Are paper plates more economical than regular plates?

Are paper plates more economical than regular plates?

Attached: all-for-the-boys-paper-plate-polyhedron-5[1].jpg (1287x858, 73K)

No, but they’re MUCH MUCH less maintenance, and who knows, maybe water from the dishwasher costs more than the paper. Only use real plates for nice meals /guests

Yeah, prob. Wait for a math fag. I say yes.

I use paper plates most of the time so I dont have to clean dishes as much. And they're burnable

>Dishwasher
If you're not hand washing you're literally a fucking brainlet.

Yes, when you factor in the price of running the dishwasher to wash up the glass plates.

You hand wash them and then put them in the dishwasher to kill the germs retard. I’d never touch your infested fucking plates

>You hand wash them and then put them in the dishwasher to kill the germs retard. I’d never touch your infested fucking plates

I'm curious what you think a dishwasher is doing special that your tap isn't doing, other than leaving water spots.

I mean I just hand wash mine. Get a nice little drying rack.

Higher temperatures sanitize the dishes

Just for you I am switching to the polystyrene plates. You know the ones that burn with a nice sooty flame that makes those little soot ribbons in the air. All for you user.

Attached: 114982_C0114515-Arene_combustion-SPL.jpg (480x744, 24K)

>Burning is recycling
Kek youre the retard here

Ik scheit in alle kleuren van de regenboog. Is dat goed voor het milieu?

What, you don't like subsidizing big oil for billions each year?

pics, bitch

Dishwashers cost a few hundred bucks and last for thousands of cycles. Assuming typical energy and water costs for the U.S., they cost less than a dollar per run.

>You water heater needs to be set to 160 or above or you'll get all sorts of fucking diseases from the stagnant water.
Contact with 150 F water for more than a second or two will result in third degree burns. 120 F is a typical hot tap temperature. 140 F is usually the max setting.

Ahh yes, there's no such thing as the carbon cycle.
I forgot. As soon as something burns it magically disappears, but also is pollution, and is bad.
We should stop forest fires. Forest fires are bad for the environment because of the carbon emissions and are the opposite of recycling. Burned wood products are terrible for soil quality and create barren scapes. Can't believe this all slipped my mind. :-)

I use them alot. Mostly because I have moderately expensive place settings I would like to remain in good condition. I typically wont use them for fast food bs or snacks. I also eat off of cedar cutting boards often

Does anyone here seriously think anything they do with recycling is going to offset an enormous fuck off and die coal powered chinese power station?

burning wood is carbon neutral, but we don't want it to be neutral cause it needs to soak up all the carbon from other shit

Yea Forumstards pretending they use plates, since when did pots of instant noodles need plates

>Does anyone here seriously think that not shooting people is going to offset an enormous number of people who do get shot?
The goal is minimization, Einstein, and any net reduction serves that goal. The idea that minimization is pointless if elimination is impossible is obviously stupid when applied to any other harmful activity.

You're half way smart.
Just get the extra half and you'll be enlightened.
The "greenhouse gas effect" isn't understood, and doesn't have any good science behind it. The real way to determine a planets average temperature is to use its distance from the sun and atmospheric pressure.
This works accurately within 1 degree for every solid planet,regardless of atmospheric make up. Venus is hotter than mercury, not because it has an atmosphere of Co2, but because it has an extremely dense atmosphere, while mercury has effectively no atmosphere.
There is literally nothing wrong with Co2, and the release of long term stored Co2 is actually wonderful for the planets ecology. More, bigger, stronger, faster growing, healthier plants, means more bigger stronger faster growing healthier animals. We've got more flora today than we did 100 years ago, we also have more freshwater today than we did 100 years ago.
Do not fall for the scare mongering.

Then kindly kill yourself and stop exhaling CO2, your death will be appreciated by the planet

Burning vegetation is only carbon neutral if growing and harvesting it is carbon neutral. If you burn firewood that was harvested with a gasoline chainsaw and shipped to you in a diesel truck, that is not a carbon neutral activity.

Pack of paper plates at Walmart $2
1 real plate $1

The point of environmentalism is not to save the planet, it's to save the people on it from people like you.

Or opem a wood pellet fuelled power station in England and ship the pellets in from a plant in america where they are produced from virgin forests cut down by chain saws and trucked hundred of miles to be processed. The logic of this one still astounds me

And they deserve saving why? actually all messing with you aside do the majority of people not deserve all the shit they get?

>changing the topic

Wow, I did not know about that. Seems like the logic is to conform to the letter of the law without regard for its purpose. In the U.S. labeling things as "green" is a marketing tactic used to drive consumerism more often than it is an honest effort to do something helpful. Unfortunately, "green" legislation is often the same thing; just a way for somebody to seem like they're helping, rather than an honest effort. Legislation that counts biomass as renewable fuel regardless of whether or not it is produced sustainably is obviously written by someone who is worried about their reelection and not the environment.