Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessriedel | Hacker News Reader

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but...

Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all intents and purposes, our space for landfills is unlimited.

Could someone fill me in on any aspect of this I'm not considering?

View on HN

According to the WWF (http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html) it takes 53 gallons of water to make 1 latte. A great deal of this water is used in making the cup. So why use all that water for a product that gets trashed?

We use water for lots of things. Why are we focusing on the cup? There are much better places to conserve water.

Crop irrigation, and getting rid of septic systems would be where I would start. Don't grow crops in places where you need to irrigate (or at least reduce it), and septic systems waste water, instead of recycling it like a sewer does.

I think that for a company that is supplying billions of cups a year that end up in landfill focusing on the cup should be a priority.

The cost of 1 gallon of water is something like 1/100th of a cent in most areas. If you want people to conserve water increase its cost, anything else and it will just be "wasted" somewhere else.

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.htm... Note: $27 per acre-foot = 0.008 cents per gallon.

You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else.

Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.

Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good.

Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.

A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re...

Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong.

The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.

Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars.

Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine.

Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

A growing tree is a "CO2 sequestering machine". A living tree is not, since when it dies all the CO2 is released.

The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing.

As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.

Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time); it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon.

Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.

Assuming the decay from paper-cup-watse -> CO2-and-other-greenhouse-gases is very slow (compared to the regrowth time for a tree) then cutting down trees, turning them into paper cups, and burying the cups is an excellent carbon-sequestering tool.

Compare the two approaches:

(1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly)

(2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)

Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury!

ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests

> The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else.

I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance with market principles, Starbucks is trying to increase share-holder value by finding value in it's waste products. I approve.").

How do you decide if something is "wasted" other than with economic cost-benefit analysis? If there was an economical way to use it, we would (or will, once we have the technology). I'm all for entrepreneurs finding new ways to utilize waste products. And, in fact, such entrepreneurs enjoy huge advantages in the market place because many people have not-quite-rational feelings about "waste".

In other words: where is the market failure which is significant compared to the failures associated with carbon emissions, CFCs, etc.?

You know, waste, the common definition:

I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware.

I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country)

I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it.

I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters).

I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and don't do anything with it.

I wasted paper. (I had to cut down more trees, instead of reusing the ones I already cut down).

I turned that into waste, which need not be.

How does economic cost-benefit analysis and share-holder value even factor into this? The fact is that we have the technology to do this, it reduces our need to cut down and process timbre, and reduces environmental impact of our consumption (and in doing so helps survival of future generations). 'The market' is incredibly short sighted in terms of planning for our future. Ethically, we should conserve resources.

> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware.

>How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this?

Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute.

If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis?

(The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)

Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food.

Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future.

(It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number).

At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware?

It seems that the answer would be right at the beginning, because the sooner we start conserving the food, the longer we would be able to sustain our supply.

If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.

> If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.

No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't.

Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In particular, you need to allow for people to sacrifice some future survival (i.e. waste) for some happiness in some cases.

How would you determine when this is OK? A cost-benefit analysis...

If I had data that told me we were running out of food, come hell or high water, I'd find some way to conserve it.

I had strawberry yogurt for breakfast. I had it because it tastes good, and is relatively good for me. I could have gone with the cheap plain yogurt, but instead I had the slightly tastier more expensive stuff, on the chance that it is actually healthier and tastier.

But the morality of my breakfast isn't at question here. (I could be totally amoral and still make a good argument for what should be done).

I never said there wasn't an element of cost-benefit analysis, I said that it (waste specifically) wasn't a purely economic cost-benefit analysis (which is what was argued initially). It seems that you are agreeing with me, as you have 'allowed' for other things like 'happiness'. (Which would be an emotional cost-benefit analysis).

It makes me happy to think that future generations will be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy currently.

Glad to have changed your mind.

Please Recycle.

Landfill space is not unlimited. I understand that you are talking about US, but some countries (Japan) have huge problems with space.

The less you have the more you should think about doing things right.

If you design systems to have a one-way flow of materials, they are inherently unsustainable. At some point, you'll run out of source materials and/or space to put waste.

Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand.

Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.

Not a single sheet of paper is made from rain forest trees.

In fact almost nothing is made from rain forest trees. They are usually cut down to use the land, not for the trees.

> Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand.

Rain forests are cut down to clear land for farming in developing countries, not for wood.

You are completely correct. The only aspect you are not considering is the "feel good" greenwashing.

There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.

Source please.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com