ScienceNostalgia101 Posted October 12, 2020 Posted October 12, 2020 So I was recently thinking about this P&T:BS episode from a few years ago. Having been an environmentalist in childhood, I at first found it jarring, but eventually refreshing, to see perspectives openly dissenting against the conventional wisdom on environmentalism with which I had been brought up. Is Penn Jillette right on this one, though? I'm just thinking if you're going to be growing trees to make paper, and if those trees are going to die anyway if not chopped down to make paper, then one might as well combust the paper underneath a kettle to boil water in a rural/suburban setting. Still not sure what the best possible use of waste paper would be in a more urban setting, though. For the record, this same episode endorses aluminum recycling, and doesn't weigh in specifically on glass or plastic recycling. However, it does end on a scene about a landfill in California that uses the methane from active decomposition for energy. Would this be comparable to, better than, or worse than, the idea of combusting the waste directly? I would guess it would be at least slightly better, if only for the fact that energy from combustion doesn't have to be consumed by the need to dry out wet organic waste before it can catch fire. But if so, how come this isn't the norm for landfills, if only to address landfills' collective reputation for being a climate hazard?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now