Gallons per mile, not MPG

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

and yet you expect them to understand the significance of your hyperbolic curve?

I don't really... But if you can just give them a number, gallons per mile, instead of MPG, they can easily see that 3 is bigger than 2, and 2.2 vs 2.3 isn't a very big difference.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

and you're going to leave it at that?

no explanation, no link to a story, no "I heard..........."

??

Which part are you confused about? The lack of economic benefits of recycling? That's pretty easy, how much shit can you take to a recycling center and get unsubsidized money for. The answer, in case you don't know, is ONLY aluminum. That's why homeless people grab cans instead of other garbage from the trash. $15 billion in annual federal funds go to recycling nationally, and most states also subsidize their recycling further. That isn't so they can afford ping pong tables in the break rooms, it's because there is NO economic viability in recycling (not counting aluminum, of course).

This goes on to prove the lack of need to save landfill space. Not only do we have TONS of land in America, but if we WERE running out of landfill space, it would be economically viable for the people making the landfills to recycle. Landfills now-a-days aren't like the ones 30 years ago that would leak toxic chemicals into ground water. They are basically plastic-lined bowls filled with trash then covered with earth to make parks or golf courses or whatever.

As far as environmental benefits, paper especially requires nasty and horrible chemicals in order to get reused. And the "save trees" thing is retarded as well because paper companies aren't going around cutting down rainforests for paper, they plant trees FOR paper. There are farms of trees specifically to be used for paper. To get mad about them being cut down is no different than getting mad when cows go to slaughter for food. They are raised for that purpose.

Things such as glass and plastics have high yield for recycling with little pollution, but still lack economic viability. Plastics, I believe, will become more viable as the price of oil increases, but until then you are only wasting tax dollars the more you recycle.

The entire movement is supposed to be about not wasting, but that's all it ends up doing. It wastes money, time, and resources.

[Ardentfrost]

Here's a decent article too. A bit long, but it talks about the wastefulness of recycling

Recycling Is Garbage - New York Times

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Which part are you confused about? The lack of economic benefits of recycling? That's pretty easy, how much shit can you take to a recycling center and get unsubsidized money for. The answer, in case you don't know, is ONLY aluminum. That's why homeless people grab cans instead of other garbage from the trash. $15 billion in annual federal funds go to recycling nationally, and most states also subsidize their recycling further. That isn't so they can afford ping pong tables in the break rooms, it's because there is NO economic viability in recycling (not counting aluminum, of course).

This goes on to prove the lack of need to save landfill space. Not only do we have TONS of land in America, but if we WERE running out of landfill space, it would be economically viable for the people making the landfills to recycle. Landfills now-a-days aren't like the ones 30 years ago that would leak toxic chemicals into ground water. They are basically plastic-lined bowls filled with trash then covered with earth to make parks or golf courses or whatever.

As far as environmental benefits, paper especially requires nasty and horrible chemicals in order to get reused. And the "save trees" thing is retarded as well because paper companies aren't going around cutting down rainforests for paper, they plant trees FOR paper. There are farms of trees specifically to be used for paper. To get mad about them being cut down is no different than getting mad when cows go to slaughter for food. They are raised for that purpose.

Things such as glass and plastics have high yield for recycling with little pollution, but still lack economic viability. Plastics, I believe, will become more viable as the price of oil increases, but until then you are only wasting tax dollars the more you recycle.

The entire movement is supposed to be about not wasting, but that's all it ends up doing. It wastes money, time, and resources.

My friend tried make this argument with me a while back, I looked it up with him and found out it's actually a fallacy. Almost every form of recycling requires significantly less energy and pollution. The only added costs associated are in the extra hands it has to go through in sorting. So basically it's only more expensive because polluting is cheaper then hiring a couple guys to sift through garbage.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

My friend tried make this argument with me a while back, I looked it up with him and found out it's actually a fallacy. Almost every form of recycling requires significantly less energy and pollution. The only added costs associated are in the extra hands it has to go through in sorting. So basically it's only more expensive because polluting is cheaper then hiring a couple guys to sift through garbage.

Present the evidence. But even IF it's less polluting to recycle, it's still a wasteful practice. And if it did take less energy to recycle than to create new, it wouldn't cost us billions annually in tax dollars.

So either pull the funding for recycling and it'll stay around and everything I have claimed is wrong...

Or pull the funding for recycling and most of it goes away and I'm right.

Either way, pull the funding for recycling.

[Ardentfrost]

Plus there's stuff like this...

Chemicals From Recycled Cardboard May Contaminate Take-out Food, Researchers Say

Can't really use recycled paper stuffs in foodgrade materials. Dangerous chemicals!

I did some work for a paperboard company earlier this year. They have 15 paper plants, only one is for recycled paper. They can offer those at a lower price because of government subsidy, but since use is limited, their demand is dominated by new paper. Additionally, paper can only be recycled once (according to that paper company). After that it must be landfilled (or burned).

And paper is CLAIMED to be more energy efficient when recycled, but that information is really muddled from what I'm seeing here. The kraft process of new paper creation uses excess wood parts (bark and roots and whatnot) as an energy source and therefore claims to use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint than recycling which just purchases power from whatever is local (usually fossil fuel-fired power plants).

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Present the evidence. But even IF it's less polluting to recycle, it's still a wasteful practice. And if it did take less energy to recycle than to create new, it wouldn't cost us billions annually in tax dollars.

So either pull the funding for recycling and it'll stay around and everything I have claimed is wrong...

Or pull the funding for recycling and most of it goes away and I'm right.

Either way, pull the funding for recycling.

All about: Recycling - CNN.com

There are some fairly persuasive arguments for recycling, and for using recycled goods. Energy savings is just one of them. By reusing existing materials you are essentially removing the process involved in sourcing the "virgin materials" in the first place.
Take soda cans, made from aluminum. According to Friends of the Earth, creating a ton of these from scratch takes five times the amount of energy as it would to produce a ton of recycled cans. According to the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), the companies that manufacture recycled aluminum are using 95 percent less energy than if they were using "virgin materials." (For plastics the energy savings are almost as high -- 80 percent, BIR says, while making paper from recycled paper (as opposed to wood) can save 64 percent of energy.)



Not surprisingly, recycling also impacts pollution levels. BIR says producing paper from recycled paper as opposed to wood can slash air pollution by as much as 74 percent and water pollution by 35 percent; while manufacturing recycled steel results in 86 percent less air pollution.






Not a first hand resource, but I'm at work so I don't have time right now to find good numbers. Cost is not a direct metric for environmental effect. Most pollution is low cost to a manufacturer and cost of labor is greater than cost of energy. So yes, Aluminum is extremely efficient in recycling and therefor is financially viable. Recycling other materials is efficient from a environmental standpoint, but some are not from a cost standpoint. That doesn't make it a worthless effort.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Plus there's stuff like this...

Chemicals From Recycled Cardboard May Contaminate Take-out Food, Researchers Say

Can't really use recycled paper stuffs in foodgrade materials. Dangerous chemicals!

I did some work for a paperboard company earlier this year. They have 15 paper plants, only one is for recycled paper. They can offer those at a lower price because of government subsidy, but since use is limited, their demand is dominated by new paper. Additionally, paper can only be recycled once (according to that paper company). After that it must be landfilled (or burned).

And paper is CLAIMED to be more energy efficient when recycled, but that information is really muddled from what I'm seeing here. The kraft process of new paper creation uses excess wood parts (bark and roots and whatnot) as an energy source and therefore claims to use less energy and have a smaller carbon footprint than recycling which just purchases power from whatever is local (usually fossil fuel-fired power plants).

I know we do recycle alot of the plastic bottles. That type of plastic is used to create other products like polar fleece.
Recycling paper seems stupid to me. Paper is biodegradeable. It goes back into the environment. Why should we use dangerous chemicals to recover some paper when it's more environmentally friendly to grow more trees? Trees are carbon sinks. they absorb carbon. As long as we don't burn the paper it seems like a much better alternative to let it break down naturally.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I know we do recycle alot of the plastic bottles. That type of plastic is used to create other products like polar fleece.
Recycling paper seems stupid to me. Paper is biodegradeable. It goes back into the environment. Why should we use dangerous chemicals to recover some paper when it's more environmentally friendly to grow more trees? Trees are carbon sinks. they absorb carbon. As long as we don't burn the paper it seems like a much better alternative to let it break down naturally.

Well for the sake of argument it takes dangerous chemicals to make paper in the first place. The idea is it uses less chemicals/energy to recycle than to create new, and thats true for just about every recycled material.

[Ardentfrost]

Don't use aluminum as an example of good-to-recycle materials. I have already said that one is better to recycle than to make new (I even used it as the example of what homeless people go through the trash to get).

I heard just today that some people are going through home owners' sorted recyclables on trash day grabbing up cans. I think they said "stealing trash" which I thought was funny

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Recycling paper seems stupid to me. Paper is biodegradeable. It goes back into the environment.

huh?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-90.html

In two years of digging in seven landfills all across America, in which they sorted and weighed every item in 16,000 pounds of garbage, Rathje discovered that fast-food containers take up less than 1/10th of one percent of the space; less than 1% was disposable diapers. All plastics totalled less than 5%. (The) real culprit is paper – especially telephone books and newspapers. And there is little biodegradation. He found 1952 newspapers still fresh and readable.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I know we do recycle alot of the plastic bottles. That type of plastic is used to create other products like polar fleece.
Recycling paper seems stupid to me. Paper is biodegradeable. It goes back into the environment. Why should we use dangerous chemicals to recover some paper when it's more environmentally friendly to grow more trees? Trees are carbon sinks. they absorb carbon. As long as we don't burn the paper it seems like a much better alternative to let it break down naturally.

That's how I've felt for a long time about paper. Even more since I found out at most it's good for one more use. The deforestation reasoning used throughout the 90's was complete bullshit though.

I don't really know a lot about plastics and glass though. It seems it should just be heat that does it, but who knows. I guess it takes energy to heat them up to melt them down, then they gotta be cleaned and whatnot. It's still not economically viable or, like I've said, you could get cash for it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

huh?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-90.html

In two years of digging in seven landfills all across America, in which they sorted and weighed every item in 16,000 pounds of garbage, Rathje discovered that fast-food containers take up less than 1/10th of one percent of the space; less than 1% was disposable diapers. All plastics totalled less than 5%. (The) real culprit is paper – especially telephone books and newspapers. And there is little biodegradation. He found 1952 newspapers still fresh and readable.

If he's talking about landfilled paper, those things are NOT made for biodegradation. As a matter of fact, they do NOT want anything to biodegrade in the landfills because it creates methane gas which can cause bubbles after they cap them off which can pop and release all that methane.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I guess it takes energy to heat them up to melt them down, then they gotta be cleaned and whatnot. It's still not economically viable or, like I've said, you could get cash for it.

it must not be viable because if it was then you'd get money for it? which fallacious argument is that?


and btw, it uses 40% less energy and creates less pollution to recycle glass

NRDC: Too Good To Throw Away - Chapter 1

In the case of virgin glass production, for example, the pollution from energy production causes 97 percent of the total environmental effects. Since glass produced from secondary material uses about 40 percent less energy, there is a corresponding reduction in pollution from the glass recycling process compared with glass manufacturing processes that use only virgin materials.[79]

79. Does The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy Make Sense?, John Schall, Working Paper Number 1, (New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Program on Solid Waste Policy, 1992).

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Don't use aluminum as an example of good-to-recycle materials. I have already said that one is better to recycle than to make new (I even used it as the example of what homeless people go through the trash to get).

I heard just today that some people are going through home owners' sorted recyclables on trash day grabbing up cans. I think they said "stealing trash" which I thought was funny

"So yes, Aluminum is extremely efficient in recycling and therefor is financially viable. Recycling other materials is efficient from a environmental standpoint, but some are not from a cost standpoint. That doesn't make it a worthless effort."

I wasn't pointing to aluminum. I was explaining the difference you were trying to make about aluminum.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by 7960

it must not be viable because if it was then you'd get money for it? which fallacious argument is that?


and btw, it uses 40% less energy and creates less pollution to recycle glass

NRDC: Too Good To Throw Away - Chapter 1

In the case of virgin glass production, for example, the pollution from energy production causes 97 percent of the total environmental effects. Since glass produced from secondary material uses about 40 percent less energy, there is a corresponding reduction in pollution from the glass recycling process compared with glass manufacturing processes that use only virgin materials.[79]

79. Does The Solid Waste Management Hierarchy Make Sense?, John Schall, Working Paper Number 1, (New Haven: Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Program on Solid Waste Policy, 1992).

Cool, if it is economically viable, then let's pull recycling subsidizing monies!

Hey man, I'm all about recycling as long as it's not wasteful. Right now we're wasting resources overall.

But the FACT is that the only places in the country you can get money for a glass bottle is when that state subsidizes it further than the federal gov't does (I think Mass and a couple others do that for glass).

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Cool, if it is economically viable, then let's pull recycling subsidizing monies!

Hey man, I'm all about recycling as long as it's not wasteful. Right now we're wasting resources overall.

But the FACT is that the only places in the country you can get money for a glass bottle is when that state subsidizes it further than the federal gov't does (I think Mass and a couple others do that for glass).

Your not in the mood to actually read what people are writing today are you.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

"So yes, Aluminum is extremely efficient in recycling and therefor is financially viable. Recycling other materials is efficient from a environmental standpoint, but some are not from a cost standpoint. That doesn't make it a worthless effort."

I wasn't pointing to aluminum. I was explaining the difference you were trying to make about aluminum.

ah. Yeah, aluminum is a great recyclable material and always has been

I remember growing up someone said that if you filled a milk jug with the opener part on Coke cans, you could get $100. I was like "sweet, easy money!" and would throw the can away in the trash, just reserving the little tab. I got it like 25% filled... I probably could have made way more recycling all those cans I threw away.