Recycling?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 20



Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 4,728
OFFLINE

If you think recycling is the savior of Earth, watch this video.

I’m not trying to convert anyone, and I’m not totally sure myself, but it is something to think about and research, so I thought I’d show it:

Is recycling truly great?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,456
OFFLINE

I don’t think recycling is the savior of Earth, but I watched the video anyway.

Some points:

I already know that recycling takes a great deal of energy, and requires in most cases, more government spending then for garbage.

I also know that world isn’t only made up of economics which is essentially what these two have reduced it down too.

When I was a child I learned that it was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
The idea being that you buy less waste to begin with, reuse what you can and recycle the rest.

It’s great that they went to one very very high-tek, large garbage waste dump. Most are not like that. Environment regulations are very high for waste facilities...but you’d be a fool to think that they’re always followed or enforced. It’s about money...people will try to get away with what then can.

Burying garbage is not good for the environment no matter how pretty the park is after it’s all burried. And it all depends on where you live as to whether there is landfill space or not. Sure...there’s lots of space in the States, there’s lots of space in Northern Canada too, but it’s both economically and environmental a bad idea given the distance you’d have to travel to dump your waste. Hence...why we have landfill space problems...it’s why cities have to pay other cities to take their garbage. How could Penn and Teller simply ignore that reality? Hypothetical space doesn’t take your garbage.
Even all that aside...is that really what you want? Replace the dirt with garbage? Are there people who really think this is the best solution???

As smart as those two are, they seem to have a ridiculously narrow view of the value of trees. Trees grown for paper production are grown in mono-culture and are clearcut for use. These paper-tree forests have low biodiversity and a number of issues surrounding water retention, disease control and overall health. It’s not just about the number of trees, but the quality of trees. Also, in general, we are still using tree products faster then the trees can grow...old-growth forests are still being cut down. There’s hardly any left in the states(most have been protected) and Canada is heading down the same road.

The real issue is that the U.S. and Canada produce wasteful products and a lot of them. We’re wasteful in almost all areas of life and on a per capita basis use more energy then almost anyone else in the world.
The world is not becoming a healthier place for ether humans or the rest of life here. The solution should not be business-as-usual, and just bury he problems.

They’ve made a very convincing argument, but didn’t look at the whole picture and seem to look at the world through a fairly narrow perspective. It wasn’t a discussion on the real issues and was done for shock value.

Addict (beyond 1337)
Rep: 69



Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 32,780
OFFLINE

I’ve always wondered something. The money it takes to make the plants, pay the workers, run the machines to recycle. Does that rise above the costs and materials it would take just to go get new resources rather then recycling?

I have earned my disillusionment.
Rep: 53



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 7,418

The video links to the one called “recycling test”, which is basically 4 minutes of them creating fake recycling bins and testing how far people will go. Were we supposed to be watching the related videos as well?

Anyhow, tree makes some excellent points. I’d like to add that the problem with the system of recycling as it stands is how people use it.

The cycle is supposed to be reduce, reuse, recycle - in that order. That is the only way to minimize the amount of waste produced. Instead, most people skip the first two steps and just treat recycling like you would a garbage can. They don’t consume less but all the packages, wrappers, etc. go straight into recycling. And in many places recycling facilities simply can’t process this huge amount of waste and some of it winds up in the landfills.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 20



Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 4,728
OFFLINE

If its all about money, and if they were truly right about the spending being largely higher for recycling than for garbage, then why would they do it? Sounds contradictory to me.

I do follow the reduce and reuse processes though, and I do, in fact, recycle. And, just to see where I’m coming from, this video didn’t convert me completely.

And, being America, the productivity of that Californian waste dump is probably more of an exception than the norm. Sure, we could use multiple waste dumps for methane energy, but that would cost money and that’s bad, apparently. However, that delves into my opinions on the social reform the citizens of the US should start taking and I’ll leave that alone.

But the thing that gets me is that I traveled all the way South from West Virginia, and saw nothing but trees for as far as a human could see. I’m not saying cut them all down or anything here, but are we really that bad off? I just don’t know really, but I can’t get a solid answer because, frankly, everyone is convinced and that leaves little defense on the side I presented here. And I like having both sides of the argument.

But yeah, I’m sure it was for some good shock value, but there’s probably some truth here that could be better expanded upon. And, yeah, Bullshit is apparently a pretty opinion-oriented show, and its only 30 minutes, so, you can’t get much out of it.

And, Etain, I thought it linked to the video I watched. I guess not.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 31



Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 4,456
OFFLINE

I quoted this, 'cause I’m not sure I understand you. (confused about the second “they”
What I think you’re saying...is why does the United States participate in recycling instead of diverting everything to landfill?

I don’t know, I’m sure the ideas presented in the show are some of the reasons. Sometimes as well, countries provide subsidies to programs that may have benefit beyond economical gain. This is something that most of the U.S. populous seem dead against...way to “socialist” for them.

Anyway, I don’t think recycling is good...I think it’s better then putting in the garbage.
I just hate, how essentially this show is telling everyone just to throw out everything (except for aluminum cans). I know it’s a 30min show. But if you’re hoping to influence people with “the truth”, you’d think you should be more responsible. If they wanted to tell us that the real solution was to make packaging out of different more enviro-friendly materials, or that better yet, we shouldn’t be buying the mass amounts of crap we do...then at least I could see that they’d at least thought about the issues.

And yes, saying simple things like “there’s more trees then there were before”, gives the ignorant person something to believe without any context whatsoever. The various environments on this planet are very complex systems. If you value clean water, clean air, a diverse amount of plant and animal life...then yes, it matters if you can see the forest for the trees.
You can’t get a straight answer on how “bad off” we are. There isn’t one (no matter what people try to tell you). It’s all about what you yourself value. Is it enough to have trees of all one type, in continually degrading soil, with few large mammals and less diverse plant life? Or do we want a forest with a mix of trees and wildlife that replenish the soil and continue providing a healthy habitat?
Because depending on who you talk to, either one of these scenarios could be fine.
You just have to decide for yourself what type of environments you think we should be living in and what types we should be leaving behind.