At the risk of upsetting the eco-nazis, let's discuss how recycling programs are nothing more than ways of indoctrinating people into becoming environmentalists. Why do I say that? First of all, it is not efficient by market standards. Secondly, it DOESN'T EVEN REDUCE POLLUTION as more fuels are burned by transporting, sorting, and recycling the materials than just creating new ones and dumping them in landfills. So if it's not economically beneficial and not environmentally beneficial, there must be some purpose. What is the real purpose then?
__________________
no taxation without representation!
Lets feed him a different diet.
OMG you are sooooo right Chase. Recycling must just be a Neo Nazi plot for wealth re-distribution, well, a mix of Nazi and Commie brainwashing. You are so smart. Tell us more please.
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
Lets feed him a different diet.
OMG you are sooooo right Chase. Recycling must just be a Neo Nazi plot for wealth re-distribution, well, a mix of Nazi and Commie brainwashing. You are so smart. Tell us more please.
Obviously the purpose of the RRRR* campaign is to indoctrinate the nation's youth into loving socialism and of course, Chairman Mao, the inventor of socialist recyclism. How else do you propose implementing the ultimate goal of killing the nation's elderly and making Esperanto the national language?
Haven't you been getting the daily Socialist Agenda faxed to you?
*RRRR Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Redistribute-wealth
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Obviously the purpose of the RRRR* campaign is to indoctrinate the nation's youth into loving socialism and of course, Chairman Mao, the inventor of socialist recyclism. How else do you propose implementing the ultimate goal of killing the nation's elderly and making Esperanto the national language?
Haven't you been getting the daily Socialist Agenda faxed to you?
*RRRR Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Redistribute-wealth
No no no no NO. The ultimate goal is less landfills, so as to have more room for fema camps. There needs to be a place to put the (white) people that will not fall in line with the indoctrination.
Remember liberals are socialist, fascist, and racist.
__________________
"There is a fine line between clever and stupid" David St. Hubbins
No no no no NO. The ultimate goal is less landfills, so as to have more room for fema camps. There needs to be a place to put the (white) people that will not fall in line with the indoctrination.
Remember liberals are socialist, fascist, and racist.
Gol Durn it, my fax is from last Wednesday. I'm going to have to use my secret direct line to George Soros' secret underground lair and give him a right talking to. Thanks for the heads up!
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
1) It's not profitable. That's why it has to be subsidized with our tax dollars, and we're not selling our trash instead of dumping it on the curb.
2) It isn't environmentally friendly. It takes more energy to recycle things than it does to just create new ones. Penn and Teller called them out on Bull****, but nobody has refuted any of it. Instead it seems that it's just been ignored.
__________________
no taxation without representation!
Speaking about selling trash: a really big profitable business sprang up in the last decade - only to drop in this recession - of selling recyclable trash to China. 11 million tons of trash in 2008.They make stuff out of it and sell it back here. Oh, using money we borrowed from them, but that's another story altogether. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6897231.stm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/bu...12recycle.html
I work for a computer manufacturer, and can tell you that in this industry it is absolutely a fact that recycling material saves money and reduces pollution.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
1) It's not profitable. That's why it has to be subsidized with our tax dollars, and we're not selling our trash instead of dumping it on the curb.
2) It isn't environmentally friendly. It takes more energy to recycle things than it does to just create new ones. Penn and Teller called them out on Bull****, but nobody has refuted any of it. Instead it seems that it's just been ignored.
ok, i'll bite
1) recycling everything is clearly not a good idea. but there are some things that are recyclable that do conserve and save money, as was pointed out on the penn and teller show that gets its name muted by the forum filters.
2) there's more to recycling than just what you say, than just basic profit motivations. there are good reasons to prevent certain things from just being dumped in landfills that are worth money. recycling some materials instead of putting them in the ground and seeping into groundwater reserves and causing general pollution is worth taxpayer dollars.
1) It's not profitable. That's why it has to be subsidized with our tax dollars, and we're not selling our trash instead of dumping it on the curb.
I guess the important point is to define the goals of a recycling program.
If the intention is purely profit-driven, and one assumes that resources are inexhaustible, and that either everything is bio-degradable or that our ability to dispose of waste is infinite, then recycling is less attractive.
Since resources are not inexhaustible and our ability to dispose of waste is not infinite and (aside from paper) most recycling candidates are not bio-degradable, recycling becomes more appropriate.
Ideally recycling should be considered part of a continuum of "reduce, reuse, recycle, landfill". I don't recycle as much these days since I shop for less packaging and try to get packaging that can be reused. Actual landfill-bound trash is really minimal for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chase
2) It isn't environmentally friendly. It takes more energy to recycle things than it does to just create new ones. Penn and Teller called them out on Bull****, but nobody has refuted any of it. Instead it seems that it's just been ignored.
This depends a lot on what you're recycling. The energy input required to smelt aluminum from bauxite, for example, is significantly greater than the energy input required to re-melt metallic aluminum. Metals in general tend to be better to recycle than to mine and smelt because of the ecological impact of mining and the energy required to isolate the metals from their respective ores. Additionally recycling heavy metals like lead helps keep them out of ground water, which is generally considered a good thing.
Recycled plastics tend to be a lower quality than their previous generations, so there tends to be a finite cycle there, but it's generally preferable to reduce the landfilling of completely things that never bio-degrade.
As far as paper and glass, I haven't seen any comparison of energy requirements for recycling vs creating new, but certainly with paper, recycled pulp means less bleaching which means less dioxin and other toxic byproducts as well as less clearcutting and deforestation and the associated environmental impact of the whole lumber industry. Energy input isn't the only consideration when assessing environmental impact.
Besides transportation costs and emissions it seems counter-intuitive that taking a product that's nearer to the desired result should require more energy than producing something from scratch (with the exception of synthesizing plastics). Do you have some data that confirms that it does?
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Linear Mode
