[Eco] Andy's recycling article

[ginohn]

In regards to Andy's recent arguments against paper recycling <http:// 
www.wunderland.com/WhatsOld/2007/WN.01.25.07.html>:

Before you start filling up the landfills, I think you should  
research a little more, with care. Penn & Teller's arguments fly in  
the face of EPA research and an overwhelming majority of objective  
scientific inquiry. Wikipedia has this to say <http:// 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling>:
> All published research shows that recycled paper is a lot better  
> for the enviroment, the amount of energy that is required to chop  
> the trees down, then transport them, then woodchip them and then  
> turn them into pulp makes recycled paper a lot more energy  
> efficient and enviromentally friendly. Also, new paper requires the  
> use of extremely polluting chemicals like chlorine which are only  
> required in either small amounts, or often not at all, in paper  
> recycling bleaching.
>
> Continually harvesting forests contributes to soil erosion and  
> degradation as the nutrients are continually removed with the  
> trees. This means that farmed forests often require the use of  
> large quantities of artificial fertilizer, the production,  
> transportation and regular application of these is extremely energy  
> intensive and enviromentally damaging.
I get the feeling that Penn & Teller cherry picked their evidence  
against recycling, in favor of their show. I don't think they did  
this consciously, it's an easy mistake to make. I'm sure their  
intentions are good, but this is a complex process which requires  
careful consideration of many variables. I'll watch the Bullshit  
episode you reference, but I have to say that between their show and  
massive peer-reviewed scientific research, I'll probably trust the  
latter.

Not that the recycling issue shouldn't continue to be investigated.  
There are still a very small percentage of scientists who claim that  
the human contribution to global warming is insignificant. Those  
scientists are most probably wrong, but their claims should continue  
to be investigated, too.

:-j

(john of ginohn)