[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Brashears on Hanson





On 13 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:31:26 EDT, Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU>
> wrote:
> l
> >You don't seem to know your statistics too well. About half of most 
> >landfills is recyclable or compostable paper and paper products.
> 
> I see no statistic in that sentence.  I have no idea where you get
> your "about half" thing from.  If it's compostable, it will be
> composted.  have no fear.  Land fills are full of good healthy
> bacteria who are specialists on the subject.

The statistic, dummy, is the fact that 95% of our waste could be 
immediately reentered into the economy instead of sent to a landfill. 
Because this takes some degree of clue to figure out, people without a 
clue tend  not to get it. The concept is waste equals food.  In other 
words, and one thing which is the effluent of a process becomes the 
influent of another.
The reason that dumping compostable materials in landfills is a problem is 
twofold. First, landfills, because of the way they are designed, do not 
tend  to decompose items very quickly. I.e. there are 20-40 year old  
newspapers in landfills which are still readable, as well as intact 
ancient banana peels. The second reason this is a problem is because we 
spend money and resources to create fertilizer when an even better 
source-- food, yard, and paper scraps, are left to languish in a 
landfill.  They serve no use there and any nutrients that may be found 
there are counteracted by the presence of toxic chemicals and metals.

>  
> Recyclable?  Hell you've been in a classroom, seen all the dust coming
> off the blackboard, all those little recycled sea shells.  Why then do
> you natter on?

That's not recycling that's using. In other words, sure oil used to be 
living plants and animals, so you are using elements that were previously 
used for something else, but most people, even ardent 
anti-environmentalists, would have to concede that oil is a virgin 
resource.

> If it doesn't turn up as slag this it will turn up as igneous that.

True, on a universal scale, the amount of matter and energy will always 
remain constant, but the problem is that once a piece of metal is buried 
in a landfill, it has become de-concentrated to the point that we will 
prefer to use virgin resources.  The problem with your argument is that 
it ignores the practical limitations of resource recovery after dumping 
because of geographic entropy. 

> >                                                                 Another 
> >20% glass, plastic, and metals, about 25% food and yard waste, and then 
> >about 5% toxic substances. In other words, about 95% of the material that 
> >goes into a landfill is recyclable. Any plastics or toxins that cannot be 
> >recycled probably shouldn't have been created in the first place.
> 
> Green Avenger,
>  
> I am very puzzled.  (What are you avenging?  And what colour was _it_?
> Against whom are you doing your hyperthyroid avenging?)  I am
> perfectly prepared to concede the truth, plus or minus a few percent,
> of everything you say here.
> 
> So?
My point is that your argument that humans do not throw away useful 
materials is just blatantly untrue.  Even if people never threw away 
perfectly good but simply outdated appliances (which they do), they still 
could be categorized as wasteful for throwing away items which could be 
used as inputs in other aspects of production.  Look at an ecosystem. In 
it, all waste which is created becomes the food for some other organism. 
Your arguments are about as nonsensical as a physics teacher who 
attempted to prove the lack of intelligence of animals by stating "Have 
you ever seen a squirrel play golf?"  In the current light of this 
conversation, who do you feel has more intelligence an ecosystem which 
insists it be responsible for its inputs and outputs, or a random guy who 
insists he's doing the world a favor when he throws away his styrofoam cup.
The green avenger part is just my way of saying that I accept my 
responsibility for being vigilant and caring for the earth. Anyone who 
refuses to see himself or herself as part of nature is not truly living, 
so David? Go get a life!

Toby Reiter


Follow-Ups: