Talk:Paper recycling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Environment | (Rated Start-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
This article is adapted from a research paper by Kelsey Papst, who has released it for us according to the terms of the GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyparadigm (talk • contribs) 2005-10-24 06:56:31 UTC
njkbjhklj[1] twenty years ago only one curbside recycling program existed in the United States,
when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.214.84 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-27 15:27:37 UTC
- I found the source for the "Recycling facts and figures section" and stated the date explicitly. As a side note, that section copies the EPA Web site almost verbatim. That's not a copyright violation, as U.S. government material is public domain, but should we provide any more attribution than the reference I've added? --Officiallyover 04:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I now found a template that makes the attribution I was looking for, so now I'm happy. --Officiallyover 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
This was taken almost without change from a research paper for an environmental chemistry class. The references should be brought into line with the Wikipedia manual of style, and I'm sure many more changes will be necessary.--Joel 06:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Myself and others have improved much of the article's content and provided references for pretty much everything necessary. I have therefore removed the cleanup tag. Feel free to reinstate it (or a similar tag) if you or anyone else feels it is necessary. If you do reinstate the tag though, please state the reason(s) why here. Canderra 03:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV?
In one episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! the hosts show that it is actually better for the environment to take down (and plant) new trees instead of recycling paper. The latter supposedly pollutes a lot and there aren't really any energy savings going on.
Could someone please look into these claims and add some counterpoints to the current article?
- Firstly, it must be noted that the particular show mentioned is an entertainment show, factually speaking, it has on many occasions been derided by a number of scientists for distorting their scientific research and for making extremely dubious and often totally unproven claims.
- Wheras there has been much discussion on this topic, basically all serious published research shows that recycled paper is a lot better for the enviroment. Put simply, 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 bleeching.
- Also, continually planted forests contribute 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 fertilizers, the production, transportation and regular application of these is extremely energy intensive and enviromentally damaging.
- Selective use of statistics is often used in such TV shows and in such books to try to claim both paper and other recycling methods are supposably less energy efficient than using raw materials, but no scientifically condoned research has ever shown any of the common recycling processes (i.e. aluminium, glass, paper, plastics & steel) to be less enviromentally friendly or energy inefficient than raw material creation and disposal over the long term. On the contrary, basically all research studies show massive enviromental and energy savings by recycling materials such as paper. More information on paper recycling efficency from a more reputable source: here. Canderra 03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia actually has an article on Bullshit!, and it includes some criticisms of the show.Xpanzion 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
True life cycle analysis is very difficult. It strongly depends on where you draw your box and what question you want to answer. For example, a modern Kraft mill makes all is own heat and electrical energy using a renewable energy source, the lignin. On the other hand, paper recycling uses largely fossil energy from the grid. So, to be fair, a box around a Kraft mill should be compared to a box around a recycling mill and its associated power plant.
While specific environmental impact metrics, e.g., air emissions, water emissions, greenhouse gases, etc., are important, I believe that we should look at fossil resource consumption as a strong indicator of sustainablity. From this standpoint recycling is far worse than a Kraft mill.
[edit] Units missing
From the article:
- This means that today, 51.3 million of all paper and paper products are being recovered for recycling.
51.3 million what, exactly? — bz2 14:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Can we please replace picture?
I think the article's main picture needs a replacement. The current one, showing a barge in the background carrying paper isn't that good and has very little to do with actual paper recycling. Any ideas? Canderra 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would be great if there was a picture of the inside of a recycling plant. There may be pictures of the slurry during the cleaning, or de-inking process. I haven't found anything yet, but I'll continue looking. Xpanzion 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Enviromental Effects"
Why does the "Environmental Effects" section focus mainly on the views of a single politically minded economist?
There are many, many academic studies and a lot of actual unbiased research on this subject (the vast majority of which completely disagrees with Steven Landsburg's claims), yet a politically motivated economist with no actual research studies on the matter to his name is presented as a leading figure in the field?
The current layout of the section appears to me to be extremely POV driven. How about replacing this individual's views with some scientifically conducted and peer reviewed research on the matter. Canderra 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I really wonder what is this economist doing in this section, as if his theory is somehow encyclopedic, accepted in the academic world or relevant to the issue.
- I fear it is because of an attempt by several editors to aggressively push their negative point of view regarding recycling in general. Despite the fact that their are millions of economists with millions of different theories, this economist "Steven Landsburg", whose views in this area, as you note, are not in anyway universally or even widely accepted in the academic world and who is also quite connected to a political party, appears on almost every article regarding recycling making claims which are pretty much always the exact opposite of claims made by recycling supporters. Unfortunately if anyone ever removes any of his (usually unproven and non-peer reviewed) claims they are always instantly reverted. Canderra 05:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- The economist is a critic of paper recycling, his comments should not be in the "Environmental effects" section. I made the "Criticism" section separate from "Environmental effects" section because criticisms include more than just environmental issues. I hope this will also resolve the problem with Landburg's claims. I realize that too much attention may still be focused on this one person, but the best way to solve that problem is by adding more information from other verifiable sources. Xpanzion 05:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section
I made the criticism section to improve the categorization of information within the article. After reading the recycling criticism article, I think all criticisms should be removed from this article and placed in the other. Most recycling criticism is focused at paper recycling, so why not just move everything to the general recycling criticism page?Xpanzion 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Almost all of the information contained in the criticism section was already covered in recycling criticism. I filled in any gaps, and removed the section from this page. It is not difficult to extract criticism specific to paper recycling in recycling criticism; furthermore, this article did not provide a neutral point of view. I think that readers of this article will be able to learn about paper recycling criticism faster and more completely with these changes.Xpanzion 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
- . ^ Baird p. 524-25; Selke p. 115-16 <-- Pls provide me with the reference URL to know how this book looks like. -- Hyungjin
4. ^ a b Martin, Sam (2004). "Paper Chase". Ecology Communications, Inc.. Retrieved on 2007-09-21.
I find the claims made on this website dubious at best: "Paper production accounts for about 35% of felled trees," and "Trees raised specifically for pulp production account for 16% of world pulp production, old growth forests 9% and second- and third- and more generation forests account for the balance." are both very likely untrue statements and are not verifiable at the website sited. Please remedy. Ruebicon (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
8. ^ [Source: EarthWorks Group. 1990. “The Recycler’s Handbook”. Berkeley, CA: The EarthWorks Press]
The claims made by this reference are incorrect and are not accessible at this resource. The citation also likely has outdated information: "It has been estimated that recycling half the world’s paper would avoid the harvesting of 20 million acres (80,000 km²) of forestland". This a patently untrue statement. Please remedy. Ruebicon (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Green printing
The section about "Relative importance of recycling" discusses some problems associated with certain segments of the printing industry. This does not belong in the article about paper recycling. It should be removed and discussed in an appropriate article. Rlsheehan (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
I think that the pole in the front of the picture distracts from the ship on the river. Couldn't we just cut out the lower half and keep the upper half of the picture?
(just my 5cts of thought) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.220 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Where exactly is the benefit?
I think that I'm missing something important here, because unlike aluminum recycling which means vastly less environmental damage from bauxite mining and electricity to smelt it into aluminum, I'm missing the benefit of paper recycling. It would make great sense if old-growth trees were being harvested for pulp, but don't the companies have vast pulp-tree farms where they cultivate fast-growing trees for harvest, and then replant so that they will have the next crop? How is this any different than farming vegetables? And then there is the issue that the used paper needs to be bleached, which I'm sure winds up in the lakes and streams no matter what the paper manufacturers want to tell us. Does it take more or less bleach for a ton of used paper than for fresh pulp? -- David 09:10 03 December 2008 (UTC)
The big paper companies that own millions of acres of forest land and huge woodyards and debarking operations in rural areas want people to think what you say about recycled mills is true. They have huge investments in their current operations and are located in the wrong places to make recycled paper. It would cost at least 400 to 500 million dollars to build a new recycled paper operation today.
I work in a urban recycled papermill near Chicago. We use a combined state of the art technology brought over from Europe. We are the only mill of this type in the world right now. We do not use any bleach in our deink process. We keep thousands of tons of old newspaper(ONP), office waste paper and old magazines(OMG) out of the landfills every year and make beautiful shiny new paper for magazines, newspaper inserts, labels and book covers. We use much less energy and are as environmentally friendly a papermill as any other in the world. Jim October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.19.78 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here--202.169.213.177 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)</nowiki>
