The End Of The Cloth Vs. Disposables: Which Is Worse For The Environment?

[hidden]

The winner? Neither is worse for the environment than the other.

Sorry for the poor quality.

[DailyDi]

Good post!

[KittenAB]

o.O Where'd the pics go?

[hidden]

o.O Where'd the pics go?

*shifty eyes*

[KittenAB]

Ack! So huge!

Cool find though, thanks.

[LuvsGurl]

Nice find!

I've been saying for years that neither are better from an environmental standpoint.

Disposables consume petroleum products during manufacturing and take forever to break down in landfills. Cloth diapers use large amounts of power, water and chemicals in the cleaning process. So really, the environment loses either way.

Of course, using the toilet isn't exactly "environmentally friendly" either. All that waste has to be transported, processed, etc. Think of how many trees we cut down each year for TP alone!

The only real "natural" course... do your business in the woods and wipe with leaves.

[happyindprs]

The only reason diapers and other things takes so long to break down is because modern landfills are practically air tight. It's not the fact that they are disposable diapers, heck even a hot dog dug up from fives years ago still looks like a hot dog.

[KittenAB]

Nice find!

I've been saying for years that neither are better from an environmental standpoint.

Disposables consume petroleum products during manufacturing and take forever to break down in landfills. Cloth diapers use large amounts of power, water and chemicals in the cleaning process. So really, the environment loses either way.

Of course, using the toilet isn't exactly "environmentally friendly" either. All that waste has to be transported, processed, etc. Think of how many trees we cut down each year for TP alone!

The only real "natural" course... do your business in the woods and wipe with leaves.

To be fair, there are tree farms for the TP. But otherwise, most of the damage done is by those of us who need it, not those of you who just enjoy it. So it's just another of those "if there were fewer humans, then it wouldn't even be noticeable" things.

[square_duck]

But DON'T use THESE leaves!!

[hidden]

But DON'T use THESE leaves!!

Uh oh...

[diaperedandloving]

Leaves of three, leave them be, or your behind will be....

[BabyKB1103]

Leaves of three, leave them be, or your behind will be....

Berries white; poisonous sight!!! from several of the older BSA handbooks...

[RMS401]

For those interested in the entire article, you can read it here.

-RMS

[Diapered Jason]

The only reason diapers and other things takes so long to break down is because modern landfills are practically air tight. It's not the fact that they are disposable diapers, heck even a hot dog dug up from fives years ago still looks like a hot dog.

Agreed, or at least that was the case until they started using bioreactor landfills recently.

I think this thread leads us back to the original idea which is "What kind of diaper feels better to you?"

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Well, disposables will do two things:

1 Use materials, mostly petro-chemicals coal and whatever they are mate of in a one time use (which is also a good reason to take these same things out of the fuel end of energy production if feasible and there is a big enough marker for them in plastics, medicine and other commodities so that the money is still good). Cloth diapers were used over and over again as were rubber panties. usually for two kids then given away for two more rounds and finally the diapers were used for rags and the panties were given to little girls for their dollies. The ones that were put on me in 1948 and on my sister in 1950 showed up with my cousin's doll in 1954.

2 Accumulate. From birth to potty training I understand that the average diaper use if 5500 units. That is 5500 units out the door after one use and into some kind of storage. Compare that with the use of cloth diapers and rubber pantis for the same time period, maybe about 5 dozen and a dozen and a half respectively through 2 to 4 infant cycles (which for disposables would be 5500 x 3 at a minimum or 15,500). Folks; that is quite a bit of space But also, that is just part of the story. We used to burn most of the trash or "burn the dump" but then at the time, we could, most trash was cloth or paper and cellophane and some tires and odds and ends materials. Now just look at all the plastics we use in packaging that used to be glass or pape/cardboard. Everything comes in blister packs. the disposible diapers and pollyethylene. If we tried to burn that, the toxic cloud woud be a disaster. Cities tried building incinerators fit to do this but these were not feasible save for the richest municipalities.

Also the throw-away attitude engendered the throw-away society When I was little, our refrigerator had a bin in the bottom like most refrigerators. People used to put paper bags in these bins and get two or three more uses out of them. We save newspapers and used them for packing and to put down if we were doing something messy or if we had a dog. Who remembers the "rag man" Soda bottles were returned to the companies. Bottles and jars were made out of glass and saved. Now we have "recycling" when we used to "use over" the difference being a $50,000,000 federal grant to "make" what nobody wants (If people wanted the products there would be no government coercion in the matter) and the aforementioned government coercion with its "stapo"s of various and sundry (and before you go there. How many government agencies have you dealt with or know or know abut several persons who have dealt with? There is a song by Jimmy Buffet about that). The throw-away society was the product of too much money burning holes in too many pockets. Well, wake up and smell the aurterity, folks. You are going to have to learn to get value for your money

That is pretty much that end of the equation

Another problem with waste disposal, no matter how you do it is NIMBY (I will let you look it up so that you do not accuse me of foisting my definition on you; I thrive when persons think for themselves; beginning with looking up the facts) This created by the liberal media in the 1970's and 80's to oppose energy installations and refineries (dispite the fact that these installations would be miles away from anyone's back yard). Now that has set in the culture which means try to site a landfill (the difference between which and a dump is about 20,000.000 in federal subsidies and high-fallutin'ness) or anything like that anywhere

[Diapered Jason]

I agree with you Christine, landfills are a problem as well as the ever increasing volume of wastes that are produced by us; however we are a victim of economics whether or not you argue against the injection of government policies or really really care about the environment. Recycling is a solution for cutting down on wastes in today's modern society, but requires much more development. Re-using use to be far more effective until everything was created more cheaply. Buying something newer just became cheaper and more desirable than repairing it.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

It became cheaper to outsource for a reason. labor was cheaper and the amount of regulation skyroccketed from 1970

The forst case of outsourcing that I came across whas what I studied in 1960 and was limited to cheap electronics. What it was was that the parts were made here, shipped to Japan and there assembled then shipped back. What threw me was that it could be cheaper to ship two ways. I was sure there was something wrong and still think so. In this case, the "cheap import"s came about when we occupied Japan from 1945-55 and rebuilt their industrial base. But still going on in 1960?!

Usually, when 2+2 doesn't equal 4 then there has to be coercion. Since collusion on any real scale is an illusory goal, since like any conspiracy, keeping everyone in line is tough because someone will always figure that they can do better flying solo by undercuttiong the artificially high market. So there has to be coercion and I know of only one bunch that does that on a large scale

Also most of the plastic stuff that we misuse comes from imports in one form or other but then, try to find something American made today as opposed to 40 years ago The outsorucing was a way to protect the buying public from the cost of regulations that make US production prohibitively expensive. Certainly cardboard/cellophane or paper packaging ought be cheaper than hard plastic (ever try to open those packages?)

One is not a "victim" of economics save in the sense of what one calls down upon oneself and this is also true of a nation The Edsel and Betamax found out the power of the marketplace

[Diapered Jason]

One is not a "victim" of economics save in the sense of what one calls down upon oneself and this is also true of a nation The Edsel and Betamax found out the power of the marketplace

Yes, well it is important to keep in mind that hindsight is always 20/20. No matter which way you look at it or no matter who you blame, it is impossible for the individual consumer to know the implications of every buying decision they make.

Whether we decide cloth or disposable, there will be implications, which was the point of the referenced article.