4 ms·

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful ma

by ohyes 16y ago

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.

ars 16y ago
Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.
- ohyes 16y ago
  A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_recycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re... Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong. The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
  - ars 16y ago
    A growing tree is a "CO2 sequestering machine". A living tree is not, since when it dies all the CO2 is released. The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing. As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time); it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon. Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.
  - nwatson 16y ago
    Assuming the decay from paper-cup-watse -> CO2-and-other-greenhouse-gases is very slow (compared to the regrowth time for a tree) then cutting down trees, turning them into paper cups, and burying the cups is an excellent carbon-sequestering tool. Compare the two approaches: (1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly) (2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)
  - oiuytgfrtgyhuji 16y ago
    Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury! ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests
jessriedel 16y ago
> The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance with market principles, Starbucks is trying to increase share-holder value by finding value in it's waste products. I approve."). How do you decide if something is "wasted" other than with economic cost-benefit analysis? If there was an economical way to use it, we would (or will, once we have the technology). I'm all for entrepreneurs finding new ways to utilize waste products. And, in fact, such entrepreneurs enjoy huge advantages in the market place because many people have not-quite-rational feelings about "waste". In other words: where is the market failure which is significant compared to the failures associated with carbon emissions, CFCs, etc.?
- ohyes 16y ago
  You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country) I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it. I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters). I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and don't do anything with it. I wasted paper. (I had to cut down more trees, instead of reusing the ones I already cut down). I turned that into waste, which need not be. How does economic cost-benefit analysis and share-holder value even factor into this? The fact is that we have the technology to do this, it reduces our need to cut down and process timbre, and reduces environmental impact of our consumption (and in doing so helps survival of future generations). 'The market' is incredibly short sighted in terms of planning for our future. Ethically, we should conserve resources.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    > I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis? (The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)

by ohyes 16y ago

ars 16y ago

Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.

ohyes 16y ago
A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_recycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re... Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong. The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.
maukdaddy 16y ago
Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
- ars 16y ago
  A growing tree is a "CO2 sequestering machine". A living tree is not, since when it dies all the CO2 is released. The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing. As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time); it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon. Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.
- nwatson 16y ago
  Assuming the decay from paper-cup-watse -> CO2-and-other-greenhouse-gases is very slow (compared to the regrowth time for a tree) then cutting down trees, turning them into paper cups, and burying the cups is an excellent carbon-sequestering tool. Compare the two approaches: (1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly) (2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)
- oiuytgfrtgyhuji 16y ago
  Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury! ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests

jessriedel 16y ago

> The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance with market principles, Starbucks is trying to increase share-holder value by finding value in it's waste products. I approve."). How do you decide if something is "wasted" other than with economic cost-benefit analysis? If there was an economical way to use it, we would (or will, once we have the technology). I'm all for entrepreneurs finding new ways to utilize waste products. And, in fact, such entrepreneurs enjoy huge advantages in the market place because many people have not-quite-rational feelings about "waste". In other words: where is the market failure which is significant compared to the failures associated with carbon emissions, CFCs, etc.?

ohyes 16y ago
You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country) I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it. I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters). I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and don't do anything with it. I wasted paper. (I had to cut down more trees, instead of reusing the ones I already cut down). I turned that into waste, which need not be. How does economic cost-benefit analysis and share-holder value even factor into this? The fact is that we have the technology to do this, it reduces our need to cut down and process timbre, and reduces environmental impact of our consumption (and in doing so helps survival of future generations). 'The market' is incredibly short sighted in terms of planning for our future. Ethically, we should conserve resources.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  > I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis? (The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)