[pbhjpbhj]

From http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0808BO...

>The average 2006 disposable nappy would result in a global warming impact of approximately 550kg of carbon dioxide equivalents used over the two and a half years a child is typically in nappies. The global warming impact from disposable nappies use has decreased since the previous study due to manufacturing changes and a 13.5 per cent reduction in the weight of nappies.

and then for cloth nappies

>For reusable nappies, the baseline scenario based on average washer and drier use produced a global warming impact of approximately 570kg of carbon dioxide equivalents. However, the study showed that the impacts for reusable nappies are highly dependent on the way they are laundered. Washing the nappies in fuller loads or line-drying them outdoors all the time (ignoring UK climatic conditions for the purposes of illustration) was found to reduce this figure by 16 per cent. Combining three of the beneficial scenarios (washing nappies in a fuller load, outdoor line drying all of the time, and reusing nappies on a second child) would lower the global warming impact by 40 per cent from the baseline scenario, or some 200kg of carbon dioxide equivalents over the two and a half years, equal to driving a car approximately 1,000 km.

FWIW we buy compostable disposables to limit landfill impact (contrary to another comment landfill area is not infinite) and bought our "real" nappies on ebay and have then reused them. We don't tumble dry nappies (UK) and practice what's considered early potty training which reduces cleaning requirements¹.

---

¹Clearly reducing nappy changing as much as possible and reducing the period of nappy wearing has a great impact.

[ars]

Why focus just on global warming? Water shortage is a far far far larger problem. I know it's not you, but this obsession with global warming is horrible. There are far worse problems.

And landfill space is infinite. The earth is enormous. There are just political objections to landfills so they keep them in short supply. For example you could fill old coal mines with landfill and never run out of space. You could undo mountaintop removal by filling it with dilute garbage, then a deep layer of topsoil.

There really is an infinite amount of space - we can't make more garbage than there is matter on the earth. So whatever material we make, we automatically have room to bury it.

[pbhjpbhj]

The linked analysis is really good and considers water usage. Water is also used to create disposable nappies as well as irrigating cotton plantations.

>And landfill space is infinite. The earth is enormous.

Landfill pollutes, run-off kills wildlife and poisons water supplies. Methane produced, as well as other decomposition gases (eg mercury bearing or radioactive gases) makes close habitation a problem. Of course methane is currently related to adverse global climate change and landfill is one (if not the?) largest source of human-produced methane.

Topsoil is certainly not limitless either, good topsoil is costly; it takes time and a proper mix of organic matter to make. You can hide your non-degradable plastics and heavy metal contaminant laced electronics under as big a heap of topsoil as you like, they're not going to magically turn into soil nutrients.

[ars]

There are no mercury or radioactive gases from a landfill. Cattle is a larger source of methane. And there a LOT of it released naturally, human sources are very small in comparison.

And none of the other things you mentioned prevent making landfills. Every landfill has those problem. People talk as if we are going to run out of space - we aren't.

Use the exact same methods we use now to make a few extra landfills. They aren't even that expensive.

Of all the things you can do to help the environment, not filling landfills is the least effective.