Recycling paper is woo??

SkepticalScience

Thinker
S
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
225
I've been catching up on Penn & Tellers Showtime series BS - and just saw their Recycling episode last night.

I might have to watch the show again, but I think they were claiming that recycling paper is actually worse for the environment than simply throwing the paper away.

The crux of their argument was that trees are a commodity - like say potatoes. If people demand more potatoes, industries will grow more potatoes . . . . so if the demand for paper/wood/etc increases, then industries will plant more trees.

But if you recycle the paper, the process that are in place to do that simply emit a type of smog – which is a bona fide threat to the world. Then, the output that you get from recycling tons of paper, isn’t a whole lot anyway. So. . . you are increasing the amount of smog in the world, decreasing the demand for trees, and not yielding much end product at all.

I think I need a bit more convincing about this whole recycling paper thing. (In fairness, they did say that recycling cans was good for the environment). I mean, just because we demand more paper and wood, trees still take a while to grow, right??

Any thoughts??
 
SkepticalScience said:
I've been catching up on Penn & Tellers Showtime series BS - and just saw their Recycling episode last night.

I might have to watch the show again, but I think they were claiming that recycling paper is actually worse for the environment than simply throwing the paper away.

The crux of their argument was that trees are a commodity - like say potatoes. If people demand more potatoes, industries will grow more potatoes . . . . so if the demand for paper/wood/etc increases, then industries will plant more trees.

But if you recycle the paper, the process that are in place to do that simply emit a type of smog – which is a bona fide threat to the world. Then, the output that you get from recycling tons of paper, isn’t a whole lot anyway. So. . . you are increasing the amount of smog in the world, decreasing the demand for trees, and not yielding much end product at all.

I think I need a bit more convincing about this whole recycling paper thing. (In fairness, they did say that recycling cans was good for the environment). I mean, just because we demand more paper and wood, trees still take a while to grow, right??

Any thoughts??
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, as part of their analysis, did they consider the impact of growing/cutting/processing the new trees or the landfill issues of disposing the paper? You also have a good point regarding the ability of the industry to respond to demand, when you consider how long it takes a tree to grow.
 
I haven't seen that particular show, but I suspect some drive to recycle paper has more to do with bulk than lack of raw materials (presumably the notion that paper consumption causes deforestation). When my city implemented garbage separation, I noticed most of my garbage was in fact paper, and after separation, I really had relatively little amount of "real garbage". In some areas, landfill space is at a premium, so garbage gets more costly to haul farther away. Recycling may be cost effective in such areas, even though it may be a net producer of pollution.

In my particular city, I always get the feeling that refuse from the recycling bins tends to get hauled to the landfill as often as not. The city has a "three bin" system, one bin for garbage, one for (mixed) recyclables, and one for yard waste (which often accounts for the most bulk). I know for a fact that even though separated, the garbage and yard waste from my neighborhood goes to the same place.
 
I can't answer the specific question.

But, it is definitely woo to claim that recycling is better per se (as it tends to be sold to the public - especially kids:mad: ). It may be it may not.
 
I may be way out of line here (and I have not seen the P&T episode), but I always thought that paper and wood are good ways of locking up carbon. If we used more paper, then more trees would be used and more trees grown. Let the trees absorb the carbon dioxide, cut them down, make things out of them and grow more.

What's wrong with that?
 
In the show, did they also cover the effect on the environment of the actual recycling process--the bleaching of the old paper and all that it entails? That's a part that no one seems to focus on. It doesn't mean that because of the environmental impact that I won't recycle--quite the contrary, I'm an ardent recycler. My feeling is that it's better than doing nothing. It sure beats filling up landfill after landfill.

Michael
 
There is also the amount of recycled paper to be considered.

In the 70's recycled newspaper were actually worth money. My cub scout troop used to collect old newspapers and pay for much of our equipment. Now that recycling is mandatory, there is a glut of recycled paper and it has a negative value.

Presumably, paper mills can save money by using a certain percent of recycled paper but once there is too much recycled, it costs more money.

CBL
 
I live in a town where logging and milling of lumber is the main industry. We're on the edge of a national forest and the battle rages over cutting of old growth, second growth and third growth trees, some of it for paper production.

The argument that trees are a crop, just like potatoes or corn, is frequently heard in these parts. It is a political argument, not based on science. It's almost always followed by the assertion that god gave man dominion over the earth to exploit and that includes the forests. These days, that's a political argument, too.

As far as I know, the claim that recycling is better for the environment is unsubstantiated. As is the claim that trees are like a commodity or crop and that cutting them will result in more trees being grown.

Personally, I consider the trees as potatoes argument to be far more woo. It flies in the face of stardard agricultural practice and it's an argument that in real life is almost always linked with god (at least here where the trees are.)

Most farm crops take 1 year to mature and can easily be replanted and reharvested year after year. Orchard crops take 3-7 years to become productive, and then remain productive year after year without replanting. Both row crops and orchard crops require carefully planned irrigation, fertilization, pest control, weeding, pruning and so on. Even organically grown crops require such care.

This care is not available deep in forests where the trees are cut and replanted.

It's true that paper companies have developed fast-growing poplar hybrids which are planted like row crops on lower quality agricultural land. That land is usually flat or gently rolling, and is often irrigated and fertilized. These hybrids may take 7-20 years to mature to the size that makes them profitable paper pulp. It's a wonderful innovation and a good use of poor quality farm land.

In comparison, most forest land is steeply sloped, thin soiled and unirrigated. It's not uncommon to have a 95% failure of tree seedlings in the first two years after planting. This is largely dependent on weather conditions, which are unpredicatable at best. In the last two decades there have been many draught years, with record breaking high and low temps. This raises the die off rate. In milder years, more seedlings survive. Those trees that do take hold will take decades to reach maturity.

Comparing trees to potatoes simply is not a good analogy. However, it does remind me of the yearly lessons we had in science class when I was in grade school (a bit off-topic, but fun.)

1. Trees are a renewable resource and we'll never run out of lumber. Lesson followed by a field trip to a Weyerhauser lumber mill.

2. Salmon are a renewable resource and our fisheries will always be strong. Lesson followed by a field trip to a fish hatchery.

3. The Cascade Mountain Range is volcanically dead and we'll never have to worry about Mt. St. Helens or Mt. Rainier erupting. Lesson followed by a field trip to Snoqualmie Pass to play in the snow.

4. The Hanford Nuclear Facility is perfectly safe and nuclear warheads keep America secure. Lesson followed by a nuclear war drill where we all went to the school basement and pulled our coats over our heads to protect ourselves from fallout, and then a field trip to Hanford.


Gayle
(edited for typos)
________________

When I think back on all the crap I learned in [grade] school, it's a wonder I can think at all. ~ Paul Simon~
 
It's true that paper companies have developed fast-growing poplar hybrids which are planted like row crops on lower quality agricultural land. That land is usually flat or gently rolling, and is often irrigated and fertilized.
Click to expand...


Then the potato analogy isn't as poor as you have asserted.



As far as I know, the claim that recycling is better for the environment is unsubstantiated. As is the claim that trees are like a commodity or crop and that cutting them will result in more trees being grown.
Click to expand...


They aren't "like" a crop or commodity.
They are a crop and a commodity.

Your admission above, that trees are cultiavted to fill demand, pretty much "substantiates" the claim that trees "are like a commodity or crop and that cutting them will result in more trees being grown".
 
Some amount of logging is done from trees grown as dedicated timber crops. That mostly gives you all-but-monocultures, which is not a desirable concept from a sustainability and ecosystem health point of view. Still, the vast majority of logging is of the clearcutting of old growth variety, which is the worst thing happening to global biodiversity in our time.

As long as sustainable logging (minimal impact extraction, age-graded selection of trees, and equally staggered replanting) is not seen as profitable, anything that reduces the actual numbers of trees felled will have to get the nod. The environmental damage done by the processes of recycling can not ever measure up to that done by clearcutting. Maybe P&T's arguments would hold if "crop-growing" trees were the rule, but it isn't. The present situation has more in common with the depletion of fossil fuels!
 
Floyt said:
The present situation has more in common with the depletion of fossil fuels!
Click to expand...

You were going so well until you made that statement.

Now you are going to have a tough task. Please provide evidence of the depletion of fossil fuels.
 
Hehehe, I was once on an environment consciuosness course (mandatory, no less). Somewhere along the three-day course one of the teachers pointed out that the rather thick handout was printed on recycled paper. And she told us that recycled paper had 30% lower environmental load than new paper (she didn't say how that figure was reached).

So, I looked at the handout and asked her why they hadn't printed on both sides of the sheet.

"Well," she said, "that is one draw-back of recycled paper: Because it is more translucent (it is unbleached) you cannot use both sides."

Said I: "Then you could have had 50% environmental improvement by using new paper and printing on both sides, instead of just 30%."

..... I feel she was rather curt in her manners towards me for the remainder of the course ;).

Hans
 
Depending on the grade of paper, I would think that mulching/composting would generally be better than recycling. That doesn't work for slick or glossy printing, but anyone getting a newspaper delivered would do well to find people who do serious gardening. Shredded newspaper is considered a great addition to a standard compost heap, even in volume.

I saw the episode a while back. They did adress the impact of rebleaching/processing of recycled paper. They also covered landfill space rather well, in my opinion. For a very brief period in my youth, I was an environment woo. My father worked for the state equivalent of the EPA at the time . . . I got to reading a lot of the reports he produced on runoff, mining, logging, etc. My opinions changed rapidly. There wasn't a lot of bias . . . there were four changes in controlling party during the time he spent there, and his end of the work was rarely changed.

I think the best point P&T made was that recycling paper, in the end, doesn't do much more than make people feel good. Higher prices, fewer uses, and government subsidy are never going to push recycled paper completely into the mainstream. If the recycling technology improves to the point where it is profitable without goverment help, and more quality products are turned out, then paper recycling is something I'd support in a minute. Otherwise, I feel my tax dollars are better spent elsewhere.
 
Drooper said:
You were going so well until you made that statement.

Now you are going to have a tough task. Please provide evidence of the depletion of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Err... do we have a basic misunderstanding here? Unless I missed out on the invention of some magic oil-depositing, coal-restocking machine... whatever would make you think that these reserves are NOT being depleted?

Well, if you want to be very precise about it, there certainly is some deposition of carbon fuels going on all the time. If it were feasible to scale the depletion rate to the deposition rate, you'd have sustainability. Might work out as one drop of crude oil to each human on his 18th birthday, though :)
 
Dno't forget, though. Some people are yet to be convinced by the "we're going to run out soon" argument. Mind you, those people usually have interests in the oil industry. ;)

I suppose you argue about how "soon".
 
I didn't see the show either, but it sounds like I would generally disagree with some of their conclusions. I would hope, though, that the following was made abundantly clear:

Using less paper is better for the environment.
 
kalen said:
I didn't see the show either, but it sounds like I would generally disagree with some of their conclusions. I would hope, though, that the following was made abundantly clear:

Using less paper is better for the environment.
Click to expand...

Can you justify that? A poster above mentioned that paper locks carbon out of the atmosphere (well, paper that ends up in landfills and somehow doesn't decompose, but we'll leave that for now). Can you quantify whether the benefit from wasting paper in removing CO2 from the atmosphere is less than the harm caused by energy and pollution costs of production of paper?

Chances are, you can't. This is the fundamental problem with either side of any environment debate: Too often the numbers simply aren't there, or are difficult to find or confused by FUD from either side.

We get a lot of alarming information about the environment. Included in this is a lot of modelling. Modelling is not a precise science, or rather, it is only as precise as your understanding of the phenomena to be modelled. Weather is the obvious example. We have all sorts of information gathering to feed our weather modelling, yet we cannot get more than general predictions for just a few days into the future.

Yet, there seems to be some expectation that climate modelling for ten, fifty or a hundred years from now is going to be accurate, despite a constantly evolving understanding of the variables which must go into such modelling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom