# Recycling: Are Penn & Teller right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 4, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399 "2004-05-04T02:27:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399/41 "2004-05-06T20:21:25Z")
> [@Green Bean](#): > > To build on what **Lionel Hutz** said: > > Paper is made of cellulose. Trees are an excellent source of cellulose. Used paper is also a source of cellulose. That’s what recycling is. There are a variety of plants that are regularly used in other parts of the world to get cellulose for paper, including grasses and hemp. > > The advantages of using plants other than trees may include: > > –Faster time from planting to harvest. Instead of waiting decades to harvest the cellulose from the tree, you can harvest in a matter of months. > –More cellulose per acre. A tree contains a lot of cellulose, but over the decades that it would have taken the tree to grow to maturity, the land may well yield far more than one tree’s worth. > –Less fuel to turn the plant into paper. To harvest a tree and get it to the mill requires a lot of heavy equipment and fuel. Other plants can be easier to harvest and transport. Other plants can be much easier to turn into pulp than wood is. > –More local production. The tree farms owned by the big paper mills are in remote locations. Other cellulose plants can be produced on smaller farms in more locations. So, not only can transportation costs be reduced, but the cellulose can reasonably be produced on smaller parcels of land. This means reduced costs for the paper mills and/or potentially profitable crops for local farmers. > –Producing cellulose on smaller parcels interspersed with land being used for other things avoids the monoculture problems mentioned by above posters. > > So why aren’t we doing this? Inertia, for one thing. The paper industry, in its current form, is extremely profitable. Now that appropriate forest management measures are being taken, green thinkers such as myself are relatively satisfied. Also, the mills are set up to handle wood. Starting to use another input would require a lot of engineering and re-tooling costs. > > But really, the logging industry is dangerous, expensive, and while it has improved its environmental record, it’s not _good_ either. Lots of people have found a way to make money on paper made without cutting down another tree–using old paper to make new products. We might have plenty of trees, but tree-free paper might well be cheaper and better for the environment in the long run. > > To sum up–the problem is not in using trees to make paper. The problem is using only trees to make paper. There are actually several problems with making paper out of plant fibers: 1. Grow & Harvest anywhere factor: Trees can grow on a slope and be harvested efficiently on a slope. By comparison, Hemp, Kenaf and others will grow on such a surface, but try driving your combine on it. 2. Silica. Plant fibers have lots of it. If you get to much in your mashing liquer it becomes worthless and must be dumped. Thus creating a greater toxic mess than plants using tree fibers. 3. Paper quality: Like it or not, the paper made from plant fibers is poor. The Chinese gov’t has been planting softwoods like mad just to get their industry away from using plant fibers whenever possible. If you think your copy machine jams a lot now then wait until it tries the plant fiber paper. Technology might provide a solution, but its unlikely. 4. Abandonment of pollution controls. Paper Mills, for all their reputation as stinkpots, actualy have many decades of pollution control research built within them. That technology would have to be thrown out and started from scratch. Heck, there are things called “Kraft paper mills” that use the waste heat to power themselves. Insert trees, run plant. 5. Unfriendly crops. Like it or not, despite what some hemp-heads may say, any crop is giong to have an ‘intrusion’ phase that can last years. Trees, though slow growers, tend not to do this. Also, when you factor in crop rotation, trees grow about as much fiber as plant crops do. 6. Getting the juicy morsels ain’t easy: Kenaf and Hemp (and others) are very hard to harvest and only a portion of them can be used for papermaking. Seperating the good parts from the bad is a labor-intesnive process. Most paper makers have plant-fiber plant plans on the books in case the price of wood fiber skyrockets, but theres really no advantages, environmental or economical, to making the switch. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399/42 "2004-05-06T20:32:03Z")
> [@LionelHutz405](#): > > Logging trucks are heavy. Building and maintaing a logging road is expensive. I wouldn’t call it easy. At some point, the distance between the forest and the market becomes too great and it isn’t economically feasible to do it. When I’ve participated in building logging roads it’s been quite easy. They don’t need any maintenance, really, since you will only use them for a short period of time. After that, let the road go back to nature. Of course, logging roads built on federal and state lands do have to comply with much stricter regulations, but these roads will also be used after logging for recreation. > [@](#): > > Yes, they regrow. But you don’t get back exactly what was originally taken. True, but I don’t see that as a problem. Forests constantly evolved, and did so before Europeans started cutting trees. Fires, droughts, etc., constantly changed the make-up of forests. Logging should simply be viewed in line with that. > [@](#): > > You get species that do well in open spaces, which tend to be looked on as ‘weeds’ by the forest companies. (i.e. not worth any money). They grow more spread out, not tall and straight like the original (and much more valuable) trees. Actually, if trees are not planted in a clear cut, they tend to grow much thinner and straight up since there will be too many seedlings that take root. They don’t grow out because there is no room for them to do so. In a few years, the “clear cut” will look like an overgrown mess and will produce poor quality trees. However, with active management this won’t happen. Either through pre-commercial thinning (about 10 years out in the Northwest) or commercial thinning to get poles (20-30 years out) you can avoid this. Most timber companies and private landowners who manage for timber realize this and act accordingly. > [@](#): > > Generally you get back about the same volume of wood, but it’s much less valuable than what was originally taken out. This is especially true if the original logging took only the valuable trees and left behind the crap ones. These would be the seed source for the new crop, which would then be significantly inferior. Perhaps, but not necessarily. It all depends on the area and how it was logged. I think you are underestimating the regenerative power of nature. In the clear cuts that I worked in about 10 years after the cut, it was predominantly lodge pole pine, which is on the lower end of the value scale. This is what you would expect since the forest nearby was all lodge pole. However, within that clearcut there were a variety of trees, including white pine (quite valuable) and various firs. Nature has a way of regenerating that Man tends to underestimate. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399/43 "2004-05-06T21:06:05Z")
> [@Winkie](#): > > Well, IAASWP (I Am A Solid Waste Professional)… One more reason to like the SDMB. Where else on this planet, among the population of protesters, politicians, pundits, prophets, professors, potentates, polecats, petrographers, popes, punks, physics and psychics would you find a Solid Waste Professional? 😉 (that’s a Winkie) ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399/44 "2004-05-06T21:29:31Z")
While I think one must keep in mind that this is an entertainment product, and thus take P&T with a grain of salt at times, I don’t think this show was merely a Libertarian screed. They did point out that aluminum recycling works and makes sense. I also think the comment that taxes are taken by force is not only valid but useful. I think a lot of people just treat taxes are a part of life, without thinking about it. It is true that the government forces citizens to pay taxes, sometimes to fund things that are downright loony. And if you don’t pay your taxes, the end result will be federal agents forcibly taking your stuff and possibly putting you in jail. However, I agree that the wild speculation about the power-hungry motives of environmentalists was stupid. Mostly I saw this episode as a jab at the unquestioned idea that “Recycling is good! Love your mother! Be green!” As they pointed out, most people like to think they are doing the right thing, and the idea of being green is seductive. But in some cases, you’re actually engaging in an activity that causes more environmental harm, and you’re paying taxes to support it all. If the show makes people question which recycling programs are beneficial and cost effective, and which aren’t, it’s doing some good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/recycling-are-penn-teller-right/243399.md?page=2)