• MotoAsh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    You had me until all that utterly stupid tripe about something not sitting in a landfill having an increasing carbon footprint… That is … just SO fucking dumb.

    A knickknack sitting on someones’ shelf is ABSOLUTELY NOT “increasing its carbon footprint”. The thing has already been created. The carbon footprint has long since been established, and it’s BETTER to rot on a shelf as a knickknack than literally rotting in a landfill.

    This is not a defense of the horrible practices of creating all the junk in the first place, just pushing back against the moronic hate on recycling.

    • Sentrovasi@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The point they are making is if it ends up in a landfill anyway, then you’ve wasted more energy/resources recycling it.

      If it stays on your shelf, that’s not what they’re talking about.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It’s in quotes because the “carbon footprint” is a bs metric to begin with.

      The point is that spending energy on something that won’t be used to do something useful, is spending energy on nothing, and therefore a waste of energy.

      It would have been better to send the material into a landfill sooner, because delaying it just cost more resources for no benefit.