Why I dont recycle [Archive]

pastradamus

26th July 2009, 17:02

From the moment you are a young school goer you are told to Reduce, reuse and recycle (the 3 r's). You are also told such ignorant tripe, such as "there is no room left in landfills" and "When we recycle we save tree's and the Planet". The fact of the matter is that Recyling actually DAMAGES the envoirnment even more, costs the tax payer more and profits a growing Multi-Billion Euro thriving corporate industry.

Allow me to outline whats wrong with recycling envoirnmentally:

1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.

Also Plastic is horribly expensive to recycle adding a new cost onto the purchaser who then passes this cost onto the consumer.

On the Issue of saving tree's....Most paper producing tree's are grown on Tree Farms which are a renewable source of Raw materials and the grower will take good care in ensuring they are replanted once harvested. Sweden is a great example of this and also due to paper processing there are 3 times as many tree's in America as there was in 1920 due to farming. Recycling paper threatens this and workers in the lumber industry.

On Landfills, well about 30 or 40 years ago they were horrid places full of toxic chemicals and the like (I grew up next to one) But now we can actually harness Methane gas from the landfills which can be used as a renewable form of electricity. Also we have new concealment methods which dosent allow rain water to permeatate the waste and poison the land.

The Bottom line is if you are going to recycle anything than recycle glass Bottles and Your can of coke as these can be recycled to great cost effect producing wealth, secure jobs and genuinely helping the envoirnment.

MarxSchmarx

27th July 2009, 03:39

The problem with recycling isn't that it's not workable or even environmentally beneficial. The real problem with recycling is that it is an individualist and life-stylist non-solution promoted by the capitalists to put the burden of fixing the environmental damage of capitalism on the backs of working people.

What you are critiquing is capitalist recycling.

Indeed, in a socialist society, recycling as such can be smart policy. Here are some ways that a socialist recycling program should work.

From the moment you are a young school goer
you are told to Reduce, reuse and recycle (the 3 r's).

Frankly, "the 3 r's" strike me as quite sensible, at least in the abstract.

Allow me to outline whats wrong with recycling envoirnmentally:

1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.
2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

Again,

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).
4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)

All of these happen to some extent with landfills (e.g., weeding out hazardous waste) and with alternative energy plants and vehicles can be less of an issue. The problem is technological.

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.

All of this is assuming current technological conditions and capitalist practices - both of which will radically change under socialism. For example,

Also Plastic is horribly expensive to recycle adding a new cost onto the purchaser who then passes this cost onto the consumer.

Until non-petroleum based plastics appear, this is only a matter of time before petrol reserves run low and plastics won't be cheaper to produce de novo.

On the Issue of saving tree's....Most paper producing tree's are grown on Tree Farms which are a renewable source of Raw materials and the grower will take good care in ensuring they are replanted once harvested. Sweden is a great example of this and also due to paper processing there are 3 times as many tree's in America as there was in 1920 due to farming. Recycling paper threatens this and workers in the lumber industry.

True, but we have to keep in mind that it is a very slow renewable resource. Trees take years to grow, and so the capacity of self-renewal is limited. You can try to improve this with things like genetically modified trees that grow faster, but recycling can also help ease the demand. Additionally, artificial forests require gobs of pesticide and can have unintended side effects, like the massive pollen allergies spawned in Japan after intense monoculture. They are also a questionable use of space, especially if plausible recycling is available. As far as lumber workers losing their jobs, well, that only sucks under capitalism.

On Landfills, well about 30 or 40 years ago they were horrid places full of toxic chemicals and the like (I grew up next to one) But now we can actually harness Methane gas from the landfills which can be used as a renewable form of electricity. Also we have new concealment methods which dosent allow rain water to permeatate the waste and poison the land.

We've gotten better. But part of the problem is the stuff won't degrade in landfills as rapidly, so they have the capacity to fill up quickly and you always need extra space. It isn't a sustainable solution, unless people want to live near them or they can be beautified. These aren't better solutions than improving recycling technologies.

The Bottom line is if you are going to recycle anything than recycle glass Bottles and Your can of coke as these can be recycled to great cost effect producing wealth, secure jobs and genuinely helping the envoirnment.

And they also give you money for them.

All in all you're right, recycling is not a panacea. But it has so much potential that just isn't allowed it under capitalism.

Revy

27th July 2009, 11:15

Landfills do emit CO2 and methane (through decomposition) which has a role in climate change (I'm not sure how big the effect is, it's probably not much compared to the emissions from oil/gas/coal energy use).

Recycling is important, but I think that the institutional role of capitalism in causing environmental degradation has more to do with it than a lack of personal lifestyle changes.

pastradamus

28th July 2009, 18:53

Pogue

28th July 2009, 18:56

I'd like to think in a rational society of the kind we want to create we'd recycle a shitload, it makes sense obviously.

*Red*Alert

28th July 2009, 18:57

MS and Stencil,

Thats what I was getting at. Recycling's failings are all a by-product of Capitalist greed and capitalist failings. But also, In some ways improved and cheaper Technologies are needed.

Until someone can come up with a way in which recycling plastic and paper is worthwhile exercise and benefits the environment than I will gladly recycle them.
I also grew up with the "3 R's" and have always thought the same. But then again, did we really expect anything to be different? It wouldn't have been promoted if it didn't profit someone, somewhere.

MarxSchmarx

29th July 2009, 05:32

Until someone can come up with a way in which recycling plastic and paper is worthwhile exercise and benefits the environment than I will gladly recycle them.

Yeah I agree; under present conditions recyling is a dead end for the left.

Misanthrope

2nd August 2009, 06:22

Thank you comrades postradamus and marxschmarx, this has all been really informative.

yuon

3rd August 2009, 13:25

Great, my session timed out, so I lost my great response. I'll be quick this time.

From the moment you are a young school goer you are told to Reduce, reuse and recycle (the 3 r's). You are also told such ignorant tripe, such as "there is no room left in landfills" and "When we recycle we save tree's and the Planet". The fact of the matter is that Recyling actually DAMAGES the envoirnment even more, costs the tax payer more and profits a growing Multi-Billion Euro thriving corporate industry.

Making new products damages the environment, costs the tax payer and profits industry. That's capitalism for you.

The three R's are great. Reduce the amount of waste produced. Reuse what you can. And recycle what's left over. You're only attacking the third (and very poorly).

Allow me to outline whats wrong with recycling envoirnmentally:

1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)

Steps three and four apply equally to new products. For now, only looking at plastic (applies to other stuff as well). You are claiming, in effect, that cleaning old plastic uses more energy than getting oil out of the ground, shipping it to a factory and turning that oil into new plastic. Also, that it is more environmentally friendly to drill oil, ship it around, and turn it into new plastic, than it is to clean and resuse old plastic.

Strange.

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.

Also Plastic is horribly expensive to recycle adding a new cost onto the purchaser who then passes this cost onto the consumer.
How about some references for these absurd claims? You think that it is more expensive (and/or more energy inefficient) to recycling plastic compared to making it from scratch?

At least from aluminium, it's much less energy intensive to recycle...

Aluminium recycling is the process by which scrap aluminium can be reused in products after its initial production. The process involves simply re-melting the metal, which is far less expensive and energy intensive than creating new aluminium through the electrolysis of aluminium oxide (Al2O3), which must first be mined from bauxite ore and then refined using the Bayer process. Recycling scrap aluminum requires only 5% of the energy used to make new aluminium. (From Wikipedia, Wikipedia points to -> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302727 which you can't see, unless you have a subscription.)

On the Issue of saving tree's....Most paper producing tree's are grown on Tree Farms which are a renewable source of Raw materials and the grower will take good care in ensuring they are replanted once harvested. Sweden is a great example of this and also due to paper processing there are 3 times as many tree's in America as there was in 1920 due to farming. Recycling paper threatens this and workers in the lumber industry.
Do you also care about the buggy industry? And the whip industry? And all the other industries associated with the horse and cart?

Would you complain if everyone stopped eating McDonolds, because all those workers would be out of work?

Did you stop to think that maybe, just maybe, recycling actually creates jobs, after all, someone has to run the machines...

On Landfills, well about 30 or 40 years ago they were horrid places full of toxic chemicals and the like (I grew up next to one) But now we can actually harness Methane gas from the landfills which can be used as a renewable form of electricity. Also we have new concealment methods which dosent allow rain water to permeatate the waste and poison the land.
Are these new methods being used? Oh, they aren't? I wonder why... Capitalism...

The Bottom line is if you are going to recycle anything than recycle glass Bottles and Your can of coke as these can be recycled to great cost effect producing wealth, secure jobs and genuinely helping the envoirnment.
So, not all recycling is bad hey?

The bottom line is, your argument needs recycling. Unless you provide some references, it must be assumed that making things from scratch is going to be more energy intensive (and thus worse for the environment) than melting (or whatever) them down and reusing the raw components.

pastradamus

3rd August 2009, 14:07

Great, my session timed out, so I lost my great response. I'll be quick this time.

Making new products damages the environment, costs the tax payer and profits industry. That's capitalism for you.

Recycling plastic harms the environment even more so, costs the tax payer more and profits capitalist industry more than that of virgin producing. We have created a league of multi-billion dollar industries such as Veolia Environmental from recycling.

The three R's are great. Reduce the amount of waste produced. Reuse what you can. And recycle what's left over. You're only attacking the third (and very poorly).

I never meant to attack the first two. I never talked about reducing and reusing so I though it obvious from the offset I was on about the 3rd concept of the 3r's.

Steps three and four apply equally to new products. For now, only looking at plastic (applies to other stuff as well). You are claiming, in effect, that cleaning old plastic uses more energy than getting oil out of the ground, shipping it to a factory and turning that oil into new plastic. Also, that it is more environmentally friendly to drill oil, ship it around, and turn it into new plastic, than it is to clean and resuse old plastic.

Yes, its more damaging to the environment to have tens of thousands of trucks roaming around America picking up the recycling bins and dropping them off at the recycling centre only for the process to begin again and not to mention the energy used recycling. Also OIL IS STILL NEEDED TO RECYCLE PLASTIC BOTTLES.

How about some references for these absurd claims? You think that it is more expensive (and/or more energy inefficient) to recycling plastic compared to making it from scratch?

One should think it common economic knowledge and a bit of a no-brainer that once a product has been recycled an additional cost is added making the end product more expensive.

"Recycled products may be more expensive than virgin products. This may be due to the small number of manufacturers producing recycled products or changing economic conditions. The following three measures can help your organization fulfill its commitment to buy recycled products:"

http://www.mdrecycles.org/recyclingGuide0.asp

And thats from the recycling lobby.

At least from aluminium, it's much less energy intensive to recycle...
(From Wikipedia, Wikipedia points to -> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302727 which you can't see, unless you have a subscription.)

I know. Im in favour of recycling aluminium. I stated that.

Do you also care about the buggy industry? And the whip industry? And all the other industries associated with the horse and cart?

Would you complain if everyone stopped eating McDonolds, because all those workers would be out of work?

Did you stop to think that maybe, just maybe, recycling actually creates jobs, after all, someone has to run the machines...

How's your armchair revolution coming along?
I work in a trade union so of course I care about jobs. You live in a really unrealistic little bubble if you think people are going to stop eating McDonalds in the forseeable future. On the issue of the recycling plant, than why cant they recycle cost effective and environmentally effective materials like glass and Aluminium?

Are these new methods being used? Oh, they aren't? I wonder why... Capitalism...

What in the name of fuck are you talking about?
http://www.contracostatimes.com/green/ci_12735376

So, not all recycling is bad hey?

The bottom line is, your argument needs recycling. Unless you provide some references, it must be assumed that making things from scratch is going to be more energy intensive (and thus worse for the environment) than melting (or whatever) them down and reusing the raw components.

So you replied to the post without reading the whole thing first? It certainly shows.

robbo203

3rd August 2009, 15:07

Recycling plastic harms the environment even more so, costs the tax payer more and profits capitalist industry more than that of virgin producing. We have created a league of multi-billion dollar industries such as Veolia Environmental from recycling..

If you want to have a look at the problem of plastic you can do no better than to turn to a little corner of Southern Spain not a million miles aways from where I live - the greenhouse belt of Almeria. Check out this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/21/spain.gilestremlett

Almeria's greenhouses are reputedly one of only two manmade objects you can see from outer space - the other being the Great Wall of China. The greenhouses have been an unmitigated ecological disaster. So much water has been pumped from the aquifer that significant seawater intrusion has already put many of these greenhouses out of action. The result is a barren landscape of the most hideous appearance with tonnes of plastic covering effectively decommissioned land. Christ knows how the powers that be think they will be able to get rid of it all and clean up this desolate area. In the meanwhile some of these greenhouses are home to illegal immigrants from Africa (there have been race riots in places like El Ejido) who work for a pittance in those greenhouses still functioning to produce cherry tomatoes and the like for the consumers in Northern Europe.

Almeria's greenhouses are a graphic case study of the cancerous pathology of capitalist dynamics in action

3rd August 2009, 16:25

1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.Except you are leaving out the fact that if you do not recycle, then new goods must be produced and distributed, which uses more energy than that consumed by what you have listed here.

Recycling paper threatens this and workers in the lumber industry.And not recycling paper threatens the recycling industry and the workers in it. And besides, since when are we concerned with the interests of capital? This seems to me to be a very strange thing to say on a revolutionary leftist message board.

I'm not really for or against recycling, as I don't really know if it causes a significant enough influence on the level of pollution as opposed to just throwing shit out, but saying that it's either absolutely essential or absolutely damaging/pointless is in my opinion incorrect.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 16:35

From the moment you are a young school goer you are told to Reduce, reuse and recycle (the 3 r's). You are also told such ignorant tripe, such as "there is no room left in landfills" and "When we recycle we save tree's and the Planet". The fact of the matter is that Recyling actually DAMAGES the envoirnment even more, costs the tax payer more and profits a growing Multi-Billion Euro thriving corporate industry.

Allow me to outline whats wrong with recycling envoirnmentally:

1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.

You mean it's better to exploit the environment more that to reuse?

Also Plastic is horribly expensive to recycle adding a new cost onto the purchaser who then passes this cost onto the consumer.

Yes, it's called externalizing the costs. Why take care of your toxic dirt cheap product when you can just throw it away in a landfill.

On the Issue of saving tree's....Most paper producing tree's are grown on Tree Farms which are a renewable source of Raw materials and the grower will take good care in ensuring they are replanted once harvested. Sweden is a great example of this and also due to paper processing there are 3 times as many tree's in America as there was in 1920 due to farming. Recycling paper threatens this and workers in the lumber industry.

Actually it's not renewable because current agricultural systems aren't sustainable.

On Landfills, well about 30 or 40 years ago they were horrid places full of toxic chemicals and the like (I grew up next to one) But now we can actually harness Methane gas from the landfills which can be used as a renewable form of electricity. Also we have new concealment methods which dosent allow rain water to permeatate the waste and poison the land.

What happens next with these billions of tons of waste? Plastic ain't that biodegradable you know.

The Bottom line is if you are going to recycle anything than recycle glass Bottles and Your can of coke as these can be recycled to great cost effect producing wealth, secure jobs and genuinely helping the envoirnment.
This whole post is a joke right?

3rd August 2009, 16:39

Actually it's not renewable because current agricultural systems aren't sustainable.

Proof that tree farming isn't sustainable, please.

What happens next with these billions of tons of waste? Plastic ain't that biodegradable you know.

It goes in a landfill.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 16:46

Proof that tree farming isn't sustainable, please.

Any farming you see today is not sustainable because they all rely on mineral (which aren't infinite) fertilizers.

It goes in a landfill.
That's good for the environment and people's health?

3rd August 2009, 16:51

Any farming you see today is not sustainable because they all rely on mineral (which aren't infinite) fertilizers.

You didn't answer my question; you just repeated yourself.

That's good for the environment and people's health?

It can be good for the environment because once landfills are filled they are covered with soil and grass and turned into parks. They also provide nutrient-enriched soil and power by harnessing the methane gas emitted (although this is not environmentally friendly in the absolute sense, it is relatively more environmentally friendly than receiving power from a typical power plant).

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 16:52

You didn't answer my question; you just repeated yourself.

Actually I answered your question twice. You should first learn a bit about sustainable agriculture.

It can be good for the environment because once landfills are filled they are covered with soil and grass and turned into parks. They also provide nutrient-enriched soil and power by harnessing the methane gas emitted (although this is not environmentally friendly in the absolute sense, it is relatively more environmentally friendly than receiving power from a typical power plant).
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
A park? Nutrient-enriched soil? Does cyanide count as a nutrient too?

3rd August 2009, 16:59

Actually I answered your question twice. You should first learn a bit about sustainable agriculture.

No, you did not. I asked you to back up your claim that tree farming is unsustainable. You simply repeated your original claim without backing it up.

A park? Nutrient-enriched soil? Does cyanide count as a nutrient too?

Sorry, I was referring to landfills in the United States, which adhere to strict regulations set and enforced by the EPA. You can find more information on the EPA regulation of landfills and how landfills work in the United States here (http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm).

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 17:21

No, you did not. I asked you to back up your claim that tree farming is unsustainable. You simply repeated your original claim without backing it up.

There is a lot to learn if this comes as a surprise to you. Read about nutrient cycle, pesticides and sustainable practices. I'm not going to write a fifty pages critique on modern agriculture here.

And it's not only about agriculture. Most resources are finite: iron, aluminium, oil, you name it Even the timber industry. You don't expect to cut trees and plant others so that they magically grow do you?
Having an open loop in which environment destruction occurs at one side because of intensive minning and another side destroys the environment directly by waste is not sustainable.

Sorry, I was referring to landfills in the United States, which adhere to strict regulations set and enforced by the EPA. You can find more information on the EPA regulation of landfills and how landfills work in the United States here (http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm).
Say what? Strict regulation on how to dispose toxic waste in the environment? That's a joke.

3rd August 2009, 17:34

There is a lot to learn if this comes as a surprise to you. Read about nutrient cycle, pesticides and sustainable practices. I'm not going to write a fifty pages critique on modern agriculture here.

And it's not only about agriculture. Most resources are finite: iron, aluminium, oil, you name it Even the timber industry. You don't expect to cut trees and plant others so that they magically grow do you?
Having an open loop in which environment destruction occurs at one side because of intensive minning and another side destroys the environment directly by waste is not sustainable.

Once again I ask you specifically for information on tree farming and you respond with some general statements about agriculture in general. There's no point in responding to this any further if you are not going to support your claim that tree farming is unsustainable.

What you don't seem to understand is that tree farming, unlike other types of farming, is (or rather can be) done in a sustainable manner by "contain many different habitats and stages of forest regeneration, from seedlings to mature timber."

Sustainable tree farms are certified in the United States by the American Tree Farm System. Requirement for certification is compliance with the American Forest Foundation Standards of Sustainability for Forest Certification which can be found here (http://www.forestfoundation.org/cff_standards.html).

Say what? Strict regulation on how to dispose toxic waste in the environment? That's a joke.Do you know what the regulations are? Do you know anything about the environmental disposal of hazardous waste? I have taken numerous courses and would be employed as an environmental engineer if the economy wasn't so bad, and it's quite obvious that you think hazardous wastes are some kind of magical material that cannot be treated so that it is safe to dispose of in landfills, which shows that you don't know much (if anything) about the topic at hand.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 17:50

Basically it's simple: plants need nutrients to grow. Some, like nitrogen and carbon are abundant in the atmosphere. However, phosphorus, potassium, iron, calcium and everything else are only found in solid form and thus they must be present in the land where the crop is grown. In the wild there is a balance between what plants take up and what is given back to the earth by the decaying matter. In a farm the produce is sold and ends up in a landfill or worse in the ocean. The environment is polluted, the land is depleted and we rely on mineral fertilizers like apatite and potassium salts which aren't inexhaustible. There is a lot more to know about sustainability, but this should give a simple intro.

Once again I ask you specifically for information on tree farming and you respond with some general statements about agriculture in general. There's no point in responding to this any further if you are not going to support your claim that tree farming is unsustainable.

Do you know that tree farming is sustainable? Do you know that most paper is made from trees grown in tree farms? Did you read books that talked about sustainability? If not, then why would you start a thread in which you are blatantly convinced about what you're saying but you have no idea what are you talking about? Did you give any references on what you are talking? It's just an opinion of yours. And also a stupid one.

Do you know what the regulations are? Do you know anything about the environmental disposal of hazardous waste? I have taken numerous courses and would be employed as an environmental engineer if the economy wasn't so bad, and it's quite obvious that you think hazardous wastes are some kind of magical material that cannot be treated so that it is safe to dispose of in landfills, which shows that you don't know much (if anything) about the topic at hand.
Actually a few years ago I participated at the national chemistry olymics so I doubt you can teach me about toxic wastes. All the good chemistry teachers I know have actually been quite enviromentalists because they know very well what the chemical industry is all about.

3rd August 2009, 18:01

Do you know that tree farming is sustainable?Yes.

Do you know that most paper is made from trees grown in tree farms?Yes.

Did you read books that talked about sustainability?Yes, and I have studied the relevant guidelines and regulations as well.

Did you give any references on what you are talking?Yes, actually I have referenced the American Tree Farming System and the American Forest Foundation and linked to their guidelines for becoming certified as sustainable.

I suggest that you go back to my previous thread, as it appears that you have missed the edit.

But a more interesting question here, I think, is why you are accusing me of not sourcing my argument (which I have, as explained above) when I clearly asked you numerous times to substantiate your own claims, which you have yet to do.

Actually a few years ago I participated at the national chemistry olymics so I doubt you can teach me about toxic wastes. All the good chemistry teachers I know have actually been quite enviromentalists because they know very well what the chemical industry is all about.I doubt that you have studied the treatment of hazardous waste in any detail, otherwise you would not be making this ignorant argument.

As for the disposal of hazardous waste into landfills, the EPA has, as you have said, strict regulations on this.

Landfills are excavated or engineered sites where non-liquid hazardous waste is deposited for final disposal and covered. These units are selected and designed to minimize the chance of release of hazardous waste into the environment. Design standards for hazardous waste landfills require a double liner; double leachate collection and removal systems (LCRS); leak detection system; run on, runoff, and wind dispersal controls; construction quality assurance (CQA) program. Liquid wastes may not be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. Operators must also comply with inspection, monitoring, and release response requirements. Since landfills are permanent disposal sites and are closed with waste in place, closure and post-closure care requirements include installing and maintaining a final cover, continuing operation of the LCRS until leachate is no longer detected, maintaining and monitoring the leak detection system, maintaining ground water monitoring, preventing storm water run on and runoff, and installing and protecting surveyed benchmarks. (See 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subpart N)

Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Units (LDUs) (http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/td/ldu/index.htm)

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 18:21

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, and I have studied the relevant guidelines and regulations as well.

Yes, actually I have referenced the American Tree Farming System and the American Forest Foundation and linked to their guidelines for becoming certified as sustainable.

I suggest that you go back to my previous thread, as it appears that you have missed the edit.

But a more interesting question here, I think, is why you are accusing me of not sourcing my argument (which I have, as explained above) when I clearly asked you numerous times to substantiate your own claims, which you have yet to do.

If you think that farming is sustainable, why don't you tell us why we still need unsustainable levels of mineral fertelizers and how you explain the nutrient depletion to be sustainable. And I didn't see any reference backing up that farming is sustainable (not even a fanatic capitalist would say such a thing)

I doubt that you have studied the treatment of hazardous waste in any detail, otherwise you would not be making this ignorant argument.

As for the disposal of hazardous waste into landfills, the EPA has, as you have said, strict regulations on this.
Disposing means reducing the negative effect, not eliminating it. Do you really think you can put a layer of sand on top of a wasteland and plant a forrest?

3rd August 2009, 18:33

If you think that farming is sustainableI didn't say farming in general was sustainable; I said that tree farming is sustainable because of specific practices set in place by guidelines offered by the AFF.

But if you want to misrepresent what I'm saying and continue attacking windmills you're more than welcome to do so; it's quite entertaining.

Disposing means reducing the negative effect, not eliminating it. Do you really think you can put a layer of sand on top of a [landfill] and plant a forrest?Disposing does not mean "reducing the negative effect". Disposing means to get rid of something. In many cases materials can be treated to an extent where they have no negative effect on the environment. For example, the water treatment plants in Milwaukee expel treated water into Lake Michigan. The treated water is actually cleaner than the lake water, so in this case it is actually assisting in cleaning up the lake. Also, waste from treated water is used to make Milorganite (which is also made from residual heat, and thus harnesses energy that is already being given off by the treatment plant, effectively being created for free), a natural fertilizer, and sold for a profit. So in all, it's actually helping the environment.

Now, for the second part of your question: No, you cannot plant trees on landfills because of risks of the root systems penetrating the cap. However, there is research and debate on this issue (see this paper by Dobson and Moffat (http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/579), for example); in the future I can see this not being a problem. But I don't see it as a problem now, either.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 18:49

I didn't say farming in general was sustainable; I said that tree farming is sustainable because of specific practices set in place by guidelines offered by the AFF.

But if you want to misrepresent what I'm saying and continue attacking windmills you're more than welcome to do so; it's quite entertaining.

Tree farming is still fucking farming! How is tree farming sustainable?

Disposing does not mean "reducing the negative effect". Disposing means to get rid of something. In many cases materials can be treated to an extent where they have no negative effect on the environment. For example, the water treatment plants in Milwaukee expel treated water into Lake Michigan. The treated water is actually cleaner than the lake water, so in this case it is actually assisting in cleaning up the lake.

Now, for the second part of your question: No, you cannot plant trees on landfills because of the cap. Moreover, there is also research currently being conducted and debate being had on this issue (see this paper by Dobson and Moffat (http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/579), for example); in the future I can see this not being a problem. But I don't see it as a problem now, either.
If you deny the existence of something it doesn't mean it isn't there. All that means is that you deny it. How on earth could nonbiodegradable materials produced in millions of tons yeach year and dumped on the ground be environmentaly friendly? How could possibly gold extraction with cyanide count as "not a problem"? And you still haven't explained me how tree farming is sustainable.

3rd August 2009, 18:57

Tree farming is still fucking farming! How is tree farming sustainable?

Tree farming is a type of farming but not all farming is tree farming. Hence, your error is in extrapolating my statement that tree farming is sustainable to mean that all farming is sustainable.

And as I have already stated, tree farming is done in a sustainable manner because of practices laid down in the guidelines set by the AFF, to which I have linked you already.

If you deny the existence of something it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I haven't denied the existence of anything.

How on earth could nonbiodegradable materials produced in millions of tons yeach year and dumped on the ground be environmentaly friendly? How could possibly gold extraction with cyanide count as "not a problem"?

Let's try something new. Instead of me explaining how landfills are not environmentally unfriendly (and also, as I have already stated, how they are in some ways good for the environment), how about you explain to me how they are bad for the environment?

And you still haven't explained me how tree farming is sustainable.

Yes I have. I have even linked you to the guidelines for the AFF which describes the practices implemented in order to make tree farming sustainable. Have you looked at them?

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 19:13

Tree farming is a type of farming but not all farming is tree farming. Hence, your error is in extrapolating my statement that tree farming is sustainable to mean that all farming is sustainable.

And as I have already stated, tree farming is done in a sustainable manner because of practices laid down in the guidelines set by the AFF, to which I have linked you already.

I've read that and the only sustainability I found is in the title.
You explain me what I've asked before. You're supposed to think for yourself, no?

I haven't denied the existence of anything.

You denied the environment destruction of hazardous wastes, you shout about the sustainability of tree farming, yet you haven't explained in any way how that is accomplished.

Let's try something new. Instead of me explaining how landfills are not environmentally unfriendly (and also, as I have already stated, how they are in some ways good for the environment), how about you explain to me how they are bad for the environment?

Yes I have. I have even linked you to the guidelines for the AFF which describes the practices implemented in order to make tree farming sustainable. Have you looked at them?
You don't see any pollution. There is no such thing as environment destruction, landfills are environmently friendly and planting trees magically replaces cut ones. What's to explain? You are like any other stubborn ignorant pro capitalist dude. And as far as I've learned, trying to convice someone like that is a complete waste of time.

3rd August 2009, 19:24

I've read that and the only sustainability I found is in the title.
You explain me what I've asked before. You're supposed to think for yourself, no?

Did you read the Word file where the 2004-2008 AFF Standards are contained, or did you just go to the website and glance at it and assume that it was wrong?

I did not want to link to a Word file because I do not think that it is proper to cite a Word file directly without citing where it came from, so I provided you the page that linked to the Word file. Here is a link (http://www.forestfoundation.org/2004_AFF_Standards_annotations.doc) to the Word file itself.

You denied the environment destruction of hazardous wastes

Where did I deny this? Obviously hazardous wastes, if not treated and disposed of properly, will harm the environment.

You don't see any pollution. There is no such thing as environment destruction, landfills are environmently friendly and planting trees magically replaces cut ones. What's to explain? You are like any other stubborn ignorant pro capitalist dude. And as far as I've learned, trying to convice someone like that is a complete waste of time.

Keep tilting at those windmills; one's bound to be a giant eventually.:rolleyes:

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 19:32

Did you read the Word file where the 2004-2008 AFF Standards are contained, or did you just go to the website and glance at it and assume that it was wrong?

I did not want to link to a Word file because I do not think that it is proper to cite a Word file directly without citing where it came from, so I provided you the page that linked to the Word file. Here is a link (http://www.forestfoundation.org/2004_AFF_Standards_annotations.doc) to the Word file itself.

I read the word doc before. And I didn't see any sustainable practices there. You explain them.

Where did I deny this? Obviously hazardous wastes, if not treated and disposed of properly, will harm the environment.

Keep tilting at those windmills; one's bound to be a giant eventually.:rolleyes:
So there is no problem disposing large amounts of waste to you?

3rd August 2009, 19:40

I read the word doc before. And I didn't see any sustainable practices there. You explain them.

It's laid out right before your eyes. There's no more explaining that can be done; it can't be stated in a more obvious manner. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that.

So there is no problem disposing large amounts of waste to you?

Not if it's treated and disposed of properly.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 19:45

It's laid out right before your eyes. There's no more explaining that can be done; it can't be stated in a more obvious manner. I'm sorry if you cannot understand that.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about do you? Otherwise what is so hard to explain such a simple thing?

Not if it's treated and disposed of properly.
But you don't think further ahead. Where do you think those huge amounts of 'properly' disposed waste go? In the land and water suply near it obviously. How about the environment destruction that occurs by minning all that stuff considering that someone suggested most stuff shouldn't be recycled?

3rd August 2009, 19:50

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about do you? Otherwise what is so hard to explain such a simple thing?

It isn't hard to explain. In fact, it's contained right within that document. Why is it so hard to understand such a simple thing?

Where do you think those huge amounts of 'properly' disposed waste go? In the land and water suply near it obviously.

Um, no it doesn't. Landfills are strictly regulated to prevent this from happening. It is why this problem is almost nonexistent in the United States.

How about the environment destruction that occurs by minning all that stuff considering that someone suggested most stuff shouldn't be recycled?

We were talking about landfills, not recycling. I don't know why you insist on changing the subject all the time. And I suggest that you take that up with whoever made that claim, and not me.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 19:56

It isn't hard to explain. In fact, it's contained right within that document. Why is it so hard to understand such a simple thing?

You insisted that I explain why farming is not sustainable which I did. Now I insist that you explain how tree farming is sustainable; I told you there was nothing about that in the document already.

Um, no it doesn't. Landfills are strictly regulated to prevent this from happening. It is why this problem is almost nonexistent in the United States.

And WHERE does the waste go? It stays there for thousands of years? We make more and more landfills to fulfill our consumerist needs for cheap stuff?

We were talking about landfills, not recycling. I don't know why you insist on changing the subject all the time. And I suggest that you take that up with whoever made that claim, and not me.
It's the same subject. Throwing it in a landfill means not recycling which means minning for more.

3rd August 2009, 19:59

You insisted that I explain why farming is not sustainable which I did.No, I did not ask you to "explain" why "farming" is unsustainable; I asked you to substantiate your claim that tree farming is unsustainable. You still have yet to do so.

Now I insist that you explain how tree farming is sustainable; I told you there was nothing about that in the document already.Except it is in the document.

And WHERE does the waste go? It stays there for thousands of years?Sure why not?

We make more and more landfills to fulfill our consumerist needs for cheap stuff?Yes.

It's the same subject. Throwing it in a landfill means not recycling which means minning for more.Discussing whether or not landfills are environmentally friendly is not the same as discussing whether or not recycling is productive. And besides, recycling materials does not mean that you are not throwing it out; it means that you are not throwing it out yet. It will end up in the same place eventually, anyways, which is why these two separate topics aren't as connected as you think.

The Situationist

3rd August 2009, 20:03

Recycling has been turned into a capitalist enterprise.

Profit always ruins any endeavor.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 20:06

No, I did not ask you to "explain" why "farming" is unsustainable; I asked you to substantiate your claim that tree farming is unsustainable. You still have yet to do so.

I've said that every type of modern day farming is unsustainable. These principles apply also to tree farming. You disagree. Prove it! Explain why! Don't show me a doc that says nothing about it.

Except it is in the document.

Sure why not?

Yes.

Discussing whether or not landfills are environmentally friendly is not the same as discussing whether or not recycling is productive. And besides, recycling materials does not mean that you are not throwing it out; it means that you are not throwing it out yet. It will end up in the same place eventually, anyways, which is why these two separate topics aren't as connected as you think.
As I said there is no point in arguing with stubborn people that want to believe something they no nothing about. I'll stop doing that now. All I'm waiting is YOUR proof that tree farming is sustainable. Thank you.

3rd August 2009, 20:29

I've said that every type of modern day farming is unsustainable. These principles apply also to tree farming. You disagree. Prove it! Explain why! Don't show me a doc that says nothing about it.

Standard 2: Compliance With Laws
Forest management complies with all relevant federal, state and local regulations and ordinances.

Standard 3: Commitment to Practicing Sustainable Forestry
Forest owners demonstrate their commitment to sustainability by developing and implementing a long-term forest management plan.

Standard 4: Reforestation
Forest owners provide timely restocking of desirable species of trees, compatible with regional ecosystems on harvested areas and idle areas where tree-growing is the land use objective.

Standard 5: Air, Water and Soil Protection
Forestry practices maintain or enhance the environment, including air, water, soil, and site quality.

Standard 6: Fish, Wildlife and Biodiversity
Forest management activities contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and maintain or enhance habitat for native fish, wildlife, and plant species, with emphasis on natural plant and animal communities and rare plants and animals.

Standard 7: Forest Aesthetics
Forest management practices minimize negative visual impacts of forest activities.

Standard 8: Protect Special Sites
Special sites are managed in a way that recognizes their unique characteristics.

Standard 9: Wood Fiber Harvest and Other Operations
Wood fiber harvests and other forest operations are conducted in accordance with the management plan and with sensitivity to other forest values (e.g., water quality, regeneration, wildlife habitat, biodiversity, special sites, etc.).

And so on. As I said, it is all contained within the document.

As I said there is no point in arguing with stubborn people that want to believe something they no nothing about.:laugh:

I have a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, I am a certified EIT and I have read extensively and studied extensively the environmental impact of waste treatment and disposal. I have also studied and reported on relevant local, state and Federal regulations regarding waste treatment and environmental issues in general, and have worked at a company dealing specifically with the transport, treatment and disposal of sewage and wastewater.

You have been in the National Chemistry Olympics.

Now, do you want to tell me that you know more about this than me and that I "know nothing" once again?

BTW, why didn't you respond to my statements regarding the environmental viability of landfills?

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 20:41

And so on. As I said, it is all contained within the document.

That's YOUR explanation? For someone who brags for having a bachelor degree I would expect some thinking on his own.

Ok, I'll put it in a different way: If you cut trees, make furniture and crap and then you dispose that in a landfill, how can you possibly plant a forrest over and over again if the nutrients aren't returned to the land? They come from outer space?

:laugh:

I have a Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, I am a certified EIT and I have read extensively and studied extensively the environmental impact of waste treatment and disposal. I have also studied and reported on relevant local, state and Federal regulations regarding waste treatment and environmental issues in general, and have worked at a company dealing specifically with the transport, treatment and disposal of sewage and wastewater.

You have been in the National Chemistry Olympics.

Now, do you want to tell me that you know more about this than me and that I "know nothing" once again?

We're not arguing about civil engineering (since nobody cares about sustainability I doubt you learned what that means there). We're talking about plant nutrients and the chemistry of synthetic materials. Do you have a bachelor degree in that too?

BTW, why didn't you respond to my statements regarding the environmental viability of landfills?
Because it will be another useless discusion in which you claim there is no problem. No thanks.

3rd August 2009, 20:51

That's YOUR explanation? For someone who brags for having a bachelor degree I would expect some thinking on his own.

Ok, I'll put it in a different way: If you cut trees, make furniture and crap and then you dispose that in a landfill, how can you possibly plant a forrest over and over again if the nutrients aren't returned to the land? They come from outer space?

The same way any forest maintains its own existence...

We're not arguing about civil engineering

Sorry, but this has everything to do with civil engineering; environmental engineering is a specific emphasis in civil engineering, which is exactly what this is.

Because it will be another useless discusion in which you claim there is no problem. No thanks.

So you have simply given up on supporting your arguments, then.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 20:55

The same way any forest maintains its own existence...

I already mentioned the nutrient cycle in a forrest. The nutrients never leave the forrest. They don't get throwed in a landfill, they decay on the ground.

3rd August 2009, 21:01

I already mentioned the nutrient cycle in a forrest. The nutrients never leave the forrest. They don't get throwed in a landfill, they decay on the ground.

If you seriously want to fucking deny the blatantly obvious fact that tree foresting is sustainable, as recognized by nearly everyone that knows anything about it (myself included), then you can keep on doing so, because you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You have failed to back up any single assertion that you have made in this thread, instead resorting to putting your hands over your eyes and shouting "I CAN'T SEE IT!" when the answer you are looking for is put right in front of your face. You have consistently even gone to such lengths as to abandon supporting your own arguments and made statements that makes it blatantly obvious that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You're effectively trolling at this point, and I am no longer going to participate in this pointless debate with you; anyone with half a brain can read what I have written and see that my position is clear, consistently defended and substantiated with sources.

Ovi

3rd August 2009, 22:58

If you seriously want to fucking deny the blatantly obvious fact that tree foresting is sustainable, as recognized by nearly everyone that knows anything about it (myself included), then you can keep on doing so, because you obviously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You have failed to back up any single assertion that you have made in this thread, instead resorting to putting your hands over your eyes and shouting "I CAN'T SEE IT!" when the answer you are looking for is put right in front of your face. You have consistently even gone to such lengths as to abandon supporting your own arguments and made statements that makes it blatantly obvious that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You're effectively trolling at this point, and I am no longer going to participate in this pointless debate with you; anyone with half a brain can read what I have written and see that my position is clear, consistently defended and substantiated with sources.
I only asked someone with a bachelor degree how he explains a concept. You started showing me some articles that had nothing to do with that and then start whinning how I'm a troll. I just wanted to know the answer to something I don't understand.

pastradamus

5th August 2009, 02:26

You mean it's better to exploit the environment more that to reuse?

No, I meant its better to exploit the environment than to RECYCLE (not reuse things, im all in favour of that). We already exploit the environment in numerous ways, Farming, Fishing etc.. If we never exploited the environment than we wouldn't be here. Harming the environment on the other hand is what I was talking about and I believe recycling, in the long run does more harm than good.

Yes, it's called externalizing the costs. Why take care of your toxic dirt cheap product when you can just throw it away in a landfill.

You support externalizing costs? In otherwords passing a cost onto the consumer? Why are you on revleft if you believe in bad consumer protection policies like that?

Actually it's not renewable because current agricultural systems aren't sustainable.

Yes they are. We've had farms for thousands of years. We've had millions of trees replanted in the last 150 years. We have modern farming methods such as crop rotation which dont exploit the nutrients in the soil.

What happens next with these billions of tons of waste? Plastic ain't that biodegradable you know.

Absolutely! Its a complete joke that plastic cant be recycled in a cost effective manner which is also good for the environment than. Its a failing of capitalism that landfills are the best thing we have.

This whole post is a joke right?
Not for the open-minded people who are not afraid to think for themselves and see the errors in recycling.

pastradamus

5th August 2009, 02:34

Disposing means reducing the negative effect, not eliminating it. Do you really think you can put a layer of sand on top of a wasteland and plant a forrest?

YES! It can be done. Japan are launching a bid for the 2016 Olympics and have successfully planted and grown a forest on an old landfill as part of this bid.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/434571/1/.html

StalinFanboy

5th August 2009, 02:39

I recycle because they give me money for it.

Theoretically, I can go around and take peoples recycling, and get free money.

Lynx

5th August 2009, 02:49

If you want your trash to be picked up, you recycle. Recyclables in blue or clear bags, compostables in the green bin and non-recyclables in black garbage bags.
If municipalities don't want to be penalized with landfill fees, they make sure they have recycling programs that people participate in.
The downturn in the economy has affected the recyclables market, but there is a market for it.

Pogue

5th August 2009, 02:51

I recycle because they give me money for it.

Theoretically, I can go around and take peoples recycling, and get free money.

ur doin it wrong

Ovi

5th August 2009, 11:23

No, I meant its better to exploit the environment than to RECYCLE (not reuse things, im all in favour of that). We already exploit the environment in numerous ways, Farming, Fishing etc.. If we never exploited the environment than we wouldn't be here. Harming the environment on the other hand is what I was talking about and I believe recycling, in the long run does more harm than good.

Recycling something means reusing it's materials. That's not bad.
Farming and fishing can be done in sustainable ways that don't damage the environment further.

You support externalizing costs? In otherwords passing a cost onto the consumer? Why are you on revleft if you believe in bad consumer protection policies like that?

Externalizing the costs means making products cheaper by not including all the costs in the price of the product. For instance cutting a forrest without caring about what happens next, using materials that leach toxic compounds because they are cheaper, not recycling because oil it's cheaper (the only reason most plastic it's not recycled today is that we have loads of cheap oil; I assume you are on the side of the oil industry), cheap labour in the third world, hiring children...
As far as I understand you agree with this, just to get the stuff as cheap as possible. Yes, I support passing the real cost to the consumer, not to third world countries or to our environment.
Do you even know how much energy it would be required to synthesize all the plastic we dump if there would be no oil? Much more that it would take to recycle them.

Yes they are. We've had farms for thousands of years. We've had millions of trees replanted in the last 150 years. We have modern farming methods such as crop rotation which dont exploit the nutrients in the soil.

Yet if tomorrow we would have no more mineral fertilizer, hundreds of millions if not billions of people would die of starvation. That's not sustainable. Crop rotation doesn't exploit the nutrients in the soil? :laugh: They come out of space if we use crop rotation?

Absolutely! Its a complete joke that plastic cant be recycled in a cost effective manner which is also good for the environment than. Its a failing of capitalism that landfills are the best thing we have.

Didn't you suggest that it's better for the environment not to recycle?

Not for the open-minded people who are not afraid to think for themselves and see the errors in recycling.
There is an error in recycling, that it doesn't happen! Most stuff still gets into landfills.

YES! It can be done. Japan are launching a bid for the 2016 Olympics and have successfully planted and grown a forest on an old landfill as part of this bid.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/434571/1/.html
And you suggest we dump our waste in the ocean and then plant a forest on top of it? :laugh: Plus that only happened because there is no more room for landfills in Japan. Great!
Anyway, the waste underneath is not going to dissapear any time soon.

Invader Zim

5th August 2009, 12:53

Its cheaper, More Fuel Efficient and ultimetly better for the envoirment to simply process new Materials and create a virgin product.

That depends entirely on the product, and as you noted - cans. But lets expand on that a little. The energy saved by recycling a single aluminium can is 1.9 litres of petrol (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-energy-saved-by-recycling-one-aluminum). So if you recycle your 24 pack of beer you save the equivelent of 45.6 litres of petrol. To convert that into miles, if the average car does around 7.5 miles per litre, that is 342 miles.

I suggest that this saving, from just 24 cans, would cover all of this and a lot more besides:

"1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)"

Image then that this process is delaing with 100,000 cans a week, which I would guess is a very, very, conservative estimate. That gives us 1,425,000 miles. To put that into perspective, the distance to the moon is, at the furtherst point of orbit, is around 250,000 miles.

Of course this doesn't take into account the fuel efficiency of your typical lorry, and is based on the estimates of a standard car. But I think as a very general and crude model it does the job.

Invader Zim

5th August 2009, 13:25

And so on. As I said, it is all contained within the document.
Is it? You will have to forgive me but I don't have a degree in Civil Engineering, chemistry, biology or any science for that matter (though some here have told me that my degree is in a science), but from my reading that document tell us that the foresters are to comply with regulations to retain the site quality. But in order to do so, persumably that involves artifically adding nutrients to the soil, no? This returns us to Ovi 1's point, that these nutrients are finite, and i don't think you've addressed that at all.

pastradamus

5th August 2009, 16:25

Recycling something means reusing it's materials. That's not bad.

No it dosent. Recycling involves processing used materials into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials (by definition). Reusing something does not involve processing it inot new products. Im a big fan of reusing something. For example I refill old bottles with water (that and the fact I think bottled water is a crime and a scam) or some other drink.

Farming and fishing can be done in sustainable ways that don't damage the environment further.

Thats what I said.

This is what you said:
Actually it's not renewable because current agricultural systems aren't sustainable.

Externalizing the costs means making products cheaper by not including all the costs in the price of the product. For instance cutting a forrest without caring about what happens next, using materials that leach toxic compounds because they are cheaper, not recycling because oil it's cheaper

Firstly, Oil is not cheap and I know what externalizing the costs means. The fact of the matter is that Tree Replanting occurs in Most of the large scale forestry industries across the world. The EPA mandates the replanting of trees under law in the forestry industry.

(
the only reason most plastic it's not recycled today is that we have loads of cheap oil; I assume you are on the side of the oil industry),

No, im on the side of reasonable recycling when it actually benefits society to do so.

cheap labour in the third world, hiring children...

Your trying that on the wrong person. I work for a union

As far as I understand you agree with this, just to get the stuff as cheap as possible. Yes, I support passing the real cost to the consumer, not to third world countries or to our environment.
Do you even know how much energy it would be required to synthesize all the plastic we dump if there would be no oil? Much more that it would take to recycle them.

Passing the cost of the price of something back onto consumers is not a leftist practice. Its a capitalist one. Whats all this bullshit about anyway?

Take Levis Jeans for example. In the 80's they recieved an award for the non exploitation of third world sweat shop workers by making all their products in Western Countries. A few years later they opened up sweat shops all over asia to make their clothes...did the products get any cheaper? No, because they simply used cheap labour to maximise profits. Thats what Cost externalization means - Maximising profit by offloading costs to the consumer (what little costs come in the form of a pay check for a third world worker).

Yet if tomorrow we would have no more mineral fertilizer, hundreds of millions if not billions of people would die of starvation. That's not sustainable. Crop rotation doesn't exploit the nutrients in the soil? :laugh: They come out of space if we use crop rotation?

What are you talking about? Crop rotation seeks to balance the fertility demands of various crops to avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients. Its a modern system we have to control nutrients in the soil in order to stop the environment being turned into unusable wasteland by tillage. Its a modern well-thought out system. On the mineral fertilizer issue - its not the only fertilizer in the world you know? We have hundreads if not thousands of different fertilizers from mineral to cow crap.

Didn't you suggest that it's better for the environment not to recycle?

Yes, but the impact on the environment by recycling the plastic in factories and by the fact that multi-billion dollar corporations simply use it to make profit whilst passing the costs onto the consumer (cost externalizing)

There is an error in recycling, that it doesn't happen! Most stuff still gets into landfills.

And its better off there until Plastic can be recycled in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner.

And you suggest we dump our waste in the ocean and then plant a forest on top of it? :laugh: Plus that only happened because there is no more room for landfills in Japan. Great!
Anyway, the waste underneath is not going to dissapear any time soon.

Japan is running out of space for just about everything. I never suggested dumping anything in the ocean, but its good to see they can make something out of it dont you think?

5th August 2009, 16:29

But in order to do so, persumably that involves artifically adding nutrients to the soil, no? This returns us to Ovi 1's point, that these nutrients are finite, and i don't think you've addressed that at all.

All resources are finite. Nothing is sustainable in the strict sense (i.e. a completely contained system); I was never making the claim that it was sustainable in this sense, because applying that definition is mind-bogglingly stupid.

pastradamus

5th August 2009, 16:29

That depends entirely on the product, and as you noted - cans. But lets expand on that a little. The energy saved by recycling a single aluminium can is 1.9 litres of petrol (http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-energy-saved-by-recycling-one-aluminum). So if you recycle your 24 pack of beer you save the equivelent of 45.6 litres of petrol. To convert that into miles, if the average car does around 7.5 miles per litre, that is 342 miles.

I suggest that this saving, from just 24 cans, would cover all of this and a lot more besides:

"1) When you leave out your recycling a truck comes to pick it up to drop it off to your local recycling centre which = Emissions from fuel.

2) The Next stop at the recycling centre entails huge assembly lines which are powered (using more fuel and causing more emissions) and the Recycled material is baled into bundles.

3) These bundles are transported by a truck (more fuel emissions) to another factory where the Bales are processed into new products (more fuel).

4) The new products then have to be transported to a Market (I think you get the deal now)"

Image then that this process is delaing with 100,000 cans a week, which I would guess is a very, very, conservative estimate. That gives us 1,425,000 miles. To put that into perspective, the distance to the moon is, at the furtherst point of orbit, is around 250,000 miles.

Of course this doesn't take into account the fuel efficiency of your typical lorry, and is based on the estimates of a standard car. But I think as a very general and crude model it does the job.

Fantastic figures. Thats why recycling the create of beer is a fantastic idea. Also glass bottles and jars are a good idea.

pastradamus

5th August 2009, 16:36

Is it? You will have to forgive me but I don't have a degree in Civil Engineering, chemistry, biology or any science for that matter (though some here have told me that my degree is in a science), but from my reading that document tell us that the foresters are to comply with regulations to retain the site quality. But in order to do so, persumably that involves artifically adding nutrients to the soil, no? This returns us to Ovi 1's point, that these nutrients are finite, and i don't think you've addressed that at all.

No, we have bloodworm, manure, Guano, Bone meal, Seaweed, peat, worm castings, fish meal and lots of others and we can manufacture Naturally occuring fertilizers into much stronger compounds such as superphosphates.

Also, Many Chemical fertilizers may have long-term adverse impact on the organisms living in soil, so its better and more reliable to use Organic Fertilization anyway as there is no major advantage over the use of Chemical fertilizers only minute cost differences.

And Id also like to ask Ovi why limestone is somthing that he thinks is going to run out soon?

Ovi

5th August 2009, 17:20

No it dosent. Recycling involves processing used materials into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials (by definition). Reusing something does not involve processing it inot new products. Im a big fan of reusing something. For example I refill old bottles with water (that and the fact I think bottled water is a crime and a scam) or some other drink.

Thats what I said.

This is what you said:

I said that agriculture CAN be done in sustainable ways but it's not today.

Firstly, Oil is not cheap and I know what externalizing the costs means. The fact of the matter is that Tree Replanting occurs in Most of the large scale forestry industries across the world. The EPA mandates the replanting of trees under law in the forestry industry.

It's obviously much cheaper than recycling synthetic materials and that's all that matters. If we wouldn't be using oil, that junk would be far too precious to dump.
Of course they mandate tree planting. But that doesn't make it sustainable!!

(

No, im on the side of reasonable recycling when it actually benefits society to do so.

Not destroying the environment and our health in the process does benefit society actually. But that's harder to measure in $$

Your trying that on the wrong person. I work for a union

How does that change the fact that you support cheap stuff no matter what?

Passing the cost of the price of something back onto consumers is not a leftist practice. Its a capitalist one. Whats all this bullshit about anyway?

Leftist is child/worker protection and sustainable development. Capitalist is someone who puts profit above everything else (someone like you?)

Take Levis Jeans for example. In the 80's they recieved an award for the non exploitation of third world sweat shop workers by making all their products in Western Countries. A few years later they opened up sweat shops all over asia to make their clothes...did the products get any cheaper? No, because they simply used cheap labour to maximise profits. Thats what Cost externalization means - Maximising profit by offloading costs to the consumer (what little costs come in the form of a pay check for a third world worker).

Obviously if some company would move their factories from a third world country to a developed one, it would mean prices increasing, no?

What are you talking about? Crop rotation seeks to balance the fertility demands of various crops to avoid excessive depletion of soil nutrients. Its a modern system we have to control nutrients in the soil in order to stop the environment being turned into unusable wasteland by tillage. Its a modern well-thought out system. On the mineral fertilizer issue - its not the only fertilizer in the world you know? We have hundreads if not thousands of different fertilizers from mineral to cow crap.

But for some reason we still use mineral fertilizer and with such eroded soil we have today you can't really grow much without it. Cow crap? Have you ever heard of the potassium cycle? It's called a cycle because it's a closed loop. Not today it isn't. Without a constant suply of mineral fertilizers we would all be fucked.

Yes, but the impact on the environment by recycling the plastic in factories and by the fact that multi-billion dollar corporations simply use it to make profit whilst passing the costs onto the consumer (cost externalizing)

And its better off there until Plastic can be recycled in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner.

Actually it's much more environmentally to recycle that to throw in a landfill and produce more out of oil. Obviously you also have a Ph.D in the chemistry of polimers so I should not dare argue with you.

Japan is running out of space for just about everything. I never suggested dumping anything in the ocean, but its good to see they can make something out of it dont you think?
Throwing toxic or inert materials in the ocean? No, I don't.

All resources are finite. Nothing is sustainable in the strict sense (i.e. a completely contained system); I was never making the claim that it was sustainable in this sense, because applying that definition is mind-bogglingly stupid.
Now you invented more definitions to sustainability? :laugh:
Actually forests have been growing on this earth for hundreds of millions of years. That's what we call sustainable.Yet if you'd want to plant one on intensive farm land it would be impossible without adding mineral fertilizer. That's not sustainable.

Fantastic figures. Thats why recycling the create of beer is a fantastic idea. Also glass bottles and jars are a good idea.
If you would bother to calculate it or to inform yourself, most stuff would be far cheaper and more environmentally friendly to recycle than to produce without oil.

No, we have bloodworm, manure, Guano, Bone meal, Seaweed, peat, worm castings, fish meal and lots of others and we can manufacture Naturally occuring fertilizers into much stronger compounds such as superphosphates.

It's not about that we have that, but that stuff will not return ALL the nutrients lost to the soil. That's why we STILL need mineral fertilizer.
Superphosphate it's not a "stronger" fertilizer, it's just fast release :laugh:

Also, Many Chemical fertilizers may have long-term adverse impact on the organisms living in soil, so its better and more reliable to use Organic Fertilization anyway as there is no major advantage over the use of Chemical fertilizers only minute cost differences.

You really think you outsmarted everyone by saying that? Why on earth do you think we still need mineral fertilizer instead of organic? Because organic ain't enough!

And Id also like to ask Ovi why limestone is somthing that he thinks is going to run out soon?
Limestone doesn't add potassium, phosphorus nor nitrogen, which one might call macronutrients. It's used as a soil conditioner, mainly to increase the pH.