2 Answers

• Reputation: 86 Q&A: 3 0 0 28 2 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Expert: 1 topic Recycle/Re-Use Follow Following 0 Brett Stav

  0 0 For more thorough answers, Ask Jeeves or Google. Or visit the EPA'S web site. There is a whole range of costs and benefits of recycling depending on the material. For example, recycling aluminum cans is AWESOME. You don't need to dynamite or use cyanide to mine for the metal, and the recyclng process is so efficient, that you can put your pop can in a recycling cart, and that metal will be remanufactured and back on the store shelf in a six-pack in about sixty days. AND, you can recycle aluminum FOREVER. There are probably pop cans out that have been recycled 10,000 times! On the other end of the scale, say, glass bottles, are not as awesome. It's heavy to ship, the process to remake it requires energy. How much more energy than making glass from sand? I dunno. Ask Jeeves. I do know, however, are some good "landfill hogshit" numbers you loathe. The EPA thinks 90% the greenhouse gases that are generated by America's solid waste management system (recycling, composting, landfilling) is generated from landfilling. I'm not a math whiz, but to me,that means recycling wins! Brett Stav answered in Recycle/Re-Use about 1 year ago | Report 3 comments by Joel, Brett Stav, and Joel… 0 0 Are there any independent studies that would corroborate the EPA's claim? I do know that landfills do indeed generate a significant level of methane as the waste decomposes under anaerobic conditions (depending on moisture, temperature etc) and the vast majority (exact numbers, i don't know) of landfills are collecting that gas and using it to provide utilities to local towns and defer the cost of the landfill. you are spot on that aluminum cans are the way to go, aluminum is worth money and it makes economic and environmental sense. But plastics, glass, paper? Not so much. Recycling paper is actually bad for the environment. with all the transportation, chemical treatment and general recycling processes, the "carbon footprint" of recycling is far greater than them creating paper from virgin pulp made from trees grown specifically to make paper. They aren't cutting endangered forests to make paper. As well as paper, recycling plastic is far more detrimental to the environment. Recycling initially hit because everyone was concerned we were running out of landfill space. But that notion has been debunked numerous times. To put it into perspective, if we had a landfill that was 35miles on each side and 200 feet deep could hold 1000 years worth of americas trash. Obviously that would be a damn big landfill, that's just to put a meter on the trash situation. I think in generally we agree that recycling cans is good, I recycle aluminum. But should we all do our parts to help the environment by throwing everything else away. Joel commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 You're jumping to a few conclusions, and I'm guessing you've seen Penn & Teller's hilarious "Bull$hit" episode on recycling. I love their bit about "recycling saves trees the same way not eating potatoes saves potatoes." However, there are environmental costs to doing everything, including tree farming. And how many more tree farms or virgin forests would we need to tap into if we didn't recycle paper? A lot! I agree that recycling doesn't work everywhere, mainly, due to transportation costs associated with transferring the waste to a recycling facility. (By the way, imagine the cost of shipping our garbage to that 35-mile wide imaginary landfill, let alone the process and cost of siting it.) I do agree that making some products from recycled material probably does create a larger footprint than landfilling them, at least now, using today's technologies. However, in Seattle, recycling works, primarily because we have state of the art recycling and composting facilities a stone's throw away from here, and our landfill is the next state away, and we're GOOD AT IT. Seattle homeowners recycle nearly 70% of their waste! We're also a port and rail city that allows us to easily ship our recyclables to markets all over the world. It's cost affordable and efficient. Economically, recycled aluminum, tin, paper, cardboard and PET plastic are highly valued in the recycling markets around the world. Recycling in Seattle is a good thing to do, but it's not the best thing you can do, solid waste-wise. The best thing to do is to shop local, shop for recycled-content or previously used products, and shop smart, not buying single-use, short-life products that you have to recycle or throw away in the first place. Brett Stav commented about 1 year ago | Report 0 0 That's a much better answer. what do our recycling facilities do different than others to cut back on the pollutants created by the process? What pollutants still make their way out and what is being done to reduce this? just for the sake of full disclosure, I recycle just because, but I find that the best discussion and information is brought about when the question is posed in a position of dissent. Joel commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question New comments are not being accepted at this time.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 18 Q&A: 0 0 0 18 0 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Expert: 1 topic Recycle/Re-Use Follow Following 0 Marcia Rutan

  0 0 Sometimes the landfill space fact is the only thing that gets some people's attention, but you're right - it is not as critical as sustaining life on the planet through keeping habitat thriving, climate change mitigated, and reducing energy/water/resource use to create products. Waste prevention, recycling and composting have a big role to play in these crucial issues. For instance, using recycled paper to make new paper can reduce water use by 60%, energy use by 70%, and pollutants by 50%. This, of course, means the high importance of buying paper made with "post-consumer" content to make recycling really work. 100% PC paper is best! In addition, new systems-based accounting of greenhouse gases (David Allaway), rather than sector-based accounting, demonstrates that waste prevention and recycling play a far bigger role than previously suggested in climate change. The "upstream" impacts of getting resources (mining, oil, deforesting) plus the manufacturing process plus transportation plus disposal add up to a whopping impact on greenhouse gases. Think before you buy that next thing - is it truly needed? Remember, every single product is "embedded" energy and resources. In addition, organics in the landfill create methane which is a greenhouse gas at least 22 times the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. Put food and yard waste into your food/yard cart to send it to the compsot facility instead. You specifically call out plastics. While I am not highly knowledgable about plastic, I can only imagine it is better to recycle old bottles for new products rather than demanding more and more new crude oil for that purpose. Marcia Rutan answered in Recycle/Re-Use about 1 year ago | Report 1 comment by Joel… 0 0 All landfills should capture that methane and use it. Just sayin' re:plastic. http://m.gizmodo.com/5454119/clay+-and-water+based-hydrogels-possible-alternative-to-plastic would you consider that a viable alternative given cost and pollution involved in recycling plasticbottles? Joel commented about 1 year ago | Report Enter your comment or ask a new question New comments are not being accepted at this time.

  Share this answer with a friend: