But putting paper product back into the ground is the cycle of life... accelerated. Instead of waiting for the tree to die and fall and rot and return nutrients

But putting paper product back into the ground is the cycle of life... accelerated. Instead of waiting for the tree to die and fall and rot and return nutrients to the soil it gets chopped down, pulped up, made into paper, turned into a magazine, gets purchased and read one time, shredded and returns to the ground to rot at an increased rate than the original tree would have rotted. ...the only difference is that when the original tree rotted, it didn't leach chemicals into the soil from the inks, bleaches and other chemicals used in the production of the magazine. So contaminants aside, composting paper instead of recycling it is actually better for the environment - assuming renewable tree harvesting practices are followed. Of course, you can't actually put the contaminants aside nor assume that renewable harvesting practices are being used, so even this argument is flawed. At some point, the only way to affect the environment positively is to stop buying as many of the paper products as you can reasonably avoid buying.