Mark_80This is very plausible, and it makes sense.Was on BBC news website on tuesday
However, a quick search yielded no good results.
Do you have any sources for this?
Loonylion
#41
Forum archive
Back to Debates
[quote author=edf]
Making paper from used paper is generally a cleaner and more efficient process than making paper from trees, since much of the work of extracting and bleaching the fibers has already been done.
[/quote]Not true, many modern paper mills no longer use bleach. However, as it's impossible to tell where paper for recycling has come from it all must be bleached.[quote author=edf]
Recycling paper means that less of it is disposed of in landfills and incinerators. This lowers air and water pollution at these facilities, as well as greenhouse gas emissions that arise when paper breaks down in landfills.
[/quote]Greenhouse gasses are not created by the decomposition of paper. Such an idea is ludicrous (since paper is made from wood).Frankly I stopped reading after that. Sorry, but I don't accept that as a reasonable source.Sorry I've been away so long, life's been crazy! :)
I do of course believe you.But it would be nice to have a source showing a percentage of how many mills still use bleach compared to the ones that don't.
Where the paper came from has no impact on how white it looks.
From CalRecycle:
As you can see you are right that some paper mills use chlorine free methods.
But you are wrong that recycled paper must all be bleached.
And the percentage of chlorine free recycled paper versus chlorine free wood based paper is much higher.
It is up to you to present a source that backs up your statements, and refutes mine.
Rice fields and industrial animal farms are indeed a problem.
But every bit counts, and if we can reduce some of it, why not?
Which do you prefer?
Writing on recycled paper, or eating tofu instead of a double bacon cheeseburger? ;)
Don't try to understand science through the media, or you're screwed.
Check the links posted by Tehuberl33t, and if you would like some more, let me know.
What do you think environmental agencies have to gain, for them to try to convince the world of something that isn't happening?
Maybe you are right that more studies need to be done on the subject of recycling paper.
But it still remains that whatever studies where done still show that recycling is better then not.
And again, read the links provided, and if you want ask for more, and i'll give you some.(about GW in general)
I've had my share of debates with them.
Like Lewis Black says:
" You can't be nice about them, because these people are watching "The Flinstones" as a documentary."
lol
"How about we tell people the world is heating up and will kill us all?"
"Brilliant! Governments will definitely pay research grants by the boatload for such an outrageous claim! But the money will stop coming once they realise it's a hoax..."
"No problem, we'll just call up our millions of scientist colleagues around the world and have them go along with us! It's foolproof."Don't mix up cause and effect.Considering that all the evidence (all of it) points to global warming and not cooling, I'd like to see where you got that idea. (PS Chris Monckton is a fraud)If you're referring to Climategate then that was already cleared up with no evidence of scientific malpractice.
Recycling Paper - Why?
Oteupaiecona
#42
gaynorvaderOP
#43
Mark_80...The source quoted is biased to say the least.
I think this source pretty much covers everything.
So, let me know if there is anything in it you disagree with.
[quote author=edf]
Making paper from used paper is generally a cleaner and more efficient process than making paper from trees, since much of the work of extracting and bleaching the fibers has already been done.
[/quote]Not true, many modern paper mills no longer use bleach. However, as it's impossible to tell where paper for recycling has come from it all must be bleached.[quote author=edf]
Recycling paper means that less of it is disposed of in landfills and incinerators. This lowers air and water pollution at these facilities, as well as greenhouse gas emissions that arise when paper breaks down in landfills.
[/quote]Greenhouse gasses are not created by the decomposition of paper. Such an idea is ludicrous (since paper is made from wood).Frankly I stopped reading after that. Sorry, but I don't accept that as a reasonable source.Sorry I've been away so long, life's been crazy! :)
Loonylion
#44
wood is carbon based, oxidation of carbon = carbon dioxide.
Oteupaiecona
#45
gaynorvader · #43Not true, many modern paper mills no longer use bleach.The way this works is, you now provide a source to back up that claim.
I do of course believe you.But it would be nice to have a source showing a percentage of how many mills still use bleach compared to the ones that don't.
gaynorvader · #43However, as it's impossible to tell where paper for recycling has come from it all must be bleached.Not true.Bleaching is used to make the paper look white.
Where the paper came from has no impact on how white it looks.
From CalRecycle:
Both wood-based and tree-free papers are available in the chlorine-free variety, although the percentage of wood-based papers that are chlorine-free is very small, while the percentage of tree-free papers that are chlorine-free is very high.(emphasis mine)
Chlorine-free paper is categorized as either "totally chlorine-free" (TCF) or "elementally chlorine-free" (ECF). TCF paper is produced with pulp that has been bleached without any type of chlorine, or that has not been bleached at all. ECF papers are produced from pulp that has been bleached with a chlorine derivative such as chlorine dioxide (ClO2), but without elemental chlorine (Cl).
As you can see you are right that some paper mills use chlorine free methods.
But you are wrong that recycled paper must all be bleached.
And the percentage of chlorine free recycled paper versus chlorine free wood based paper is much higher.
gaynorvader · #43Greenhouse gasses are not created by the decomposition of paper. Such an idea is ludicrous (since paper is made from wood).By that logic oil doesn't create greenhouse gases, since oil comes from algae and other plant matter.
gaynorvader · #43Frankly I stopped reading after that. Sorry, but I don't accept that as a reasonable source.Sorry I've been away so long, life's been crazy! :)Well, the ball is in your court now.
It is up to you to present a source that backs up your statements, and refutes mine.
gaynorvaderOP
#46
Whoops! That's embarrassing, I was sure I'd had a source for this already posted, but a quick look back shows that I do not. My apologies! Not entirely sure how old this source is. But it shows that such a thing does exist at least and that there are 65 mills converted to TCF. There are 158 mills worldwide according to this list. Again, not sure about the age, but it appears to be current.
mark_80Not true.Bleaching is used to make the paper look white.Sorry, this is misinformation on my end. I was led astray by this article, which states that papers made with the TCF method cannot include recylced papers due to the chance that there might be chlorine in them. However I cannot confirm this with any other papers and the odd one even seems to directly contradict that with figures showing that some TCF plants use 20% recycled paper.Okay, poorly worded on my part, what I meant was the levels of greenhouse gases produced by the decomposition of paper is no more than the gases given off by the oil lying dormant in the ground or trees rotting in a forest. It has little or no major effect on the environment. Unfortunately I was unable to find any data on how much greenhouse gas is produced by paper when it's decomposing. Only data on how much is produced in the manufacture of paper. This would lead me to believe that the amount is negligible or the recycling propaganda would have had that on their reasons to recycle paper too.I found a pretty good source which says;
Where the paper came from has no impact on how white it looks.
From CalRecycle:(emphasis mine)
As you can see you are right that some paper mills use chlorine free methods.
But you are wrong that recycled paper must all be bleached.
And the percentage of chlorine free recycled paper versus chlorine free wood based paper is much higher.
foe.co.ukDirect emissions from the process of making recycled paper itself are minimal and considered to be relatively insignificant, although little research has been done in this field.Doesn't really prove my point, but certainly discredits your source.I'm finding it quite difficult to find factual information, most of it is buried under pro-recycling propaganda, this is why so many of my sources don't necessarily coincide with my arguments.
Oteupaiecona
#47
No problem.Thanks for being courteous.Yeah, it is a bit outdated, since it is addressed to president Clinton.
65 mills is a very small number.Hopefully by today there are a lot more.That must be brand specific.Because 158 mills worldwide is too small a number.
My research suggests something around 10000.
World Wide Paper & Pulp Supply:
They can however be labeled as PCF (Process Chlorine Free), which means the recycling process itself is chlorine free, regardless if the original material has any chlorine in it.
This is completely different from what you said.You claimed the recycling process included bleach, since it was impossible to know where the original material was coming from.
Do you see the difference?I didn't see this.
Are you sure it didn't say PCF instead of TCF?It is a completely different process.
A tree rotting in a forest decomposes naturally, and has very little impact.
Tons of paper pilled in a landfill decompose anaerobically, which causes methane gas.Well, here is one study on the methane produced by landfills.
Granted it is not exclusive to paper, but since paper usually decomposes alongside other organic waste, i think it would be a bit hard to figure that out.
Maybe your view is misguided? ;)
Seriously, the science is sound.Global Warming is real, and recycling is good.
Again, thanks for debating politely.I love me a good debate, and await your reply. 8)
65 mills is a very small number.Hopefully by today there are a lot more.That must be brand specific.Because 158 mills worldwide is too small a number.
My research suggests something around 10000.
World Wide Paper & Pulp Supply:
Worldwide, there are approximately 10,000 paper and paperboard mills in operation.Scranton.edu:
It is estimated that there are 10,000 paper and paperboard mills in operation worldwide.And one more, WiseGeek:
The worldwide paper industry has more than 10,000 paper mills in constant operation around the globe.Right.The original material to be recycled might contain chlorine in them, and that is why they cannot be labeled as TCF (Totally Chlorine Free).
They can however be labeled as PCF (Process Chlorine Free), which means the recycling process itself is chlorine free, regardless if the original material has any chlorine in it.
This is completely different from what you said.You claimed the recycling process included bleach, since it was impossible to know where the original material was coming from.
Do you see the difference?I didn't see this.
Are you sure it didn't say PCF instead of TCF?It is a completely different process.
A tree rotting in a forest decomposes naturally, and has very little impact.
Tons of paper pilled in a landfill decompose anaerobically, which causes methane gas.Well, here is one study on the methane produced by landfills.
Granted it is not exclusive to paper, but since paper usually decomposes alongside other organic waste, i think it would be a bit hard to figure that out.
I found a pretty good source which says;Doesn't really prove my point, but certainly discredits your source.How does that discredit my sources?Well, it should be telling you something when you can't really find sources to back up your view on something...
Maybe your view is misguided? ;)
Seriously, the science is sound.Global Warming is real, and recycling is good.
Again, thanks for debating politely.I love me a good debate, and await your reply. 8)
gaynorvaderOP
#48
Came across this little tidbit whilst reading this article
I would agree that recycling certain materials is a good thing, even just from a resource point of view and that Global Warming is real. However (<-bad grammar, yay!), I have not seen any real evidence that we are having a detrimental effect on Global Warming, or even a significant one.Agree 100% on that one, I had the poor judgement to enter a religious (sorta) debate on a failblog site and the person I was debating with was incredibly rude, ignored my points, evaded my questions etc. until I was thoroughly frustrated. I usually enjoy religious debates and sometimes even argue for religion (albeit rarely), but I cannot stand creationism. :/
treecycle.comThe Environmental Protection Agency is establishing new baseline bleaching technologies affecting pulp and paper mills in the U.S. The EPA supports the substituting chlorine dioxide for chlorine gas - still a chlorine derivative.Scary stuff, no?So landfills cause the production of methane because they are underground. Large amounts of the stuff too. But I notice it's small relative to the amount caused by domesticated animals, rice fields and natural wetlands. Why is this such a problem? Why is it assumed that the relatively small amount of methane produced from landfills is doing so much damage? I still don't believe global warming is caused by man. Especially as the official signs of it seem to be every single bloody weather pattern going! (though possibly that's media sensation). I'm actually surprised that no research has been done into the emissions of the decomposition of paper when there are several papers on the emissions of termites. I would deduce (perhaps erroneously) that there possibly was research done into paper emissions, but that they weren't substantial and so the results weren't published. A bit conspiracy theory-ish, but most of this research is commissioned by environmental agencies. Sorry, should have explained why. I said that it discredited (not quite the right word perhaps, cast doubt maybe?) your sources because it stated that research still needed to be done before a conclusion could be reached, but your source stated that emissions from the process of making recycled paper are minimal, something unproven.
mark_80Well, it should be telling you something when you can't really find sources to back up your view on something...Possibly my view is misguided, and some of the sources you presented have certainly given me cause to re-examine the whole recycling paper issue. However, the problem was less finding sources to back my view up and more finding factual information. Almost all the information I could find was from a heavily biased source and presented in the same manner.
Maybe your view is misguided?
Seriously, the science is sound.Global Warming is real, and recycling is good.
I would agree that recycling certain materials is a good thing, even just from a resource point of view and that Global Warming is real. However (<-bad grammar, yay!), I have not seen any real evidence that we are having a detrimental effect on Global Warming, or even a significant one.Agree 100% on that one, I had the poor judgement to enter a religious (sorta) debate on a failblog site and the person I was debating with was incredibly rude, ignored my points, evaded my questions etc. until I was thoroughly frustrated. I usually enjoy religious debates and sometimes even argue for religion (albeit rarely), but I cannot stand creationism. :/
will1008
#49
The only time I recycled paper is when we were going to use it to make new paper.
msg2009
#50
I use both side of the toilet paper does that count?
tehuber1337
#51
gaynorvader · #48I still don't believe global warming is caused by man. Especially as the official signs of it seem to be every single bloody weather pattern going! (though possibly that's media sensation).http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/12/climate-change.htmlhttp://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_ReportI hope you wash your hands
klaimore
#52
If you log a rainforest down, it would disrupt the natural soil and minerals in it. If you try plant it, it won't grow.
Oteupaiecona
#53
gaynorvader · #48So landfills cause the production of methane because they are underground. Large amounts of the stuff too. But I notice it's small relative to the amount caused by domesticated animals, rice fields and natural wetlands. Why is this such a problem? Why is it assumed that the relatively small amount of methane produced from landfills is doing so much damage?Methane is worst the CO2 at traping heat.
Rice fields and industrial animal farms are indeed a problem.
But every bit counts, and if we can reduce some of it, why not?
Which do you prefer?
Writing on recycled paper, or eating tofu instead of a double bacon cheeseburger? ;)
gaynorvader · #48I still don't believe global warming is caused by man. Especially as the official signs of it seem to be every single bloody weather pattern going! (though possibly that's media sensation).Actually, the media is very stupid.
Don't try to understand science through the media, or you're screwed.
Check the links posted by Tehuberl33t, and if you would like some more, let me know.
gaynorvader · #48I'm actually surprised that no research has been done into the emissions of the decomposition of paper when there are several papers on the emissions of termites. I would deduce (perhaps erroneously) that there possibly was research done into paper emissions, but that they weren't substantial and so the results weren't published. A bit conspiracy theory-ish, but most of this research is commissioned by environmental agencies.Yeah, it is a bit conspiracy "theory-ish", lol.
What do you think environmental agencies have to gain, for them to try to convince the world of something that isn't happening?
Sorry, should have explained why. I said that it discredited (not quite the right word perhaps, cast doubt maybe?) your sources because it stated that research still needed to be done before a conclusion could be reached, but your source stated that emissions from the process of making recycled paper are minimal, something unproven.Possibly my view is misguided, and some of the sources you presented have certainly given me cause to re-examine the whole recycling paper issue. However, the problem was less finding sources to back my view up and more finding factual information. Almost all the information I could find was from a heavily biased source and presented in the same manner.Ok, well, good to see you're keeping an open mind about this.
I would agree that recycling certain materials is a good thing, even just from a resource point of view and that Global Warming is real. However (<-bad grammar, yay!), I have not seen any real evidence that we are having a detrimental effect on Global Warming, or even a significant one.
Maybe you are right that more studies need to be done on the subject of recycling paper.
But it still remains that whatever studies where done still show that recycling is better then not.
And again, read the links provided, and if you want ask for more, and i'll give you some.(about GW in general)
gaynorvader · #48Agree 100% on that one, I had the poor judgement to enter a religious (sorta) debate on a failblog site and the person I was debating with was incredibly rude, ignored my points, evaded my questions etc. until I was thoroughly frustrated. I usually enjoy religious debates and sometimes even argue for religion (albeit rarely), but I cannot stand creationism. :/He, creationists...
I've had my share of debates with them.
Like Lewis Black says:
" You can't be nice about them, because these people are watching "The Flinstones" as a documentary."
lol
Loonylion
#54
Vast amounts of tax money for a start.
Oteupaiecona
#55
Fair enough.
But doesn't it seem more likely that Big Oil has a greater vested interest?
The science is on the EPA's side.
The only climatologists that don't believe GW is happening are those subsidized by oil companies.
But doesn't it seem more likely that Big Oil has a greater vested interest?
The science is on the EPA's side.
The only climatologists that don't believe GW is happening are those subsidized by oil companies.
Loonylion
#56
given the attitude to the whole thing in the UK, I'd say no, there's a greater vested interest in perpetuating man made global warming. It's pretty much a religion here.
Oteupaiecona
#57
Yeah, Europe is very different from the USA.
Over here corporations have all the power, and fight any kind of regulation.
But in any case, the science is there to confirm it.
You say it is like a religion, but have you fully considered what we are up against?
We can easily be facing the end of civilization.
A reversal to the dark ages.
Over here corporations have all the power, and fight any kind of regulation.
But in any case, the science is there to confirm it.
You say it is like a religion, but have you fully considered what we are up against?
We can easily be facing the end of civilization.
A reversal to the dark ages.
Loonylion
#58
we are in a period of global cooling right now so it's hardly a major issue. What IS the issue is that people critical of the whole AGW theory are not tolerated in Europe, they are labelled deniers and are routinely silenced. That is not science, that is religion.Besides its been proven that the scientific bodies 'proving' the existence of man-made global warming have actually been altering/falsifying their data. caused quite a scandal before the government managed to cover it up.
tehuber1337
#59
Loonylion · #54Vast amounts of tax money for a start."Hey guys, we need to make some quick money. Any ideas?"
"How about we tell people the world is heating up and will kill us all?"
"Brilliant! Governments will definitely pay research grants by the boatload for such an outrageous claim! But the money will stop coming once they realise it's a hoax..."
"No problem, we'll just call up our millions of scientist colleagues around the world and have them go along with us! It's foolproof."Don't mix up cause and effect.Considering that all the evidence (all of it) points to global warming and not cooling, I'd like to see where you got that idea. (PS Chris Monckton is a fraud)If you're referring to Climategate then that was already cleared up with no evidence of scientific malpractice.
Loonylion
#60
The simple fact that we've been getting record snowfall in this country every year for the last 5 years. 10 years ago we got NO snow AT ALL.
Showing posts 41–60 of 64 · This discussion is archivedBack to top