MrSebSin11 January 2025
lathThankfully, my books are made out of the flesh of my enemies.
Recycling for a cleaner future!
Unsustainable, from the outset it seems like a good idea and it is for one or two books and it still is until you run out of enemies at that point you have no choice but to create more enemies and the average enemy produces 300 metric tons of Co2? It is more energy efficient to not write books or use the Internet and let humanity grow illiterate this will have the unintentional benefit of sending us back to the dark age when we produced less Co2 than most of history.
RustyNovaDon’t worry. Enemies consume pollution to grow and reproduce. More co2 equal more enemies!
!Factorio joke if anyone is wondering!<
Please attach a note so that after you death, nobody accidentally reads it out loud and create an Evil Dead situation thankyouverymuch.
Klaada Baratu Necktie!
If anyone reads anything aloud from a flesh-bound book, they deserve whatever happens to them.
The trees can’t be harmed
If the Lorax is armed
You fuck with the trees
i take out your knees
TheTechnician27If you’re eating beef, you’re doing much more damage to the trees than reading books can ever realistically do.
M137Animal products overall*
Chicken and fish might be an exception (although in the case of the latter, you’re destroying the world’s oceans via depletion and plastic pollution, and in the case of the former, you’re helping incubate what’s probably going to become another worldwide pandemic).
Runoff from chicken abattoirs is incredibly toxic, so it’s not an exception.
But beef is tastier then books.
Paper is a CO2 sink so good for the environment.
It’s a short term one, though. Better to not cut down trees unnecessarily.
Sawmills I knew about rotated areas they’d cut from and did tree planting in the summers in the areas logged to be sustainable. Of course in Canada there’s not much shortage of trees to cut down anyways but I thought that was the usual way in US and Canada. I don’t mean we should be cutting down 1/20th (I’m not sure how many years the rotations were offhand) of the trees each year or anything though.
It’s not about reducing the number of trees. While the tree is alive, it’s sequestering carbon. Once the tree is processed, it’s just a matter of a hundred years or so before most of that carbon is back in the system.
WahotsNot to mention the energy-intensive processes to cut down, transport, and process the trees into paper or paper products like TP.
Prime_Minister_KeyesOne million trees equals two double burgers with cheese
Aaah, the 90s were so optimistic.
Spookey Ruben - Wendy Mcdonald
Are new trees actually cut down for paper? Seems much more practical to use sawdust from sawmills. Is there more paper demand than the amount of dust you’d get from making lumber?
Sawdust is too fine to make paper from, the feedstock to make pulp is wood chips. Some of that will be scrap from lumber mills, but most is grown specifically to be used to make paper
Another thought, if the trees are being grown and harvested sustainably, that’s potentially one of the few economical methods of carbon capture. Make long lasting items with wood to trap carbon for a long time.
Not enough, even if we build all our houses out of wood.
Yeah definitely, it’s just a nice bonus.
A pity no one reads, nowadays.
At least trees are renewable resources. I think most pulp woods are from tree farms rather than old growth forests.