Before you start filling up the landfills, I think you should research a little more, with care. Penn & Teller's arguments fly in the face of EPA research and an overwhelming majority of objective scientific inquiry. Wikipedia has this to say <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_recycling>:
All published research shows that recycled paper is a lot better for the enviroment, the amount of energy that is required to chop the trees down, then transport them, then woodchip them and then turn them into pulp makes recycled paper a lot more energy efficient and enviromentally friendly. Also, new paper requires the use of extremely polluting chemicals like chlorine which are only required in either small amounts, or often not at all, in paper recycling bleaching.I get the feeling that Penn & Teller cherry picked their evidence against recycling, in favor of their show. I don't think they did this consciously, it's an easy mistake to make. I'm sure their intentions are good, but this is a complex process which requires careful consideration of many variables. I'll watch the Bullshit episode you reference, but I have to say that between their show and massive peer-reviewed scientific research, I'll probably trust the latter.Continually harvesting forests contributes to soil erosion and degradation as the nutrients are continually removed with the trees. This means that farmed forests often require the use of large quantities of artificial fertilizer, the production, transportation and regular application of these is extremely energy intensive and enviromentally damaging.
Not that the recycling issue shouldn't continue to be investigated. There are still a very small percentage of scientists who claim that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant. Those scientists are most probably wrong, but their claims should continue to be investigated, too.
:-j (john of ginohn)