New book and recycling

[wormwood]

Of the things of which we're most proud, we were able to find a recycled paper that matches the high quality of the previous volumes, something for which I've been asking my printer for a long time. Webcomics have the benefit of not killing trees in order to reach the masses, and it always bugged me that I needed to start just to put the strip in a permanent format. It's not 100% recycled, yet, but hopefully such a paper will become available for a future book. I realize this is not something that matters to everyone, but it matters to me, so there it is.

I admire that the Giant is trying to do what appears to be the right thing but, in all honesty, recycled paper is worse for the environment than virgin paper. It takes tons of energy to recycle paper. Most of that energy comes from coal burning power plants. That's not counting all the extra man-hours spent sorting and hauling used paper. Then you add in the gas burned to move it and carbon emissions from trucks used to do so. Finally, after recycling that paper and making it squeaky clean again there's gobs of waste to be disposed (all the ink and goo that they squeegee out of the old paper).

If you want to save a tree, throw away more paper. Almost all of the new paper that's created comes from trees planted specifically for that purpose. Trees are a crop, just like wheat, and we're in no danger of running out of them. As long as people keep using paper, the companies that are making money off of it will keep planting more. When we stop using paper, we'll get less trees planted. The united states has more trees now than we did 100 years ago.

Sorry for the unsolicited rant... pissing away money and time on recycling is one of my pet peeves. The US spends billions of dollars per year forcing people to recycle things that we'd be better off just tossing in the trash. Ask any homeless dude and you'll quickly find out that aluminum cans are the only products worth the effort of recycling.

[Renegade Paladin]

Someone watches Penn & Teller. :smalltongue:

But yes, he's correct. Paper is made from scrub trees purpose-grown on farms specifically for producing paper. As soon as the trees are harvested, new ones are planted. Nobody goes out chopping down virgin forest to make paper; that's just what Greenpeace wants you to think. Doing so would be a waste of perfectly good timber. :smallamused:

[Ego Slayer]

Ah... this is why "Natural Capitalism" would be a... good thing? (and something interesting to read into if you're not familiar with it). When it becomes cheaper to use recycled materials because you tax the hell out of new material. Well, your whole system would work differently anyway so when it comes down to it, it's really a rather good thing.

And I just realized what your avatar is. Hahah...

[Serpentine]

Evidence plzkthx? So far as I know, in Australia at least the problem is that the majority of our timber gets woodchipped. I recall not that long ago someone in the timber industry urging that the hardwood furniture industry be given a boost as a means to prevent these quality woods being used for pulp. Also, it's not just a matter of how many trees there are: If they're not there for a long time, if they don't have time to grow old, the habitat is still useless. One of my ecology lecturers once described pine plantations as having the "biodiversity of a carpark".

[Quincunx]

Many metals are worth the effort of recycling thanks to the construction boom, which has only slackened in the first world--the problem being that most of what's being recycled wasn't ready to be thrown away yet (copper wiring, steel manhole covers, etc.). A scrap metal dealer might be a better source for quotes. [Evidence: a steady trickle of AP news items over the past year and a half. I believe the story was first broken as a consequence of the Beijing construction boom prior to the Olympics and has not yet faded from journalists' consciousness.]

When I was living in Sweden, paper was sorted into two recycling piles: fine white paper, presumably for making more of the same, and ragged paper & cardboard for making less durable products like egg cartons and/or incineration by the power plant. Our little corner of the peninsula had no shortage of forest and of logging, although I had trouble distinguishing which were natural growth clear-cut and which were farmed lots--they didn't replant in rows as the other tree farms I've seen do. [Evidence: will have to wait until my husband gets home, my Swedish vocabulary is not up to the task of distinguishing types of forest.]

[wormwood]

Someone watches Penn & Teller. :smalltongue:


Yeah, I saw the P&T BS episode about it but I've been irking my hippie pals for years with my less "eco-friendly" views. I think I was in 3rd grade when I was first forced to recycle stuff and hit the library to find out if it was worthwhile. At that time, for every 100 tons of recycled paper there was about 40 tons of waste water that had to be dealt with.


Evidence plzkthx? So far as I know, in Australia at least the problem is that the majority of our timber gets woodchipped. I recall not that long ago someone in the timber industry urging that the hardwood furniture industry be given a boost as a means to prevent these quality woods being used for pulp. Also, it's not just a matter of how many trees there are: If they're not there for a long time, if they don't have time to grow old, the habitat is still useless. One of my ecology lecturers once described pine plantations as having the "biodiversity of a carpark".

You're absolutely right to call me on the lack of references. I'm at work at the moment and my boss is getting inquisitive about what I'm doing with my time. I will try to provide some good numbers / references later.

OK, so a pine plantation has the "biodiversity of a carpark." And? A tree farm isn't supposed to be a diverse ecology any more than a corn field is. Let the biodiversity happen in forests. Tree farms are there to grow trees.


And I just realized what your avatar is. Hahah...

Yep. Love the stuff. :D


Many metals are worth the effort of recycling thanks to the construction boom, which has only slackened in the first world--the problem being that most of what's being recycled wasn't ready to be thrown away yet (copper wiring, steel manhole covers, etc.). A scrap metal dealer might be a better source for quotes.

I concede that you're right about recycling other metals. Several of them are worth the trouble. Those are predominantly commercial concerns, though, rather than your average individual consumer. I don't have a whole lot of spare copper wire lying about and I'm too lazy to steal manhole covers. :)

[Serpentine]

Oh, and another thing: It's not just about saving trees. It's also about keeping still-useful stuff out of landfills. It's also, as Quin alluded to, no good dismissing recycling as a whole when there's all sorts of materials that can be recycled. Hell, I think half my house is built from recycled wood, doors, windows, etc.
As for your point: People are fighting to preserve forests because they are an important ecosystem. You're not doing much good in that regard if you're cutting down wild trees to plant farmed ones. As for a corn field not being biologically diverse, why not? Or at least why not the whole farm? There's a big movement down here trying to get farmers to reserve land for wildlife corridors. And the water: water can be recycled too. If it's not, then the technology needs to be worked on. I'm not gonna say it's perfect, but I'm not gonna say it's completely useless, either.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Oh, and another thing: It's not just about saving trees. It's also about keeping still-useful stuff out of landfills. It's also, as Quin alluded to, no good dismissing recycling as a whole when there's all sorts of materials that can be recycled. Hell, I think half my house is built from recycled wood, doors, windows, etc.
As for your point: People are fighting to preserve forests because they are an important ecosystem. You're not doing much good in that regard if you're cutting down wild trees to plant farmed ones. As for a corn field not being biologically diverse, why not? Or at least why not the whole farm? There's a big movement down here trying to get farmers to reserve land for wildlife corridors. And the water: water can be recycled too. If it's not, then the technology needs to be worked on. I'm not gonna say it's perfect, but I'm not gonna say it's completely useless, either.
Water gets recycled by nature itself.
Only problem is that we need to make it as clean again as when we took it.

[Serpentine]

Water gets recycled by nature itself.
Only problem is that we need to make it as clean again as when we took it.Tell that to Australian farmers :smallsigh: Ocean water isn't much good for agriculture, y'know.

[Lissou]

You say after paper is recycled there is still stuff to dispose of: the ink that you got out of the paper. But if you don't recycle it at all, you have to dispose of the ink AND paper. Depending on how you dispose of it, it can be worse for the environment.

But I do agree on one thing: in my opinion, printing the books with natural inks (aka non toxic ones) would be a better step. Whether the paper's recycled or not, the ink end up biodegradable, this way.

Also, cutting down trees, transporting them, taking the pulp, turning said pulp into paper, getting rid of what need to be... All of that might use as much energy and pollute as much as the recycling, I'd say.

Either way, I don't know if it's good or bad, and I'll buy the book either way. I'm sure the Giant looked into it before making that decision, and I'm sure his printer did the same thing. If they arrived at the conclusion that 50% recycled paper was a good idea, they must have a good reason.

[Semidi]

I admire that the Giant is trying to do what appears to be the right thing but, in all honesty, recycled paper is worse for the environment than virgin paper. It takes tons of energy to recycle paper. Most of that energy comes from coal burning power plants. That's not counting all the extra man-hours spent sorting and hauling used paper. Then you add in the gas burned to move it and carbon emissions from trucks used to do so. Finally, after recycling that paper and making it squeaky clean again there's gobs of waste to be disposed (all the ink and goo that they squeegee out of the old paper).

If you want to save a tree, throw away more paper. Almost all of the new paper that's created comes from trees planted specifically for that purpose. Trees are a crop, just like wheat, and we're in no danger of running out of them. As long as people keep using paper, the companies that are making money off of it will keep planting more. When we stop using paper, we'll get less trees planted. The united states has more trees now than we did 100 years ago.

Sorry for the unsolicited rant... pissing away money and time on recycling is one of my pet peeves. The US spends billions of dollars per year forcing people to recycle things that we'd be better off just tossing in the trash. Ask any homeless dude and you'll quickly find out that aluminum cans are the only products worth the effort of recycling.

[Citation Needed]

And P&T BS is not a reputable source. It's funny but most of the time it's laughable and full of misinformation and an incredible lack of objectivity... At least the episodes I've seen.

[BugFix]

Yeah, I saw the P&T BS episode about it

Indeed, what would we do without those paragons of environmental science? Sigh...

This is mostly bunk. The idea that throwing paper away is a carbon sink is attractive to a bunch of libertarian P&T-watching teenagers, but is basically unsupported by the science.

The wood you grow to make paper isn't free, like you and your casino buddies seem to think. Depending on environment, it needs irrigation and fertilization, which takes energy. It needs to be cut, hauled, chopped, cooked, bleached, treated and pressed, all of which are steps that need energy directly and most of which require secondary ingredients whose manufacture also requires energy for manufacture and transport. And the land the trees are grown on isn't a constant. If you stop cutting trees for paper, the trees that are there can grow longer and taller. The carbon sink rate of a maturing forest is vastly higher (in most ecosystems) than that of the infant tree farm it replaced.

Depending on the end product, the energy required to make, say, a recycled milk carton or cardboard box or newspaper is (or can be, given a mature industry to do it) much lower than it is to make the same product from scratch. Cutting forests from scratch is only a win for fancy products like printer paper. That's only a tiny fraction of the "paper" industry.

I'm aware of only one piece of research in this area (I saw a reference to it in a New Scientist a few months back, maybe March or thereabouts), and what it showed was that cutting burying mature forests in place in the tropics could be a viable carbon sink at an industrial scale. That's hardly about paper recycling, is it?

Don't pretend that you understand this stuff. No one does, really. And stop looking to Penn and Teller for science advice!. Read a book instead, it's better for you. Here's a link to a great PDF on energy and carbon issues that everyone who can read an equation should read. It's by a british physicist, and it's a first-principles accounting of existing carbon mitigation ideas. The details are UK-centric, but the core content is just great:

http://www.withouthotair.com/

It doesn't talk about paper specifically, but will help you to reason through issues like this in the future.

[wormwood]

[Citation Needed]

And P&T BS is not a reputable source. It's funny but most of the time it's laughable and full of misinformation and an incredible lack of objectivity... At least the episodes I've seen.

I don't know about misinformation but I don't claim that they're a reputable source. In fact, I didn't claim them at all, just mentioned that I had seen it after someone else brought them up. I also admitted that I needed to add references and would try to do so.

My opinions stem from the digging around I did at a library many, many years ago. I haven't seen anything to indicate there has been a considerable change in recycling technology. As I said, i need to do the digging again so I can point out some reliable sources. On the flipside of that, it looks like P&T came up with damn near the exact information I did... only a dozen years later.

Note: I mentioned earlier that I was in 3rd grade the first time I was forced to recycle. I neglected to mention that it wasn't until 8th or 9th grade that I actually started to question it. Reading my post again, it looks like I hit the library a lot sooner than I really did. Sadly, i wasn't that motivated. :)

[Fostire]

The wood you grow to make paper isn't free, like you and your casino buddies seem to think. Depending on environment, it needs irrigation and fertilization, which takes energy. It needs to be cut, hauled, chopped, cooked, bleached, treated and pressed, all of which are steps that need energy directly and most of which require secondary ingredients whose manufacture also requires energy for manufacture and transport.

That may be true, but you must take into account that some byproducts of producing paper can be used to produce energy as well. Here in Uruguay a paper producing factory was recently installed and the energy produced by it is enough to keep it running and feed the nearby city. In Uruguay all energy is managed by the government and one of its main sources of energy comes from burning oil. By buying energy from the factory, it needs to burn less oil to maintain the country's energy.
I don't remember the name of the byproduct i mentioned but i think after it is burned it is used again in the process of producing paper (i may be wrong on this). My father is the expert on this area so ill ask him for more info when he comes home tonight.

[BugFix]

That may be true, but you must take into account that some byproducts of producing paper can be used to produce energy as well.

Yes, but only with very poor efficiency. If waste biomass energy (which is what you are describing) was a net win, then farms everywhere would be doing this for the clear economic benefit. They aren't, because it doesn't work well.

The problem with your analysis, like the original poster's, is that you are assuming that the pulp wood input to the paper processing is free. It's not. It takes energy and produces carbon to grow those trees (either directly on a farm, or indirectly due to the cutting and burning of existing forest), but you're not subtracting those costs from the energy output of the plant.

[wormwood]

Indeed, what would we do without those paragons of environmental science? Sigh...

This is mostly bunk. The idea that throwing paper away is a carbon sink is attractive to a bunch of libertarian P&T-watching teenagers, but is basically unsupported by the science.


... and out comes the name-calling and condescension.

I specifically said that i was NOT looking to those guys for information and that my opinions were based upon information i gathered myself many years ago. Feel free to ignore that if it gets in the way of what you want to say, though.



The wood you grow to make paper isn't free, like you and your casino buddies seem to think. Depending on environment, it needs irrigation and fertilization, which takes energy. It needs to be cut, hauled, chopped, cooked, bleached, treated and pressed, all of which are steps that need energy directly and most of which require secondary ingredients whose manufacture also requires energy for manufacture and transport. And the land the trees are grown on isn't a constant. If you stop cutting trees for paper, the trees that are there can grow longer and taller. The carbon sink rate of a maturing forest is vastly higher (in most ecosystems) than that of the infant tree farm it replaced.


I never said that it was free to harvest new trees for paper. I do, however, assert that it's profitable. If it weren't, people wouldn't willingly do it (unless they were deceived in some way). Recycling paper is not profitable. I know, profit isn't everything... but you can't ignore it either. People need some sort of incentive to do things, whether that be the "I'm saving the world" warm and fuzzies or the jingle of a couple extra coins in the pocket.



Depending on the end product, the energy required to make, say, a recycled milk carton or cardboard box or newspaper is (or can be, given a mature industry to do it) much lower than it is to make the same product from scratch. Cutting forests from scratch is only a win for fancy products like printer paper. That's only a tiny fraction of the "paper" industry.


I was called out for lack of references, correctly so, and I would like to point out that you also have provided no references for this. So far, we are arguing matters of opinion.



I'm aware of only one piece of research in this area (I saw a reference to it in a New Scientist a few months back, maybe March or thereabouts), and what it showed was that cutting burying mature forests in place in the tropics could be a viable carbon sink at an industrial scale. That's hardly about paper recycling, is it?

Don't pretend that you understand this stuff. No one does, really. And stop looking to Penn and Teller for science advice!. Read a book instead, it's better for you. Here's a link to a great PDF on energy and carbon issues that everyone who can read an equation should read. It's by a british physicist, and it's a first-principles accounting of existing carbon mitigation ideas. The details are UK-centric, but the core content is just great:


So I shouldn't "pretend to understand this stuff" but you should? For shame, sir. Also, I'm not certain why you continue bringing P&T into this... I didn't. I read plenty of books. If you have any suggestions on particular books to enlighten me on this topic, please make them. Otherwise, your assertion that i should read a book is somewhat pointless and rather insulting.



http://www.withouthotair.com/

It doesn't talk about paper specifically, but will help you to reason through issues like this in the future.

Again with the insulting tone, insinuating that I didn't "reason through" this issue to begin with. I don't appreciate it. I will, however, take a peek at the website you suggest.

[Renegade Paladin]

Just how much energy do you think it takes to grow scrub pine? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Smileys/wtf.gif The stuff grows by itself. It takes lots of work if you plan on trimming and thinning it for lumber, but if you're just going to pulp the whole tree for paper then you don't care about that.

[BugFix]

We've hopped off to flame war territory here, so I'll just note this one point and leave:


Just how much energy do you think it takes to grow scrub pine?

Yet again, this is a microanalysis (energy input into a single scrub pine farm during the growth years) being used to justify a macroscale conclusion (recycling paper isn't ecologically worthwhile). You can't do that, because you aren't controlling variables.

It's true, that in the ~20 years it takes to grow an infant pine forest in most climates (certainly not all) that you don't need to touch the forest. But that tells you nothing of the energy required to harvest the lumber, nor about the energy required to make new paper vs. recycled products. More importantly, it ignores what you could have been doing with the same land that you're stuck using for paper (i.e. you're ignoring the fact that your solution requires more net agriculture).

If the point of this thread was "y'know, new paper isn't that important relative to other ecological concerns", then I never would have posted. But the point you guys seem to be making is that "recycling paper is bad for the environment", which is just flat wrong.

[wormwood]

A flame war is definitely not what I was looking for. I'll also drop out of this. Before I do, though, I'll say that my original post did make the argument that recycling was bad for the environment. I'll admit that is not a good statement to make without information to back it up. I will maintain, however, that I don't think recycling paper is worth the time, money, and energy put into it.

I believe that a good discussion is the best way for folks on either side of the fence (or balanced on it) to learn. Thanks for the input, everyone.

[Fostire]

Yes, but only with very poor efficiency.
The factory produces enough energy to sustain itself and an entire city, how is that poor efficiency? With the only extra cost being the installation of a little extra machinery.


If waste biomass energy (which is what you are describing) was a net win, then farms everywhere would be doing this for the clear economic benefit. They aren't, because it doesn't work well.
Actually they are. At least here in Uruguay many places are starting to invest in biomass energy. Being Uruguay a highly agricultural country biomass energy might be easier to produce. I'm no expert on this subject so i don't know how efficient biomass energy might be on other countries.


The problem with your analysis, like the original poster's, is that you are assuming that the pulp wood input to the paper processing is free. It's not. It takes energy and produces carbon to grow those trees (either directly on a farm, or indirectly due to the cutting and burning of existing forest), but you're not subtracting those costs from the energy output of the plant.
Many things i disagree on this part.
First of all i am taking on account the energy costs of production. Except for the USA (and i think some other country) most countries are regulated by the Tokyo protocol which puts a limit to the carbon emissions for that country. So any company that produces emissions beyond the limit is taxed heavily. As such companies invest on mitigating the emissions by, for example, generating their own energy in a clean way. So in the end the reason they produce biomass energy in the first place is to counter the effects of production.
Second of all, as someone else said growing trees for paper costs very little energy.
Third: What biology lessons did you ever take? since when does a tree produce carbon? As far as i know trees consume CO2 in their growing process releasing O2 to the atmosphere. Many companies are investing in forest plantations to counter their carbon emissions.

Note: The above post was not meant to be aggressive in any way, if at any point i sounded aggressive i apologize since that was not my intention.

[Serpentine]

Just wanted to point something out...
Third: What biology lessons did you ever take? since when does a tree produce carbon? As far as i know trees consume CO2 in their growing process releasing O2 to the atmosphere. Many companies are investing in forest plantations to counter their carbon emissions. He already explained this, though not in great detail:
YesThe problem with your analysis, like the original poster's, is that you are assuming that the pulp wood input to the paper processing is free. It's not. It takes energy and produces carbon to grow those trees (either directly on a farm, or indirectly due to the cutting and burning of existing forest), but you're not subtracting those costs from the energy output of the plant.The extra carbon is produced by periphery processes, not the trees themselves.

[Vaire]

I believe that a good discussion is the best way for folks on either side of the fence (or balanced on it) to learn. Thanks for the input, everyone.


I'm not sure that this subject can be debated and learned from in an open social forum. At least not very easily. Too many people these days use environmentalism as a kind of religion. They don't want to learn anything. They only want to talk you into their viewpoint. Learning the science of the process, and the research of the scientists involved will give you a clearer picture than any discussion on any forum. Too many people will get offended, and start calling names.

Environmentalism has become a topic that isn't safe to discuss at the dinner table, along with politics and religion.

[thestarvingpoet]

Depending on when the OP did his research, things may have changed a lot in the paper recycling game. Initially harsh chemicals (like chlorine) were used both in the production of, and recycling of, paper. Now companies are becoming more environmentally savvy, and turning to more friendly bleaching agents. Also with the advent of vegetable inks (etc.) re'bleaching' paper is a much easier process.

However the statement that almost all paper comes from trees planted specifically for that purpose... I can't believe. The forestry industry is very active in BC, and those trees are being used (in part) for paper. However, on the flip side, tree planting is a very prevalent industry too!

Paper can only be recycled a certain number of times before the fibres get too thin to be used - so there will always be a certain amount of virgin pulp going into the mix at some point.

[Renegade Paladin]

If they're clear cutting, then they'll use the stuff that can't be used for lumber for paper mills, if they're not just leaving it on the ground, anyway. (If they're replanting then they won't, since it would get in the way.) However, if they're clearcutting they're also incompetent, so what can you do?