@Spacetojump Last year we had the coldest and snowiest winter Texas has ever had in all of recorded history. This year looks to be even worse and yet we still here the carbon tax promoters harping about how a foot of snow is a sign of global warming. All weather is always a sign of global warming to those people.
Do we have to make paper out of trees? Can't we develop geo-thermal electricity?
These guys won't be happy till they trash the entire planet. Hey, P&T there's money in bio-diversity... ever think of that?
After watching a 15 year shuttle astronaut state exactly the opposite observation frankly I DON'T buy that there is more trees growing on the planet now... I'm willing to bet that is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Just like their "2nd hand smoke is safe" propaganda bullshit.
There should probably be more diversity of trees and more land preserved for animals, but recycling paper is not gonna help. At least, not the way they want to recycle it. Tell me, is paper compost-able? Honest question. Because if it is, I'm tossing my tax forms and junk mail in with the egg shells and chicken skins.
@JuryDutySummons Sweet. I was just using the backs of my junk mail for these goofy notebooks a club at my community college taught me to make, but a person only needs so many notebooks. Now I can shred them and mix them in with the other organic stuff my mom buries in the flower beds to make the rose bushes grow.
@JorgensZelda You do need to be careful that you don't over-load your compost pile with paper however. Lots of paper is high in acid, so it can have a negative impact on your compost pile if you try doing too much at once.
@JuryDutySummons Oh, no worries there. I use most of the paper for writing and doodling on. Sometimes I print documents on the backs of other documents. Plenty of ways to reuse paper. Anyone wanna jump into my awesome confetti pile?
As someone who plants trees for a large wood harvesting company I can say that recycling paper isn't just about "saving trees". Yes, trees are a renewable resource however the forest (which is comprised of much more than just trees) and the biodiversity found in forests are not. It takes many hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years for a forest to reach maturity. Clear-cutting ruins hectares of this in a matter of days. Recycling paper slows the clear-cutting process and protects natural habitat
@angereddolphin But it doesn't. "Recycling is a manufacturing process." So, how is the natural habitat negatively effected by the pollution caused by recycling? Most deforestation and clear-cutting comes from commercial expansion. Building housing communities, apartment complexes, etc. This is a form of migration that is a natural part of the animal kingdom. Migration and expansion is necessary for the survival of a species, and mother nature is not biased towards our man-made morality.
@votenpormi A'Men! I'm so sick of hearing about how paper is bad for the environment and yada yada yada, then everyone acts like the decline of book and newspaper sales signifies the decline of our intelligence! It's like, pick one! I heard a news report about how Barnes & Noble was filing for bankruptcy but, the very next story was about a local high school that plans to drop textbooks in favor of school-supplied Kindles! It isn't a decline of our literacy, it's a sign of it's advancement!
@GoSiv1 the main idea though is that people think that they are helping the environment by recycling papers when in fact they are harming it and it uses more energy.
but i do see what ur getting at and i dont see a win win here,
recycling paper = pollutes air and water which harms the environment,
@Carrr92 Well, I don't know how underdeveloped Americas recycling stations are, but in Sweden, you save a lot of pollution and energy by recycling. Is it really better to burn plastic, electronics and such and let the unhealthy pollution go out into the air, spread with the wind currents across the globe and harm people? In Sweden, we have a closed system for the water= no water pollution, and because nothing is burned= no air pollution.
@GoSiv1 It is far less pollution intensive to recycle paper than to produce new paper in America, and when I say far less, I mean like it's a marginal fraction of the first generation production. Recycling is comparable or the same as far as that's concerned in America, this Carr person is just really mistaken.
Even based on their own superificial objectivist dogma, they neglect to realize that putting paper in a recycling bin replenishes the amount of SUPPLY to meet the demand, without taxing first generation materials, which come from enormous tree farm monocultures, which are NOT forests, and have negative environemntal value. Recycling vastly reduces the demand for tree farms, which is good because they cut down real forests with biodiversity and an ecosystem to plant them.
In addition, paper itself is a manufacturing process period. The trees have to be reduced to pulp just like the recycled paper, only again, the the trees have to be cut down in an enormously carbon intensive logging process, shipped on much larger trucks, and require far more water than the treatment of second or third generation paper pulp from recycling. Just because some clown, or a couple of austrian capitalists say something is so, that doesn't mean they aren't biased and logically unsound.
@cole3454657 Increasingly they are bare because they have been deforrested already. Your comment is still false because all natural forests with the exception of a very few small pockets of protected "wildlife reserve" land are being cut down, and it is being allowed to happen because people still want to buy this kind of nonsense or aimlessly pretend like they are simply using some spare farm land here and there, as if that exists to begin with.
I don't think that recycling was ever ment to help the enviorment. I think it's just something people made up to relieve themselves of the guilt trip and that way they can buy more shit thinking they helped the world.
Questions: How compare the extra trucks, deployed for recycling, with the extra trucks needed for more 'new' paper. Chemical sludge? Chemical sludge that just 'disappears' if we do not recycle? So what happens with the non-recycled garbage an how do those chemicals seize to be harmful? I do like the tree argument. Just asking.
Landfills are extremely efficient in dealing with garbage. I encourage you to do a little research for yourself too...the bullshit of recycling is pretty interesting.
@Dethkill14 exactly if ppl are concerned with the desposal of paper the best is to just shredd it completely to a fine poweder and realease it in the wind or use it for composte or whatever it will dissolve or biodegrade much faster. also plastic bottles should be eliminated the use of plasitc bottle switch to glass and cans. plastic should be recycled into things that will have a much longer life span then a bottle. eventualy we will not longer have teh ammount of plastic being recycled
@bulletproofKevlar Overall the U.S. fails at its recycling attempts and can't figure out a way to conserve or find new energy sources. We are extremely inefficient and recycling is just the beginning of it. People need to worry about peak oil, not trees. Glass and cans would be a great idea. We shouldn't need disposable bottles to begin with. Ignorant people believe they're getting more nutrition from their bottled water or sports drink. They should realize tap water is cheaper and better.
@wimscheers tree farms and paper mills normally are made on sight next to the company which means less travel time in those truck. wiht recycling tis traveling accross many diferent place and much distance. non recycled garbage has landfills which will be much more safer if treated the way they are suppose to. recycling isnt the ultimate cure we need to stop the usuage of things like plastic and when recycled it should be recycled into long lasting things like parts that have a life span
Does recycling double energy consumption and pollution? No. Some early curbside recycling programs (and no doubt a few today) wasted resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience. From a big-picture standpoint, processing of recyclables generally requires fewer resources than virgin materials, although this depends on the material.
Excatly, it's ridiculous. Human beings are not totally stupid, we cut down trees for wood and paper, and we plant new ones. Just like we breed cattle, or grow vegetables. Renewable resources are just that...
Here's an idea. Save the rainforests, make paper out of hemp like we use to before hemp was outlawed in 1937. Hemp makes better quality paper and is faster to grow than trees
@toetaghaterz It's actually not illegal to produce hemp paper (at least in the states). Paper companies are free to produce paper from hemp pulp. The reason they don't is because of the high manufacturing cost. High manufacturing cost means a higher cost to consumers. Simply put, hemp paper isn't widely used because it isn't cost effective, so it's not being produced. Nonetheless, hemp is still a plant, and would necessitate the same manufacturing process. Hemp farms, not rainforests.
@toetaghaterz I'm with this guy. Not only does hemp grow faster, it also grows every-fucking-where. But then, that's no use, because when even the poorest fucks on the planet could have a healthy paper-producing industry it would really cut into the business of the dudes who have enough money to fuck up a forest older than most current civilizations.
@RainbowPowerRangerX If the rainforests are all cut down then they did not deserve to exist. Survival of the fittest. I care about people. We will do what we have to to survive. We don't need rainforests. If you ask me they are incredibly flawed by functioning as one organism. If the people living there cut them all down so be it. We can always plant more deciduous forests which are better for us overall.
You realize all this environmental bullshit is really holding back the human race from using the earth to its advantage to further advance technologically right? Who gives a shit if we run a couple squirrels out of their trees...
Yes, it is technology that enables us not to have to use trees for fuel for cooking, for warmth, or for light. They used to have to chop down forests for those things. That's why much of Europe has undergone deforestation.
I often agree with Penn but he's missing a point here. There may be more trees now, but the forests are all paper-crop trees - pine trees. There's much less biodiversity in them.
It's like digging up the last remaining bits of prairie and planting huge fields of wheat or potatoes there. The land would still be covered in plants wouldn't it? But the variety, the habitat, birds, animals, insects would be gone.
@miamimanni how so? Any ecosystem that exists in a tree farm is marginal and temporary at best. Tree farms actually help the general ecosystem because it eliminates the need to engage in deforestation. Deforestation is a process we use to mainly expand our own species. It's a natural thing that all living organisms engage in. We're all territorial, and if we need to expand our habitat to survive, doing so is to exercise our natural animal instincts.
@Mojosbigstick he's referring to tree farms not actualy every single tree. but to be honest we should be switching to bamboo its faster growing and much better. the best way to save trees is to save your seed of you fruits and other plantlife plant or throw them in the woods. its that simple. hes making the major point that we reduce planting trees and causing more chemicals then starting from scratch
@Mojosbigstick if u watched the whole show they did say that they people have been planting trees specifically for papers and not necessarily been cutting forest for it
Well it's either a 3 square mile area of a densly packed tree farm with Bio engineered, tall, fast growing trees grown in a man-revitalised area than the alternative.
The actual old rain forests.
It's the same with Wheat, Potatoes, Corn, Tomatoes, Rice, Pigs, Chickens, Cows, Apples, Pairs, Bannanas, the list is endless. I would have thought the example of potato was good enough.
As all of our produce has been selectively bred to yield the most produce at the best quality.
@fredb3 Hi Fred. I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying it's better to have selectively bred potatoes/trees/bananas on a piece of ground, rather than the initial habitat? That, because these human-bred strains are more productive, because they yield more bio-mass per acre, they are to be preferred?
You have to have selectively bred produce to keep the farm size down, the smaller the farm to more space there is for natural habitats to stay in tact.
Selective breeding creates more produce in one focused area saving surrounding habitats, the initial habitat does end up modified but it's better than the alternative.
It comes down to compromise, we can either selectively breed our produce to be as unobrusive as possible, or we can destroy more habitats and replant as we go.
@Mojosbigstick The human-bred strains will be more preferred because, if they produce in higher numbers, the paper will be cheaper to manufacture, which gives the paper companies an edge over their competition and provides a lower cost to consumers. Just like, if we get rid of genetically modified crops, the price of produce will skyrocket (the reason organic foods are more expensive).
@Mojosbigstick I think the point is, the idea that there are less trees to produce oxygen is false... and, since paper and lumber comes from tree FARMS, the idea that recycling paper prevents deforestation is also wrong. So, even though tree farms may not be providing a habitat for wildlife, it prevents us from going out and destroying other habitats.
I have to disagree with you on penn missing a point. He didn't though. They don't destroy forests to make paper, they have their own "Nurseries" to raise the trees they want for their paper production. They have seeds, plant them, get the seeds from *those* trees, then fell the trees for production. There's not shortage of trees or variety just like there is no problem like that for potato, orange, banana, etc. farming.
Recycling paper just saves money while maximizing yield.
@Mojosbigstick Yeah somehow all those poor animals are going to have to find somewhere else to make their home. Maybe you could give up your land to them and help the poor defenseless creatures.
@Mojosbigstick The expert says, before this clip starts, that the tree farms are planted on area that would not have trees otherwise. So, according to the show at least, they aren't supplanting existing ecosystems with their own, just making new ones.
The extra trucks are a mute point. Your total amount of garbage doesn't change, so either you'll need all the trucks for all the garbage, or you split them up in regular & specialized.
How much more trucks do they need? 10 trucks for the unsorted garbage or 4 specialized and 6 general. But hey, I don't have the numbers, so they might be right.
I've seen a similar argument made about the whole local food thing. The whole packaged salad going across the country wasteful argument actually falls apart because of mass transportation of the vegetables actually leads to less fuel consumption than locally produced food, hence the cheaper price.
I can't say for certain that this argument is true, but it's an interesting argument.
wow he made a little paper hat, those guys are awesome.
Barthedanz 1 month ago
you can also compost paper, go electronic, or print double-sided documents
ielopez531 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Whatever these guys say is fact.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
@jemborg I believe them over you any day. I suppose you believe In global warming as well? Because, if you haven't noticed, that is bullshit as well.
Spacetojump 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Spacetojump Last year we had the coldest and snowiest winter Texas has ever had in all of recorded history. This year looks to be even worse and yet we still here the carbon tax promoters harping about how a foot of snow is a sign of global warming. All weather is always a sign of global warming to those people.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
Do we have to make paper out of trees? Can't we develop geo-thermal electricity?
These guys won't be happy till they trash the entire planet. Hey, P&T there's money in bio-diversity... ever think of that?
After watching a 15 year shuttle astronaut state exactly the opposite observation frankly I DON'T buy that there is more trees growing on the planet now... I'm willing to bet that is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Just like their "2nd hand smoke is safe" propaganda bullshit.
jemborg 5 months ago
There should probably be more diversity of trees and more land preserved for animals, but recycling paper is not gonna help. At least, not the way they want to recycle it. Tell me, is paper compost-able? Honest question. Because if it is, I'm tossing my tax forms and junk mail in with the egg shells and chicken skins.
JorgensZelda 7 months ago
@JorgensZelda Yes, it's compostable.
JuryDutySummons 6 months ago
@JuryDutySummons Sweet. I was just using the backs of my junk mail for these goofy notebooks a club at my community college taught me to make, but a person only needs so many notebooks. Now I can shred them and mix them in with the other organic stuff my mom buries in the flower beds to make the rose bushes grow.
JorgensZelda 6 months ago
@JorgensZelda You do need to be careful that you don't over-load your compost pile with paper however. Lots of paper is high in acid, so it can have a negative impact on your compost pile if you try doing too much at once.
JuryDutySummons 6 months ago
@JuryDutySummons Oh, no worries there. I use most of the paper for writing and doodling on. Sometimes I print documents on the backs of other documents. Plenty of ways to reuse paper. Anyone wanna jump into my awesome confetti pile?
JorgensZelda 6 months ago
As someone who plants trees for a large wood harvesting company I can say that recycling paper isn't just about "saving trees". Yes, trees are a renewable resource however the forest (which is comprised of much more than just trees) and the biodiversity found in forests are not. It takes many hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years for a forest to reach maturity. Clear-cutting ruins hectares of this in a matter of days. Recycling paper slows the clear-cutting process and protects natural habitat
angereddolphin 1 year ago
@angereddolphin But it doesn't. "Recycling is a manufacturing process." So, how is the natural habitat negatively effected by the pollution caused by recycling? Most deforestation and clear-cutting comes from commercial expansion. Building housing communities, apartment complexes, etc. This is a form of migration that is a natural part of the animal kingdom. Migration and expansion is necessary for the survival of a species, and mother nature is not biased towards our man-made morality.
HillChris1234 10 months ago
today paper is stupid, computers last longer, try reading the same book 4 hours a day for 5 years.
votenpormi 1 year ago
@votenpormi A'Men! I'm so sick of hearing about how paper is bad for the environment and yada yada yada, then everyone acts like the decline of book and newspaper sales signifies the decline of our intelligence! It's like, pick one! I heard a news report about how Barnes & Noble was filing for bankruptcy but, the very next story was about a local high school that plans to drop textbooks in favor of school-supplied Kindles! It isn't a decline of our literacy, it's a sign of it's advancement!
HillChris1234 10 months ago
Also a good way to save trees is to kill beavers.
Livenderrr 1 year ago 3
@Livenderrr aproved
votenpormi 1 year ago
here's a idee within 5 years mopst of us have quality e-papers(ok sorry maby not US but eu will)
w00per 1 year ago
We're growing trees for papers= good(?)
But we are destroying ecosystems while doing that=bad
We're growing trees for papers= good(?)
But we are cutting down other forests for furniture= bad
Should we really grow trees just to cut them down? Isn't that the same as making humans, just to use them for experiments, spare-parts etc?
GoSiv1 1 year ago
@GoSiv1 the main idea though is that people think that they are helping the environment by recycling papers when in fact they are harming it and it uses more energy.
but i do see what ur getting at and i dont see a win win here,
recycling paper = pollutes air and water which harms the environment,
cutting down tress = harms the ecosystem
Carrr92 1 year ago
@Carrr92 Well, I don't know how underdeveloped Americas recycling stations are, but in Sweden, you save a lot of pollution and energy by recycling. Is it really better to burn plastic, electronics and such and let the unhealthy pollution go out into the air, spread with the wind currents across the globe and harm people? In Sweden, we have a closed system for the water= no water pollution, and because nothing is burned= no air pollution.
GoSiv1 1 year ago
@GoSiv1 It is far less pollution intensive to recycle paper than to produce new paper in America, and when I say far less, I mean like it's a marginal fraction of the first generation production. Recycling is comparable or the same as far as that's concerned in America, this Carr person is just really mistaken.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
@GoSiv1 trees just for paper is just an example theres trees grown for others like furntiure ya nit picking jerk.
cole3454657 1 year ago
Even based on their own superificial objectivist dogma, they neglect to realize that putting paper in a recycling bin replenishes the amount of SUPPLY to meet the demand, without taxing first generation materials, which come from enormous tree farm monocultures, which are NOT forests, and have negative environemntal value. Recycling vastly reduces the demand for tree farms, which is good because they cut down real forests with biodiversity and an ecosystem to plant them.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
In addition, paper itself is a manufacturing process period. The trees have to be reduced to pulp just like the recycled paper, only again, the the trees have to be cut down in an enormously carbon intensive logging process, shipped on much larger trucks, and require far more water than the treatment of second or third generation paper pulp from recycling. Just because some clown, or a couple of austrian capitalists say something is so, that doesn't mean they aren't biased and logically unsound.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
@IPossessAHugePenis they leave forests alone and make tree farms on places that are bare.
cole3454657 1 year ago
@cole3454657 Increasingly they are bare because they have been deforrested already. Your comment is still false because all natural forests with the exception of a very few small pockets of protected "wildlife reserve" land are being cut down, and it is being allowed to happen because people still want to buy this kind of nonsense or aimlessly pretend like they are simply using some spare farm land here and there, as if that exists to begin with.
IPossessAHugePenis 1 year ago
I don't think that recycling was ever ment to help the enviorment. I think it's just something people made up to relieve themselves of the guilt trip and that way they can buy more shit thinking they helped the world.
Nixom1334 1 year ago
Why aren't these videos shown in schools?
Why?...because the truth is spoken! (and there are cuss words).
collisioncat99 1 year ago
Questions: How compare the extra trucks, deployed for recycling, with the extra trucks needed for more 'new' paper. Chemical sludge? Chemical sludge that just 'disappears' if we do not recycle? So what happens with the non-recycled garbage an how do those chemicals seize to be harmful? I do like the tree argument. Just asking.
wimscheers 2 years ago
Landfills are extremely efficient in dealing with garbage. I encourage you to do a little research for yourself too...the bullshit of recycling is pretty interesting.
Dethkill14 2 years ago
@Dethkill14 exactly if ppl are concerned with the desposal of paper the best is to just shredd it completely to a fine poweder and realease it in the wind or use it for composte or whatever it will dissolve or biodegrade much faster. also plastic bottles should be eliminated the use of plasitc bottle switch to glass and cans. plastic should be recycled into things that will have a much longer life span then a bottle. eventualy we will not longer have teh ammount of plastic being recycled
bulletproofKevlar 1 year ago
@bulletproofKevlar Overall the U.S. fails at its recycling attempts and can't figure out a way to conserve or find new energy sources. We are extremely inefficient and recycling is just the beginning of it. People need to worry about peak oil, not trees. Glass and cans would be a great idea. We shouldn't need disposable bottles to begin with. Ignorant people believe they're getting more nutrition from their bottled water or sports drink. They should realize tap water is cheaper and better.
Dethkill14 1 year ago
@wimscheers tree farms and paper mills normally are made on sight next to the company which means less travel time in those truck. wiht recycling tis traveling accross many diferent place and much distance. non recycled garbage has landfills which will be much more safer if treated the way they are suppose to. recycling isnt the ultimate cure we need to stop the usuage of things like plastic and when recycled it should be recycled into long lasting things like parts that have a life span
bulletproofKevlar 1 year ago
Also, it is technology that enables us not to have to cut down trees for fuel for cooking, staying warm, light, etc.
jmelkis 2 years ago
You can find many details on this topic from the site, the straight dope(dot) com.
What PT is saying here in part, is old news.
THE1FuzzyGoddess 2 years ago
Does recycling double energy consumption and pollution? No. Some early curbside recycling programs (and no doubt a few today) wasted resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience. From a big-picture standpoint, processing of recyclables generally requires fewer resources than virgin materials, although this depends on the material.
THE1FuzzyGoddess 2 years ago
The excerpt below about recycling double energy consumption, is from the straight dope site. Just search: Is recycling worth it
For the whole article.
THE1FuzzyGoddess 2 years ago
Excatly, it's ridiculous. Human beings are not totally stupid, we cut down trees for wood and paper, and we plant new ones. Just like we breed cattle, or grow vegetables. Renewable resources are just that...
AICabal 2 years ago
Here's an idea. Save the rainforests, make paper out of hemp like we use to before hemp was outlawed in 1937. Hemp makes better quality paper and is faster to grow than trees
toetaghaterz 2 years ago 27
@toetaghaterz bamboo is better and has much more uses then hemp adn less relation to its stoner counterpart
bulletproofKevlar 1 year ago
@toetaghaterz It's actually not illegal to produce hemp paper (at least in the states). Paper companies are free to produce paper from hemp pulp. The reason they don't is because of the high manufacturing cost. High manufacturing cost means a higher cost to consumers. Simply put, hemp paper isn't widely used because it isn't cost effective, so it's not being produced. Nonetheless, hemp is still a plant, and would necessitate the same manufacturing process. Hemp farms, not rainforests.
HillChris1234 10 months ago
@toetaghaterz I'm with this guy. Not only does hemp grow faster, it also grows every-fucking-where. But then, that's no use, because when even the poorest fucks on the planet could have a healthy paper-producing industry it would really cut into the business of the dudes who have enough money to fuck up a forest older than most current civilizations.
t4paN 8 months ago
@toetaghaterz Hemp needs space to grow - and cropland is the main reason why the rainforest is getting cut down.
JuryDutySummons 6 months ago
@toetaghaterz Almost all rainforest land being cleared away today is for cattle grazing. Paper is not your enemy.
RainbowPowerRangerX 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RainbowPowerRangerX If the rainforests are all cut down then they did not deserve to exist. Survival of the fittest. I care about people. We will do what we have to to survive. We don't need rainforests. If you ask me they are incredibly flawed by functioning as one organism. If the people living there cut them all down so be it. We can always plant more deciduous forests which are better for us overall.
Luigi84289 3 months ago
No prob. Just go to Google video. The whole episode is there. Competition rules, apparently. :)
robbbb4 2 years ago
I see the fascist-enviromental-idiots have had the FULL EPISODE of BULLSHIT on Recycling removed. What a shame.
If anyone has the full episode, PLEASE repost (in 3 parts) so people can find some FACTS about this waste of time, money and resources.
randallray1966 2 years ago
Yeah I noticed that too. I tried to find the recycling episode but couldn't. Damn environmental fascists!
crowman733 2 years ago
You realize all this environmental bullshit is really holding back the human race from using the earth to its advantage to further advance technologically right? Who gives a shit if we run a couple squirrels out of their trees...
ApAKKAlypse 2 years ago
Yes, it is technology that enables us not to have to use trees for fuel for cooking, for warmth, or for light. They used to have to chop down forests for those things. That's why much of Europe has undergone deforestation.
jmelkis 2 years ago
Hypocrisy, in its physical sense, the driver of the Toyota Prius in front of me on the highway throwing garbage and cigarette butts out the window.
Vearrow 2 years ago 5
LMFAO!!!
cookieeatbird 2 years ago
Not to mention the Prius itself is only an economical car if you drive it economically.
If you drive it without thinking, it'll drop to 20MPG or there abouts like any other car.
DragonNexus 2 years ago 2
*jaw drops* But I destroyed my SUV to buy one! And it got 19 mpg! (*sarcasm*)
jmelkis 2 years ago
I found this very interesting.
Paperless is the way to go.
itsmynamelol 2 years ago
Ah yes, another possibility thanks to technology. Damn capitalism! Ruining the planet!
jmelkis 2 years ago
I often agree with Penn but he's missing a point here. There may be more trees now, but the forests are all paper-crop trees - pine trees. There's much less biodiversity in them.
It's like digging up the last remaining bits of prairie and planting huge fields of wheat or potatoes there. The land would still be covered in plants wouldn't it? But the variety, the habitat, birds, animals, insects would be gone.
Mojosbigstick 2 years ago 13
mhmm. I didn't think of that.
Although trees are a renewable resource. The local ecosystem is destroyed.
Good point
miamimanni 2 years ago
@miamimanni nope we a re creating new ecosystems in the landfills
exinferiz 1 year ago
@miamimanni how so? Any ecosystem that exists in a tree farm is marginal and temporary at best. Tree farms actually help the general ecosystem because it eliminates the need to engage in deforestation. Deforestation is a process we use to mainly expand our own species. It's a natural thing that all living organisms engage in. We're all territorial, and if we need to expand our habitat to survive, doing so is to exercise our natural animal instincts.
HillChris1234 10 months ago
@Mojosbigstick he's referring to tree farms not actualy every single tree. but to be honest we should be switching to bamboo its faster growing and much better. the best way to save trees is to save your seed of you fruits and other plantlife plant or throw them in the woods. its that simple. hes making the major point that we reduce planting trees and causing more chemicals then starting from scratch
bulletproofKevlar 1 year ago
@Mojosbigstick if u watched the whole show they did say that they people have been planting trees specifically for papers and not necessarily been cutting forest for it
Carrr92 1 year ago
@Mojosbigstick birds, animals and insects all suck
demiseisdue 1 year ago
@demiseisdue - You forgot bugs. Bugs suck. (Go look it up - it's a joke)
Mojosbigstick 1 year ago
@Mojosbigstick
Well it's either a 3 square mile area of a densly packed tree farm with Bio engineered, tall, fast growing trees grown in a man-revitalised area than the alternative.
The actual old rain forests.
It's the same with Wheat, Potatoes, Corn, Tomatoes, Rice, Pigs, Chickens, Cows, Apples, Pairs, Bannanas, the list is endless. I would have thought the example of potato was good enough.
As all of our produce has been selectively bred to yield the most produce at the best quality.
fredb3 1 year ago
@fredb3 Hi Fred. I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying it's better to have selectively bred potatoes/trees/bananas on a piece of ground, rather than the initial habitat? That, because these human-bred strains are more productive, because they yield more bio-mass per acre, they are to be preferred?
Mojosbigstick 1 year ago
@Mojosbigstick
You have to have selectively bred produce to keep the farm size down, the smaller the farm to more space there is for natural habitats to stay in tact.
Selective breeding creates more produce in one focused area saving surrounding habitats, the initial habitat does end up modified but it's better than the alternative.
It comes down to compromise, we can either selectively breed our produce to be as unobrusive as possible, or we can destroy more habitats and replant as we go.
fredb3 1 year ago
@Mojosbigstick The human-bred strains will be more preferred because, if they produce in higher numbers, the paper will be cheaper to manufacture, which gives the paper companies an edge over their competition and provides a lower cost to consumers. Just like, if we get rid of genetically modified crops, the price of produce will skyrocket (the reason organic foods are more expensive).
HillChris1234 10 months ago
@Mojosbigstick I think the point is, the idea that there are less trees to produce oxygen is false... and, since paper and lumber comes from tree FARMS, the idea that recycling paper prevents deforestation is also wrong. So, even though tree farms may not be providing a habitat for wildlife, it prevents us from going out and destroying other habitats.
HillChris1234 10 months ago
@Mojosbigstick
I have to disagree with you on penn missing a point. He didn't though. They don't destroy forests to make paper, they have their own "Nurseries" to raise the trees they want for their paper production. They have seeds, plant them, get the seeds from *those* trees, then fell the trees for production. There's not shortage of trees or variety just like there is no problem like that for potato, orange, banana, etc. farming.
Recycling paper just saves money while maximizing yield.
TheTruthNJ09 9 months ago
@Mojosbigstick Now you're not discussing Recycling you're discussing the habitat. Which is a pretty terrible thing.
AgentNoOne 8 months ago
@Mojosbigstick Yeah somehow all those poor animals are going to have to find somewhere else to make their home. Maybe you could give up your land to them and help the poor defenseless creatures.
chibichibininjachibi 7 months ago
@Mojosbigstick "birds, animals, insects would be gone." see the episode on endangered species =)
sleep1 5 months ago
@Mojosbigstick The expert says, before this clip starts, that the tree farms are planted on area that would not have trees otherwise. So, according to the show at least, they aren't supplanting existing ecosystems with their own, just making new ones.
RainbowPowerRangerX 3 months ago
The extra trucks are a mute point. Your total amount of garbage doesn't change, so either you'll need all the trucks for all the garbage, or you split them up in regular & specialized.
wimscheers 2 years ago
Extra trucks = Extra Exhaust
ApAKKAlypse 2 years ago 2
How much more trucks do they need? 10 trucks for the unsorted garbage or 4 specialized and 6 general. But hey, I don't have the numbers, so they might be right.
wimscheers 2 years ago
I've seen a similar argument made about the whole local food thing. The whole packaged salad going across the country wasteful argument actually falls apart because of mass transportation of the vegetables actually leads to less fuel consumption than locally produced food, hence the cheaper price.
I can't say for certain that this argument is true, but it's an interesting argument.
jmelkis 2 years ago