What's the truth behind the myths surrounding food production and consumption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Recycling
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the myths and realities of food production and consumption, particularly focusing on recycling, environmental impact, and waste management. Participants explore various claims regarding the effectiveness of recycling, its economic implications, and its environmental benefits or drawbacks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that recycling does not save energy, money, or improve environmental conditions, citing personal observations and sources like Penn & Teller.
  • Others challenge these claims, suggesting that recycling aluminum is energy-efficient compared to producing new materials, while noting that paper and plastic have different energy requirements.
  • Concerns are raised about the environmental impact of tree plantations versus natural forests, questioning the sustainability of forestry practices.
  • Participants discuss the role of recycling in reducing landfill waste and the potential economic benefits of creating jobs, even if those jobs are considered "dirty."
  • There is a debate over whether recycling effectively reduces carbon dioxide emissions compared to producing new materials, with some arguing that it may not be sufficient to address broader environmental issues.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the overall effectiveness of recycling, suggesting it may serve as a temporary solution rather than addressing the root causes of waste and environmental degradation.
  • Concerns are raised about the practicality of landfill management and the potential for landfills to be repurposed for other uses, such as parks, while questioning the feasibility of large-scale landfill solutions.
  • Some participants express doubts about the credibility of sources like Penn & Teller, indicating a divide in trust regarding the information presented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the effectiveness and implications of recycling, environmental sustainability, and waste management practices. Participants express differing opinions on the credibility of sources and the practicality of proposed solutions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of sustainability, differing assumptions about the effectiveness of recycling processes, and unresolved questions regarding the long-term management of landfills and their environmental impact.

Mickey
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
It doesn't save energy. It doesn't save money. It creates filthy jobs. It doesn't save trees. It doesn't improve the environment. It doesn't save landfill space.

Help me explain this unexplained phenomenon. This is not my beautiful world. :cry:

Source: Penn & Teller: "Bulls Hit"
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A lot of things environmentalists dream up are unpractical.
 
A little substance to back up all of this BS would be nice.
 
Mickey said:
It doesn't save energy. It doesn't save money. It creates filthy jobs. It doesn't save trees. It doesn't improve the environment. It doesn't save landfill space.

Help me explain this unexplained phenomenon. This is not my beautiful world. :cry:

Source: Penn & Teller: "Bulls Hit"

When I was at the recycling plant, they said to recycle an aluminum can requires 10% the energy to make a new one. So I don't know where your getting your information from.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
A little substance to back up all of this BS would be nice.
Can I link to the Penn & Teller episode? It contains a few swear words, but lots of substance, so I was waiting for a moderator's OK. Here it is, since you asked. o:)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=penn+and+teller+bull****

That's exactly right, cyrus. I forgot to write the words "except aluminum." Paper and plastic unfortunately don't have the same energy requirements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mickey said:
Paper and plastic unfortunately don't have the same energy requirements.

Energy isn't the only concern.
What about the trees?

I know they mention that forestry companies replant, but a tree plantation is not a forest.
 
Ivan, is recycling not something that people are skeptically debunking?* How else can we explain its existence if it doesn't do anything?

Teegvin said:
I know they mention that forestry companies replant, but a tree plantation is not a forest.

And? I don't catch your meaning. Are forests endangered? In my home state of Wisconsin, we are always experiencing problems with forest and wildlife overgrowth. People will plant fewer tree plantations if there isn't demand for them. Trees are a renewable resource, as are forests, and anything else that grows and lives in them.*Except aluminum
 
Last edited:
A lot of plastics get recycled into items like carpets and mats. Energy consumption may be one aspect of recycling, but the bigger part is slowing down the use of raw materials (petroleum based) which I think it does help do.

Also, creating jobs is pretty much a good thing, whether dirty or not.
 
the biggest issue at hand is whether or not recycling produces the same carbon dioxide emissions as producing new materials.

Of course if it's the case that they produce just as much co2, then recycling is all but a waste - although no more harmful than the actual creation-from-scratch of certain materials. In that case, the economic benefits will outweigh any environmental considerations and we should continue on our merry way.

If it's MORE harmful than producing new materials we should stop.

The very notion of recycling seems silly to me. It's nothing more than a bandaid trying to fill the gap in a dam. What is needed is a more radical shift. Our way of life, especially here in the USA, is unsustainable. Until people realize this, all the recycling in the world isn't going to make a dent in our CO2 emissions.

Off topic, I'd also like to point out a personal pet peeve. I went to a fairly liberal college, where just about everyone recycled. What really upset me is that these same people would gratuitously waste fresh water. Some environmentalists...
 
  • #10
I can't say that I agree with the idea behind recycling is the reduction of CO2 emissions. It was always my impression (and flawed it may be) that the recycling idea was an effort to reduce trash in landfills and to help reduce the demand for raw materials.

Honestly, people can wrap up recycling into whatever package they want. From a practical standpoint, if something is reuseable, then we should reuse it. Why create unnecessary waste?
 
  • #11
If you chose to ignore every environmental argument, you still have the issue of landfills. Keeping that trash out of landfills means existing landfills remain open longer, otherwise, where is the trash going to go? Nobody wants a new landfill in their town...most people don't even want the existing landfills in their town! I grew up in a town that hosted a landfill, and as more and more communities reached capacity in their landfills, ours grew faster and faster, and every time we thought it was due to reach capacity and close, they'd extend the permits to a new level because, IIRC, the next closest place that would accept our trash was in Ohio (I was in NJ); all the other closer landfills were facing the same problems and wouldn't accept trash from any new communities.
 
  • #12
FredGarvin said:
Why create unnecessary waste?
Why unnecessarily reuse? You don't do either one.
 
  • #13
Mk said:
Why unnecessarily reuse? You don't do either one.
What do you mean? "Unnecessarily reuse?"
 
  • #14
Moonbear said:
If you chose to ignore every environmental argument, you still have the issue of landfills.
They have two arguments against this:

1. It only takes a single landfill of size 35mi*35 mi to take all the trash made in the US over the next several decades to come.

2. Landfills can actually be good things. They show an example of a closed subterranean landfill that has a park (or golf course) built over it. The methane emissions from decomposition are harvested to genrate power. The landfill has a superthick, impervious floor that prevents contamination of the water table. It's all good...or so they say.
 
  • #15
FredGarvin said:
I can't say that I agree with the idea behind recycling is the reduction of CO2 emissions. It was always my impression (and flawed it may be) that the recycling idea was an effort to reduce trash in landfills and to help reduce the demand for raw materials.(snip)

Neither --- it's about cost of the refined product; melt the locomotive, tractor, model T, cast iron stove, whatever, rather than spending the money to mine Mesabi, ship it the length of the Great Lakes, haul in coal, coke it, haul in limestone, pour the iron, refine it. Recycling iron pays off big time, always has; recycling paper is iffy, depends an awful lot on how clean the feedstock is kept; the rest of it looks good on paper, can be made to look good on company ledgers in special cases (Ball and Al from clean waste in the can plants), but in general is more an expense than a savings (cans from trash, ditches, and other post-consumer sources are contaminated enough with sand, dirt and other silicon sources that they're useless for anything but rocket fuel). Spend 10-20 cents a pound sorting plastics that you produce for 2-5 cents? Not a winner without slave, or convict, labor --- and the supervision and inspection costs are still going to eat you alive.
 
  • #16
Gokul43201 said:
They have two arguments against this:
I didn't bother reading since it's linked to a Penn and Teller site. I don't actually consider them an authority on anything but comedy.

1. It only takes a single landfill of size 35mi*35 mi to take all the trash made in the US over the next several decades to come.
:rolleyes: And how high do they think it's going to get before trucks can't get up it? And, where do we have an area 35 X 35 miles (1225 sq miles...it sounds nicer when you just give linear dimensions, doesn't it)? Should we just take over Rhode Island? In more practical terms, given that most landfills are about 0.5 sq miles (give or take), you'd need 2500 landfills. And, if it were just one landfill, how do you get all the trash to it? It would definitely be cheaper to take it to a local recycling center than truck it across the country. And what happens after the 30-40 year lifespan of that landfill is over and we need another one? We could get away with using even less space or extend its lifetime even longer if we didn't fill it up with non-biodegradable stuff that could be reused.

2. Landfills can actually be good things. They show an example of a closed subterranean landfill that has a park (or golf course) built over it. The methane emissions from decomposition are harvested to genrate power. The landfill has a superthick, impervious floor that prevents contamination of the water table. It's all good...or so they say.
Uh huh, or it's a disaster waiting to happen. But, they don't become parks and golf courses without a lot more work and money put in. They don't just sprout grass on their own.

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/leaCentral/Closure/Revegetate/Part7.htm

Dealing with the settling over time gets pretty expensive too, it's not just a one-time cost and effort.

This site also has some interesting information about landfills and what needs to be done when they are closed to use that land for something else. By the way, how many golf courses do we need?
 
  • #17
"Reduce, reuse, recycle"

Note the order.

I'm still convinced that "resource recovery" (burning trash for electricity) is the most environmentally friendly and efficient use for all trash.
 
  • #18
Moonbear said:
I didn't bother reading since it's linked to a Penn and Teller site. I don't actually consider them an authority on anything but comedy.
There's a video you can watch. Until at least two-thirds the way through the show, they do not make one single complete argument! Makes you want to chuck your trash at them. Finally, in the last few minutes, they make some arguments - whether or not they carry water, I can't judge, but at least there was finally an argument.

:rolleyes: And how high do they think it's going to get before trucks can't get up it?
They had a number for the height. It was something like 10 feet, or a few tens of feet, or somesuch.

Uh huh, or it's a disaster waiting to happen. But, they don't become parks and golf courses without a lot more work and money put in. They don't just sprout grass on their own.
They don't have to become parks or golf courses. Their argument they were trying to make was that the land above the fill was not a stinky, dirty place and could be used most nearly any way you want.

Chi said:
I'm still convinced that "resource recovery" (burning trash for electricity) is the most environmentally friendly and efficient use for all trash.
They used to do this a few miles south of here, until a few years ago. I think they've now shut down the plants - I'm not sure what the reasons were.
 
  • #19
Chi Meson said:
I'm still convinced that "resource recovery" (burning trash for electricity) is the most environmentally friendly and efficient use for all trash.
I too think this is a great idea. We have garbage, we need energy, why not burn garbage for energy?
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
They don't have to become parks or golf courses. Their argument they were trying to make was that the land above the fill was not a stinky, dirty place and could be used most nearly any way you want.
At least one of the links I provided points out that it can't be used for much more than that. Because of the uneven settling as trash decomposes at different rates, and the risk of trapped methane seeping in unpredictable directions, you can't put buildings on it. And, of course, you need to find enough soil to cover the entire thing with a layer 6 feet thick to cap it and keep the odor from seeping out.

Anyway, yeah, I think I'll just revert to...it's Penn and Teller, they're comedians, not scientists.
 
  • #21
Moonbear said:
At least one of the links I provided points out that it can't be used for much more than that. Because of the uneven settling as trash decomposes at different rates, and the risk of trapped methane seeping in unpredictable directions, you can't put buildings on it
If I remember correctly there is also a problem of people becoming very sick if their home is located on a landfill. It was related to gas escaping the landfill and settling in the basement.
 
  • #22
That was a great clip! You should watch it moonbear.
 
  • #23
Gokul43201 said:
They used to do this a few miles south of here, until a few years ago. I think they've now shut down the plants - I'm not sure what the reasons were.
I know that older versions of these plants were not as clean and efficient as they can be. I understand that Singapore burns all its trash for electricity, and the emissions are almost entirely CO2 and H2O.

Oh, plus the sludge, but that takes up a fraction of a percentage of landfill space compared to the unburnt trash.

Full disclosure: I'm still partially wary of "resource recovery." Whenever things sound too good to be true, they usually are. Critis claim that the sludge is super-concentrated toxins. I can't see how it could possible be even as bad as burning coal, though.
 
  • #24
Burned garbage as super-concentrated toxins? Most of my garbage is stuff I could have eaten.
 
  • #25
Moonbear said:
I didn't bother reading since it's linked to a Penn and Teller site. I don't actually consider them an authority on anything but comedy.
Give it a chance, its a pretty good show. I've never seen that episode, but they did a great one on debunking the modern environmentalism movement. Getting neohippies to sign a petition for banning water is funny, but the most compelling part was an interview of a Greenpeace founder who left the organization because it became a catch-all leftist political organization and stopped being a responsible environmentalist organization.

They also did good episodes on creationism, alternative medicine and talking to the dead. It is, of course, all based on their opinions and I don't agree with all of them, but it is still a good show.

http://epguides.com/PennandTellerBull****/ [you'll have to fix the link yourself...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
My favorite episode from them (I've only seen the ones on video.google) is probably the general "food" one, covering organic food, raw food, diets, and genetically enhanced. With Norman Borlaug!