5 ms·

Landfills are not sustainable, and are best used as a stop gap measure. It might seem like we have lots of easily accessible empty land right now, but eventuall

by bmer 8y ago

Landfills are not sustainable, and are best used as a stop gap measure. It might seem like we have lots of easily accessible empty land right now, but eventually easily accessible land is going to become harder to find. It seems that it would be wise to come up with a sustainable solution, rather than assuming we can rely on a non-renewable resource forever. That being said, why can't volcanoes be used as some sort of a landfill?

eli 8y ago
The same reasons we don't just burn all our trash in incinerators plus the inaccessibility and relatively small number of active volcanoes.
- thinkcontext 8y ago
  Sweden has such good waste to energy plants they now have to import waste to keep them at full production. It helps that they recycle a tremendous amount so they don't have all that much to deal with.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
RealityVoid 8y ago
I am unconvinced by this argument. I would like to believe it, but I can't, I would need some numbers, for example, how much of the available terrain do we cover with trash each year? I think I'd instinctively agree with you if landfills were everywhere... but they are not. They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness.
- bmer 8y ago
  > They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness. I didn't make any claims landfills grow in space at a faster rate than other human land uses, and like you, I agree that they probably just increase linearly with human spread (maybe even more slowly than linearly). My point is that space on earth is still a finite resource. It doesn't matter how quickly it's getting used up right now, and it may be many generations before we start to hit "peak earth land", but eventually, we'll get there. Plus, there is something to be said about conserving resources (such as usable land) in the same way that we save money for future generations to use: you never know what unforeseen circumstances may come up requiring some "cash in the bank", so to speak. That's why I think landfills are nothing are temporary measures, rather than a sustainable way of dealing with waste. It's not something we can hope to do for a few millennia and be cool.
  - rland 8y ago
    By the time we hit "peak earth land," any unexploited landfill will be worth a fortune, as they will be tremendously resource rich in comparison to 'regular' land. It's far more likely that in a hundred years (or less!) we will be digging through landfills to recycle some material that we throw away today.

by bmer 8y ago

eli 8y ago

The same reasons we don't just burn all our trash in incinerators plus the inaccessibility and relatively small number of active volcanoes.

thinkcontext 8y ago
Sweden has such good waste to energy plants they now have to import waste to keep them at full production. It helps that they recycle a tremendous amount so they don't have all that much to deal with.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

RealityVoid 8y ago

I am unconvinced by this argument. I would like to believe it, but I can't, I would need some numbers, for example, how much of the available terrain do we cover with trash each year? I think I'd instinctively agree with you if landfills were everywhere... but they are not. They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness.

bmer 8y ago
> They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness. I didn't make any claims landfills grow in space at a faster rate than other human land uses, and like you, I agree that they probably just increase linearly with human spread (maybe even more slowly than linearly). My point is that space on earth is still a finite resource. It doesn't matter how quickly it's getting used up right now, and it may be many generations before we start to hit "peak earth land", but eventually, we'll get there. Plus, there is something to be said about conserving resources (such as usable land) in the same way that we save money for future generations to use: you never know what unforeseen circumstances may come up requiring some "cash in the bank", so to speak. That's why I think landfills are nothing are temporary measures, rather than a sustainable way of dealing with waste. It's not something we can hope to do for a few millennia and be cool.
- rland 8y ago
  By the time we hit "peak earth land," any unexploited landfill will be worth a fortune, as they will be tremendously resource rich in comparison to 'regular' land. It's far more likely that in a hundred years (or less!) we will be digging through landfills to recycle some material that we throw away today.