I try and be open to new ideas.
I watched the video, and while it brings up several valid defects in the recycling process, it failed to offer any solutions to the problem.
One thing that I hate about discussions on the internet is that everything you know
as a fact has a debunking argument out there. ( Also, it wastes so much time !! )
Unless you are truly evil, you probably feel that it is a morally right thing to do to feed a hungry person, yet unless you chose to do so yourself, there are arguments to the contrary.
A person could point out that it is actually worse to feed someone that is starving in another country because the effort and expense it takes to feed them could be used to feed many more people. They might point out that the pollution caused by the transport of the food results in long term health effects, or that in the process of transporting the food, 'X' tons are wasted, which could be used to feed people locally, and so on and so forth.
While i may be true that we have more trees today in America than we did in 1920, it was not pointed out that many of these trees are not the size of the trees that they have replaced, because they are still growing.
And what about species diversity ? Are the trees that have replaced the forest been selected for fast growth and wood quality or as a replacement for the tree that was cut down.
And what of forest in other parts of the world ? Are they being replaced too, or simply being used as timber that now is clearcut.
Penn discussed the sludge and pollution produced in the recycling and bleaching process of the paper, without mentioning that this same sludge and pollution is caused when
all paper is created, regardless of whether or not it is new paper or recycled.
If you have a load of
white office paper that is bleached in the recycling process, isn't it common sense to assume that it takes less bleach than ( new ) brown paper pulp ?
It was pointed out that plastics do not have a good profit return when recycled, yet the idea of using less plastics in the first place was not mentioned. For example, think of how many things could be packaged using corrugated cardboard, versus styrofoam made from plastics.
At my job we throw out enough styrofoam to fill a box truck...every single day 365 days a year.
Since the company i work for makes a
profit from recycling cardboard, they make sure everyone bales the stuff up and ships it out.
( The did away with plastic recycling because, while they made a slight profit, they felt it was not worth the "effort". )
Is anyone here familiar with the Great Pacific garbage patch ? Surely you are right ?
Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fellow in the earlier mentioned video mentioned that it was wrong to force people to recycle by law, because this was imposing their views on his lifestyle.
Seat-belts were opposed the same way when they were first made into a law.
Human nature is to take the easy route, and unless there is a law, people will ignore any advice, no matter how beneficial it is.
It's a shame that greed corrupts everything. There are a huge number of obstacles to overcome with recycling, but unless money can be made from it, no one cares.
How will your great grandchildren view this generation ?