[rescue] Clutter???

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On , August 4, 2002 at 22:14:01 (-0500), Dan Sikorski wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Clutter???
>
> On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 10:39, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > Now I know you're a _BAD_ boy Josh!  "Burn it"!?!?!?!?!  What the heck
> > are you thinking?  Don't you know that paper is one of the more
> > recyclable commodity products we "waste"?
> 
> I disagree with you on two points.
> 
> 1.  If he's burning the paper, he is using it a fuel, essentially
> recycling it. (one item serves multiple purposes)

IFF he's using it as a fuel.  :-)

Paper makes a horrible fuel unless it's reprocessed a _lot_.

> 2.  Traditional recycling is very expensive, and often not worth it.

????  Most "cardboard" packaging material used in Canada is 100%
post-consumer recycled paper fibre (and then there are Josh's ceiling
tiles and lots of similar stuff).  That stuff is made of recycled paper
because it's cheaper that way!  (Now there are some factors which are
somewhat hidden, such as collection costs that may not be fully offset
by the sale of the raw material.  It's one thing to collect paper and
other recyclables in a large metropolitan area, but I'm not sure some of
the collection efforts I've seen in rural southern Ontario are even
close to paying for themselves, not even in good will and PR!)

> (puts on his asbestos flame-suit to ward off eco-freaks)
> 
> Yes, recycling is good for the environment, but, if the same amount of
> money was spent on planting trees instead of recycling paper, it's my
> understanding that we'd be better off.
> 
> (If anyone has some solid numbers to the contrary, i'm all ears)

I don't think anyone has the numbers quite yet.  We don't know yet how
good trees (of the type found in North American forests) are at handling
higher levels of CO2, and there's a lot of FUD and double-speak from the
extremists (both the eco-nutcases and the forestry industry, and the
petroleum freaks too) about how many extra trees and other greenery we'd
need to compensate for current CO2 outputs.

We still use a lot of wood fibre, and if people are willing to put it in
a box and "pay" their city to pick it up and sell it, then we should do
that, regardless.  The same goes for steel and aluminum cans, glass,
plastics, etc.  It's better than putting it in a garbage dump, even if
some of it does have to be stored in big warehouses before buyers are
found.

Meanwhile North American forest harvesters are getting better at
planting trees, and there even getting better at selective cutting.  Now
if we could spend some money on exporting (not selling, but in promoting
and supporting) those ideas and the necessary technology then we might
get somewhere.

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;            <g.a.woods at ieee.org>;           <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>