Recycling Questions

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the "reduce" part is probably the most important thing anyway--and neglected relative to recycling.

 

[JoeEllison]

Aluminum is kind of "special", and is a rare case where recycling is significantly cheaper than any other method.

On the other hand, you have to remember that Penn & Teller are idiot** libertarians, and therfore always equate "cheaper/more profitable" with "better/more ethical". Just something to keep in the back of your mind when watching their shows. There is incredible dishonesty involved in the anti-recycling movement.

I agree with the "reduce" part, as well. Better not to make so much trash in the first place.

**"Idiot" according to Penn Jillette, who readily admits that his views are kind of silly, but make him feel better.

 

[godless dave]

Recycling is not intended to save energy. It is intended to conserve certain resources. Penn & Teller were looking at the wrong question.

Yes, it may take more energy to recycle paper than to cut down trees and make new paper. But the former conserves forests, the latter does not. So then the question becomes, what resources are we consuming to generate the energy to do the recycling? And then you prioritize.

 

[Cuddles]

Recycling is not intended to save energy. It is intended to conserve certain resources. Penn & Teller were looking at the wrong question.

Yes, it may take more energy to recycle paper than to cut down trees and make new paper. But the former conserves forests, the latter does not. So then the question becomes, what resources are we consuming to generate the energy to do the recycling? And then you prioritize.

Good point, but bad example. Plastics and metals are non-renewable so they need conserving, and recycling helps this regardless of energy costs. Trees, however, are renewable. Paper is almost usually made from trees grown specifically for that purpose, and they are replanted to grow the next crop of paper. This means that, at worst, making paper doesn't actually consume forests and at best it helps conserve them because they aren't being cut down and replaced with cows. In fact, paper that is locked up in a cupboard instead of being recycled actually helps reduce atmospheric CO² since it takes carbon out of the air but doesn't give it back.

Which all just goes to show that the whole argument is much more complicated than most of the arguers will admit. It's not just about energy. It's not just about resources. And even when you take everything into account, different things have different answers.

 

[Scott Haley]

Dishonesty?

If there were "incredible dishonesty" among people who are against recycling, then recycling advocates could point out specific statements that they make and show them to be lies. I tried to find an essay that did that, and failed to find it. I did find proof that some statements made by recycling advocates are not true. Saying that a position is wrong because its advocates are dishonest and idiots is called "argument ad hominem."

Please do not call them dishonest unless you can show that statements of fact that they make are not correct.

--Scott

Aluminum is kind of "special", and is a rare case where recycling is significantly cheaper than any other method.

On the other hand, you have to remember that Penn & Teller are idiot** libertarians, and therfore always equate "cheaper/more profitable" with "better/more ethical". Just something to keep in the back of your mind when watching their shows. There is incredible dishonesty involved in the anti-recycling movement.

I agree with the "reduce" part, as well. Better not to make so much trash in the first place.

**"Idiot" according to Penn Jillette, who readily admits that his views are kind of silly, but make him feel better.