Video evidence shows that recycling hurts the environment, and landfills help the environment

Below are two videos.

The first video shows that much of the recycled garbage from rich countries (the U.K. in this case) gets sent to poor countries, where it just sits there on the ground without any covering or protection, getting blown around, and often ending up in rivers and ultimately the ocean.

The second video shows a landfill in a rich country (New York in this case). The landfill is well sealed and covered, and is now a park with grass, trees, plants, and animals.

Recycling is a scam. It makes people feel good, but it actually hurts the environment instead of helping it. The environment would be a lot better off if we stopped recycling, and put our garbage into landfills. The proof is in the videos.

July 2, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

I just found out that recycling hurts the environment even more than I had thought

Ever since I read this 1996 New York Times article called “Recycling Is Garbage,” I’ve known that government recycling of plastic, paper, and glass wastes more resources than it saves, and that the environment would actually be better off if we put these things into landfills instead of recycling them.

Over the next 1,000 years, all of the garbage in the entire United States could fit into one landfill that was 100 yards deep, on a piece of square land which was just 35 miles on each side. Today’s modern landfills are well sealed, and when they are full, they get turned into parks. I live in Pennsylvania, which is the United State’s #1 garbage importing state. We keep approving new landfills, because we love the jobs and tax revenue that it gives us.

Well now we have this brand new article from the Guardian, which shows that our recycling hurts the environment even more than I had thought. It says that a lot of the plastic that we put into recycling bins gets sent to poor countries in Asia. Much of this plastic cannot actually be recycled, either because it’s contaminated with food debris, or it’s the wrong kind of plastic. These poor Asian countries mismanage much of their garbage, and much of this plastic ends up in the ocean. This other article, from the New York Post, says that 90% of the plastic in the ocean comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia, and two of which are in Africa. So much of the plastic that we recycle actually ends up in the ocean.

If the goal is to virtue signal, then by all means, we should continue to recycle our garbage. But if the goal is to protect the environment, we should put it into landfills.

June 17, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. 1 comment.

San Francisco bans plastic straws, allegedly to reduce pollution, but gives more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year, which is a dangerous pollution problem

The government of San Francisco has banned plastic straws, allegedly in the name of reducing pollution.

Meanwhile, the same San Francisco government gives more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year.

The alleged reason for the city banning straws is that they end up in the ocean.

However, this ban ignores these four facts:

1) The real issue is littering, not straws. If people put their straws in a proper waste disposal unit, they won’t end up in the ocean.

2) Plastic straws make up only 0.02% of the plastic waste in the ocean.

3) 90% of the plastic in the oceans comes from just 10 rivers – eight in Asia, and two in Africa.

4) People with disabilities need plastic straws. Before plastic straws were invented, people with disabilities aspirated liquid in their lungs, developed pneumonia, and died.

There is no evidence to show that the plastic straws used in San Francisco have ever been a threat to the environment. San Francisco’s ban on plastic straws is nothing more than a form of virtue signaling. It won’t do anything to help the environment.

Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence to show that the more than four million free needles that San Francisco gives away every year are a threat.

The San Francisco affiliate of NBC News reported that there was an abundance of used illegal drug needles on the sidewalks of San Francsiso, even on the sidewalks that are used by preschool students. The mother of a three-year-old girl told NBC that she “often” had to pull her daughter away to prevent her from stepping on needles (as well as human poop) that were on the sidewalk.

KTVU reported that a second grade teacher taught her students not to touch the needles they see on the ground.

Dr. Lee Riley, an infectious disease expert at UC Berkeley, said of San Francisco’s needle problem:

“If you do get stuck with these disposed needles you can get HIV, Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B, and a variety of other viral diseases”

Regarding the needles (as well as the human poop) on the sidewalks in San Francisco, Dr. Riley said:

“The contamination is… much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India”

On a global scale, the environmental Kuznets curve shows that richer cities tend to be much cleaner than poorer cities. The fact that San Francisco goes in the opposite direction of this trend is highly unusual.

Business Insider reported that at Starbucks locations all over the country (not just in San Francisco), employees who clean the bathroom have repeatedly expressed concerns after seeing drug needles in the trash and on the floor. Some employees have been accidentally stabbed with drug needles that were hidden in trash bags, and had to go to the doctor so they could take antiviral medications to protect themselves from the HIV and hepatitis viruses that might have been in the needles.

Clearly, the free needles that San Francisco gives to illegal drug addicts are a substantial safety risk to innocent, law abiding restaurant employees who are just trying to earn a living.

This problem would still exist even if the San Francisco government was not giving away free needles. But giving away more than four million free needles every year certainly makes the problem much worse than it would otherwise be.

Although every free needle comes with a plastic safety cap that can be used to cover up the dangerous tip of the needle, many illegal drug addicts toss these caps aside instead of putting them back on the tip of the needle.

Drug needles were cited as one of the reasons for the recent cancellation of a previously recurring medical convention which, in the past, had brought 15,000 conference attendees and $40 million worth of business to San Francisco during each previous event.

The needle problem is so bad that the San Francisco government recently hired ten new employees whose sole responsibility is to clean up these needles from the sidewalks and streets.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that the plastic straws used by the people of San Francisco are a threat.

And yet, San Francisco has banned plastic straws, while giving away more than four million free needles to illegal drug addicts every year.

January 12, 2019. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

World Health Organization: United States among least polluting nations on the planet

WHO: United States Among Least Polluting Nations on the Planet

June 5, 2017

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

In the most recent WHO report on air pollution, the United States was listed as one of the countries with the cleanest air in the world, significantly cleaner in fact than the air in Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the UK, Japan, Austria and France.

While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7.

Following standard practice, the WHO measures air pollution by the mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter. These are the particles that cause diseases of all sorts and are responsible for most deaths by air pollution.

According to the WHO, exposure to particulate matter increases the risk of acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.

The report, which analyzed the “annual median concentration of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5) for both urban population and rural and urban population” found that the United States was one of the most pollution-free nations in the world.

The annual mean concentrations of particulate matter in the air range from less than 10 to over 100 µg/m3, the report states. At the very low end of the spectrum, the United States has a concentration of just 8, while China has a concentration more than seven times higher at 59, India at 66, Egypt at 101 and Saudi Arabia with the worst air pollution at 127.

“The mean annual concentration of fine suspended particles of less than 2.5 microns in diameter is a common measure of air pollution,” the WHO states.

The WHO report is corroborated by a series of other such studies on air and water pollution.

In a recent list of the 25 cleanest cities in the world, the only country to boast three cities among the cleanest on the planet was the United States of America, with Chicago coming in second place, Honolulu coming in fourth, and Portland, OR, coming in sixteenth. Unsurprisingly, no cities from China, Russia or India made the list at all.

Similarly, another list of the 15 most polluted cities in the world featured three cities from China, three cities from Saudi Arabia, and a whopping seven cities from India. No U.S. city made the list.

A third list, ranking the ten cleanest and ten most polluted cities in the world, placed two U.S. cities on the list of cleanest cities on the planet. The list of the most polluted cities in the world was led by two cities from China followed by two more cities from India. Two Russian cities also made the list. Again, no U.S. cities were found here.

With such relatively clean air throughout America, how can even reputable news agencies like Reuters continue spreading the well-worn lie that the United States is one of the “biggest polluters” in the world?

Rather than follow the time-tested practice used by the World Health Organization, which measures levels of disease-causing pollutants that get into people’s lungs, some have played a shell game, swapping a new measure of “pollution” based solely on emissions of carbon dioxide.

The problem with this ploy is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is dishonest to say it is. CO2 is colorless, odorless and completely non-toxic. Plants depend on it to live and grow, and human beings draw some into their lungs with every breath they take to no ill effect whatsoever.

Growers regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, greener, healthier plants.

Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

Some experts, such as UN climate scientist Dr. Indur Goklany, have defended rising CO2 levels as a good thing for humanity. Goklany has argued that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.”

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said.

While the United States must remain vigilant to keep the level of real, dangerous pollutants to a minimum, it may take some consolation in the fact that among G7 nations, it has the cleanest air of all.

June 5, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Environmentalism. Leave a comment.

Why not replace the corporate income tax with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions?

I support a revenue-neutral carbon tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Start the tax at a low amount (perhaps $5 per ton), and then increase it by some small amount every year (perhaps $2 per ton). And use that tax revenue to lower other taxes by an equal amount. I dare Democrats to push for such a policy.

And in order to get Republicans to go along with it, the tax that gets lowered could be the corporate income tax. We could eventually repeal the entire corporate income tax, and replace it with a carbon dioxide tax.

If Democrats are truly against global warming, and if Republicans are truly against the corporate income tax, then what possible objections could they have to this proposal?


December 21, 2015. Tags: , , , , , , , . Economics, Environmentalism. 8 comments.