[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.