Save the Rain Forest Now!

by iGanja 13. March 2007 04:04

Okay, this was too green for me to pass up. Instead of being a simple lemming or as Penn Jillette would say a "joiner" for the sake of joining a cause that really does sound good and noble and right, I have decided that before I sign that petition that proposes to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide, I might actually want to learn for myself what it is really all about, then make a decision on where I stand based on reality, and not just what "sounds" good.

Of course recycling "sounds" good. Why wouldn’t it?  Does anyone really believe we should just throw everything away and start over every time? Even a five year old can see the flaw in that logic.  Problem is, five year olds don’t understand the many variables concerning the issue of recycling, but it sure "sounds" like a great idea.

Now, before you start with the hating, put your recyclable container of Hateraid away for a moment and just entertain the idea that recycling may not be as wonderful as it "sounds."  Now we have all heard the "myths" as some would put them, that recycling paper, for example, is actually more damaging to the environment than just cutting down a "virgin" tree (don’t we just love that word – virgin,) and making paper from all new tree stuff.

First off, most, if not all of the "myth" busting that I can find is produced by wildly conservation minded, green as the grass they are smoking, whacko environmentalist groups, federally funded conservation think tanks and those that have a real vested interest in recycling (those receiving money in the form of your tax dollars to promote recycling.)  Take for example the three links provided by my very good friend at myths and facts about recycled paper.  These links take you to three totally separate websites that cite these "myths" and then go on to dispel them conclusively.  If one looks closely, the "myths" are all the same and the arguments against are also exactly the same.  So, no new information here – one link would have certainly sufficed.  Providing three with the exact same information does not make the argument stronger.  But wait, after further review, we find that the "facts" are all provided by two very important and legitimate sounding groups called the Recycled Paper Coalition and the Buy Recycled Business Alliance.  Alright then, the search is on to find the science or data behind the "facts!"  An Internet search on the Recycled Paper Coalition results in a link to – a single page with links to links to links to more sites dealing with recycling, and to (woops), which just so happens to be one of the three links previously mentioned.  Now why would this site want to dispel the "myths" about paper recycling?  It looks like self serving loop of propaganda to me, and Rutgers University should be ashamed, citing a "source" that simply does not exist.  Now what about the other one - the Buy Recycled Business Alliance?  Hey, actually a real organization – based in Australia – its sole purpose is to get businesses to "close the recycling loop" by purchasing recycled products.  In visiting their website I could find not a single shred of information providing "facts" about recycling paper and dispelling myths.  It is primarily a marketing website designed to get people to buy more products.  Alright, yes, recycled products, but with very little, if no actual data regarding the environmental benefits.  We are again left with our innate understanding that recycling is a good thing.  Only because it "sounds" like a good thing, but is it really?

Well, turns out, the answer is an emphatic yes, but for reasons that are a lot easier to understand, which is why there weren’t any government programs or subsides or environmental groups screaming for it.  America and the rest of the industrialized world have been recycling for scores.  Well before the 1970’s whacko-do recycling craze.  But the reasons we recycled were because they actually made fiscal and environmental sense, not just because it "sounded" like a good idea.  Take, for example, steel and aluminum et. al.  Without any government studies, or environmental impact reports, those businesses engaged in the production of steel and other metals figured out that manufacturing those materials was significantly cheaper using recycled material than extracting raw material from the ground.  It also turns out that there is a direct correlation with cost of manufacturing and amount of energy used and pollution produced in the process.  And I’ll bet, using small words, I could get a five year old to see the logic in that.  And so it is for aluminum, and brass, and copper, and glass, and yes, even plastic and other petroleum based products.  Industries manufacturing these products have figured out how to increase profits by cutting waste, improving manufacturing processes and recycling spent materials.  And who ever said that capitalism breeds environmental genocide?  Okay, I’m not talking about the pollution spewing manufacturing processes; I’m just talking about the "logic" of recycling and almost everything else for that matter being something that entrepreneurial folks will somehow figure out on their own, if it’s a good thing, without the government stepping in.  We really don’t need government telling us to cut costs and maximize profits, do we?

Problem is those that would have us recycle everything on God’s green earth base their assertions mainly on emotions and what "sounds" good than on reality and logic.  And here is the "reality," at least as far as paper goes.  Turns out, big business consumes over 80% of the paper in the US.  So why are recycling programs directed at the public consumer?  Of that 20% that we, the horrid paper wasters, "consume," nearly all of it is in the form of manufactured goods rather than simply writing/printing paper.  We’re talking newspapers, magazines, packaging materials, and direct mail.  In fact, we "consumers" are literally force fed waste in the form of paper products that could be easily replaced by electronic means or simply eliminated (junk mail anyone?)  So, why are "we" the ones shouldering the burden of paper recycling?  Well, because "we" are all lemmings and will believe just about anything, do almost anything we are told and sign almost any fucking petition that "sounds" good, even that one banning di-hydrogen-monoxide.

Most of our recycling policies put the burden of curbing waste on the smallest waster.  So we all feel like we are doing our part to "save the rainforest" when, in fact, the god dam is breaking people, but instead of getting the dam owner to fix it, we’ll employ all the townspeople to each stick a finger in the dam thing, thereby relieving the dam owner from his responsibility.  This is just plain stupid!  You want to save the trees?  Get the biggest wasters of paper to stop packaging a pinky sized stick of lib balm in a package the size of Vermont; ban the practice of direct mailing consumers, and stop selling magazines and newspapers all together.  Do this, and the 20% is now down to virtually zero, and us "consumers" didn't do a dam(sic) thing!  Hopefully by then the true "wasters" will be exposed and we can go after them, and the hippie, granola eating, hemp wearing, PETA members can stop shaming us "consumers" into spending all our waking hours jumping through inconsequential environmental hoops.

It’s time to wise up people. Just because something "sounds" good, doesn’t mean it is the answer.  Just because we can actually do something doesn’t mean what we do will have any effectual benefit.  What these silly recycling programs really do is keep us (the public) chasing our tails while the big wasters keep on wasting.

Would you sign a petition banning the use of di-hydrogen-monoxide?  Did you know that this chemical can be found in nearly everything we eat and drink?  Did you know that in sufficient quantity, this chemical can cause death in mere hours?  In fact, thousands of people die every year due to over exposure.  Did you know that this substance has such powerful affect that even a small amount, over time, can destroy almost anything it touches.  Did you know that this substance can, in fact, render paper worthless on contact?  Would you sign such a petition?  I bet you would.  It sure "sounds" like a good idea, doesn’t it?  In fact, when presented with this petition, the average person on the streets of America will sign this petition at a rate of 3 to 1, and if we got enough people to sign this petition, we could put an end to the use of water once and for all.

Water = H2O = di-hydrogen-monoxide.

Oh, I ganja


Comments (2) -

michelie United States
3/15/2007 5:16:41 AM #

Oh that's beeyooteefulll. Absorrootree! But like when you try to tell the Christian believers that Jesus really was just a dude who took some mushrooms and wandered around for many years lost, you're talkin' blasphemy here for the New Religion of Environmentalism. The NRE has followers who will fall into apoplexy if you challenge their core beliefs, just as the Christians do. Just try telling a Christian Jesus boinked Mary Magdalene; just try telling an NRE that recycling, and many environmental policies, are worse than doing nothing. After all, the liberal mantra is "We MUST do SOMETHING!" When, again, doing nothing is frequently really better after all.

michelie United States
4/10/2007 5:16:51 AM #

Must check out new book; Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to your Health!

Comments are closed

Oh, I Ganja

When something becomes clear, we exclaim "Oh, I Ganja!"

Let us question the narratives and seek enlightenment in answers based on logic and reason.

We can all be saved! You just need to know where to turn, and the truth can be yours as well.

Oh, I Ganja!

Tag cloud



<<  February 2024  >>

View posts in large calendar