You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Truth About Recycling | ZapRoot”.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Recycle Facts
A guide to all things recyclable.
Recycling News
- Minneapolis considers switching to single-stream recycling May 17, 2012Minneapolis' complex recycling system could get a whole lot easier. […]
- Deal for Veolia ES Solid Waste expected in July May 17, 2012Earlier report of sale likely erroneous. […]
- Florida school district wins Guinness World Record for plastic bottle collection May 17, 2012A Florida school district can add Guinness World Record holder to its moniker. […]
- Captial Briefs: Louisiana Senate asks for study on e-waste recycling May 17, 2012Louisiana: Senate Resolution 83 urges the Department of Environmental Quality to study the establishment of a recycling and collection system for electronic waste and report its findings to the legislature. Passed the Senate on April 26. […]
@kinderino3 what?! hahahaha also aliens is spelled wrong but it doesn’t matter…
I retract my statement ‘the earth does not have enough room’. What I meant to say was: your urban area does not have enough space. I guess it’d be arguably cheaper to recycle plastic than to ship it off to the place the oil came from.
But the real killer is that landfills are in need of being maintained for years and years to avoid dangerous leakage, which makes it an inefficient solution to the waste problem.
And recycling reduces our dependance on oil.
There will never be a shortage of space. Plastic does not just appear out of nothing – materials like oil are necessary to produce it and those will run out before we ever even get close to the point where there is no space to put it.
No. I mean to say plastic will not decay much in landfills, so the number of landfills over the earth would accumulate over time, and seeing as both plastic consumption and population grows steadily, there would come a shortage of space.
“I doubt the earth is large enough to hold all the plastic trash we make in landfills,”
That statement makes absolutely no logical sense at all. Do you mean to say that there is more stuff already on the earth than can be stored on the earth?
About 1/10 of the number of people, there are automobiles.
I knew you were going to say this — but it’s empty retoric. I don’t want abolition of CO2 altogether (that would mean plants, and therefore humans will die), just a fierce reduction of it. Killing off humans and letting robots drive cars would be an option, though be it a bit lunatic.
I am wondering whether you are making up your numbers. Would it take 1.000 years for all worldly trash to fill up a dump? Do you really believe that?
I don’t understand how the topic went from recycling to something as up-in-the-air as carbon emissions.
And, for the record, there are more people on this Earth than cars. A lot more.
Recycling is a manufacturing process and doesn’t work, it’s as simple as that. If it truly was as effective as we’re meant to believe, it wouldn’t cost us Billions each year.
And as far as us trashing up the planet. It would take 1,000 years for us to fill a 200 mile radius dump.
So… we’ll be fine. Trust me.
The rise in CO2 levels the last 100 years follows an exact match to the increase of global warming. Could be coincidence, but I’d rather be safe than sorry. Furthermore, it is not a conflicted view that high levels of gases produced by burning are harmful to human health. A recent study I read about in the Scientific American found that living in a city even shaves off IQ points.
I doubt the earth is large enough to hold all the plastic trash we make in landfills, plastic decaying over a period of 1.000 years and all.
Burning and melting for recycling are two different things. A lot of the time trash is being burnt in power plant, which I was referring to.
A human will breathe out, on average 0.592 grams of CO per minute
The Toyota Prius breathes out 92 grams per kilometer.
So what again?
Well, for one thing, we don’t typically burn plastic, we store it in landfills with the rest of the trash.
And when we do burn it (you’re going to love this), it’s usually when we decide to melt it down into serum again and recycle it.
And there is a lot of conflicting evidence again CO2 levels in the air (as they are now) being any threat to the environment. We don’t know for sure, yet.
However, if it were a problem, guess what the #1 contributor of CO2 is: human respiration.
Recycling plastic does consume electricity but the environmental inpact of this is much less than simply burning it.
CO2 emission has more than sextupled since sixty years ago. You think a doubling of trees can handle that? We’d probably need a forest the size of Africa to sustain levels of CO2.
tee hee
Simply put, recycling is a more costly process and conservative one. American tax payers lose roughly $1 billion every year on recycling. Simply put, it’s a business. One that will always see income, thanks to tax payers’ money.
HOWEVER, if you do want to recycle, for the better, then recycle tin and aluminum. Both metals can be melted into their raw form without the loss of carbon. Both are 99% renewable, and therefore are a very cost-effective materials for recycling.
Could you provide a better retort to my points, rather than just blatantly claiming that I am lying?
The US paper market is harvested from a specific type of tree, which is farmed. It’s renewable and in no way damages the ecosystem — that doesn’t go for all resources of course.
Recycling paper requires machine power which consumes energy and creates pollution. The dying process of paper pulp alone creates a lot of sludge waste.
I am of course referring to Shaman145.
Could you provide real facts instead of lies?
of?
This vid is manipulation.
I am exeptionally glad that people thing that certain people think the way they do… Especially since i have family that owns landfill… And the part that people constantly overlook is that…. People throw away hundreds of thousands of tons of non-biodegradable crap every year… and thank goodness too… As over 50% of it is made from non-renuable resouces this means that eventually we wlll run out… Wich is Insanely awesome for my family as we own a landfill…
CHEERS THANKS A-Lot (!_!)
why not help it along man?
That’s the truth. Recycling is a manufacturing process that actually consumes more energy than it conserves — it also does a fine job of causing pollution.
Paper doesn’t need to be recycled, actually. It doesn’t save trees. Trees are a renewable resource, and without the use of paper, there would be no need to plant trees. If you want to help the Earth, use more paper.
Interesting fact: There are twice as many trees on the planet now, than there were in the 1920′s.
aluminum is really the only efficiently mass recycled material. It saves money to recycle aluminum, so why shouldn’t we do it? On the other hand, paper recycling is inefficient and filthy. And stupid. There’s NO REASON WHATSOEVER to do it.
Freedom of speech is different from freedom of stupidity and ignorance. Get it straight.
Secondly, you have no right to go on a video and blatantly say that recycling is “bullshit”. I don’t care if you DON’T recycle – just don’t make a fool outta yourself like that ever again.
ha, sure. what happened to freedom of speech? liberals ruin it for everybody…
i don’t care if YOU recycle, just don’t shove it down my throat.
Clearly somebody was an elementary school dropout.
Go research some facts kiddo.