1973-2003 national geographic magazines wat do with? im thinking

> same years "mother earth"

Crumple them up, douse yourself in gas, light yourself on fire and hold your breath

File: 947.jpg (48KB, 580x434px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 580x434px

>>631745
reminds me of a song...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyh5v_GizaY

File: TriangleU%20(3).jpg (129KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1600x1200px

Bury them, sequestering the carbon content and making the world a better place

>>631779
I told someone we should bury plastic instead of recycling it, forcing us to use more petroleum to make plastic instead of burning it, meaning that when we run low on oil there will be a higher % put back into the ground instead of in the atmosphere.

She seemed very confused. Am I mad for thinking this way?

Also OP why not just keep them? My grandparents have the same but from the early 60s, and I still check them out when I come over.

I should say just grandad now though.

File: brassica.jpg (159KB, 504x648px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 504x648px

>>631795
> b i crazy?
No, it's simple economics. Anything with high carbon content and low intrinsic value should be deeply buried. sequestering is done deal and price of oil will be pushed upwards. this causes people to make smarter choices. like not buying oversized monster vehicles

>>631795
>Am I mad for thinking this way?
No , just ignorant. A barrel of oil does not make gas, or diesel or propane or plastic.
It makes all these things at once. You put it in a fractionating column and it is separated into these components.

>>631734
I vote for donating to a school in hopes that it inspires more young people to spend time /out/side

>>631734
Op I've got a big box of Mother Earth News also.

Far to useful info to toss bury or burn!

For all the Get Back to Nature/sustainable living/ I wanna build a cabin fags on here, I'm suprised to see such recommendations! MEN from the late '70's and '80's was when it was really a thing.

Strip them down, scan to PDF and restitch in Adobe.

Zero carbon, weight or bulk solution!

> you fags should read a few years in back issues, you wouldn't appear so ignorant

>>631861
>zero carbon

I love faggots like you. Keep on sacrificing so I can use your share. But I really don't get you types anyway, you claim to care about the environment but support the transformation into a third world nation of brown people, none of whom care about the environment

>>631877
> assuming

I really don't care about the carbon content of q fucking box of magazines, but mention it for the faggots you describe, but without being a total asshole about it.

...unlike like you.

>>631734
Use them as asswipes/firestarter when you are /out/.

>>631880
>hey guise I care about the planet
>hey guise I'm recycling these bottles
>first I will wash them with pristine drinking water
>place them in Neiman Marcus limited edition hipster recycling bag (155% recycled smugness)
>drive Hummer down to whole foods to save planet
>throw glass in cardboard bin
>post pic on facejew with French flag motif
>celebrate with a Biolite stove I've been eyeballing

>>631734
Not one person has responded in the proper way:

Save 'em for the titties.

If don't want titties, donate to local Boy Scout troop so they too can experience titties inna woods.

>>631920
>donate to local Boy Scout troop
I like this idea but youth today would never put up with sagging third world tay tays like we did.
OP should cut up old playboy mags and paste the firm white boobies over the sagging brown ones.
This would be a great service to the young scouts.

>>631779
anon, plants could use that carbon

>>631920
>Save 'em for the titties
4chan never disappoints

>>631938
> fucking morane

Plants want Brawndo.

Scan em, put em on the /out/ wiki and piratebay

File: sulforaphrane.jpg (66KB, 440x423px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 440x423px

>>631938
>plants Carbon
plants can get all the carbon they need from atmospheric CO2. that's the point of sequestration

>>632216
As if that made up dot jpg proves anything!

Sequestration won't do shit.

It's just junk science poor people want to believe in and rich people can make money off of!

>>632219
maybe you're thinking of those phoney "carbon credits" that Al Gore types buy to feel better about themselves. sequestration is a natural process, anytime go out inawoodz: trees are sucking CO2 from the air and depositing cellulose on the floor. Digging a hole and throwing worthless mags into it isn't making anybody rich.

that jpeg doesn't prove anything, but it could save somebody's life.

>>631938
No fungi and other decomposers, the co2 they respire into the atmosphere is what plants crave.

>>631880

you didnt address the immigration point

>>631734
I can buy them off you but I am in Dubai so we will have to work out the shipping processes

>>631734
Donate them to some art school for collages. Schools, and libraries really don't want these. They get them often. Receiving them means storing them, and them sitting on a shelf for another 20 years. I used to enjoy them to cut them up.

>>632185
My vote is for this.

>>632185
>>632607
You fucking ignorant savages, you're STEALING MY >>631861 IDEA!

It was MY IDEA FIRST!

I WANT ANONYMOUS INTERNET CREDITS!

RRRRRREEEEÉEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUVmcKcTZ4A

File: waste_hierarchy.png (164KB, 1411x993px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1411x993px

>>631844
It depends on the plastic and your location what the best way to handle plastic is. Certain plastics can be reused/recycled pretty efficiently, while others are good for nothing but incineration.

Also, how does burying waste cause people make smarter choices? No matter how it is disposed, most people will remain ignorant, unless you're proposing that they have to dig the hole themselves.