Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

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?

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.