Edit to say - I’m really glad I asked my stupid question. I was so jaded by the con artists in recycling I forgot that when done right there’s so much good - and still loads of consequences to not finding a place to reuse the paper products. I’m not huge with using packaging - and thanks for all the thoughtful answers :))
I found myself wondering this as I got annoyed at the plastics industry and their stupid propaganda, as I do everytime I go to recycle something. But anyway, I had been thinking I’d heard something about people going to ‘mine’ landfills for metal because people weren’t recycling and it’s ‘bad for the environment’ and 'filling up ‘landfills’
Bitch Please. I can see the dollar symbols on your pupils from here.
So it made me think, paper and the such breaks down quickly. Food too. The huge drives for community composting efforts and cardboard drives for schools etc - It’s really all a matter of the fact we can re-use it all easily. Metal is worth money, used again and again, as it was straight from the earth. Just that plastic. Which is all but unrecyclable, save some clear/semi-clear containers.
But without the cardboard, my bin is pretty empty. It’s like recycling exists just to pretend plastic can be.
Edit - I should add in my area if the recycling the plant receives is tainted in anyway they just toss it. The whole load. So unrecyclable plastic? Dirty? Wrong material? Gone.
What you’re posing as a counterpoint to potentially not being able to recycle paper products, we should automatically go straight to cutting down more trees.
Imagine making paper on your own property. You have two trees. You cut down one tree, plant a replacement, and make 100,000 sheers of paper product. When you’re done with a sheet, throw it in your yard. It’s composting, right? Sure. You’ve made no efforts to recycle clean paper. When your 100,000 sheets run out (printer paper, note paper, toilet paper, and paper towels), you have to go cut down the second tree. How big is that replacement tree? Is it going to ready 100,000 sheets later? Will it get struck by lightning, caught in a wildfire, hit by a car, or catch a disease? You’d hope not. So wouldn’t it make more sense that, even though you’re planning to replant trees, to recycle as much paper as you could? You wouldn’t have a yard full of composting paper and you wouldn’t have such a close dependency on your two tree plots. No, this isn’t solved by having a whole forest available when you scale up the consumer side too.
Now consider that an average American consumes 7 trees per year and a tree takes at least 20 years to mature for processing. That’s 140 trees growing simultaneously to support one person.
So no, we can’t just blindly throw all our paper in a landfill and ignore the impact. Why so many places do single stream with tuna oil soaked into paper, I don’t know. I get the frustration.
Metal isn’t so clean either. Every time it gets processed, more and more is lost to oxidation and to contamination during smelting. Sure, it’s more easily recovered from the single stream can, but I’m not a fan of metal newspapers
You’re seriously underestimating how many trees there are. The only reason we’re losing forest is because of grazing land. That’s clearcutting, where you remove the tree and just destroy it or just burn the whole forest. As a vegetarian I’m obviously not here to defend grazing land, but if you look only at wood and paper production, we absolutely can replace the trees we use with enough time for them to regrow completely.
Doing so devastates ecosystems by turning them into monocultures, but you’re only talking about the replacement rate of trees. We don’t have to worry about the replacement rate of trees, we have to worry about greed for land and environmental impact.
You cannot make paper out of all wood.
Additionally, the process to remove lignin, a binding protein, from wood in order to make paper is extraordinarily environmentally destructive. Paper mills do not smell good and are toxic waste sites for a reason
Yes, I know all that. The argument I was replying to was that you run out of trees if you use them to make paper without recycling. That argument is false. You’re arguing with points I didn’t make.
That was my take away with what they were saying in a broad sense - making more and more and more paper is unsustainable not matter what. Reforestation is still hard on the creatures dependent on the original environment…monoculture destroys economies (only for poor people, obviously) - in the end, no matter what, creating new paper products on a whim is selfish, greedy and avoidable
I figured you’d extrapolate and consider the damage caused by needing so many trees every year, not just the simple math of needing too many trees.
and i figured you’d read what i actually wrote instead of arguing with someone who didn’t exist