The case for recycling

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force

[/ QUOTE ]

Violations of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Violations of sound regulations (though more are certainly needed) to ensure that a naturally renewing resource isn't destroyed.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Recycling paper is just stupid from what I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may actually be *bad* for the environment, from a greenhouse gas perspective.

Trees are carbon sinks. But young trees suck up a LOT more carbon than old trees. When trees are harvested, new trees are planted. The carbon in those old trees is then "locked up" in wood products (trees in a forrest can still re-release their carbon if they (e.g.) burn in a forrest fire, while things like houses and furniture don't really burn that frequently). And paper in a landfill is pretty dang locked up - it's got a very low probability of burning and re-releasing it's carbon back into the atmosphere.

When you recycle paper, you're reducing the rate at which trees are cut down and replanted. You're slowing down the carbon sinking process.

[/ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my biology teacher told me when I was a freshman in college that trees release about as much carbon when they decompose as (editthey collect when they were living. I would assume the same is true of paper.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, my biology teacher told me when I was a freshman in college that trees release about as much carbon when they decompose as when they were living. I would assume the same is true of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roughly, yeah. Also because of the decomposition, landfills are a huge source of methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

In theory the best thing to do with paper would probably be to burn it and use the energy in some way.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, my biology teacher told me when I was a freshman in college that trees release about as much carbon when they decompose as when they were living. I would assume the same is true of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roughly, yeah. Also because of the decomposition, landfills are a huge source of methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

In theory the best thing to do with paper would probably be to burn it and use the energy in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen several landfills that collect the methane and burn it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force, and forgive me if I don't for one second believe that if that force wasn't there then things would work out anyway - this clearly isn't so when you look at uncontrolled waters.

This isn't an issue which can be trivialized - when there is no control these things happen - and yes, it can destroy one of the worlds's greatest resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you answer the question please?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, my biology teacher told me when I was a freshman in college that trees release about as much carbon when they decompose as when they were living. I would assume the same is true of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roughly, yeah. Also because of the decomposition, landfills are a huge source of methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

In theory the best thing to do with paper would probably be to burn it and use the energy in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen several landfills that collect the methane and burn it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. In principle the government should be able to make this happen in all new landfills.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I believe that is a concept a bit above your understanding of the principles of human behavior and economics.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like this guy, who was so hurt by welfare that, when it was cut off, he transcended humanity and went to a better place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The system made him dependant on the system and then he was unable to deal with the real world on his own when the system withdrew its "support."

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. He wasn't alone and seems to be part of a pattern in Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

A pattern that didn't exist before welfare?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've seen several landfills that collect the methane and burn it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. In principle the government should be able to make this happen in all new landfills.

[/ QUOTE ]
My environmental firm does a lot of landfill work. Landfills are not supposed to be releasing methane. All newer landfills have gas collection systems to collect methane and burn it. Increasingly, instead of burning it, the methane is used as natural gas to heat buildings, although this is difficult because landfill gas contains other gasses as well.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like a minimal percentage of genocide is acceptable in glorious statismtopia.

Yes, this goes both ways.