Paper Recycling is Bad for Your Butt AND The World

June 2, 2005 by lockjaw
Filed under: Economics 

So there I was, on the toilet at work. We have a fine restroom, with beautiful stainless steel sinks, track lighting and jazz music piped in from above. It’s really nice. When I reached over for some toilet paper, I found that this company, like so many others, uses that horrible recycled paper that’s less than easy on the buttocks.
This brought to mind something I’ve known for a long time. Paper recycling is bad. It’s not just bad for your butt, when you look at the toilet paper and see bits of cardboard stuck in the white sheets. It’s not all about the substandard paper you’re running through your printer. Paper recycling is bad for the economy, and bad for the environment.
Most people believe what they’ve been told. They believe that recycling paper is a good thing. Stacking up those newspapers and taking them to the recycling center is supposed to help society by reducing waste, saving trees, and making a more economical product in the end. The problem is, it really does none of that.
Paper comes from trees. Trees are good. That’s hard to dispute. I like trees. Most paper, though, doesn’t come from the majestic oaks and redwoods. You won’t see clearcutting of virgin timber to make greeting cards. Paper is generally made from pulpwood. Pulp comes from softer wood trees like the pine. These trees grow relatively quickly. Longleaf pines grow quickly and easily enough that they are actually farmed. Land is set aside for the growing of pine trees. These trees grow, are cut down for goods, and then more are grown in their place. Trees, like so many of our resources, are renewable.
So, if recycling paper doesn’t actually save the mighty oaks, or the old-grown forests, it must at least be more economical, right? Unfortunately, that’s not so. Paper from trees is a relatively simple process. Recycling adds more steps. Paper must be collected, cleaned, shredded and treated chemically before it can then be turned into a paper that is generally of lesser quality than the original whence it came. The treatment of paper to be turned into more paper uses more chemical processing than the original paper did, and you KNOW that can’t be good for the environment. In the end, the recycled paper simply costs more than paper directly from wood pulp. The only reason the end cost is lower to the consumer is because the government subsidizes its production, passing the additional costs on to the taxpayer
So, recycled paper costs more to produce, causes higher tax rates, increases chemical pollution, and doesn’t save old growth forests. Does it at least help in controlling so-called “greenhouse gasses” to leave trees standing instead of chopping them down? No, it doesn’t.
You see, trees grow and they die. When a tree grows, it turns a load of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Trees aren’t the best at this job, but they aren’t slouches when it comes to oxygen production. After a while, though, the tree reaches a point where it reaches a balance. The cast off leaves or needles fall and begin to decay. This decay process produces carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide used up by the tree eventually reaches parity with that being thrown off by decaying matter. When the tree dies, the balance shifts completely toward carbon dioxide production. If, however, the tree is turned into other products, the cycle changes.
One of the major complaints about landfills is that the bio-matter in them doesn’t have the chance to break down and decay. If we simply buried the old paper in landfills, then it wouldn’t decay either. This would result in less carbon dioxide being produced. I argue that the BEST place for old paper is at the bottom of a landfill.
Next time you buy a pack of recycled printer paper or toilet paper, think about the damage you’re doing to the environment and the economy. When I’m in that beautiful bathroom at work, I’m just thinking about the damage that recycled paper is doing to my butt.

Please Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • FriendFeed
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Tumblr
  • Technorati
  • Posterous
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Add to favorites
  • Current
  • Identi.ca
  • Netvibes
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • RSS

Tags:

Comments

28 Comments on Paper Recycling is Bad for Your Butt AND The World

  1. Ogre on Mon, 6th Jun 2005 2:22 pm

    2. I like recycling — because many years ago I saw Anheisuer-Busch build the largest recycling plants in the country and bought stock in them. Recycle all you want — I make money from it! Ah, I do love capitalism.

  2. lockjaw on Mon, 6th Jun 2005 2:48 pm

    3. Not all recycling is bad. In fact, the recycling you’re talking about is scrap metal recycling, and it is pretty much the only type of recycling that isn’t a complete waste of time and money. There’s good reason to recycle metals, both for resource management and monetary reasons. Paper, plastics, and most other types of recycling, though, are not worth the effort.

  3. deedni on Sat, 16th Jul 2005 1:57 pm

    4. Please explain how trees are renewable. Also include the definition of renewable you’re using.
    I’m under the impression that besides sunlight and water, trees require nutirents from soil. So, remove a tree from the ground and turn it into something else. Does just as nutrient-rich a soil remain?
    Thanks

  4. mike on Sat, 16th Jul 2005 3:10 pm

    5. Have you seen a show featuring Pen and Teller, titled Bull****? It aired an episode concerning how recycling (at least of papers and plastics) was–you guessed it–”BULL****!” I guess a few more minds (and laws) have to be changed before there’s a massive realization that some recycling is only hurting the environment.

  5. Lockjaw the Ogre on Sat, 16th Jul 2005 5:05 pm

    6. Very simply, trees are a renewable resource because you can renew them through replanting. Trying to deflect and say that it’s about the nutrients in the soil doesn’t work, because those same nutrients are being renewed constantly as well.
    We have millions of acres being used as tree farms in America today. Using the renewal resource called wood is a major business. What’s more, unlike paper recycling, it’s profitable.

  6. treelovernothugger on Fri, 12th Aug 2005 2:52 am

    7. http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm
    All the answers to “please explain how trees are renewable” and why the cutting of trees and the logging industry is actually NOT bad can be found there. It’s a long essay, but read on, and pay attention to page 12 and on. Most deforestation does NOT come from logging or the cutting of trees for paper. Nay, but it comes from FARMING. Yeah, that’s right. For all you vegetarians out there, the veggies that you all love and eat is grown on a farm where they had to chop down trees and STOP their growth to plant all the cabbages and beets that you so love to eat. Yeah, meat comes from farms like this too, but the point is, the mere fact that we all have to LIVE and eat (whether it be vegetable or meat), is one of the biggest causes of deforestation.
    But read for yourself
    http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm
    Oh yeah, it’s written by Patrick Moore, FORMER president and cofounder of GREENPEACE.

  7. hi on Mon, 26th Sep 2005 6:52 pm

    8. hey your cool who ever wrote this. The reason my writing is b/c i wanted to tell you i am writing an essay about why recycing is bad thx
    i am going 2 get a 100.

  8. steve on Tue, 8th Nov 2005 1:36 pm

    9. Sorry, but the softest TP I’ve ever used is recycled
    also the best, most absorbent
    According to World Watch Institute (and alot of other more scientific, studied researchers than the NONE quoted in your article) indicate that recycling uses FAR less chemicals, energy, and other materials than virgin pulp…not to mention it reduces the landfill waste (and related to that, the amount of land needed for landfills and the diesel, metal and other things needed to keep landfills going)
    The US leads the world in paper use, and we also lag behind (as usual) other countries in recycled paper and environmental initiatives.
    For my company, recycled paper has SAVED money and IMPROVED quality…
    Try quoting a few sources in your article next time (if there are any) to back up your BS

  9. lockjaw on Wed, 9th Nov 2005 7:15 am

    10. A couple points for Steve.
    #1 – Sometimes I quote my sources, and sometimes I don’t. I’ve read a lot on recycling, from across the spectrum. Some in support, and some in reluctant opposition. Had my readings been the impetus behind my writing, I would have quoted them. The driving force behind my post, though, was the low quality of recycled products that I am exposed to on a daily basis. That particular day it was toilet paper, and it was absolutely horrible.
    I’m working at a new location, now. The recycled toilet paper isn’t much better than before, but the recycled hand-drying towels are even worse.
    #2 – If recycling wasn’t inefficient enough as it is, the argument about landfill use is an even weaker one. We are not running out of landfill space. Even if we decided to dig one big hole for all the trash our country produces, it would be manageable. One hole, 225 feet deep and 10 miles on each side would meet our needs, not for a year, but for more than a century. I say we dig it in Nevada.
    You seem to be a bit angry over all of this. Why not calm down, grab a glass of water, and consider that there might be more to the story than what you see. I wrote an article about bad paper causing me a sore butt. Don’t take it so seriously.
    Being unhappy and easy to anger isn’t healthy. Go have fun.

  10. Anonymous on Tue, 29th Nov 2005 11:07 pm

    11. You know, I saw a BullShit! episode today about exactly the same thing, that recycling uses 8 billion dollars of taxpayer’s dollars. Think about that.
    Another fun fact: if we made a 35 x 35 miles for landfill space in the US, it would be able to take all our trash for 1000 years.

  11. bb on Wed, 18th Jan 2006 11:50 pm

    12. your stupid

  12. bb on Wed, 18th Jan 2006 11:51 pm

    13. your stupid

  13. Lockjaw on Thu, 19th Jan 2006 5:32 am

    14. My stupid what? You posted it twice, but you never finished your sentence. Of course, you may have been trying to say that I am stupid. If that’s the case, you should have used the contraction version of the word “You’re” to indicate that.
    No period to indicate the end of the sentence, mis-use of the wrong word in the sentence, and no capitalization of the first word in the sentence. You managed to make three mistakes in a two-word sentence.
    I think, at this time, that the best response is to point out that you’re functionally illiterate from the evidence I’m seeing.

  14. Philip Applebaum on Mon, 23rd Jan 2006 9:09 pm

    15. MAN THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!! I’ve thoguht the same things as you have for years. It also is perfect for a paper i’m writing.

  15. Timmy on Fri, 10th Feb 2006 12:32 pm

    16. I would have to agree with you on this subject. Recycling is pointless. It ends up costing more money for the tax payers than it does to just dump all of it into a junkyard or landfile. We could even throw it all into Canada, no one really likes Canada but I think if we give them the honor of holding our trash they’ll leave the rest of the world alone…
    “There is no spoone”
    -The Matricks

  16. You Are Stupid on Mon, 6th Mar 2006 2:53 pm

    17. You are stupid. This is proper English!

  17. lacey on Mon, 6th Mar 2006 3:25 pm

    18. i think that your website sucks so bad!! omg its so hard to understand and follow with..im doing a paper on how fake your site is and i cant understand a damn thing that your stupid ass site is talking about

  18. Lockjaw on Mon, 6th Mar 2006 3:55 pm

    19. Wow, you’re writing a paper on how fake my site is? How cool is that? I’d love to have a copy of your paper when it is complete. I’m sure it would be entertaining reading. One hint, though, is that you probably should use a spell and grammar checker on the paper, and pay attention to capitalization and punctuation.
    Hey, if you write a decent enough paper, I’ll print it with your permission. That could be fun.

  19. lace on Tue, 7th Mar 2006 5:44 pm

    20. well i can see that we are a little cocky on our comments here…jeez..yea your site really does suck and i’ll be sure to send u a final copy bitch…damn

  20. 25 on Thu, 23rd Mar 2006 6:25 pm

    21. usa usa usa hello hello hello if u read this u ar talking to ur self

  21. chris on Mon, 24th Apr 2006 10:35 am

    22. Jesus, write on article on how bad recycling is, and jackasses come out of the wooodwork.

  22. Chris on Mon, 24th Apr 2006 10:37 am

    23. Jesus, write one article on how bad recycling is, and jackasses come out of the woodwork.

  23. Chris on Mon, 24th Apr 2006 10:38 am

    24. Um, in that first post, i mispelled “one”, the double posting was slightly accidental.

  24. Jack on Mon, 24th Apr 2006 5:14 pm

    25. Hey, I just wanted to think all of you non-recyclable guys out there for giving those links and giving sweet facts. I’m doing a paper on how recycling is ineffective and you all have helped me a ton.

  25. anomous on Sat, 29th Apr 2006 1:54 am

    26. your stupid

  26. Teira on Tue, 27th Jun 2006 6:47 pm

    27. Being over a year later and everyone is still commenting on this subject I thought I might add to it. I agree recycling is a waste of time, energy and resources. As most of you I am writing a paper on that very thing as well.
    Two things recying paper, plastic, and glass which are all RENEWABLE resources wastes more non-renewable resources such as fuel,iron ore, and rubber. Think about it we need double the trucks to go and pick up the recyclables then we are wasting double the resources.
    The second thing is Landfills are not bad. There is one in City of Industry, CA (which if most of you have seen Penn and Tellers Bullshit you would know) that takes the methane that is produced at the landfill and burns it to produce energy for over 100,000 home in California. Not to mention that their facitlty has the cleanest way of producing that electricty for those homes than any other facility in the world!
    If you need sources just look up Puente Hills Landfill. The other sources I have used is a book called Eight Great Myths of Recycling.
    Good luck to anyone writing this paper and lets hope it is written enough so people understand they have been lied to their enitre life!! RECYCLING IS BAD FOR THE PLANET!!!!!!!

  27. Dashiell on Mon, 30th Apr 2007 3:39 am

    28. well im doing a paper on y recycling is the shizz and i needed an article that was remotely about paper arguing y it is useless to recycle and
    anomous is a retard, and every other person that thinks recycling is bad is a retard and, i don’t think that people give 2 shits about what kind of paper you wipe your ass with.
    my best regards
    plz go die

  28. Capt_Morley on Mon, 20th Oct 2008 1:54 pm

    29. Well looks like it has been a little while since anyone posted a reply so we’ll see if anyone still reads this.
    My question to the poster is: How do you feel about the first two steps before you get to the recycling part?
    reducing consumption being #1, do you feel that maybe we should maybe make more lasting products over throw away ones?
    reusing the things we buy (not the TP)or give them to someone that can use them, that ok?
    and as for the idea about digging one big hole for our trash please tell me that was a joke or at least show me how much thought was put into that idea by pointing out the problems.
    thanks

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





CommentLuv Enabled

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

2008111315295674