The case for scrapping ALL government funding for

mkpdavies · 16-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Paper recycling.

Mark Croucher want arguments put for and against any particular issue. I believe the whole recycling "industry" is dubious, but as I accept there are certain things, such as aluminium that is worthwhile, I will instead attack the worst offender, paper recycling.

Recycling is all based on the warm fuzzy notion that it is helping us save the planet, by not destroying trees and saving in landfill space. I will now put the case that not only is it an ineffective waste of time, effort and money, but actually does DAMAGE to the environment.

Local government spends millions of pounds a year on providing paper recycling facilities, including collection, transport and processing. This money is directly out of our tax tax pounds, which could have been used on other more worthy projects, or given back to the tax payer to put back INTO phpbb_the economy. The jobs created by this fake industry are tedious, low paid and do not contribute to the economy in any way. If the money wasn't wasted on this industry, it would be spent in more worthy industries, providing better more economically beneficial jobs instead. So no loss of jobs.

The assumption that the paper (or any other tree based industry) is destroying forests and trees is false. Any business is about supply and demand, the more demand you have, the more supply you create. Thus today's modern paper companies uses timbre provided by tree farms. Far from reducing the number of trees, the use of paper INCREASES the number of trees as successful companies deploy extremely efficient tree farms. Indeed, places such as the USA now have MORE trees than 200 years ago, precisely because of this. More demand = more trees, so reusing paper actually depletes that demand, thus depletes the need for supply, TREES.

The amount of fuel and energy required to pick up and process old paper, means real business gives it a wide birth, unless there are huge tax payer subsidies to prop it up. The energy usage is bad for the environment, as fuels and electricity are used and to top it off toxic chemical sludge is created in the process of bleaching the paper back to a usable state.

Landfill (which is also a con but that's for another debate), isn't an issue as paper is fully biodegradable. So getting rid of the old paper is not a problem. If a business TRULY could turn old waste paper INTO phpbb_a profitable recycling business, they would be doing it and the tax payer would not be paying for a fake warm feel, that they are saving the planet.

If all paper recycling was stopped tomorrow, we would have

More trees on the planet, creating co2 sinks for all those people who think co2 is causing global warming (another lie, another debate).

Young growing trees use more co2 too and provide more oxygen than older trees, so even more benefit.

No energy being wasted.

No chemical sludge in the processing of the old paper.

More money in to the economy, creating REAL jobs and economic benefits.

More time for people, instead of scurrying around chasing this red herring.

It's win, win, win all round. The only negative is trying to sell this to a brainwashed public, who believe it has to be good!

Someone give me the case against this argument.

C_steam · 16-10-2005, 04:17 PM

I'm concerned as to why he is actually asking.

I'm dreading another UKIP faux-pas. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, as you rightly say the public is already convinced on this topic INTO phpbb_believing (again, rightly or wrongly) the recycling is good.

The net outcome of any study by UKIP is either:-
a) Recycling is good. Hoorah - UKIP come out with a statement which absolutely confirms what the public already know. Net impact? Zero. Newsworthyness? Zero. Impact on UKIP as an electable party? Zero.

b) Recycling is a con. Pooh - UKIP come out with a statement which is totally aginst what the public already believe. Net Impact? UKIP look like a load of loonies (again). Newsworthyness? Possibly - but negative. Impact on UKIP as an elecatable party? Negative.

In other words, don't touch it with a barge pole. Leave the serious research to Tony and his crew. Go tell Croucher to think about how to get us in the papers with some serious statements on education, the economy, healthcare, education and the like and to stop trying to make policy on the fly.

mkpdavies · 16-10-2005, 04:24 PM

It's only meant to be a bit of entertainment to get people thinking and reading the magazine I think.

I don't think they will use it for policy UNLESS it turns out to be a real vote winner.

While I'm convinced, I agree, the brainwashed public would just grumble that UKIP hate the environment and ignore us some more.

Hartlepool · 16-10-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Paper recycling.

Mark Croucher want arguments put for and against any particular issue. I believe the whole recycling "industry" is dubious, but as I accept there are certain things, such as aluminium that is worthwhile, I will instead attack the worst offender, paper recycling.

Recycling is all based on the warm fuzzy notion that it is helping us save the planet, by not destroying trees and saving in landfill space. I will now put the case that not only is it an ineffective waste of time, effort and money, but actually does DAMAGE to the environment.

Local government spends millions of pounds a year on providing paper recycling facilities, including collection, transport and processing. This money is directly out of our tax tax pounds, which could have been used

on other more worthy projects, or given back to the tax payer to put

back INTO phpbb_the economy. The jobs created by this fake industry are
tedious, low paid and do not contribute to the economy in any way. If the money wasn't wasted on this industry, it would be spent in more worthy industries, providing better more economically beneficial jobs instead. So no loss of jobs.

The assumption that the paper (or any other tree based industry) is destroying forests and trees is false. Any business is about supply and demand, the more demand you have, the more supply you create. Thus today's modern paper companies uses timbre provided by tree farms. Far from reducing the number of trees, the use of paper INCREASES the number of trees as successful companies deploy extremely efficient tree farms. Indeed, places such as the USA now have MORE trees than 200 years ago, precisely because of this. More demand = more trees, so reusing paper actually depletes that demand, thus depletes the need for supply, TREES.

The amount of fuel and energy required to pick up and process old paper, means real business gives it a wide birth, unless there are huge tax payer subsidies to prop it up. The energy usage is bad for the environment, as fuels and electricity are used and to top it off toxic chemical sludge is created in the process of bleaching the paper back to a usable state.

Landfill (which is also a con but that's for another debate), isn't an issue as paper is fully biodegradable. So getting rid of the old paper is not a problem. If a business TRULY could turn old waste paper INTO phpbb_a profitable recycling business, they would be doing it and the tax payer would not be paying for a fake warm feel, that they are saving the planet.

If all paper recycling was stopped tomorrow, we would have

More trees on the planet, creating co2 sinks for all those people who think co2 is causing global warming (another lie, another debate).

Young growing trees use more co2 too and provide more oxygen than older trees, so even more benefit.

No energy being wasted.

No chemical sludge in the processing of the old paper.

More money in to the economy, creating REAL jobs and economic benefits.

More time for people, instead of scurrying around chasing this red herring.

It's win, win, win all round. The only negative is trying to sell this to a brainwashed public, who believe it has to be good!

Someone give me the case against this argument.

Matt, did Mark ask you to post this? Seems strange,a request for info by UKIP coming via this Forum. Is there a catch in this or a clanger dropped by Mark in making a request in this way? Just as a matter of interest. :?

mkpdavies · 16-10-2005, 04:33 PM

No, he wants people to send him articles in the post. I posted it here for attack by you lot, then I might send it in to Mark if I think it's worth doing.

Harrism · 16-10-2005, 10:23 PM

Can I make a point here?

Quote:

The assumption that the paper (or any other tree based industry) is destroying forests and trees is false. Any business is about supply and demand, the more demand you have, the more supply you create. Thus today's modern paper companies uses timbre provided by tree farms. Far from reducing the number of trees, the use of paper INCREASES the number of trees as successful companies deploy extremely efficient tree farms. Indeed, places such as the USA now have MORE trees than 200 years ago, precisely because of this. More demand = more trees, so reusing paper actually depletes that demand, thus depletes the need for supply, TREES.

What about the low level countries who don't think that far ahead and see as it quick easy cash which they can use on the there and now. There is devesation enough for the human eye to see in space. I never knew it was that bad. The question you've got to ask yourself is, if they aren't being recycled, where exactly are they going?

-I'm going to leave this here. You answer it you'll be on the right path to getting the public to believe you.

SGK · 17-10-2005, 09:24 AM

mkpdavies:

The points you make are good and make you think. The points about what the public think are, however, all too true. People want to stop damage to the environment and feel fairly helpless. If someone comes along and says, hey, you can help the environment by putting you paper in this bin, then they will. It is a positive reaction.
So to get them to stop it, I think you have to give them an alternative positive reaction and not a negative one. You need to give some soundbite facts, how many tons of chemical slurry are produced, how many more trees would be planted if people bought new paper, and so on.
I recycle everything, I would recycle my own bogies if someone gave me a bag for them. In Germany I believe most old paper goes to wallpaper manufacturers who make low grade paper and would use rags and old paper anyway (all rented apartments are done out 100% in woodchip). Can you give me some facts to show a) the damage being done today and b) the advantage of the alternative? I mean facts, rather than generalisations.
This is what will make it a worthwhile argument.

The main thing that I recycle is plastics, which I think is a good thing for us to do in principle, but I have my doubts as to how and even whether they do it.

16-10-2005, 03:44 PM	#1 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	The case for scrapping ALL government funding for Paper recycling. Mark Croucher want arguments put for and against any particular issue. I believe the whole recycling "industry" is dubious, but as I accept there are certain things, such as aluminium that is worthwhile, I will instead attack the worst offender, paper recycling. Recycling is all based on the warm fuzzy notion that it is helping us save the planet, by not destroying trees and saving in landfill space. I will now put the case that not only is it an ineffective waste of time, effort and money, but actually does DAMAGE to the environment. Local government spends millions of pounds a year on providing paper recycling facilities, including collection, transport and processing. This money is directly out of our tax tax pounds, which could have been used on other more worthy projects, or given back to the tax payer to put back INTO phpbb_the economy. The jobs created by this fake industry are tedious, low paid and do not contribute to the economy in any way. If the money wasn't wasted on this industry, it would be spent in more worthy industries, providing better more economically beneficial jobs instead. So no loss of jobs. The assumption that the paper (or any other tree based industry) is destroying forests and trees is false. Any business is about supply and demand, the more demand you have, the more supply you create. Thus today's modern paper companies uses timbre provided by tree farms. Far from reducing the number of trees, the use of paper INCREASES the number of trees as successful companies deploy extremely efficient tree farms. Indeed, places such as the USA now have MORE trees than 200 years ago, precisely because of this. More demand = more trees, so reusing paper actually depletes that demand, thus depletes the need for supply, TREES. The amount of fuel and energy required to pick up and process old paper, means real business gives it a wide birth, unless there are huge tax payer subsidies to prop it up. The energy usage is bad for the environment, as fuels and electricity are used and to top it off toxic chemical sludge is created in the process of bleaching the paper back to a usable state. Landfill (which is also a con but that's for another debate), isn't an issue as paper is fully biodegradable. So getting rid of the old paper is not a problem. If a business TRULY could turn old waste paper INTO phpbb_a profitable recycling business, they would be doing it and the tax payer would not be paying for a fake warm feel, that they are saving the planet. If all paper recycling was stopped tomorrow, we would have More trees on the planet, creating co2 sinks for all those people who think co2 is causing global warming (another lie, another debate). Young growing trees use more co2 too and provide more oxygen than older trees, so even more benefit. No energy being wasted. No chemical sludge in the processing of the old paper. More money in to the economy, creating REAL jobs and economic benefits. More time for people, instead of scurrying around chasing this red herring. It's win, win, win all round. The only negative is trying to sell this to a brainwashed public, who believe it has to be good! Someone give me the case against this argument. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

16-10-2005, 04:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	It's only meant to be a bit of entertainment to get people thinking and reading the magazine I think. I don't think they will use it for policy UNLESS it turns out to be a real vote winner. While I'm convinced, I agree, the brainwashed public would just grumble that UKIP hate the environment and ignore us some more. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

16-10-2005, 04:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,182 Party: Libertarian Party	No, he wants people to send him articles in the post. I posted it here for attack by you lot, then I might send it in to Mark if I think it's worth doing. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-10-2005, 04:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,803	I'm concerned as to why he is actually asking. I'm dreading another UKIP faux-pas. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, as you rightly say the public is already convinced on this topic INTO phpbb_believing (again, rightly or wrongly) the recycling is good. The net outcome of any study by UKIP is either:- a) Recycling is good. Hoorah - UKIP come out with a statement which absolutely confirms what the public already know. Net impact? Zero. Newsworthyness? Zero. Impact on UKIP as an electable party? Zero. b) Recycling is a con. Pooh - UKIP come out with a statement which is totally aginst what the public already believe. Net Impact? UKIP look like a load of loonies (again). Newsworthyness? Possibly - but negative. Impact on UKIP as an elecatable party? Negative. In other words, don't touch it with a barge pole. Leave the serious research to Tony and his crew. Go tell Croucher to think about how to get us in the papers with some serious statements on education, the economy, healthcare, education and the like and to stop trying to make policy on the fly.

17-10-2005, 09:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
SGK Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,237	mkpdavies: The points you make are good and make you think. The points about what the public think are, however, all too true. People want to stop damage to the environment and feel fairly helpless. If someone comes along and says, hey, you can help the environment by putting you paper in this bin, then they will. It is a positive reaction. So to get them to stop it, I think you have to give them an alternative positive reaction and not a negative one. You need to give some soundbite facts, how many tons of chemical slurry are produced, how many more trees would be planted if people bought new paper, and so on. I recycle everything, I would recycle my own bogies if someone gave me a bag for them. In Germany I believe most old paper goes to wallpaper manufacturers who make low grade paper and would use rags and old paper anyway (all rented apartments are done out 100% in woodchip). Can you give me some facts to show a) the damage being done today and b) the advantage of the alternative? I mean facts, rather than generalisations. This is what will make it a worthwhile argument. The main thing that I recycle is plastics, which I think is a good thing for us to do in principle, but I have my doubts as to how and even whether they do it.