3 ms·

>and involves cutting down trees Which they plant more of. Using this as an argument against paper is silly because it only applies to unsustainable approaches

by hueving 10y ago

>and involves cutting down trees Which they plant more of. Using this as an argument against paper is silly because it only applies to unsustainable approaches to paper. If we judged every process by the worst way to do it, then no process would be acceptable.

gumby 10y ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. The whole point of recycling paper is to avoid cutting down trees (and as a minor secondary point reduce landfill, though most paper is compostable). Paper recycling is quite energy and chemical intensive when compared to virgin paper production. If you want to talk about "sustainable" and consider planting trees to be fine, then you don't want to recycle. I don't consider cutting down trees and replanting them that great, frankly. You take a large tree with a large surface area that's transpiring lots of carbon and replace it with a sapling with a small surface area. Yes that sapling is, over time, turning carbon into tree trunk, but that time scale for that is decades while the paper releases carbon immediately through its production and transport and then continues to do so over decades as it decomposes. This calculus can be improved by making the paper out of something with a better yield and shorter growth time (hemp is claimed to be such but I have no idea if that's true) and by using non-fossil fuel. But you have to look at the chemistry required as well...and in any case paper is heavy (a box of paper is basically a box of wood) which is inherently fuel intensive. Plastic film (and plastic toys) are sequestered if you can stick them in landfills. Of course the best carbon sequestration will be to leave the oil in the ground...not yet an option in 2017. But the best lifecycle analysis has to be done on base of most accurate costs possible, not emotion. Paper is pretty shitty.
- morsch 10y ago
  Conventional wisdom is that recycled paper uses less resources than new paper. https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/index-2.html https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling
  - gumby 10y ago
    The box on the first link summarizes the benefits pretty well, thanks. Still, I am not yet convinced vs the lifetime oil consumption & carbon release of paper packaging vs plastic.
- juhanima 10y ago
  You take a large tree with a large surface area that's transpiring lots of carbon and replace it with a sapling with a small surface area. Yes that sapling is, over time, turning carbon into tree trunk, but that time scale for that is decades Actually the growth peaks in a young forest as soon as there is at least one leaf or needle on most possible paths of a sunray. This is called canopy closure, and as soon as it has been achieved the growth starts to decline. This has been studied extensively, here is one example: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2397 https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2397 The reason in a nutshell is that when trees start to compete on the available sunlight by out-growing and overshadowing each other, they need to work harder to pull water up to the top where most of the photosynthesis happens. The leaves or needles in the shadow produce almost nothing but still consume resources for respiration.

by hueving 10y ago

gumby 10y ago

I'm not sure what your point is here. The whole point of recycling paper is to avoid cutting down trees (and as a minor secondary point reduce landfill, though most paper is compostable). Paper recycling is quite energy and chemical intensive when compared to virgin paper production. If you want to talk about "sustainable" and consider planting trees to be fine, then you don't want to recycle. I don't consider cutting down trees and replanting them that great, frankly. You take a large tree with a large surface area that's transpiring lots of carbon and replace it with a sapling with a small surface area. Yes that sapling is, over time, turning carbon into tree trunk, but that time scale for that is decades while the paper releases carbon immediately through its production and transport and then continues to do so over decades as it decomposes. This calculus can be improved by making the paper out of something with a better yield and shorter growth time (hemp is claimed to be such but I have no idea if that's true) and by using non-fossil fuel. But you have to look at the chemistry required as well...and in any case paper is heavy (a box of paper is basically a box of wood) which is inherently fuel intensive. Plastic film (and plastic toys) are sequestered if you can stick them in landfills. Of course the best carbon sequestration will be to leave the oil in the ground...not yet an option in 2017. But the best lifecycle analysis has to be done on base of most accurate costs possible, not emotion. Paper is pretty shitty.

morsch 10y ago
Conventional wisdom is that recycled paper uses less resources than new paper. https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/index-2.html https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling
- gumby 10y ago
  The box on the first link summarizes the benefits pretty well, thanks. Still, I am not yet convinced vs the lifetime oil consumption & carbon release of paper packaging vs plastic.
juhanima 10y ago
You take a large tree with a large surface area that's transpiring lots of carbon and replace it with a sapling with a small surface area. Yes that sapling is, over time, turning carbon into tree trunk, but that time scale for that is decades Actually the growth peaks in a young forest as soon as there is at least one leaf or needle on most possible paths of a sunray. This is called canopy closure, and as soon as it has been achieved the growth starts to decline. This has been studied extensively, here is one example: https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2397 https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2397 The reason in a nutshell is that when trees start to compete on the available sunlight by out-growing and overshadowing each other, they need to work harder to pull water up to the top where most of the photosynthesis happens. The leaves or needles in the shadow produce almost nothing but still consume resources for respiration.