Stupid idea of mine: can we start burying our paper rather than recyling it? It means every sheet of paper requires cutting down more trees, and hence putting more trees (indirectly) into the ground. If you then re-plant those trees you capture more carbon.
I presume the paper doesn't add enough to create soil and just rots.
>But paper is pretty effectively recycled and trees aren't the only input - transport, water, and heat at the plant.
Exactly.
Moreover 1ha of Arundo produces 20-50t or more dry mass per year packed in 100mx100m area. Granted, not harvested at 0% humidity, less dense than paper. Collecting 50t of recycled paper from the containers in the city probably needs more energy for transport.
This is actually the logic for just burying plastic: it doesn't degrade on any important timescale. Acts as a carbon sink, and keeps it out of everything. Winning all around.
Not if you got the plastic using fossil fuels and extra energy. Which is the case for most of the non-degradable plastic.
Add to it that we are nowhere close to replace various types of plastics with materials obtained from non-fossil fuels.
I presume the paper doesn't add enough to create soil and just rots.