News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by JoeAltmaier on Monday June 22, 2015 @03:00PM (#9760452)
Under the narrow definition of garbage provided (household waste), and using the system of imaginary points (what is cheaper instead of what costs our environment more), then sure that's the conclusion the OP came up with. After endless fables and allegories and precious little actual numbers.

The idea that we cut thousands of acres of wood a year to make paper, yet somehow the garbage will fit in a smaller space is on the surface preposterous.

That landfills are any kind of solution is also very debatable. They poison the area around for generations. My local town, very PC and very educated, has a massive landfill groundwater plume that destroys wells and makes soil toxic for 20 miles 'downwind'. Did we do it wrong? Who does it right?

You've heard about the 'plastic continent' circling in the ocean, made of a soup of plastic waste that's never going to go away? Do we count those thousands of square miles in the 'landfill equation'?

We have endless space, sure, as long as we're willing to consume it in those ways. Ecology to burn! We'll never need it, surely. Certainly we won't miss it, its outside of town and nobody goes there.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by mason240 on Monday June 22, 2015 @03:04PM (#9760488)
>You've heard about the 'plastic continent' circling in the ocean, made of a soup of plastic waste that's never going to go away? Do we count those thousands of square miles in the 'landfill equation'?

Yes, we have all heard of the extreme hyperbole surrounding it, such as calling it a "continent."

>The idea that we cut thousands of acres of wood a year to make paper,

Paper has been grown a crop using fast growing, poplar-like trees for decades now. In fact, we have tens of thousands of acres of paper trees that will never be harvested because email caused the demand for paper to plummet.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by zo1 on Monday June 22, 2015 @05:02PM (#9761176)
>"Yes, we have all heard of the extreme hyperbole surrounding it, such as calling it a "continent.""

And don't forget to mention the stock-image that most fear-mongering articles regarding this topic use. It's usually an entire image filled with plastic trash that's floating above murky-dark water. It grabs peoples' attention, but misrepresents the extent of the problem by evoking forced emotion on individuals who think that there is quite literally "a floating island/continent of plastic trash in the ocean somewhere". Sadly, a lot of environmental issues are dealt with like this, with fear mongering rather than objective and calm discussions.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by JoeAltmaier on Monday June 22, 2015 @03:10PM (#9760522)
Hyperbole notwithstanding, its an enormous volume of ecology impacted by garbage. The words exaggerate the mass of the thing (its like 1 piece of garbage per cubic foot of water) but not the extent of it.

The tree thing was about the space it takes to dispose of it all, not the cutting of the trees. That a few square miles of landfill will be enough for 1000 years for everybody is a laughable notion.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by vectorjohn on Monday June 22, 2015 @05:59PM (#9761489)
Paper decomposes so fast it's ridiculous to be concerned with the space it takes up in a landfill. There is nothing to worry about with paper.

Also, "a few square miles of landfill"? Maybe you're talking about a different country, but the US has such an enormous amount of land with low population density, we could spend hundreds of square miles on landfill, and you know what? Landfills aren't permanent! They turn into just land. Land you could use for: a landfill. It doesn't take an ever increasing amount of landfill to deal with garbage.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by JoeAltmaier on Monday June 22, 2015 @06:13PM (#9761546)
Paper doesn't decompose at all once its covered with soil. Landfills last for centuries. Archaeologists love digging them up. Read up on it.
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by zo1 on Monday June 22, 2015 @04:58PM (#9761158)
>"groundwater plume that destroys wells and makes soil toxic for 20 miles 'downwind'. Did we do it wrong? Who does it right?"

I'm not a big expert on this. But this sounds like a big lesson (possibly one that could have been guessed prior). That you can apply to the next landfill: Move it to the middle of nowhere, perhaps a desert or something if you're worried about populated areas.

Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by ptx on Monday June 22, 2015 @05:31PM (#9761342)
But if we can only use space in the middle of nowhere, it becomes much less "nearly limitless".
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by vectorjohn on Monday June 22, 2015 @06:01PM (#9761501)
In fact, it becomes much more limitless. Almost everywhere in the united states is in the middle of nowhere. We could be talking about a different country, sure. But nobody says the garbage has to end up right where it's generated.
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by JoeAltmaier on Monday June 22, 2015 @06:14PM (#9761553)
Its easy for the folks who live in cities to imagine everywhere else is just wasted ground, the middle of nowhere. Come out here sometime and learn. Every place is owned, farmed, grazed, used by somebody. There's no such thing as nowhere.
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by fps on Wednesday June 24, 2015 @09:45AM (#9771483)
The US government owns 28% of the land in the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands) - Most of this land is not being used for parks or any other public resource - it simply is unused and unoccupied.
Re:Recycling is Garbage (1996) by JoeAltmaier on Wednesday June 24, 2015 @11:41AM (#9772359)
Much is leased for grazing, mining.