Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2009, 08:19 PM   #31 (permalink)
Left Lane Ecodriver
 
RobertSmalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Posts: 2,257

Prius C - '12 Toyota Prius C
Thanks: 79
Thanked 286 Times in 199 Posts
If Penn and Teller were publishing a series of research papers instead of an entertainment program, and their conclusion wasn't foregone from the title of the series, then they might be a credible source for such information. As it stands, they've presented as fact the opinions of two dissident scientists who disagree with what is the scientific consensus: recycling has net positive effects on the environment.

See National Recycling Week - Recycling Statistics and Research: Is Recycling Worth it? - Popular Mechanics for a readable analysis of the environmental impact of recycling.
Quote:
Across the board, the key factor is the energy intensity of extracting virgin materials, which is an order of magnitude higher than that of recovering the same material through recycling. “Even if you doubled the emissions from collecting recyclables, it wouldn’t come close,” Morris says. Overall, he found, it takes 10.4 million Btu to manufacture products from a ton of recyclables, compared to 23.3 million Btu for virgin materials. And all of the collecting, hauling and processing of those recyclables adds just 0.9 million Btu.
Recycling paper reduces the amount of land needed for tree farms, which should free up space for old-growth forests. It saves landfill space, which admittedly isn't a precious commodity. Recycling promotes widespread public awareness of environmental issues, and recycling saves energy overall. So keep on recycling; you're saving the planet, even if you're not saving the government money.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-21-2009, 10:29 PM   #32 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 810 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls View Post
It saves landfill space, which admittedly isn't a precious commodity.
That depends. Saw some real-estate signs a few miles from my place, in an area of sagebrush-covered (at least before last summer's fire) hills & canyons that is rather less attractive than the landfill site a few miles away was before it became a landfill. Two-acre parcels, $175K. That comes pretty close to precious in my book.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2009, 11:16 PM   #33 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
I'm pretty sure he was referring to space already deemed "landfill" space. Which is not in short supply, for the exact reasons that were pointed out both in Penn&Teller's presentation, and as a matter of public record.

The entire city (ok, not the whole thing, but a large percentage of it.) of Elmira, New York, is built on top of an old landfill.

Currently, Companies like Waste Management are finding "greener" ways to dispose of all that trash, both using incineration (with smoke scrubbers, of course) and methane absorption. The thoughts about landfills that people had in the 70's and 80's ARE NOT what is true anymore. Landfills aren't the huge masses and large expanses of trash and dirtyness that they may have been before I was born, and as a matter of fact, they are their own recycling operation, and always have been, it just happens on a much larger scale, over a longer period of time.

By the way, I don't care where the land is, or what's on it. 175K for 2 acres is BS. There is no land that is worth *purchase price* nearly 10 years of the average person's salary.
__________________
"¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2009, 06:15 AM   #34 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
blueflame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Auckland NZ
Posts: 333
Thanks: 7
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
Re: gas vs electric. At least moving the smog out of the city improves the respiration for all city folk, especially the kids who run around outside and have to walk to school along gridlocked roads. Cyclists would agree.

The people in the country can choke instead.

Really though, would the world really notice if all vehicular journeys, of all types, were cut in half?

How about a light rail (monorail) city with driverless coaches where you swipe a debit card and step into your own private/or shared cubicle. CCTV to stop the taggers and vandals. Scan your embedded ID chip. A computer would then tell you if your body is too acidic and needs alkalizing. And if you've been on the weed...Thought Crime...

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article: Want cars to eat less? Put 'em on a diet MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 34 07-14-2013 01:38 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com