Comments on: The Truth About Recycling | ZapRoot

By: MegaPotato101

MegaPotato101 — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:27:59 +0000

WOW she talks WAY to fast

By: TheEpisteme

TheEpisteme — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:26:59 +0000

@Antepenult This is true. It’s estimated that the US would only need 400 square miles or so to hold all the trash we’ll ever make for a century. Recycling metals is very cost effective, but in most cases plastics and paper is a waste of energy and money, adding another manufacturing process to pollute the air more and make inferior products instead of using virgin materials. Trees are not nonrenewable. They are farmed and plastics can be made from crops too.

By: lexietennis

lexietennis — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:18:25 +0000

@kinderino3 what?! hahahaha also aliens is spelled wrong but it doesn’t matter…

By: Maarttttt

Maarttttt — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:49:33 +0000

I retract my statement ‘the earth does not have enough room’. What I meant to say was: your urban area does not have enough space. I guess it’d be arguably cheaper to recycle plastic than to ship it off to the place the oil came from.
But the real killer is that landfills are in need of being maintained for years and years to avoid dangerous leakage, which makes it an inefficient solution to the waste problem.
And recycling reduces our dependance on oil.

By: Antepenult

Antepenult — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:11:18 +0000

There will never be a shortage of space. Plastic does not just appear out of nothing – materials like oil are necessary to produce it and those will run out before we ever even get close to the point where there is no space to put it.

By: Maarttttt

Maarttttt — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:28:53 +0000

No. I mean to say plastic will not decay much in landfills, so the number of landfills over the earth would accumulate over time, and seeing as both plastic consumption and population grows steadily, there would come a shortage of space.

By: Antepenult

Antepenult — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 07:07:20 +0000

“I doubt the earth is large enough to hold all the plastic trash we make in landfills,”

That statement makes absolutely no logical sense at all. Do you mean to say that there is more stuff already on the earth than can be stored on the earth?

By: Maarttttt

Maarttttt — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:00:44 +0000

About 1/10 of the number of people, there are automobiles.
I knew you were going to say this — but it’s empty retoric. I don’t want abolition of CO2 altogether (that would mean plants, and therefore humans will die), just a fierce reduction of it. Killing off humans and letting robots drive cars would be an option, though be it a bit lunatic.

I am wondering whether you are making up your numbers. Would it take 1.000 years for all worldly trash to fill up a dump? Do you really believe that?

By: Shaman145

Shaman145 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:08:21 +0000

I don’t understand how the topic went from recycling to something as up-in-the-air as carbon emissions.

And, for the record, there are more people on this Earth than cars. A lot more.

Recycling is a manufacturing process and doesn’t work, it’s as simple as that. If it truly was as effective as we’re meant to believe, it wouldn’t cost us Billions each year.

And as far as us trashing up the planet. It would take 1,000 years for us to fill a 200 mile radius dump.

So… we’ll be fine. Trust me.

By: Maarttttt

Maarttttt — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:11:33 +0000

The rise in CO2 levels the last 100 years follows an exact match to the increase of global warming. Could be coincidence, but I’d rather be safe than sorry. Furthermore, it is not a conflicted view that high levels of gases produced by burning are harmful to human health. A recent study I read about in the Scientific American found that living in a city even shaves off IQ points.