Quote:
Originally Posted by scouse mac
Why do you need hard facts to justify this? You're an intelligent person so someone stating the obvious surely isnt needed?
How about a basic example: recycle paper means fewer trees have to be cut down, less transportation and processing also which reduces pollution and preserves habitats for plants and animals. Clearly beneficial.
It can be said that the process of recycling also produces pollution but Im certain, without knowing hard facts and figures, that the positives far outweighs the negatives.
|
paper is made from pulpwood, which comes from soft wood trees such as pines, not from the mighty oaks or from old grown forests. There is land set aside for these trees to be grown and they are grown and re grown over and over making it a renewable resource.
creating new paper is a very simple process, recycling paper is not so easy. It has to be collected, cleaned, shredded and treated chemically before it can be turned into a paper that is of lesser quality. The treatment of recycled paper uses more chemicals than the original paper did, which is bad for the environment.
all in all, the recycled paper costs more than paper directly from wood pulp. The only reason the end cost is lower is because the government subsidizes its production, passing the additional costs onto taxpayer. So if recycled paper costs more to produce, causes higher tax rates, increases chemical pollution, why am I stupid to question the idea?
I'm not trying to convince people that I'm right, I'm trying to find someone who can convince me otherwise. I mean it is recycling and everyone thinks it's so great, surely there must be facts supporting why such a beneficial process is better than using landfills.