(no subject)

[ghini]

I watched an interesting episode of Penn & Tellers show "Bullshit" on recycling. They spent a lot of time talking about a paper (summed up here) called "The Eight Myths of Recycling " which explains how the recycling movement has a ton of bad ideas behind it. Some points I found very interesting:

The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests is more than 20 times the number of trees consumed by the world each year for wood and paper.

In virtually all cases, recycling materials requires more energy and produces more pollution than acquiring new materials and manufacturing with them.

There is exactly one material that is more profitable and environmentally friendly to recycle: aluminum. That's why a homeless guy will pick up aluminum cans and won't take plastic, newspapers, etc.

The recycling industry is supported by an estimated $8 billion in government subsidies.

Comments

[uglor.livejournal.com]

From the article:

"Where loss of forest land is taking place, as in tropical rain forests, it can be traced directly to a lack of private property rights. Governments have used forests, especially the valuable tropical ones, as an easy way to raise quick cash. Wherever private property rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing. More recycling of paper or cardboard would not eliminate tropical forest losses."

Penn is a grumpy bastard, but the main data was taken from other sources. There is a difference between conservation and recycling. Conservation I can understand. Recycling, at least in it's current state, is bullshit like the show said. :)

I'd argue that with the recycling industry getting $8 billion of our tax dollars a year for a good long while now, they should either have figured it out, or give up. No amount of R&D will figure out a way around entropy.

[eneref.livejournal.com]

I wasn't referring to tropical rain forests. Obviously, pine is neither a new nor old growth there in tropical climes.

[quandry.livejournal.com]

Some data. Yes, yes, it's from those _evil_ foresters! But you know, the environmentalists make money off their propaganda too, so don't trust it either. Anyway, apparently a large percentage of paper is already recycled, and within the US anyway, trees are replanted at a rate that replaces the ones cut down. This organization puts American paper recycling at about 48 percent.

from: http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures.htm

Growth/Harvesting:
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/growth_harvesting.pdf

Recycling:
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/recycling.pdf


The site is extensive, and worth poking around.

[eneref.livejournal.com]

Again... they compare trees as all the same... which they're not. The American Forestry and Paper industry is hardly an unskewed source. :)

A forest of white oak to them is just a forest of trees... easily replaced by pines.

But it's not quite that cut and dry number for number.

[notgruntled.livejournal.com]

But to put that $8 billion in perspective, how much do governments -- local, state, and federal -- spend on maintaining landfills and incinerators and toting waste to them?

New York City alone spends about $1 billion a year on sanitation. My best WAG is that if that $8 billion nationwide cuts the waste stream by even a few percent, it pays for itself.

If anybody has real numbers, I'd be glad to see them.

And I'm certainly open to third-way alternatives other than recycling or landfilling -- if someone comes up with an efficient and affordable home generator, I'd be glad to stoke it with the massive junk mail that piles up at Chez Notgruntled.