Causal Essay—Mike Middleton

Paper, the Savior to a Clean Atmosphere

The health of the environment is in constant concern among a lot of people. Looking for new ways to improve the quality of the air that we breathe and reducing our society’s carbon footprint that is left behind. Some of the best ways of doing so is by improving the way we impact our environment. One way to do this is by using more paper.

A lot of companies and environmentalists believe that it is important to use less paper and not more because it “..not only saves money, [but] it can also reduce poor practices and inefficiencies..” (Acma, 83) The reason they say it is not environmental is because they look at the process to make it and not the end result. It can’t be argued that making paper doesn’t waste both water and energy; however, it can be proved that using more paper actually aids in improving the quality of the atmosphere. The more paper that is created and used, the more paper that stays in the efficient circle of being recycled and retaining carbon. Even the paper that is not recycled serves as a carbon sink as long as it doesn’t breakdown in landfills.

Carbon is constantly being sequestered from the air by trees in the environment, and even though they are cut down, the paper they are turned into still holds some of it. The more paper that is made from old carbon neutral trees, the more carbon that is effectively removed from the air. Since carbon dioxide is formed by the bonding of a single carbon atom and two atoms of oxygen, there would essentially be more oxygen in the air after the removal of carbon. For example, if there is a single carbon atom and three oxygen atoms, then the two oxygen atoms would form CO2 with the carbon atom. Though there is only one oxygen atom left, you could think of it on a much larger scale where that single oxygen atom contributes to the air you breathe. Now think about how paper retains carbon, say that single carbon atom, leaving 4 oxygen atoms left. 4 times the amount of oxygen thanks to a single paper product. Mike Johnston in his article about oxygen lost due to carbon dioxide explains that “We are losing three oxygen molecules in our atmosphere for each carbon dioxide molecule that is produced when we burn fossil fuels.” Paper can aid in reducing the number of oxygen molecules lost in the formation of carbon dioxide by sequestering the carbon. Even though making paper creates carbon dioxide emissions, the carbon that paper withholds can out weight this amount.

The quantity of carbon produced subtracted by the amount of carbon withheld by the paper product it is turned into can be called the net emission. This number shows how efficient paper actually is at removing carbon versus how much is produced during its creation process. Fortunately, “the ‘net’ CO2 locked up in paper – and especially in paper made from virgin fiber in many cases, is more than enough to compensate for the CO2 emitted during the printing process.” (FOPAP) Since paper actually can actually hold just as much if not more carbon then the amount that is produced from making it, manufacturing more paper positively helps in improving the atmosphere.

Paper is efficient whether it is simply placed in landfills or recycled, thought it is still essential for paper to consistently be recycled because it makes up for a large portion of the materials used to make new paper. In fact as of 2010, the EPA found that recycled paper materials accounts for thirty-three percent of the sources that are used to generate new paper products. This aids in reducing the number of trees that are required to be cut down and manufactured as well as reducing the amount of waste that goes into doing so. So even though “the whole process uses tens of millions of trees per year and generates millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases,” (Acma, 84) it is forgotten that a lot of the trees that are in fact cut down are old and are no longer reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It is also important to remember that even after the process of making paper products, carbon can still be retained.

Our environment’s health is a key issue and as the years continue to go by, more ways to improve how we as humans impact it must be found. Utilizing more paper is one of those ways because it is efficient whether is recycled or not due to its ability to retain carbon.

New Citations

Acma.gov.au. Chapter 6 – Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Easy Steps to Cut out Paper Waste. N.p.: n.p., n.d. ACMA. Web. 9 Apr. 2013. <http://about.sensis.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/SENS0047_Book_ONLINE_v4a-Chpt06.pdf>.

“Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises.” – Blogcritics Sci/Tech. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. <http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/>.

“FOPAP: Why We Should Not Recycle Paper.” FOPAP: Why We Should Not Recycle Paper. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.fopap.org/why_we_should_not_recycle_paper.html>.

Old Citations

“Frequent Questions.” Wastes – Resource Conservation – Common Wastes & Materials – Paper Recycling. US Environmental Protection Agency, 18 01 2013. Web. 2 Apr 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/faqs.htm>.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in A11: Causal Essay, Mike Middleton. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Causal Essay—Mike Middleton

  1. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Mike!
    P1. We need to correct “in constant concern,” the fragment that looks like your second sentence, and “Some of the best ways . . . is.”
    To correct those problems and add some punch to your already nicely-focused introduction, I’d suggest

    The health of the environment is a constant concern. Environmental advocates warn us to limit the harm we do to our atmosphere or die. But we can do more than limit harm; we can actually improve our own air and reduce our society’s carbon footprint. One simple step to reverse global warming and take more carbon from the air is to use more paper.

    All of those ideas are inherent in your own sentences, Mike, but they’re much more dramatic and persuasive when the lines are clearly drawn and you create a class of people—environmental advocates—to respectfully argue with.

    P2. Fails for grammar Rule 3.
    “It can’t be argued that making paper doesn’t waste water”? Are you sure you don’t mean: “Without question, making paper wastes water”?
    Making paper “aids in improving” or “improves”?
    What does this mean, Mike?: The more paper that is created and used, the more paper that stays in the efficient circle of being recycled and retaining carbon. Does it mean: paper traps carbon and retains it as long as it is used, recycled, and reused, until it breaks down in a landfill or is burned.

    P3. “some of it”? That’s surprisingly weak. What happens to the rest of it, and how much is “some”? Persuade me, please, that it retains most of it.

    This is the second “the more that is made, the more that is removed” construction in two paragraphs, Mike. It’s clumsy and shouldn’t be used unless you can’t find an alternative.

    We don’t yet understand how trees can be carbon-neutral, Mike. We think of them as engines of carbon removal and oxygen production. You’ll have to educate us on their neutrality before you can convince us to cut down precious trees. Make them less precious first.

    This paragraph is wandering. First trees were sequestering carbon, then they were carbon neutral. Then they were removing the carbon from CO2 and releasing the O for us. Then you failed for grammar Rule 12 by using the banned 2nd person. Then something . . . trees or paper . . . was retaining carbon. But it has to be the tree first. The paper just holds onto what the tree sequestered first. Then, on a completely new topic, we were losing oxygen by burning fossil fuels. Then back to paper (but forgetting the trees), which gain us back the O by fixing the carbon. Then a sentence to mitigate a concern I didn’t know we had: that the making of paper creates CO2 emissions. How so? And how much, compared to how much good the tree does?

    P4. You’re psychic, Mike! You anticipated my question and came with the answer. That’s very effective timing! But you don’t actually share the number with us, so it might be very small. Please persuade us again. (And then you completely disarm your powerful fact with your “just as much if not more” disclaimer. If it’s “just as much,” there’s no gain. And the “if not more” is a very weak endorsement that there’s any gain at all.)

    P5. Earlier you said paper would release its carbon when it broke down in landfills. Now you say it’s still effecting in landfills.

    A new problem for this reader: If making new paper from carbon neutral trees is so beneficial, why do we want to recycle at all? Shouldn’t we instead be cutting down all the carbon neutral trees we can and replanting new, robust, air-scrubbing trees in their place? So where’s the benefit in “reducing the number of trees” that are cut down?

    Here’s that education about carbon neutral trees I was asking for earlier. Move it forward if you want to avoid “back-filling” your background.

    P6. Platitudes are very common in conclusions, Mike, but they’re not very satisfying for readers. Never stop saying something provocative to the end:

    We’ve been trained for years to respect any proud stand of trees for its benefit to the health of our planet. But while trees have value in the cycle of our atmosphere, surprisingly they do less good the longer they stand. Cutting them all down—and replacing each of them with two more—would do the environment more good than letting them live.

    See what I mean?
    Graded provisionally; revise to improve your grade.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s