Here's my argument, although I'm not sure it holds water. Anybody want to counter it?
1) recycling paper takes more energy than making paper from fresh wood.
2) recycled paper is of poorer quality, therefore more is needed to do any given job.
3) to recycle paper you must use bleaches to take the dyes out. Bleaches are bad.
4) paper is made from SOFT wood trees. These grow quickly (25 to 35 years), unlike hardwood trees which should be preserved because they just take ages.
5) the trees that are harvested for paper come from managed forests. ie. when they cut one down they plant another, therefore the forests don't get smaller. Reduce the need for trees for paper by recycling & THEN the forests get smaller. Smaller forests = less animal habitats, etc.
6) when the trees are fully grown (25 to 35 years) they just sit there, hardly respiring at all. Therefore they don't absorb CO2 (Carbon dioxide) and don't help much with the greenhouse effect. New trees however absorb CO2 like mad. Therefore cutting down old trees and replacing them with new ones is good for reducing the greenhouse effect.
There's mopre, but I'm tired. The only good thing about recycling paper that I can think of is that it doesn't end up in a land fill. Anyone want to add anything?
The wonderful thing about trees is that they are completely renewable. Unlike other resources, there should always be plenty of trees if we keep planting them. My daughter was taking an ecology class and came home one day to tell me how horrible it was that trees would be cut down. She was incredulous when I said the best thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down. I also love trees that aren't cut down too. Kirk
interesting-- some things to consider, though:
1. Does paper recycling really cut down on the demand in such a way as to make forests smaller? I'd have to see some evidence before I believed that.
2. Is the processing involved in recycling paper worse or better for the environment that the processing involved in making that paper in the first place?
3) to recycle paper you must use bleaches to take the dyes out. Bleaches are bad.Somehow a few weeks ago I was whatching a documentry about how they make paper (nothing else on 😕) but anyway, they use bleach in paper made from wood to, to get the yellowish color out, in fact it goes throu a few bleaching prosess
[/b]
#6 is just confused. Trees, as do all living things on Earth, breathe in oxygen and breathe out C02. This process (respiration) provides the energy that drives all other life processes. Photosynthesis is the process found only in green plants, including trees, that uses water, C02 and the sun's energy to produce food. Oxygen is a by-product of photosynthesis, not respiration!. This is important to the issue because most people do not understand that it is the food producing processes of trees, not respiration, that can produce oxygen and reduce C02.
Originally posted by belgianfreak1) How so? You might be right, but this isn't straightforward.
Here's my argument, although I'm not sure it holds water. Anybody want to counter it?
1) recycling paper takes more energy than making paper from fresh wood.
2) recycled paper is of poorer quality, therefore more is needed to do any given job.
3) to recycle paper you must use bleaches to take the dyes out. Bleaches are bad.
4) paper is made from ...[text shortened]... aper that I can think of is that it doesn't end up in a land fill. Anyone want to add anything?
2) Yes, but for many jobs recycled paper is good enough.
3) As UncleAdam said, you need bleach to make paper from trees, otherwise all paper would be brown. This is why old paper goes yellow, the bleach decays in sunlight.
4) Fair enough, but that in itself isn't a reason not to recycle paper.
5) 'Managed forests' are optimised for wood production, not for animal habitation. Why would a reduced demand for wood make forests shrink? Trees don't need to be farmed to survive!
6) I think bbarr has explained this. I think it's easier to consider instead the amount of carbon stored. Paper in a landfill site will rot, and if it's burnt in an incinerator it will go straight into the atmosphere, so paper doesn't count unless you bury used paper in conditions where it can't rot. If a forest stays the same biomass, then overall its ability to store carbon will stay the same. However, older forests tend to have a higher bio-density than younger ones. Therefore an old forest actually makes a better store of carbon than a managed forest, unless you're talking about mass reforestation.
Not saying you're wrong, just giving some counter-arguments.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI'd just like to add that I think reducing the amount of stuff going into landfills is a fairly significant advantage. Does anyone know what percentage of landfill mass is paper?
The only good thing about recycling paper that I can think of is that it doesn't end up in a land fill. Anyone want to add anything?
Originally posted by willatkinsPlants do both. Photosynthesis does not produce energy, it produces simple sugars and oxygen. To get energy (eg for extracting nutrients out of the soil), plants need to use up some of those sugars in respiration, just like we do (except we make sugars from our food.) The small proportion that isn't used in respiration is used to make starch and cellulose, principally.
Sorry Adam, plants take in CO2 and emit O2. Check out that bio book...
Originally posted by belgianfreakI've been employeed by the paper industry for 20 years. Although I work in the finished products (corrugated boxes) sector of it, I do know some about the other end. The argument here is virgin pulp versus recycled fiber. My corporation has reduced the virgin production at the mills considerably over the years, from about 20% recycled 20 years ago to about 75 to 80% today. As a result it sold off several hundred thousand acres of forest land to cut back on raw material it needed for the mills, land which will most likely be used for development of other industry. The quality aspect of the recycled brings up a unique argument in itself, recycled is much more difficult to run on equipment and still get a quality product. It also leaves little colored particles within the paper making the print much more difficult to obtain a quality product. The pulp used to make paper is chemically bleached to make the paper white in appearance, most corrugated boxes are natural brown though, which doesn't use bleach. Virgin paper is produced by a sulfate process, the fibers are long and straight and produce a higher strength. Recycled fibers are shorter in length and are more densely packed into the sheet to create a liner of equilalent strength. However, the bottom line is money! In order to remain competitive we must continue to develop the enhancements that recycled offers. Weither or not it takes more energy to produce the product is beside the point, the profit we make off the production is much more. We have mills now dedicated to run 100% recycled and this is the trend in the industry. Most paper, if it does end up in a landfill, is biodegradable which will decompose in a short amount of time. Most of our customers prefer recycled because of the environmental push to have this biodegradable product. Normally because people litter up the country side. By the way, for those who have gardens; if you have used corrugated boxes, instead of throwing them away, put them in your garden as compost. The corn starch which we use in the process to bond the 3 papers together is an organic mixture which earth worms (which are natural cultivators) are attracted to.
Here's my argument, although I'm not sure it holds water. Anybody want to counter it?
1) recycling paper takes more energy than making paper from fresh wood.
2) recycled paper is of poorer quality, therefore more is needed to do any given job.
3) to recycle paper you must use bleaches to take the dyes out. Bleaches are bad.
4) paper is made from ...[text shortened]... aper that I can think of is that it doesn't end up in a land fill. Anyone want to add anything?