- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
The trash 'exported' to Asia from the US according the the cited page is for recycling because of the cheap labor.
Recycling has always caused such problems with the exception of metals.
The point from the start is that paper is much heaver than plastic, therefore causing much higher emissions all the way from plant stage to finished product at the end user location.
The weight issue was ignored because the sources for how much they weigh was assumed (by a tard) to be unreliable.
I thought that it was common knowledge that exported trash was the end product of “recycling facilities” from first world countries. The end product gets exported to Asia because of cheap labor and loose regulations.
Recycling is a messy thing. That I agree. If you noticed that other poster was saying that the priority should be to reduce use of plastics (by using alternatives to plastic) and leave recycling as a last resource.
Of course paper production will produce some degree of waste and so will the recycling of paper. The point here is to judge which amount of waste or which type of waste is worse at long term.
Plastic takes longer to degrade and ends up as microplastics that inevitably end up in water sources and inside of fishes that are consumed by the population of both first and third world countries.
Paper probably uses more water and energy resources to be produced and recycled but its waste product (even when badly managed) is overall better for human and animal health.
Forests can be replanted and there is technology available for the production of less resource heavy paper. Sure it's slightly more expensive than producing plastic/regular paper but the environmental effect is more positive at long term.
Better packaging design (that can be reused, easily cleaned and are actually recyclable) and durable reusable bags (made of paper or fabric) are the way to go.