[xmprt]

> I'd take 10x the amount of spam in my mailbox if I could get rid of all of the rest of the garbage I'm bombarded with

I for one would not. Digital spam is easy to deal with. There are automated filters, easy ways to block them, and the few that slip through are simple to deal with. Mailbox spam is physically painful to deal with and it's a massive waste of paper.

[kube-system]

Email is the least of my problems. If you know of any good filters for SMS, phone calls, LinkedIn, Snapchat, Instagram, etc, I'd be very interested. I have to mute all of them because it is a constant stream of garbage from all of them.

[rglullis]

For Snapchat/LinkedIn/Instagram: just close your account and put email filters?

[kube-system]

In that case, the problem is just as easy to solve with snail mail. Remove your mailbox and your mail will be returned as undeliverable.

[xmprt]

You are legally required to be reachable by mail by the US government. Unless you're planning on being an undocumented citizen living on US land off the grid, you will need a mail box.

[metadat]

It is without a doubt a shameful waste, but how is it physically painful? Did you get a paper cut

Personally I find it emotionally painful and depressing to deal with. It sucks to be physically confronted with the reality that my personal contact information is being passed around like a bitch in prison.

[krallja]

Paper is a renewable resource, and also a carbon sink. Throw it in the garbage and consider it carbon sequestration.

[SoftTalker]

Unfortunately I'd bet that the paper production and delivery to your mailbox emits much more carbon than the paper itself sequesters.

[krallja]

Exclude that as a sunk cost: the paper is coming to your mailbox either way. The only difference is, does the carbon get sequestered in the dump, or does it prevent another artificially-fast-growing pine from being processed into paper? Which of those options is less damaging? I don’t have the data, but I feel like it’s probably pretty close.

[seoaeu]

Long term, the paper will decompose while sitting in the landfill and then release the carbon back into the atmosphere. Even temporary sequestration is beneficial, but I don’t know whether it is still a net positive once you factor in the resources spent growing the wood, mailing the paper, and transporting it to a landfill.

[kube-system]

Many landfills in the US capture carbon emissions. My local landfill sells their methane to the local gas utility.

[seoaeu]

Many US landfills capture methane, since they can then profitably sell/burn it. I haven't seen anything about them capturing all the CO2 emitted, which would be much trickier.

[philwelch]

And then people burn the methane in their stove, thus producing CO2.