I bet all you damn hippies like to Recycle right?

[bigtee212]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ler%2Bbullshit

just watch this, i got a kick out of it, cause personally, i think a great amount of this environment frenzy is bs. i mean, for sure there is nothing wrong with taking care of the earth, but all the people screaming we are gonna run out of trees and die in the near future, in my opinion, are a little off it

i spose that could bring me to this if you want

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ler%2Bbullshit

[higgo]

Yeah, I've recently changed my recycling attitude due to that episode. There are two things that that Penn & Teller convey that convinced me; 1) Recycling costs more money than generating new materials. 2) All of the garbage that the US generates over the next 1000 years can fit in a 35x35 mile x 200ft deep landfill. It's an incredibly small fraction of the US land area. I've just estimated it to be 0.035% (assuming 3.5 million square miles of land in the US).

Frankly, it's an enormous weight off of my shoulders. I don't have a counter full of crap that I need to put in the recycling bin anymore. I don't have a recycling bin to wheel out to the curb every week anymore. Everything goes into the same container now. As P&T say, recycling is "Bullshit!"

[chimera]

I guess you just don't get it then, polar Ice shelves bigger than your land fill breaks off due to warming. Major mutations in lesser animal, notably in fish and amphibeans(thats are water source). But worse is to buy a comic's act for fact. By the way you volenteering to live next to a toxic dump?

[cheebaa]

Originally Posted by chimera

But worse is to buy a comic's act for fact.

hahaha- well I got no responses when I created a thread back in August- This makes me think people will believe anything depending who tells them.



http://forum.grasscity.com/general/1...ur-planet.html

Yet another reason why Cannibis should be legal. Hemp can be turned into plastic- Plastic that is biodegradible. And recycling hemp paper uses about 1/4 of the chemicals compared to conventional paper.

Recycling only makes sense in industry- offices, metal shops, etc because the amount gathered is worth it. Household recycling is going to ruin the earth.

[Cakey]

Great video, I've done research on this subject before...it's a real eye opener that makes perfect sense.

[Fëanor]

Originally Posted by higgo

1) Recycling costs more money than generating new materials

Actually, some of my family tells me that they get a large discount on their trash pickup bill if they also recycle. They live in California. So to them, the invidividual citizens, it is cheaper to recycle.

Besides, recycling is much cheaper than trying to slow global warming do to increases in greenhouse gases released from landfills. Recycling is much cheaper than throwing an entire city into poor health because something from a landfill leaked into their groundwater.

Originally Posted by higgo

2) All of the garbage that the US generates over the next 1000 years can fit in a 35x35 mile x 200ft deep landfill. It's an incredibly small fraction of the US land area. I've just estimated it to be 0.035% (assuming 3.5 million square miles of land in the US)

I am not sure where that figure is from but I don't buy it. According to the EPA, in 2005 Americans put 490 billion pounds of trash into landfills. Assuming that there is no increase in trash output over the next thousand years, 490 trillion pounds of garbage would have to fit in a 35x35 mile landfill. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.

Also, that was only including the normal household trash. There are other types of waste that cannot be put in the same landfills. Organic waste needs to be put in separate bioreactor landfills which use liquid and a different design to speed up the degradation of the waste.

Construction & demolition debris is also put in separate landfills, and industrial waste is put in yet another separate type of landfill.

Also we still need to find a place for all of our nuclear waste, where is that going to be put if the prime landfill spot in the country is also needed for this 35x35 mile landfill?

Personally my recycling company gives me 3 plastic bins; red, white, and blue. I separate my recycling into glass/plastic, paper, and metal. I put the stuff out in front of the house same as the trash. It's practically no effort at all.

By the way, this quote is from the National Solid Wastes Management Association:

Originally Posted by NSWMA

Are we running out of landfill disposal capacity?

No. On a national level, the United States has 20 years of disposal capacity. However, on a state level, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island have less than five years of available capacity. The Western and Pacific states have the greatest capacity while the Northeast states have the least capacity.

[high as hell]

Originally Posted by Fëanor

Actually, some of my family tells me that they get a large discount on their trash pickup bill if they also recycle. They live in California. So to them, the invidividual citizens, it is cheaper to recycle.

Besides, recycling is much cheaper than trying to slow global warming do to increases in greenhouse gases released from landfills. Recycling is much cheaper than throwing an entire city into poor health because something from a landfill leaked into their groundwater.


I am not sure where that figure is from but I don't buy it. According to the EPA, in 2005 Americans put 490 billion pounds of trash into landfills. Assuming that there is no increase in trash output over the next thousand years, 490 trillion pounds of garbage would have to fit in a 35x35 mile landfill. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.

Also, that was only including the normal household trash. There are other types of waste that cannot be put in the same landfills. Organic waste needs to be put in separate bioreactor landfills which use liquid and a different design to speed up the degradation of the waste.

Construction & demolition debris is also put in separate landfills, and industrial waste is put in yet another separate type of landfill.

Also we still need to find a place for all of our nuclear waste, where is that going to be put if the prime landfill spot in the country is also needed for this 35x35 mile landfill?

Personally my recycling company gives me 3 plastic bins; red, white, and blue. I separate my recycling into glass/plastic, paper, and metal. I put the stuff out in front of the house same as the trash. It's practically no effort at all.

By the way, this quote is from the National Solid Wastes Management Association:

Watch the two OP links, they answer almost everything you just posted.

[AndyPL]

Originally Posted by higgo

Yeah, I've recently changed my recycling attitude due to that episode. There are two things that that Penn & Teller convey that convinced me; 1) Recycling costs more money than generating new materials. 2) All of the garbage that the US generates over the next 1000 years can fit in a 35x35 mile x 200ft deep landfill. It's an incredibly small fraction of the US land area. I've just estimated it to be 0.035% (assuming 3.5 million square miles of land in the US).

Frankly, it's an enormous weight off of my shoulders. I don't have a counter full of crap that I need to put in the recycling bin anymore. I don't have a recycling bin to wheel out to the curb every week anymore. Everything goes into the same container now. As P&T say, recycling is "Bullshit!"

Just because it isn't any fun to feel bad about a problem doesn't mean you should be ignoring it. Downplaying the importance of renewing the materials we consume may make people feel better and attract ratings, but I honestly can't believe that some people are buying into the nonsense these guys put on that show.

[Fëanor]

Originally Posted by high as hell

Watch the two OP links, they answer almost everything you just posted.

What about the last quote in my post, which specifically estimates 20 or less years of waste storage capacity in the USA? I hope to still be alive in 20 years, I don't want to have to dig my own landfill in my neighbor's backyard.

By the way, so everyone knows, I am a half-assed hippy. I litter all the time, and if a dumpster is closer than a recycling bin I couldn't give a fuck about recycling whatever I need to throw away.

[enevitable]

I watched this the other day, these guys are fucking amazing, the whole fact that so many people signed the petition without even knowing, pretty much proved that everyone is just looking to follow

[bigtee212]

well it brings down their point since they are entertainers, but do you really think they did all the research? hell no, they are reading scripts, and personally this sparked me to do some research and recycling is, bullshit.

and whoever said mutations in animals and stuff, there is a good video, or maybe its this one i dunno, but it talks about a dump, how its lined with stuff so no sewage can get out of the landfill and into any water or anything, they use the methane gas from decomposition to power the town, and as soon as its full they will cover it and itll turn into a nice park or golf course. : )

[high as hell]

Originally Posted by Fëanor

What about the last quote in my post, which specifically estimates 20 or less years of waste storage capacity in the USA? I hope to still be alive in 20 years, I don't want to have to dig my own landfill in my neighbor's backyard.

By the way, so everyone knows, I am a half-assed hippy. I litter all the time, and if a dumpster is closer than a recycling bin I couldn't give a fuck about recycling whatever I need to throw away.

http://www.mailandjobs.com/landfills.htm

The Truth About America's Landfill Glut

<!-- START CONTENT -->
For many years the media has published innumerable stories which worry that we are running out of landfill space. Such stories properly raise public concerns and have required virtually every community to look at landfill issues.
But if it is fair to raise questions about landfill capacity then it is equally fair to provide some answers. Are we running out of landfill space? The answer may be surprising.
According to much-quoted statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency, the number of landfills in the United States dropped from 7,924 in 1988 to 1,767 in 2002.
<CENTER>
Source: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, EPA, page 9). </CENTER>
The EPA chart plainly shows that the number of landfills in the United States has fallen 78 percent since 1988. Given such a decline, the natural assumption is that a massive reduction in landfill numbers must mean that landfill capacity has also shrunk.
But that's not true.
The EPA hints that the numbers may not add up but it hardly tells the whole story. What the EPA says is this: "The number of municipal solid waste landfills has steadily declined over the years. On the other hand, average landfill size has increased. At the national level, landfill capacity appears to be sufficient, although it may not be in some regional areas." (See: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, EPA, page 2).
In fact, the EPA knows or should know that we have a substantial landfill surplus in most areas. Our landfill supply is not merely sufficient, we have a nationwide glut. While the number of landfills has declined, the measure that counts -- landfill capacity -- has increased enormously.
Not only do we have a growing volume of landfill capacity, landfill use has also declined because we are increasingly better at recycling and recovery. The result is that landfill costs have failed to keep pace with inflation. This is the best possible evidence that a landfill shortage does not exist and it's also good news for local homeowners: If there really was a landfill shortage local property taxes would soar.
Why do we have a landfill glut? Three reasons stand out: consolidation, recovery and technology.
Consolidation
The best example of changing landfill numbers occurred in Wisconsin. Between 1986 and 1991 the state closed 850 landfills, opened nine new ones and expanded 12 existing sites. The result? Landfill capacity in the state increased by 44.5 million cubic yards. (See: Landfill Capacity in North America, 1991 Update, National Solid Waste Management Association, table 3, page 4)
You can see where this leads. A scary headline will say "Wisconsin Lost 850 Landfills" but that's plainly not the whole story. A more sensible headline would say "Wisconsin Lost 850 Landfills, Capacity Grew."
The Wisconsin example explains why landfill numbers are falling. Older, less efficient and less environmentally secure landfills are being replaced by larger, more efficient and more environmentally safe facilities. In other words, if you replace 20 thimbles of milk with a single one-gallon jug, it doesn't mean you can't store more milk.
"It became clear in the early 1990's that there was a glut of disposal space, not the widely believed shortage that had drawn headlines in the 1980's," says The New York Times.
"Although many town dumps had closed, they were replaced by fewer, but huge, regional ones. That sent dumping prices plunging in many areas in the early 1990's and led to a long slump in the waste industry.
"Since then," says the Times, "the industry and its followers have been relying on time -- about 330 million tons of trash went into landfills in the United States last year alone, according to Solid Waste Digest, a trade publication -- to fill up some of those holes, erase the glut and send disposal prices skyward again. Instead, dump capacity has kept growing, and rapidly, even as only a few new dumps were built." (See: Rumors of a Shortage of Dump Space Were Greatly Exaggerated, August 12, 2005)
Three companies -- Waste Management, Allied Waste Industries and Republic Services -- collect more than half the nation's trash. Rather than running out of landfill space, they have sufficient capacity to operate for decades assuming no further expansion of existing sites, no additional sites and no benefit from improved technology.

• "Based on remaining permitted capacity as of December 31, 2004 and projected annual disposal volumes, the weighted average remaining landfill life for all of our owned or operated landfills is approximately 27 years. Many of our landfills have the potential for expanded disposal capacity beyond what is currently permitted." Waste Management, 2004 Annual Report.
• "We have a network of 166 owned or operated active landfills with operating lives ranging from 1 to over 150 years. Based on available capacity using annual volumes, the average life of our landfills approximates 36 years." Allied Waste Industries, 2004 Annual Report.
• "As of December 31, 2004, total available disposal capacity is estimated to be 1.5 billion in-place cubic yards of permitted airspace plus .2 billion in-place cubic yards of probable expansion airspace....The average estimated remaining life of all of our landfills is 30 years." Republic Services, 2004 Annual Report.

In fact, however, it would be short-sighted to assume that there will be no further capacity increases. As the Times points out, "in the last four years the three companies have "buried 882 million tons of waste. But the remaining permitted capacity of their combined 410 dumps did not shrink. It expanded over those four years by more than one billion tons. The three companies now expect expansions of another 1.8 billion tons."
Recovery
"Municipal solid waste (MSW), usually known as trash or garbage, is made up of the things we commonly throw away," according to the EPA. "This household type of waste ranges from our package wrapping, food scraps, and grass clippings to our old sofas, computers, and refrigerators. It does not contain industrial, hazardous, or construction waste. Despite sustained improvements in waste reduction, household waste remains a constant concern because trends indicate that the overall tonnage we create continues to increase." (See: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, EPA, page 1).
What the EPA statement does not say is this: The amount of stuff we're sending to landfills is declining.

• In 1990, municipal solid waste -- MSW -- totaled 205.2 million tons. That year we recycled 33.2 million tons which means 172 million tons went into landfills.
• In 2002 the country generated 235.5 million tons of MSW. Of this amount, 70.5 million tons were recovered, so 165 million tons were landfilled.
• In 2003, the total amount of MSW rose to 236.2 million tons -- thus the reason for the EPA statement. However, we recovered 72.3 million tons of material, 1.8 million tons more than in 2002. In 2003 we landfilled 163.9 million tons of material. That's less than we landfilled in either 1990 or 2002. (See: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, EPA, page 2).

What's interesting about these figures is that our population has expanded since 1990. In that year we had 249.5 million people. We had 287.9 million people in 2002 and 290.7 million people in 2003.
In other words, while we have added 41.2 million people to the U.S. population, landfill use has declined.
The result of reduced landfill use and a growing population is that "discards after recovery" have declined from 3.77 pounds per person in 1990 to 3.09 pounds per person in 2003. (See: Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003, EPA, page 4).
The bottom line? Despite a vast population increase, landfill use is down and materials recovery is up. Efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle are paying off.
Technology
We not only have vastly larger landfills, we are not only putting less in them, we also use them more efficiently. A given amount of landfill space will hold about 30 percent more content today than in the past.
Waste companies and municipalities, says the Times are "burying trash more tightly, so that each ton takes up less space, increasingly using giant 59-ton compacting machines guided by global positioning systems that show the operator when he has rolled over a section of the dump enough times. They cover trash at the end of the day, to keep it from blowing away, with tarps or foam or lawn clippings instead of the thick layers of soil that formerly ate up dump capacity." (See: Rumors of a Shortage of Dump Space Were Greatly Exaggerated, August 12, 2005) The EPA is surely welcome to publish its charts and diagrams, but how about some context? Why not plainly tell the public how consolidation, technology and recovery have changed landfill economics -- and that landfill capacity has increased while the amount of stuff we place in landfills has declined?

[glass_girl420]

<<<<< This old hippy has a dream of living like a pioneer but knows it's all a dream. Maybe if I did I would change my mind.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by bigtee212

well it brings down their point since they are entertainers, but do you really think they did all the research? hell no, they are reading scripts, and personally this sparked me to do some research and recycling is, bullshit.

Yeah. Like you said, it's great to conserve and be efficient and all. Everybody wants that. But we have to balance our warm fuzzy feelings with some *reason*.

they use the methane gas from decomposition to power the town, and as soon as its full they will cover it and itll turn into a nice park or golf course. : )

Yeah, no dobut. Technology, baby. Given resources might be limited, but wealth is not. The same people who cite the technological advances in recyling and metallurgy and whatever seem conveniently naive to the advances in waste management and product packaging and industrial chemistry and scale reduction and&mdash. Hee hee.