Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ? ( Answered,   19 Comments )
Question  
Subject: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
Category: Science
Asked by: sparked-ga
List Price: $50.00
Posted: 29 Oct 2006 04:47 PST
Expires: 28 Nov 2006 04:47 PST
Question ID: 778064
Why is recycling paper a 'good' thing ? Massive amounts of carbon can
be removed from the atmosphere by young saplings planted in managed
forests and planting trees seems to be an obvious method of solving or
rebalancing the amount of carbon we produce through the burning of
fossil fuels. Landfill of paper also locks carbon away. I can
understand the arguement for recycling other materials e.g. glass but
isn't recycling paper actually counter productive ?
Answer  
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
Answered By: crabcakes-ga on 29 Oct 2006 22:20 PST
 
Hello Sparked-ga
  
   You?re right about trees helping to remove carbon monoxide, but
mature trees do the job better than fast growing trees planted in
managed forests, specifically for producing huge amounts of pulp.
Then, there is the issue of other flora and fauna that suffer as
mature ?natural? trees are over-logged. There is a price to recycling
paper, but it is less than not recycling! Actually, burning palletized
recycled paper produces 10-20% less carbon than coal!

   I?ve gathered numerous resources for you, presenting information on
both sides of the argument. Recycling actually DOES make sense! Please
read each site for complete information.




   ?Does recycling seem like an antiquated concept, or at least
something that's just not important to you? Maybe, maybe not. But
consider this: In one year, the energy conserved by the current level
of recycling saves enough energy to power nine million households for
a year.?

?About 1/3 of the waste stream that goes to landfills is paper, which
is a real shame since there is a strong market for recycled paper.
Reusing more of our waste paper would help us reduce the acres of
forest land that are being clear cut every year to provide paper in
its myriad forms.?
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-05/recycler-recycling-article.htm


   ?Other uses for recycled paper include the use of shredded paper
for packaging. This use is often associated with lower quality
recovered paper not appropriate for recycling into writing/printing
grade paper. The generation of shredded paper has increased in
numerous industries and agencies. The advantages of shredding paper
for reuse as packaging are decreased costs in alternative packaging
media such as Styrofoam peanuts. Shredded paper can also be composted
as opposed to disposed of in landfills (See Data Sheet: 7-III-7 Paper
Shredders).
Another recovered paper reuse alternative is in the production of fuel
pellets. Lower grade waste paper is pelletized and utilized as a solid
fuel source in industrial boilers.

 Pelletized paper has similar physical characteristics to conventional
solid fuels, is easily consumed by boilers, and can be produced at
competitive costs. The advantages of using pelletized paper fuel
include: a new use for discarded paper; reduction in the consumption
of non-renewable fossil fuels; paper provides a higher level of heat
generation; and because paper contains little sulfur, its co-firing
with coal reduces sulfur emissions. Paper also produces 10-20% less
carbon than coal.?
http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/7_I_A_9.html


There are pros and cons to recycling.

The Disadvantages and Costs:

?	Contamination of paper with garbage or dissimilar materials, and
weather impacts increase handling costs.
?	For some uses, recycled paper is of lower quality than virgin paper. 
?	De-inking plants are costly to build. 
?	Market value fluctuations make forecasting economic viability difficult. 


The Benefits:
?	More landfill space is saved by recycling paper, than any other material. 
?	Paper recycling reduces air and water pollution. 
?	Recycled paper serves as feed stock for existing and developing
'recycled-paper' mills.
?	There is an abundant supply of newspaper and cardboard. 
?	Paper can not be recycled indefinitely but it can be recycled about
five times before the fibers weaken.
http://www.anchoragerecycling.com/benefits.htm


   ?Still, Breining was curious how much environmental benefit the
state was buying for the extra $22,000 his magazine spent on recycled
paper. The benefits turned out to be small: sixteen cords of pulpwood
-- about what you'd get by clear-cutting a single acre of northern
Minnesota aspen woods.
    Breining grants that paper recycling has other benefits, such as
reducing the need for landfills and the pollution caused by
paper-making. Still, he had to question whether spending $22,000 to
prevent the clear-cutting of one acre that cost $400 on the open
market was a smart use of taxpayer's and subscribers' money.?

?This glut of recovered paper is made into everything from paper to
boxes to animal bedding. And while the relatively small amount of
recycled papers used for writing and printing are struggling with high
prices and sluggish demand, the dominant sectors of the market are
doing much better.?

?Another strong area is newsprint. About 5.4 million tons of this
material, used for newspapers, is recovered each year, generally to
make more newsprint. The market is so promising that the Natural
Resources Defense Council, an environmental group in New York, is
coordinating the development of a large recycling plant in the South
Bronx.?
http://whyfiles.org/063recycle/paper.html



   ?Reasons for recycling
To recycle makes economic sense because although it may not be cheaper
than ordinary paper:
?	by not importing new pulp the UK can save up to 800 million on
balance of payments
?	it saves on disposal costs such as burying in landfill sites or
burning in incinerators
?	it provides employment for a large work force as waste management
including paper collection is a major industry
To recycle makes environmental sense because it
?	reduces pressure for landfill sites
?	reduces pressure on natural forests by encouraging planting of
managed commercial plantations

   Generally speaking the production of recycled paper has less
overall environmental impact than producing paper using all new
material, when all production activities are taken into account.
Recycled paper production does use less energy, less water and creates
less pollution. However substantial upgrading of low quality waste,
could mean that the environmental advantages of recycling are reduced
or lost.?
http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/campaigns/briefingsmore/paperrecycling.htm



?Benefits of Recycling Paper:
       Save Money:  Recycling services can be cheaper than trash
disposal services in many cases. Paper is usually the largest portion
of the waste stream in a business office. By separating your paper
from your trash your company may save money in trash disposal costs.

Divert Material from Disposal: Keeping paper out of the waste stream
will save landfill space and reduced pollution through avoided
incineration.
        Conserve Natural Resources: By substituting old paper to be
used in place of trees, recycling reduces the pressure to cut down
trees.
        Save Energy: The steps in supplying recycled materials to
industry (including collection, processing and transportation)
typically use less energy than the steps in supplying virgin materials
to industry (including extraction, refinement, transportation, and
processing). But, most energy savings associated with recycling accrue
in the manufacturing process itself, since recycled materials have
already been processed at least once.

        Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: By reducing the amount of
energy used by industry, recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions
that may lead to global warming. Energy used in the industrial
processes and in transportation involves burning fossil fuels like
gasoline, diesel and coal1.
Facts & Figures:
?	To make one ton of paper using recycled fiber saves the following:

17 trees
3.3 cubic yards of landfill space
360 gallons of water
100 gallons of gasoline
60 pounds of air pollutants
10,401 kilowatts of electricity  
(source: United States Environmental Protection Agency)

?Nearly 218,000 tons of shredded paper is used each year for animal
bedding. (source: American Forest & Paper Association)
?Recycling paper uses 60% less energy than manufacturing paper from
virgin timber.  (source: Environmental Protection Agency)
?Recycling office waste paper saves valuable landfill space ? 3 cubic
yards for every ton of paper recycled ? and extends the lives of our
landfills. (source: National Office Paper Recycling Project, The
United States Conference of Mayors)
http://www.wastecap.org/wastecap/commodities/paper/paper.htm#Benefits%20paper

  ?The current average price paid for loose corrugated delivered to a
recycling center in the New York region is $38.00 per ton, while the
current average price paid for sorted office paper is $55.00 per ton.
Sorted white ledger is currently valued at $115.00 per ton. (Source:
Waste News) Of course, it is understood that there are costs
associated with collecting and transporting these materials. These
costs, however, are offset by the revenue earned on the materials
collected plus the savings resulting from not having to dispose of
this material as solid waste. Unfortunately, the avoided cost of
disposal is often left out of the recycling cost equation. This is
especially significant since solid waste disposal costs continue to
rise.?

?Recycling corrugated cardboard, office paper and other materials also
makes economic sense on the macro-economic level as these activities
create many jobs and add significantly to the state and national
economy. According to the National Recycling Coalition, the recycling
industry is
comparable in size to the auto and truck manufacturing industry and
employs more than 1.1 million people.?
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/recycle/Winter05.pdf


?Recycling Saves Landfill Space. 
Americans are producing more waste with each passing year, most of
which is hauled off and buried in landfills. What?s wrong with that?
Well, it?s expensive and usually controversial to dig new landfills or
to build new incinerators. Recycling is one way to reduce the amount
of waste that is landfilled.
Recycling Can Reduce the Cost of Waste Disposal.
 
Getting rid of trash isn?t a free proposition. Garbage trucks must pay
to dump their waste at a landfill. The payment is called a tipping
fee, and it is based on the weight or volume of the garbage. Tipping
fees vary in different areas. In Vermont, one landfill charges about
$65 a ton for the waste it receives. Recycling reduces landfill costs
because less waste is landfilled. In 2003, recycling and composting
diverted 72 million tons of material from landfills.?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/recycling.html


?RECYCLING IS BECOMING CHEAPER THAN WASTE EXPORT 
Meanwhile, the fiscal outlook is improving for that portion of the
waste stream that is or could be recycled.

Newspapers, magazines, cardboard, junk mail, and other paper products
make up the single largest portion of the city's residential waste
stream. And for this commodity, the economic benefits of recycling are
readily apparent.
New York City is paid for every ton of paper it delivers to recyclers.
For example, the Visy Paper Recycling Plant on Staten Island takes
about a third of the city's recycled paper waste from the Department
of Sanitation. The Visy plant de-inks these paper products and turns
them into paper used to make corrogated boxes and other products. On
average, the city is paid $7 a ton for paper sent to Visy and other
paper recyclers. In contrast to paying $66 or more per ton for trash
export, New York City benefits economically from every ton of paper it
recycles.?
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/environment/20030411/7/345


   ?Every year more than 11 million tonnes of paper and board are
consumed in the UK [1]. Much of this comes from Scandinavia. In order
to satisfy our increasing demand for wood and paper products, the
majority of the natural boreal forest in Scandinavia has been
converted into intensively managed secondary forest or plantations,
where the inhabitants of a true and complex forest eco-system struggle
to survive.

 About 5% of Scandinavian old-growth forest remains, and yet this is
still being logged [2]. As a result, hundreds of plant and animal
species are endangered. The traditional way of life of indigenous
people, such as the Saami, is also threatened and their cultural
identity is in jeopardy.?
?Energy is needed to manufacture both virgin paper and recycled paper
but much less total energy is needed to produce recycled paper [5].
Industry quotes for typical energy savings from producing recycled
paper range from about 28%-70%[6]. The amount of energy saved will
depend on paper grade, processing, mill operation and proximity to a
waste paper source and markets. Moreover, technical improvements to
reduce energy use are possible by introducing incremental design
improvements at each step of the papermaking process[7].?

?The energy debate has tended to be very narrow. The forest products
industry generally excludes, in its analysis, the fuel used in forest
management e.g. in drilling, seeding, harvesting, transport of timber
to the pulp mill and the pulp to distribution points. The proportion
of energy needs met by biofuels will vary from country to country,
pulping process and timber used.?
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html


   Consequences of excessive logging and replanting with ?super-pulp? trees:
?Where once grew some of the most biologically rich hardwood forest in
North America's Temperate Zone (which extends from the Gulf of Mexico
to southern Canada), there are now row after row of fast-growing
loblolly pine trees genetically engineered to yield the most pulp in
the shortest time. But the paper industry's insatiable appetite for
timber has met with unexpected competition from an equally voracious
insect. In the last four years, an estimated 50 to 70 percent of the
pines planted on the plateau have been devoured by the southern pine
beetle.

?The cozy relationship that exists between Tennessee's public and
private sectors, and the impunity and magnitude of the environmental
destruction taking place on the plateau, are what you might expect in
Guatemala or deep in the Brazilian Amazon, not in our republic, where
there are supposed to be laws that protect our wilderness treasures
and prosecute conflicts of interest. But a quarter of the world's
paper and 60 percent of America's wood products are being produced in
the South, and the will to address the abuses of the paper industry,
which contributes millions of dollars to the campaign coffers of
politicians around the country, just isn't there -- certainly not in
Tennessee.? Pease see this site for further information.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/04win/cumberland1.asp


   ?Genetic engineering of food crops has been a stealth technology,
introduced with little public debate and arriving on grocery shelves
unlabeled. Now another application of genetically engineered (GE)
agriculture is sneaking up on us - the production of transgenic trees
by paper and lumber companies. The possibility that the new genes
spliced into GE trees will interfere with natural forests isn't a
hypothetical risk but a certainty.

 During our lives, genetic engineering may do as much damage to
forests and wildlife habitat as chain saws and sprawl.
This is not to say that every application of GE is bad. Sierra Club
has taken no positions regarding genetic engineering done in labs or
in indoor manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. But common sense should
warn us that commercial development of out-of-doors applications in
the absence of environmental safeguards is a prescription for
disaster. Sierra Club opposes the out-of-doors deployment of genetic
technologies because the genes are free - as free as pollen on the
wind - to invade nature, and because once this has happened they can't
be recalled. The arguments below are not intended to be inclusive but
only to illustrate the nature of the problem.?

?For instance, GE'd pines might be grown without all those "useless"
pine cones. They may be herbicide resistant so that competing
undergrowth can be eliminated. They may produce their own pesticides
so that many of the insects which live in association with trees are
poisoned.

The result, then, may be a silent forest, one which doesn't support
chipmunks or snakes at ground level, holds no birdsong in its
branches, has no raptors soaring above. Clearly, such a stand of trees
is not really a forest. And worse, the damage can't be confined to
private property as trees live for many years and can't be closely
observed; "birth control" among trees is less reliable than among
people and even genetic engineering can't guarantee that a branch
won't decide to manufacture pollen. Pine pollen can blow hundreds of
miles on the wind.?
http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/trees.asp


   ?But even though it is true that marketing recyclables can actually
cost money, this charge is still lower than the fees charged at the
landfill for dumping these materials. For example, although a
municipality might be paying $25.00 to recycle a ton of newspaper,
that same ton in the landfill would cost well over $100.00. This is a
savings known as "Cost Avoidance". Add in the environmental benefits
such as reduced pollution and conservation of resources, as well as
saving landfill space for other, non-recyclable materials and
recycling is the clear winner.?
http://www.passaiccountynj.org/Departments/naturalresources/recproco.htm


   The American Forest and Paper Association ?Recycling -In 2005, a
record 51.5 percent of the paper consumed in the U.S. (51.3 million
tons) was recovered for recycling. Paper recovery now averages 346
pounds for each man, woman and child in the United States.

While this is a significant accomplishment, we can do more. Our goal
is 55 percent recovery by 2012.?
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Environment_and_Recycling/Recycling/Recycling.htm



?  The world has lost nearly 200 million hectares of tree cover;
?  Deserts are being expanded by some 120 million hectares;
?  Thousands of plant and animal species are disappearing quickly
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~career/PRC/destruct.html


?Waste Paper Recycling
The benefits derived from recycling waste paper are:
?	reduced water pollution of up to 35%
?	reduced air pollution of up to 74%
?	reduced energy consumption of 24-54%
?	reduced harvesting of virgin forests
?	reduced number of trees for paper making being grown in areas where
they cause damage
?	17 small trees saved / tonne of paper recycled
http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~career/PRC/benefits.html


   ?Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by Massachusetts recycling:
By reducing the amount of energy used by industry, recycling also
reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps stem the dangers of global
climate change.  This reduction occurs because much of the energy used
in industrial processes and in transportation involves burning fossil
fuels like gasoline, diesel and coal - the most important sources of
carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions into the environment.

?	Massachusetts recycling reduced greenhouse gas emission by 1,701,604
metric tons of carbon equivalents in 2002, which is equivalent to
approximately 8.1% of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perflurocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
?  Every ton of newsprint or mixed paper recycled is the equivalent of
12 trees.   Every ton of office paper recycled is the equivalent of 24
trees.2
?	?  By recycling 1,365,432 tons of mixed paper, newsprint, and phone
books in 2002, Massachusetts reduced the need to cut 16,385,184 trees.
 On average, a live trees removes 60 pounds per year of air pollution
from the environment.
http://www.massrecycle.org/recycling_benefits.html#saves_environment



   ?Each ton of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil,
three cubic yards of landfill space, 4,000 kilowatts of energy and
7,000 gallons of water!
Americans use more than 67 million tons of paper per year, or about
580 pounds per person.

Paper products make up the largest part (approximately 40 percent) of our trash.
Making recycled paper instead of new paper uses 64 percent less energy
and uses 58 percent less water.

Every day American businesses generate enough paper to circle the earth 20 times!
Every day Americans recover more than 2 million pounds of paper!
That's about 40 percent of the paper we use.

Paper products use up at least 35 percent of the world's annual
commercial wood harvest.
http://www.resourcefulschools.org/html/facts.html


   ?So does paper recycling save energy? Yes it does, although the
energy savings are not as spectacular as they are with aluminum and
steel recycling.
A paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled
paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber. However, a
recycling mill may consume more fossil fuels than a paper mill. Paper
mills generate much of their energy from waste wood, but recycling
mills purchase most of their energy from local power companies or use
on-site cogeneration facilities.

Making recycled paper does require fewer chemicals and bleaches than
making all-new paper. Although recycled paper is less polluting than
paper made from wood fiber, both processes produce different
by-products. Paper mills may emit more sulfur dioxide, but recycling
mills may produce more sludge. Deinking at Cross Pointe?s Miami, Ohio
mill results in 22 pounds of sludge for every 100 pounds of wastepaper
recycled.

Paper recycling does mean fewer trees are used to make paper, but
all-new paper is almost always made from trees specifically grown for
papermaking. A tree harvested for papermaking is soon replaced by
another, so the cycle continues. We are not talking about the rain
forest or old growth in the Pacific Northwest, says Champion Paper?s
Martin Blick. Most of the trees cut for paper come from fifth or sixth
generation pulp-wood forests.? Note that this last comment comes from
the paper industry.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/



Interesting Facts
==================
Every ton of newsprint or mixed paper recycled saves the equivalent of
cutting down 17 trees to make paper.
NRC?s Environmental Benefits Calculator

A single corrugated box can be recycled up to eight times.
Scrap Magazine, November-December 2001
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7tIeFR-yKD4J:www.swmcb.org/files/rethinkrecycling_paper_recycling_benefits.doc+paper+recycling+benefits&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=16


Further Information
===================
Recycling saves energy
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/DEPUTATE/AIRWASTE/WM/RECYCLE/document/recyclingworks.pdf

Paper Recycling
http://www.paperrecycles.org/paper_everyday_wonder/index.html

I hope this has helped you! If anything is unclear, please request an
Answer Clarification, and allow me to respond, before rating.
Sincerely, Crabcakes


Search Terms
============
Paper recycling benefits
Costs + paper recycling
Pros + cons + paper recycling
Comments  
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 29 Oct 2006 05:51 PST
 
Funny that, I don't much mind about recycling paper, at least it can be used again.

Glass is a different thing, the raw material is incredibly cheap, and
recycled glass is not the sort of stuff you want to use for bottling. 
A rather famous Tonic water manufacturer found that the reason for
bottles spontaniously exploding in supermarket aisles was down to
traces of aluminium.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: myoarin-ga on 30 Oct 2006 03:28 PST
 
Excellent answer, Crabcakes, I think.

As with other ecological discussions, information is usually presented
by someone with a interest one way or the other, often using true but
emotion-frought terms, such as this:

"Reusing more of our waste paper would help us reduce the acres of
forest land that are being clear cut every year to provide paper in
its myriad forms.?
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/10-05/recycler-recycling-article.htm

Yes, timber for pulpwood is often clear cut, an expression that raises
spectors of what happens in the rain forests, but where pulp wood is
grown, that land is quickly and actively replanted, and as the
Champion Paper Company quotation says, has been several times in the
last couple of generations.

Or this:
"?Every year more than 11 million tonnes of paper and board are
consumed in the UK [1]. Much of this comes from Scandinavia. In order
to satisfy our increasing demand for wood and paper products, the
majority of the natural boreal forest in Scandinavia has been
converted into intensively managed secondary forest or plantations,
where the inhabitants of a true and complex forest eco-system struggle
to survive.

"About 5% of Scandinavian old-growth forest remains, and yet this is
still being logged [2]. As a result, hundreds of plant and animal
species are endangered. The traditional way of life of indigenous
people, such as the Saami, is also threatened and their cultural
identity is in jeopardy.?
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html

Again, the facts are correct, but it should be understood that forests
in Finland and Sweden have increased significantly in the last 80
years:
http://www.forest.fi/yr2004/eng/2_1.html

http://www.borealforest.org/world/world_sweden.htm

On this site, you will have to read down about half way to find this passage:
"Today's timber stock is 50% larger than it was when detailed
measurements began in the 1920s. Since the 1992 UNCED meeting in Rio,
the concept of sustainability has broadened. This is reflected in the
revised Swedish forestry policy that went into effect in 1994. Today
sustainable forestry must not only ensure a reliable yield of timber
and the multiple use of forests, but also preserve biological
diversity."

Or this about Europe in general:
"Forest resources in Europe are growing larger

In Europe the forest area and the growing stock are increasing year by
year. This depends to a great extent on the decreased demand for wood
as a domestic fuel and on the replanting of forests. The forest area
is increasing by about 4,000 km 2 each year. In nine years, this area
will equal the total area of the Netherlands.
"In the Nordic region, there is now more wood in the forests than at
any time in the last hundred years. In the region, forest assets have
increased and almost doubled over the past one hundred years. Sweden
harvests approximately 70% of total growth. Analyses of future
developments show that wood stocks in the Nordic countries will
continue to grow. Forest capital therefore increases annually."

As in northern parts of the United States, much old farmland as
reverted to forest land.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: dops-ga on 30 Oct 2006 08:17 PST
 
Hi Crabcakes,

Can you provide the reference for this:

"You?re right about trees helping to remove carbon monoxide, but
mature trees do the job better than fast growing trees planted in
managed forests, specifically for producing huge amounts of pulp."

Trees and plants larely remove carbon dioxide via photosynthesis. The
studies showing removal of CO (as well as other contaminants from NASA
) are not repeatable and may be the result of CO dissolving into wet
soil.

Also I know of no data showing that mature tree remove carbon better.
In fact, the data support the use of fast growing plants because they
have higher levels of photosythesis per unit growing area. This is one
of the reasons why plants like switch grass are being touted as
promising bio-fuels and carbon sinks.

"Fast growing trees that produce huge amount of pulp" seem like a good
idea. Where do you think the carbon for all that pulp came from? CO2
in the air.

Theother issue I didn't see raised (although I did not follow the
links) is the  use of fossil fuels in recycling paper both for the
carting of paper and the recycling process.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: crabcakes-ga on 30 Oct 2006 10:12 PST
 
Without getting into scientific studies... it makes common sense that
reduced foliage mass from young trees (that get cut down after a few
years)don't "work" as well as mature full foliaged trees.

"One solution, practiced by The Greening of Detroit, is to avoid tiny
saplings and instead plant good-sized trees. Most of the 35,000 trees
planted by the nonprofit group over the past 13 years have been about
12 feet tall.

A tree this size, says Rebecca Salminen Witt , executive director of
the organization, makes a more immediate impact and stands a better
chance of survival."



"Clean the Air
One acre of trees removes five tons of carbon dioxide from the air
annually. One tree cleans up pollution created by a car driving 11,300
miles as well as gives off enough oxygen for a family of four to
breathe for a year.

Efficiency
Trees in a city provide the largest area of greenery needing the
smallest amount of space. The leaves of a tree crown have a surface up
to 10 times larger than the ground space they cover. 500 mature trees
equal enough leaves to cover 100 football fields.

Mature Trees
It takes 2500 saplings (young trees) to replace one mature tree."
http://www.nwpr.bc.ca/trees.html

"How long does it take to replace a hundred year old tree... plant one
and wait a hundred years! Mature trees are disappearing from the face
of the earth at an astonishing 110,000 acres per day. Roughly
equivalent to an acre wide, straight line-fifty miles per day, 350
miles per week, 1,400 miles per month or sixteen thousand eight
hundred miles per year! While acreage in certain forests, will grow
back in time, saplings are being replanted at less than 1/20th the
rate of harvested trees. Area?s that are paved over will never
recover."
http://www.dedicatedtrees.com/about_program.html
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: dops-ga on 30 Oct 2006 12:13 PST
 
Hi Crabcakes,

You're using community gardening/environmental websites as your reference. 

My point is that this statement is not supported by the literature.

 "You?re right about trees helping to remove carbon monoxide, but
mature trees do the job better than fast growing trees planted in
managed forests, specifically for producing huge amounts of pulp."


Take a look at the primary literature. As a trend young trees have a
much higher ratio of photosynthetic to non-photosynthetic tissues than
older trees. This means that mature trees, in fact don't do the job
better. Continual harvesting of juvenile trees as a process is going
to take more CO2 out of the environment than waiting to harvest mature
trees that are already past their photosynthetic prime.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: sparkysko-ga on 30 Oct 2006 15:30 PST
 
Penn and Teller did an episode on recycling. It is more
environmentally friendly to NOT recycle paper. The main thing that
should be recycled is aluminum. Less energy is required, and you can
make a profit. You cannot profit off of recycling paper. It is
government subsidized. Unless it's aluminum, don't bother recycling.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: myoarin-ga on 31 Oct 2006 14:04 PST
 
As with so many ecological questions, tree-hugging greenie (no offense
intended) arguments about why the trees are so important for co2 and
oxygen are of themselves correct, BUT every environmental proposition
should/must include all the related ramifications:  more or less
energy and other natural resources used, etc.  This seldom happens,
and the calculations are difficult  - if the numbers could be
correctly set -  and open to justified debate since they often cannot
be.

Here in Germany, people are experts at recycling.  In some towns,
homes have four different bins (glass, paper, plastic, everything
else).  On my block there is a recycling point with containers for
paper, white, green and brown glass (plastic and other packaging is
put in plastic bags that are distributed and collected, and then there
are returnable bottles and cans with deposit that everyone carts back
to the store.

My point is that there is virtually no calculation of the transport
costs for all this  - just as there isn't for paper recycling in the
question.  But, it is now admitted that recycling so much paper and
plastic is depriving the garbage incinerary plants  - that were built
big to be efficient and to avoid further landfill -  of the flamable
material they were designed to receive.  So some of them need fuel to
keep the fires burning hot enough to function properly.
(Sorry about my German sentence structure)

One can't just concentrate on one small segment of the whole question.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 01 Nov 2006 01:28 PST
 
When I was a kid, schools, the scouts etc used to collect newspaper to raise money.

We also used to collect bottles for the deposit.

Something makes me suspicious when market forces are not enough to ensure recycling.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: myoarin-ga on 01 Nov 2006 03:44 PST
 
Oh yes, Frde, I very much agree.  Thanks for bringing that up.  In
theory  - and in practice -  if there is a market for used material,
it should be economical for someone to do so:  for a pittance as
scouts in the UK and USA once did, or for enough to make doing so
interesting for others:  old metal, etc.

The German mania ignores this.  Deposits are required on types of
liquid containers that are not reusable and not otherwise recycleable,
the intention being that this should increase the use of reusable
glass and PET bottles.  Years ago, the whole system started up when a
target percentage for this was set, to be met a couple of years ago,
with the threat of requiring deposits on the other types of
containers.  The target wasn't met (it's a free market), so deposits
were established  - hang the expense or ecological logic of the
project.

As I said, it is just too easy to look at one small sector of
ecological matters and even pass laws that ignore the greater picture.

Cheers, Myo
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 01 Nov 2006 05:36 PST
 
I must confess that I prefer the German approach.

In the UK we have lip service and fines are encroaching.

I don't much mind 'artificial deposits', they are a bit like John
Maynard Keynes suggesting burying bank notes in glass bottles.

As a renegade Economist, I am aware of the effectiveness of market
forces, and I do not understand why our great and glorious leaders do
not 'harness the prevailing wind'
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: myoarin-ga on 01 Nov 2006 06:00 PST
 
"Harnass the prevailing wind" of "market forces"?

That is the problem IMHO, that the politicians cannot and should not
attempt to harnass market forces; they can only disrupt them, which
they gladly do - pro-active and all that.  If they let the market
alone, they wouldn't have enough to do and to talk about at elections 
- your politicians, my politicians, not to mention the burocrats in
Brussels.

But I probably shouldn't be trying to talk about this with an
economist, even a renegade one.

Cheers, Myo
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 02 Nov 2006 04:00 PST
 
Fascinating, you'll see elsewhere that I consider the 'Free Market' an
artificial construct - without externally imposed rules it ceases to
exist.

The problem is not 'regulation', if applied with a light touch it
allows things to exist.

The problem that we now have is 'over regulation', and that the
enforcers are jobsworths - and the rules are made up on the hoof by
people not qualified to run a lemonade stand.

I confess that besides Economics, I also studied Political Theory, and
came to the rather odd conclusion that 'rules don't matter', what
matters is that one should
a) know them
b) be able to comply with them
c) that they should be be applied, and seen to be applied

Life is striving to minimize uncertainty.

It all boils down to the 'twist' in John Von Neumann's Prisoner's Dilemma.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: keystroke-ga on 06 Nov 2006 14:51 PST
 
I try to recycle as much as possible (it seems to be a mania in NC the
same way it must be in Germany) and I'm not sure whether it does any
good or not.  It feels like I'm doing good and perhaps that's the most
important thing.

But I do know that I would take the word of almost anyone before I
believed anything Penn and Teller had to say on the matter.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: keystroke-ga on 15 Nov 2006 09:09 PST
 
frde-ga--

"Something makes me suspicious when market forces are not enough to
ensure recycling."

Why is that? There are actually many things that everyone takes for
granted as being part of society that cannot be borne by the market
alone:

--airlines
--rail travel in America
--sugar growing in America and to a lesser extent, the EU
--ethanol in America
--ethanol in Brazil at first, but now it's in the free market 
--petrol in Europe (which oil companies make no money on, as there are
75% taxes, and use America to subsidize European gas costs)

These are just what I can think of off the top of my head; there are
probably many more examples.

It's almost impossible to make money on an airline and yet the
government keeps pumping money into airlines because the economy and
governments need them to exist to go from place to place.  The same
could be said for recycling-- maybe you can't make money on it, but it
might be better for the environment and so exceptions and subsidies
should be made.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: myoarin-ga on 15 Nov 2006 09:31 PST
 
Keystroke,
Sugar growing in the US and EU? ??
The subsidies help the farmers at the expense of the taxpayers and to
the detriment of the farmers in the parts of the world where sugar
could be produced more cheaply, if they were allowed access to the US
and EU markets at a fair trade price.

Recycling:  as I tried to point out, in many instances the
environmental arguments are not considering the whole cycle, all the
related factors that are involved, although I will agree that recyling
paper probably does make sense.
A question, however  - something I wonder about -  do the paper makers
have to pay anything for the having it delivered to their mills?  They
should.
Hmmm, have to see if I can find an website that tells.

Cheers, Myoarin
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 15 Nov 2006 18:28 PST
 
@Keystroke

I'm not sure about airlines being subsidized
- obviously some are - but I'm pretty sure a lot are not

European petrol prices are a double con, profits are moved up stream
rather than taken down stream.

I would put Ethanol production in the 'commanding heights' area, more
a matter of supporting a technology that might be of strategic
importance.

In principle I don't much mind government interference, subsidies and
recognized 'social goods' - but I'm very suspicious of the current
environmental hysteria.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: keystroke-ga on 16 Nov 2006 06:26 PST
 
Myo-- not sure what you mean about the sugar growing?  My point was
that that is a government-subsidized entity.  The EU might be curbing
theirs, but not completely ending subsidies.

Sugar growing is subsidized in the US and (to a lesser extent) the
EU-- in other words, if those countries opened themselves up to the
world sugar markets, they wouldn't stand a chance and their sugar
couldn't compete, so the govts. give them all kinds of subsidies so
that they can compete.  That's why we have so much high fructose corn
syrup rather than sugar in the US.

frde-- not all airlines are subsidized (off the top of my head I don't
believe that Southwest, for instance, is) but most are.  Alitalia just
got billions from the Italian government and will probably shut down
anyway.

Prior to September 11 in the US, they were all in trouble except for
Southwest, Alaska Airlines and Continental-- and yet they all got
bailouts ($5 billion each) because of September 11.  Despite the
government giving them billions, most are still in financial
difficulty and many in bankruptcy.  It doesn't seem that an airline
can be profitable on its own merits.  Perhaps I'm totally wrong! But,
Ryanair/Southwest and the like are exceptions because they're younger
and don't have the unions and retirees to support and don't pay their
employees nearly as much.  Eventually, Southwest may have to deal with
the same problems as the others.   It's a General Motors-type problem.

And-- if ethanol growing were really about supporting a technology of
importance, the US would invest in Brazil's ethanol, which is made of
sugar and is much less expensive and cleaner than corn ethanol.  But
it's really about getting votes from farmers' unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline

--Warren Buffett thinks that airlines' net profit is less than zero
despite all the money put into them

America West == $426 million in 2001

American Airlines -- $808 million in 2000, $5 billion in 2001

Amtrak-- $1.8 billion each year, and going up each year

These are just a few I could find in a Google search.  And that's just
in America-- so Europe, as you can imagine, is just about the same or
worse.  Everyone wants a national airline.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: frde-ga on 17 Nov 2006 03:51 PST
 
I don't see why Europe (or the USA) should trash its sugar
manufacturing capabilities.

Anyway, sugar is pretty cheap.

Actually I regard agriculture as a strategic industry, well worth
supporting, one might really need it one day. The EEC intervention
approach was just plain stupid, but the move to farm subsidies makes
sense.

I see what you mean about airlines, I've been involved with them for some time.
The problem is that they are incredibly capital intensive and you are
right that the old carriers, both National and not, have to carry huge
legacy costs.

It is all a matter of maintaining Load Factor, and the larger/older
beasts don't seem very good at that.  There is also national prestige,
both France and Italy would be gutted if their national carriers went
down the pan.

Unfortunately it takes years to build a company, but one can destroy it in days.

One of my favourite airline clients was a small UK setup, they
disappeared in a puff of smoke at Manchester Airport.

I should admit that I'm not totally in favour of Free Trade, the
economics model that 'proves' it is actually a special case - there is
the Optimum Tariff and plenty of sub optimal ones.
Subject: Re: Recycling paper - Is it really such a good thing ?
From: keystroke-ga on 29 Nov 2006 09:25 PST
 
I am quite in favour of free trade... Milton Freed Man, as The Ecomomist said. 

I don't really see why, for example, the US should prop up the sugar
trade.  It simply results in higher prices for sugar in the US, to the
extent that processed foods don't even contain it and contain high
fructose corn syrup instead.  Companies not using sugar at a high
price=no sugar sold.  Companies using LOTS of sugar at a low
price=LOTS of sugar sold.  I don't see the argument here.  Sugar
growers in the US aren't selling that much, and corn growers are
benefiting from all that high fructose crap they're selling to
everyone in place of sugar.  Meanwhile, Americans are getting fatter
and unhealthier due in part to all that HFCS.  How are Americans
benefitting beyond corn farmers?

If you haven't signed the petition yet, please do so:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ganswers/

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy