Using less paper won't do anything because...

The trees are already dead when the paper is made.

Sure, go spread the word around the world that you fully fill up a sheet of paper before moving to the next.

 

Go ahead and tell the paper companies too, but you'll hear the same message:

 

And they will continue on with their happy lives of killing trees and stocking up the shelves in the supplies sections of Walmart. 

Edited December 4, 201212 yr by prowerpower

Supply and demand.

That's like when Vegetarians try to argue that by eating the animal you're killing them. Eat what you want, but don't say I'M killing the animals. lol They're already dead.

If people stop buying as much paper, companies will stop making as much.

Likewise with vegetarians and not eating meat.

Though, you need a considerable amount of people to do both of these things if even the slightest difference is to be made...

 

So I get your point. d:

lol Kinda off topic, but Walmart is such a weird place.

I like paper, it looks so neat and formal when you type something. Likewise, animals are darn tasty. And those are my arguments.

If people stop buying as much paper, companies will stop making as much.

Likewise with vegetarians and not eating meat.

Though, you need a considerable amount of people to do both of these things if even the slightest difference is to be made...

 

So I get your point. d:

That's why people try to spread the word.

If you're using less of it, you're buying less of it. Sure, one person doing it isn't much but if a large enough number of people are making an effort to it, it has the capability of reducing demand by enough to force companies to process a bit less of it.

 

No one person may be enough to make a large impact but if a lot of people aren't acting because they themselves don't think they make a difference, guess what? Nothing's getting done.  A cohesive unit of people (a family, a company, a society, etc.) works only if a large enough chunk of people are actually attempting to achieve objectives.

 

Not doing anything about a problem is just as toxic as being a part of one, in that sense. We might see something as having no significant impact but what good is doing no good?

That's like when Vegetarians try to argue that by eating the animal you're killing them. Eat what you want, but don't say I'M killing the animals. lol They're already dead.

 

 

HOW DARE YOU EAT MEAT YOU ARE KILLING ANIMALS THINK OF THE POOR COWS AND CHICKENS OH MY GOD YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON I CANT BELIEVE IT GO TO HELL -enter sputtering- 

That's like when Vegetarians try to argue that by eating the animal you're killing them. Eat what you want, but don't say I'M killing the animals. lol They're already dead.

Wouldn't vegetarians be the real killers? Since they eat the food for animals.

I draw a lot so I'll use as much dang paper as I want to.

Sorry trees! D:

It's either that or I draw on the computer, which burns electricity. The environment will suffer no matter what I choose.

I draw a lot so I'll use as much dang paper as I want to.

Sorry trees! D:

It's either that or I draw on the computer, which burns electricity. The environment will suffer no matter what I choose.

Same here. I waste about 11 sheets of paper a day drawing.

That's like when Vegetarians try to argue that by eating the animal you're killing them. Eat what you want, but don't say I'M killing the animals. lol They're already dead.

I've heard the arguement that not eating meat means they don't support the slaughtering of animals owo.

Do they actually say stuff like that part in bold?

I've heard the arguement that not eating meat means they don't support the slaughtering of animals owo.

Do they actually say stuff like that part in bold?

 

Well I mean like how vegetarians say "You're murdering animals." No, I'm not. They're dead and I'm eating them.

Can't paper just be made out of dead trees? The bark is still good.