GreenYes Archives
[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

Re: [greenyes] Paper Recycling
It may be true that organic fractions are the largest source of fugitive methane emissions from landfills.  However, if you look at the greenhouse gas impacts of the full commodity production cycle -- not just emissions from disposal -- discarding metals and plastics rather than recycling them is also a big deal.  

_______________________________
Doug Koplow
Earth Track, Inc.
2067 Massachusetts Avenue - 4th Floor
Cambridge, MA  02140
www.earthtrack.net
Tel:  617/661-4700
Fax: 617/354-0463

           CONFIDENTIAL
This message, and all attachments thereto, is for the designated recipient
only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private 
information.  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any other use of the email by you
is prohibited.

>>> Stephan Pollard <sp@no.address> 02/11/05 08:24PM >>>
Indeed it is laudable.  For those concerned about methane emissions from 
landfills its paper (and foodscrap and fugitive yardwaste) in oxygen 
starved environments that produce it, not aluminum, steel, or plastic.

Stephan


Steve Apotheker wrote:

> The paper recycling rate calculated by the American Forest & Paper 
> Association is slightly different than the recycling rates calculated 
> by EPA or by the states and local governments.  AF&PA's rate includes 
> pre-consumer paper, while EPA does not.  For example, in 2001 the 
> paper recycling rate was 48.3% according to the AF&PA, while the EPA 
> published 44.9%.  
>  
> Also, EPA and AF&PA both depend largely on surveys of manufacturers 
> with some estimates of imported scrap paper that arrives along with 
> imported products.  State and local governments use waste composition 
> studies that perhaps more accurately indicate paper recycling rates at 
> least for their jurisdiction.  Thus, differences in the absolute paper 
> recycling rates of AF&PA, EPA and various governments can partly be 
> explained by methodological differences.
>  
> However, there is no denying that the increase in AF&PA's paper 
> recycling level over the last decade or so has been almost exclusively 
> due to increased post-consumer paper recovery so their rate of 
> improvement is very real (not due to methodological manipulation) and 
> very laudable.
>
> >>> Christine McCoy <cmccoy@no.address> 2/11/05 1:18:00 PM >>>
> To be clear, the Paper Recycling rate is officially 50.3%
>  
> Christine


-- 
Stephan Pollard
Environmental Dynamics Doctoral Program
University of Arkansas
Rm 113 Ozark Hall
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Tel: (479) 575-6603
http://www.cast.uark.edu/~sp 




[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]