Recycling isn't it better to bury carbon carrying items so they are taken out of the carbon cycle?

No, they will decompose. Wouldn't it be better just to use them? Use Wood. Plant your own mixed native woodland on your homestead.

If trees are grown as part of a mixed native woodland and responsibly managed then there is a lot less damage and lots of benefits to the ecosystem; sequestering carbon, providing aerosol for younger trees, storing water and releasing it as necessary, beneficial root associates, habitat for fauna and flora, shelter, shade, etc etc.

Now if we take a yield to meet our own needs and replant native sapling trees, then the ecosystem would recover much quicker, and the woodland would continue for our grandchildren. The new trees would again sequester carbon.

So if we use the timbers from the thinned out trees to make items that will perhaps last hundreds of years like A frames and purlins or cabinet made furniture, the carbon remains sequestered. It is only released if it decomposes or it is burnt, but then only releases back what it sequesters so is carbon neutral.

So by using and storing the carbon in buildings/furniture we can then plant more trees to sequester more carbon.

There is the same amount of carbon on Earth that there has been since it formed. Burying things won't get rid of the carbon, it just temporarily hides it. Don't worry about it, you contribute so little carbon in the scale of things that it is like a drop in the ocean.

Burying carbon would not remove it from the carbon cycle. There is a fixed amount of carbon and it must be somewhere.

Also, nature has a natural system to regulate carbon. The oceans are a carbon "sink" or "reservoir" in the carbon cycle. When more carbon goes into the atmosphere, the oceans soak up more.

In a shorter time-physique, the air that we breathe is recycled between one yet another too. i would not call what you describe reincarnation as this is greater of a non secular factor, while you're speaking a pair of actual factor. yet, what you describe does practice the linked-ness between all issues...previous, modern and destiny. And the comparable recycling that occurs on the community point in the international has been going on interior the universe for billions of years to the quantity that we are created from the fabric that became into solid remote from many exploded stars. Neat stuff to think of roughly.

not a bad point, the trouble with that on any scale is the lack of landfill sites.

A company is now producing a machine which heats up the rubbish, burns tha gas given off to produce electricity and create the heat for gassifying more of the rubbish. ennd results are a tenth(?) of the volume of rubbish and electricity. The exhaust is also thoroughly cleaned and much cleaner than incineration.

Recycling is about two things, energy usage and material shortage. It is usually much less energy intensive to recycle materials (less energy = less electricity and thus less coal burned for electricity). And because oil / aluminium are finite, we recycle to stop them running out.

Carbon capturing sounds like what you're talking about, some have suggested making huge spheres of carbon and just storing them.

by burying them you wouldn't be taking them out of the cycle, they would very slowly biodegrade in the ground. Anyway recycling isn't really done to solve global warming its done to solve the problem of the pollution they cause to the ground and the lack of space to bury everything. Plus by recycling things you get rid of the pollution caused by creating that thing from scratch.

For the next 20 years or so until it starts poisoning the earth

Isn't carbon the one element which is in pretty much everything on earth?

There are benifits to it, but a lot of it is - tosh, and picled up on by business / councils etc to save money.

A lot of collected plactics end up in landfil anyway as they are contaminated.