creating plastics. Oil is what makes plastics, and it's got to be transported around the world, refined and taken to China for manufacture into plastic goods. Then these goods must be moved to the USA where they're being sold.

Shipping the plastic halfway around the world to China who recycles it all in the one place, involves less transport of goods, in comparison to shipping the refined oil from Saudi Arabia, to China, which turn the oil into plastic goods, which then are then shipped to the USA. There is one whole step left out.

Who made that estimation? I bet it was the EPA.

EarthWorks Group. 1990. “The Recycler’s Handbook”. Berkeley, CA: The EarthWorks Press.

According to your statistics we don't get much of our paper from old growth forests. Cutting down those trees isn't very smart. Since most of our trees don't come from old growth forests anyway recycling won't help matters.

Actually it would, it'd decrease the level of old-growth logging, by decreasing the demand for pulp. You'd have less plantation logging, and less old-growth logging. So however you look at it, you'd have more old-growth forests.

For every 13 trees "saved" by recycling, 87 will never get planted. The more trees we have the more oxygen they send out and the more carbon dioxide they take in. I do know that matured trees do a better job at releasing oxygen (unless they're too old, then they do the opposite and must be cut down,) but for the amount of trees we plant on tree farms and other areas we may be able to overcome the loss of the amount of oxygen lost from the very tiny bit of cutting of matured trees. Then again recycling paper just adds more polution anyway so we won't be helping the old growth forest release more oxygen by sparing so few of them. How exactly would recycling help old growth forest? If you want more trees in the world, recycling does the opposite. I agree with you on biodiversity, but the point is that we use so little from these forests anyway. Recycling won't really help.

However, 9% (the amount pulp derived from old-growth forests) is a large amount when your paper demand is excess of 300 million tonnes. Source.

Furthermore, the source you got that from is not a science organisation, nor an environmental organisation. It seems to be an economic think tank, I don't think they're too reliable on matters of science. The article is also 15 years old, I don't think it's too reliable.

Who made that estimation? I bet it was the EPA.

EarthWorks Group. 1990. “The Recycler’s Handbook”. Berkeley, CA: The EarthWorks Press.

According to your statistics we don't get much of our paper from old growth forests. Cutting down those trees isn't very smart. Since most of our trees don't come from old growth forests anyway recycling won't help matters.

Actually it would, it'd decrease the level of old-growth logging, by decreasing the demand for pulp. You'd have less plantation logging, and less old-growth logging. So however you look at it, you'd have more old-growth forests.

"In fact, the reason recycled paper costs more than fresh paper is because it uses more energy. In a free market economy, prices reflect production costs. Production costs include the cost of energy required, which is greater for recycling paper. Have you noticed that recycling centers pay for scrap aluminum but not for scrap paper? Recycling aluminum saves an enormous amount of energy. Businesses recognized this, saw they could produce aluminum cheaper by recycling, and so were willing to pay for scrap aluminum. Thus, in a free market a rule of thumb is: if it saves energy to recycle something, someone will pay you for it.

Now some recycling centers do pay for scrap paper, but not because it is profitable. The government is trying to promote recycling, and to do this they must subsidize it with tax money. In others words, if you are paid for scrap paper, you are paid with your own tax money to support an inherently wasteful process."

Firstly, price =/= energy. And why would a recycling centre pay for something it's already getting for free?

Secondly, the idea that recycling paper uses more energy is false. Recycling paper reduces energy consumption, by 28-78%, air pollution by 95%, and a whole lot of water. Depending on who you ask. Source.

Making paper from trees is a lot simpiler then recycling it. Recycling adds more steps. You seem to ignore the energy consumed by gathering the waste paper and transporting it to a recycling site. Recycling newspapers require much energy in order for old ink to be bleached from the pages. This leaves behind a highly toxic substance. This toxic waste amounts to about half a liter for each telephone book recycled. The burning of hydrocarbon fuels causes more air pollution.

Yeah, cutting down trees, wood-chipping them, transporting and pulping their remnants, and turning it into paper also uses plenty of energy too. Recycling doesn't add more steps. It adds different steps. Secondly, the pulp mills produce pollution as well. Bleaching the pulp is done to make the paper white, this produces chlorinated organic compounds including dioxins. Source. I would imagine that bleaching pulp does this far worse than recycling, as sometimes the ink from the paper can be dispersed throughout the pulp, discolouring it only slightly. I don't see this occurring with virgin paper. Source. Additionally, "De-inked paper fiber is the most efficient source of fiber for the manufacturing of new paper products; one ton of de-inked pulp saves over 7000 gallons of water, 390 gallons of oil, and reduces air emissions by 60 lbs compared to traditional virgin fiber processes." Source.

Look, it just seems that you're factoring in pollution and energy loss due transport and pulping on the recycling side, but not on the manufacturing side. It's not really a fair comparison you're making.

"After a while, though, the tree reaches a point where it reaches a balance. The cast off leaves or needles fall and begin to decay. This decay process produces carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide used up by the tree eventually reaches parity with that being thrown off by decaying matter. When the tree dies, the balance shifts completely toward carbon dioxide production. If, however, the tree is turned into other products, the cycle changes."

Yeah, but these stable forests are necessary for the preservation of biodiversity.

The problem with the EPA is the amount of political interference involved which can make many statistcs regarding recycling faulty:

"WASHINGTON — Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists complain they have been victims of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group.

The Union of Concerned Scientists said that more than half of the nearly 1,600 EPA staff scientists who responded online to a detailed questionnaire reported they had experienced incidents of political interference in their work.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar attributed some of the discontent to the "passion" scientists have toward their work. He said EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, as a longtime career scientist at the EPA himself, "weighs heavily the science given to him by the staff in making policy decisions."

But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" with low morale, especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations.

"The investigation shows researchers are generally continuing to do their work, but their scientific findings are tossed aside when it comes time to write regulations," said Grifo.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a letter sent Wednesday to Johnson, called the survey results disturbing and said they “suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science.” He said he planned to pursue the issue at an upcoming hearing by his Oversight and Government Reform Committee where Johnson is scheduled to testify.

The group sent an online questionnaire to 5,500 EPA scientists and received 1,586 responses, a majority of them senior scientists who have worked for the agency for 10 years or more. The survey included chemists, toxicologists, engineers, geologists and experts in the life and environmental sciences."

However, that doesn't invalidate the claims of the other organisation that is in support of this proposition. And furthermore, I don't think these concerned scientists are fussing about the problems with recycling. It seems to be only economic minded people who are worrying about it. I'll wager seeing as that was during the late Bush administration this may have had something to do with climate change and repression scientists concerned about it.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I never said it was cheaper. I was saying that cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better.



Like I said earlier, there is a lot of energy that goes into creating plastics. Oil is what makes plastics, and it's got to be transported around the world, refined and taken to China for manufacture into plastic goods. Then these goods must be moved to the USA where they're being sold.

Shipping the plastic halfway around the world to China who recycles it all in the one place, involves less transport of goods, in comparison to shipping the refined oil from Saudi Arabia, to China, which turn the oil into plastic goods, which then are then shipped to the USA. There is one whole step left out.

Do you know what happens in China? Much of the plastic gets burned away anyway. There goes clean air, the other "half" gets shredded and rendered into clothes like fleeces. It gets sent all the way back here. When our clothes get worn out, we throw them away. Did you know that 75% of non-biodegradable landfill is clothes? So it ends up as landfill anyway, in spite of all that transportation and processing. Waste plastic gives you worse quality stuff when you recycle it anyway.

So you end up with plastic that gets recycled into poorer quality items that just gets sent to the landfill anyway.

I'm not saying that landfilling is the better option, but recycling isn't the answer either......

It takes a lot of energy to turn trash into a useful state. Oil makes many things, like I said eariler...the transportation of oil isnt directly involved with the benfits of recycling because oil and other resources are needed to run recycling centres anyway.

Recycling is supposed to be the better solution. But I say, we should design our garbage so it isn't garbage. Glass bottles are a better solution. Instead of recycling plastics that can affect our health badly and worsen the environment we should use different materials....

Actually it would, it'd decrease the level of old-growth logging, by decreasing the demand for pulp. You'd have less plantation logging, and less old-growth logging. So however you look at it, you'd have more old-growth forests.

Less of a demand for pulp= less plantation logging= less trees being planted= less trees= less oxygen= more carbon

Furthermore, the source you got that from is not a science organisation, nor an environmental organisation. It seems to be an economic think tank, I don't think they're too reliable on matters of science. The article is also 15 years old, I don't think it's too reliable.

What source u talkin about?

Firstly, price =/= energy. And why would a recycling centre pay for something it's already getting for free?

Secondly, the idea that recycling paper uses more energy is false. Recycling paper reduces energy consumption, by 28-78%, air pollution by 95%, and a whole lot of water. Depending on who you ask. Source.

It a lot of cases it does......And I think the person means "pay you for scrap paper...."

Yeah, cutting down trees, wood-chipping them, transporting and pulping their remnants, and turning it into paper also uses plenty of energy too. Recycling doesn't add more steps. It adds different steps. Secondly, the pulp mills produce pollution as well. Bleaching the pulp is done to make the paper white, this produces chlorinated organic compounds including dioxins. Source. I would imagine that bleaching pulp does this far worse than recycling, as sometimes the ink from the paper can be dispersed throughout the pulp, discolouring it only slightly. I don't see this occurring with virgin paper. Source. Additionally, "De-inked paper fiber is the most efficient source of fiber for the manufacturing of new paper products; one ton of de-inked pulp saves over 7000 gallons of water, 390 gallons of oil, and reduces air emissions by 60 lbs compared to traditional virgin fiber processes." Source.

Look, it just seems that you're factoring in pollution and energy loss due transport and pulping on the recycling side, but not on the manufacturing side. It's not really a fair comparison you're making.

Those paper fibers can only be recycled 4-6 times. Bleaching occurs in recycling too. As technology developes, it's becoming easier and easier to make paper. It is very hard to determine the exact amount of energy being saved or wasted by recycling, mostly because of bias on both sides.........

"Further, the prices of virgin raw materials used to make other commonly recycled goods like plastic, glass and aluminum continue to drop, reflecting the growing abundance of these materials as ever-improving technology makes them easier and cheaper to develop. Often significantly cheaper than the cost of recovering the same material from recycled goods."

Source:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart110599.asp

Also:
"In fact, recycling is almost certainly worse for the environment than landfilling. After all, the process of extracting usable raw material from a manufactured product is an industrial activity every bit as involved as the process of combining various raw materials to manufacture a product in the first place. Both processes are energy and chemically intensive. And both create waste."

Source:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/402/Recycling_Its_a_bad_idea_in_New_York.html

However, that doesn't invalidate the claims of the other organisation that is in support of this proposition. And furthermore, I don't think these concerned scientists are fussing about the problems with recycling. It seems to be only economic minded people who are worrying about it. I'll wager seeing as that was during the late Bush administration this may have had something to do with climate change and repression scientists concerned about it.

If the government can heavily influence the Enviromental Protection Agency, others will follow. Left wing ideology is what's being promoted.

What you just said was complete opinion without any proof. It's very sad that an agency that has huge responsibilities is being corrupted. Any of their so called findings are false......but if you want to use the EPA as a reliable resource then heres what they also say...The Environmental Protection Agency reported some years ago that 13 of America's 50 worst Superfund sites are or were recycling facilities.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Do you know what happens in China? Much of the plastic gets burned away anyway. There goes clean air, the other "half" gets shredded and rendered into clothes like fleeces. It gets sent all the way back here. When our clothes get worn out, we throw them away. Did you know that 75% of non-biodegradable landfill is clothes? So it ends up as landfill anyway, in spite of all that transportation and processing. Waste plastic gives you worse quality stuff when you recycle it anyway.

So you end up with plastic that gets recycled into poorer quality items that just gets sent to the landfill anyway.

However, it gets used twice. Twice. That means we don't have create those clothes we'd need anyway, we just reuse material from something else.

I'm not saying that landfilling is the better option, but recycling isn't the answer either......

Well, look it really depends on a number of things. When your waste is nearly unrecycleable (may have just coined a word there), you can incinerate it to produce energy. I think in a few cases, it may be worth while. It's by far better than landfilling it.

It takes a lot of energy to turn trash into a useful state. Oil makes many things, like I said eariler...the transportation of oil isnt directly involved with the benfits of recycling because oil and other resources are needed to run recycling centres anyway.

Yes, but oil is also needed to create said goods and transport them. I think recycling makes a saving.

Recycling is supposed to be the better solution. But I say, we should design our garbage so it isn't garbage. Glass bottles are a better solution. Instead of recycling plastics that can affect our health badly and worsen the environment we should use different materials....

That's a good idea. We need to do away with this throw-away society of ours.

Less of a demand for pulp= less plantation logging= less trees being planted= less trees= less oxygen= more carbon

On the other hand: more energy needed for pulping = more fossil fuels burnt = more air pollution (pulping and at the power station) and CO2.

And another thing, we get most of our oxygen from algae, so aren't really that big a deal when it comes to oxygen.

What source u talkin about?

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=212

It a lot of cases it does......And I think the person means "pay you for scrap paper...."

Yeah, I know what it meant. But I think the point still stands.

Those paper fibers can only be recycled 4-6 times. Bleaching occurs in recycling too. As technology developes, it's becoming easier and easier to make paper. It is very hard to determine the exact amount of energy being saved or wasted by recycling, mostly because of bias on both sides.........

Sure, there's a finite number of times that the paper can be recycled. But, the fact is, that from most sources that seem to do calculations (the ones I've shown you earlier), show that recycling paper saves energy.

"Further, the prices of virgin raw materials used to make other commonly recycled goods like plastic, glass and aluminum continue to drop, reflecting the growing abundance of these materials as ever-improving technology makes them easier and cheaper to develop. Often significantly cheaper than the cost of recovering the same material from recycled goods."
Source:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart110599.asp

Cheaper =/= Better. It doesn't mean anything. And furthermore, this article here seems to suggest that recycling is economically efficient. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r461lju585760316/

Also:
"In fact, recycling is almost certainly worse for the environment than landfilling. After all, the process of extracting usable raw material from a manufactured product is an industrial activity every bit as involved as the process of combining various raw materials to manufacture a product in the first place. Both processes are energy and chemically intensive. And both create waste."

Source:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/402/Recycling_Its_a_bad_idea_in_New_York.html

Are you kidding? The raw materials often need to be refined, processed, and then turned into a useable product. At least with recycled goods, especially metals, the products are the same or similar chemically the products produced from them. This means that less needs to be done to the recycled goods to make them into useable goods again.

If the government can heavily influence the Enviromental Protection Agency, others will follow. Left wing ideology is what's being promoted.

Left-Wing Ideology promoted through the EPA? Talk about complete opinion without any proof. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that the studies done by these different organisation are separate and don't really influence each other. And why left wing ideology? Isn't it an environmental ideology, seeing as environmental organisations are pushing it? And why is it the right wing pro-large-business sites are arguing against recycling? They're not environmental or science websites.

Source.Source 2.Source 3

What you just said was complete opinion without any proof. It's very sad that an agency that has huge responsibilities is being corrupted. Any of their so called findings are false......but if you want to use the EPA as a reliable resource then heres what they also say...The Environmental Protection Agency reported some years ago that 13 of America's 50 worst Superfund sites are or were recycling facilities.

Source?

And also, here is a European site that claims, among other things, that recycling paper is beneficial to the environment.

Recycling paper protects the environment:

• It is considerably more environmentally compatible to recycle waste paper for new paper production than it is to burn waste paper for energy production. Environmentally speaking, the least favorable solution is to dispose of waste paper in rubbish dumps.
• It is considerably more environmentally compatible to manufacture graphical paper out of waste paper than it is to use virgin fibers with wood as the raw material.

Glass as well:

Recycling glass protects the environment:
Recycling reduces the amount of waste glass going to landfill. At least 1.5 million tons of glass still go into landfill sites each year, where it doesn't degrade and remain in the environment. It takes about 1 million years for a glass bottle to break down at the landfill.
Glass recycling saves 4 to 32% of energy. It can also lead to 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution in glass manufacturing.

Along with Plastics:

Recycling plastics protects the environment

As for paper, the debate is fierce between plastics recycling supporters and incineration defenders. This may explain the diversity of results of LCA studies performed on plastic waste recycling and energy recovery. Unfortunately, these different studies show diverging results.

Plastic waste treatment hierarchy
The Öko-Institut reviews ten of the most important LCA studies on plastic recycling. This review further justify the waste management hierarchy for plastic waste that is:
1. Mechanical and monomer recycling
2. Feedstock recycling and mono-incineration
3. Waste incineration with energy recovery
4. Landfill

For HDPE, LDPE, PET, PP, PS and EPS, Eco-indicators 99 also confirms the waste management hierarchy: the most environmental friendly option is the recycling followed by incineration and the landfilling takes the third place.

For PVC the recycling is the best environmental option followed by landfilling. The incineration of PVC is considered as the worst option.

 

[Genexican]

I was just brought up in a kind of family that was pretty over the top and crazy about recycling, so while I can#t really say what the benefits are (other than preserving the environment n' all that), I'm pretty damn use to it. And hey, it's been working out for me in my life so far.