4 ms·

Things sitting in landfills are not a problem for the environment. It is producing them in the first place that causes environmental damage. Imagine everything

Things sitting in landfills are not a problem for the environment. It is producing them in the first place that causes environmental damage. Imagine everything going into a landfill as a resource our ancestors can mine in the future.

Alupis 8y ago
> Things sitting in landfills are not a problem for the environment That's not true either. Toxins, leachate, and greanhouse gases are given off from landfills and leach into ground water, or pollute the land around landfills[1]. Plastics will stay there, be washed away into streams/rivers, or be unburied in the future, practically in the same condition they were originally - even hundreds or thousands of years in the future. > Products that are not biodegradable or are slow to decompose, like plastic, can remain in landfill sites for centuries, often emitting gases that could be harmful to the environment.[2] > Landfills and dumps buried over often become suburban home sites in later years, unbeknownst to people who may live on them. Landfills have a distinctive effect on air pollution, nature, land and humans. Soil in the area may be saturated with chemicals or hazardous substances[3] [1] https://environmentvictoria.org.au/resource/problem-landfill/ https://environmentvictoria.org.au/resource/problem-landfill... [2] https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Does_Recycling_Affect_the_Environment https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Does_Recycling_Affect... [3] https://sciencing.com/effects-landfills-environment-8662463.html https://sciencing.com/effects-landfills-environment-8662463....
- njarboe 8y ago
  I guess I should have said, "Putting things into a recently (last 30is years) constructed landfill with methane capture is not a problem for the environment. The point is putting things into landfills is a great alternative to just releasing them into the environment. The major problem with stuff, from an environmental view, is not its disposal in well designed landfills, but surface dumping and the problems with how its made and transported.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I guess I should have said, "Putting things into a recently (last 30is years) constructed landfill with methane capture is not a problem for the environment. Well, other than the problem that landfills will need to continue increase in size and consume the entire environment, and the environmental impact of converting land into landfills in the first place, that might be approximately correct. > The point is putting things into landfills is a great alternative to just releasing them into the environment. In the sense that being kicked in the genitals is a great alternative to having cigarettes put out on them, sure, but neither is good from an environmental point of view.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      The total US garbage production in 2016 was 254 million tons[1]. If you assume that compacted garbage has about the density of water(hard to find good figures for this), then all of the garbage for the US for one year can be fit into a space of about 2.30E+08 cubic meters. This works out to a square mile, 300ft thick. A huge pile of trash and would be large to walk around it on a human scale, but geologically an almost infinitesimal amount of the Earth surface. I would say that current US farmland is about as destructive to the natural environment as a properly designed covered landfill, give or take. With about 1.5 million square miles of farmland in the US, landfill use for a hundred years of US dumping is about 15,000 times less of a problem than farming for the environment. Garbage is very visible and a visceral expression of humans impact on the planet, but farming, ranching, and housing uses of land are the real destroyers of the natural environment, not how we dispose of all the crap we make (in the US at least). [1] https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/trash-numbers-startling-statistics-about-americans-and-their-garbage.html https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/trash-number...

Alupis 8y ago

> Things sitting in landfills are not a problem for the environment That's not true either. Toxins, leachate, and greanhouse gases are given off from landfills and leach into ground water, or pollute the land around landfills[1]. Plastics will stay there, be washed away into streams/rivers, or be unburied in the future, practically in the same condition they were originally - even hundreds or thousands of years in the future. > Products that are not biodegradable or are slow to decompose, like plastic, can remain in landfill sites for centuries, often emitting gases that could be harmful to the environment.[2] > Landfills and dumps buried over often become suburban home sites in later years, unbeknownst to people who may live on them. Landfills have a distinctive effect on air pollution, nature, land and humans. Soil in the area may be saturated with chemicals or hazardous substances[3] [1] https://environmentvictoria.org.au/resource/problem-landfill/ https://environmentvictoria.org.au/resource/problem-landfill... [2] https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Does_Recycling_Affect_the_Environment https://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_Does_Recycling_Affect... [3] https://sciencing.com/effects-landfills-environment-8662463.html https://sciencing.com/effects-landfills-environment-8662463....

njarboe 8y ago
I guess I should have said, "Putting things into a recently (last 30is years) constructed landfill with methane capture is not a problem for the environment. The point is putting things into landfills is a great alternative to just releasing them into the environment. The major problem with stuff, from an environmental view, is not its disposal in well designed landfills, but surface dumping and the problems with how its made and transported.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I guess I should have said, "Putting things into a recently (last 30is years) constructed landfill with methane capture is not a problem for the environment. Well, other than the problem that landfills will need to continue increase in size and consume the entire environment, and the environmental impact of converting land into landfills in the first place, that might be approximately correct. > The point is putting things into landfills is a great alternative to just releasing them into the environment. In the sense that being kicked in the genitals is a great alternative to having cigarettes put out on them, sure, but neither is good from an environmental point of view.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    The total US garbage production in 2016 was 254 million tons[1]. If you assume that compacted garbage has about the density of water(hard to find good figures for this), then all of the garbage for the US for one year can be fit into a space of about 2.30E+08 cubic meters. This works out to a square mile, 300ft thick. A huge pile of trash and would be large to walk around it on a human scale, but geologically an almost infinitesimal amount of the Earth surface. I would say that current US farmland is about as destructive to the natural environment as a properly designed covered landfill, give or take. With about 1.5 million square miles of farmland in the US, landfill use for a hundred years of US dumping is about 15,000 times less of a problem than farming for the environment. Garbage is very visible and a visceral expression of humans impact on the planet, but farming, ranching, and housing uses of land are the real destroyers of the natural environment, not how we dispose of all the crap we make (in the US at least). [1] https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/trash-numbers-startling-statistics-about-americans-and-their-garbage.html https://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/trash-number...