4 ms·

There's a reason that "recycle" comes last in the "reduce, reuse, recycle" catchphrase. There's a frightening amount of food, for example, that could simply not

by ranko 11y ago

There's a reason that "recycle" comes last in the "reduce, reuse, recycle" catchphrase. There's a frightening amount of food, for example, that could simply not be wasted at all.

cmrx64 11y ago
Came here to drop this comment -- it's so often ignored!
logfromblammo 11y ago
There needs to be another word in that mantra: "repair".
- pkaye 11y ago
  Except that repair costs be too much in many cases (ie the replacement part or the labor cost) that it is cheaper to buy a new product for just a little more.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Which ignores the waste disposal externality and alternative uses of the resources used for replacement. The whole point of the slogan is to address the fact that being wasteful has costs that you don't see up front. Besides that, the manufacturer has an intrinsic incentive to encourage people to throw away something only 1% broken to buy a 100% new replacement. Do you think Apple must glue the batteries inside the unopenable iPhone case, when other manufacturers have user-replaceable battery packs?
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      > Which ignores the waste disposal externality and alternative uses of the resources used for replacement. The whole point of the slogan is to address the fact that being wasteful has costs that you don't see up front. It is a rare person who will pay >100% to repair a broken device rather than pay 100% to replace it with a newer, possibly superior product in order to avoid the (more or less abstract in our minds, despite being very real) cost of all the externalities of that decision.
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
        It usually manifests as a person who will pay more up front for something with a lower total cost of ownership. For example, Person A buys a new phone for $500 every 2 years. Person B buys a new phone for $525, and spends only $75 to replace the battery for a 3rd year. After 6 years, Person A spent $1500, and Person B spent $1200. Person B preferred to buy a phone that was more expensive up front, but cheaper to repair later. But the other side of the equation is that the company selling to Person A makes more money by diminishing repairability. Person B is furious that Person A even exists, because the producers would always prefer to sell to the person willing to pay a higher price.
- burkemw3 11y ago
  repair falls into reuse in my mental model
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    I always felt that reuse was finding another distinct purpose for an item after its original purpose had been fulfilled. For instance, cutting up old milk jugs as scoops or as root-watering funnels would be a re-use, whereas washing out the plastic jug to hold water instead of milk would be a repair. Scuttling an old naval ship as an artificial reef would be a re-use. Permanently mooring it and opening it for museum tours would be re-use. Stripping it of war materiel and refitting for use as a passenger ship would be re-use. Replacing the obsolete artillery guns with modernized radars and air/missile defense systems and replacing all worn or corroded parts would be a repair. As such, I would put "repair" before "reduce". If you spend 120% on resources at construction time to also build repair parts, that item might last 50 years under repair instead of being reduced to 90% of normal resources and then reused after only 20 years. I have to assume that when something is reused, that it is simultaneously being replaced in its original purpose, which implies additional use of resources.
nofinator 11y ago
But that's the thing: I don't think most people realize that the phrase is a hierarchy. They just think it's a flat list of things you can do. At least that's how I was taught and other places (like the EPA website) imply.
- jerrysievert 11y ago
  and slightly worse, in the 80's and 90's - the song went, "recycle, reduce, reuse", which for me solidified the order.
progrocks9 11y ago
Yes, for example this startup is doing something interesting in latam. http://algramo.com/en/ http://algramo.com/en/
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
Some companies refuse to give away or discount for items because then people will spend less on food (with that supplier). Similarly dated electronics doesn't get given away but gets disposed of because otherwise people could avoid buying new items. Make things have long warranties and companies will introduce party's that wear, blame the customer, and then be sure those parts aren't available anymore. To do this properly we need to transition away from capitalism; but the most powerful capitalists are the ones with the power to force the transition.
- majewsky 11y ago
  There's legislation happening to avoid that, for example http://time.com/4146012/france-food-waste-law/ http://time.com/4146012/france-food-waste-law/ > Officials in the French Parliament voted unanimously to put an end to food waste by forcing large grocery stores to donate unsold food.
tomjen3 11y ago
True, for a start they have to through out all food at the end of the day where I work (we get free food for lunch), rather than save any of it for the next day (even if it would have been perfectly fine). That is most of the food waste, but not the part that is mostly visible, which can't really be avoided, because few people have chickens to feed it to.

by ranko 11y ago

There's a reason that "recycle" comes last in the "reduce, reuse, recycle" catchphrase. There's a frightening amount of food, for example, that could simply not be wasted at all.

cmrx64 11y ago

Came here to drop this comment -- it's so often ignored!

logfromblammo 11y ago

There needs to be another word in that mantra: "repair".

pkaye 11y ago
Except that repair costs be too much in many cases (ie the replacement part or the labor cost) that it is cheaper to buy a new product for just a little more.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Which ignores the waste disposal externality and alternative uses of the resources used for replacement. The whole point of the slogan is to address the fact that being wasteful has costs that you don't see up front. Besides that, the manufacturer has an intrinsic incentive to encourage people to throw away something only 1% broken to buy a 100% new replacement. Do you think Apple must glue the batteries inside the unopenable iPhone case, when other manufacturers have user-replaceable battery packs?
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    > Which ignores the waste disposal externality and alternative uses of the resources used for replacement. The whole point of the slogan is to address the fact that being wasteful has costs that you don't see up front. It is a rare person who will pay >100% to repair a broken device rather than pay 100% to replace it with a newer, possibly superior product in order to avoid the (more or less abstract in our minds, despite being very real) cost of all the externalities of that decision.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      It usually manifests as a person who will pay more up front for something with a lower total cost of ownership. For example, Person A buys a new phone for $500 every 2 years. Person B buys a new phone for $525, and spends only $75 to replace the battery for a 3rd year. After 6 years, Person A spent $1500, and Person B spent $1200. Person B preferred to buy a phone that was more expensive up front, but cheaper to repair later. But the other side of the equation is that the company selling to Person A makes more money by diminishing repairability. Person B is furious that Person A even exists, because the producers would always prefer to sell to the person willing to pay a higher price.
burkemw3 11y ago
repair falls into reuse in my mental model
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  I always felt that reuse was finding another distinct purpose for an item after its original purpose had been fulfilled. For instance, cutting up old milk jugs as scoops or as root-watering funnels would be a re-use, whereas washing out the plastic jug to hold water instead of milk would be a repair. Scuttling an old naval ship as an artificial reef would be a re-use. Permanently mooring it and opening it for museum tours would be re-use. Stripping it of war materiel and refitting for use as a passenger ship would be re-use. Replacing the obsolete artillery guns with modernized radars and air/missile defense systems and replacing all worn or corroded parts would be a repair. As such, I would put "repair" before "reduce". If you spend 120% on resources at construction time to also build repair parts, that item might last 50 years under repair instead of being reduced to 90% of normal resources and then reused after only 20 years. I have to assume that when something is reused, that it is simultaneously being replaced in its original purpose, which implies additional use of resources.

nofinator 11y ago

But that's the thing: I don't think most people realize that the phrase is a hierarchy. They just think it's a flat list of things you can do. At least that's how I was taught and other places (like the EPA website) imply.

jerrysievert 11y ago
and slightly worse, in the 80's and 90's - the song went, "recycle, reduce, reuse", which for me solidified the order.

progrocks9 11y ago

Yes, for example this startup is doing something interesting in latam. http://algramo.com/en/ http://algramo.com/en/

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

Some companies refuse to give away or discount for items because then people will spend less on food (with that supplier). Similarly dated electronics doesn't get given away but gets disposed of because otherwise people could avoid buying new items. Make things have long warranties and companies will introduce party's that wear, blame the customer, and then be sure those parts aren't available anymore. To do this properly we need to transition away from capitalism; but the most powerful capitalists are the ones with the power to force the transition.

majewsky 11y ago
There's legislation happening to avoid that, for example http://time.com/4146012/france-food-waste-law/ http://time.com/4146012/france-food-waste-law/ > Officials in the French Parliament voted unanimously to put an end to food waste by forcing large grocery stores to donate unsold food.

tomjen3 11y ago

True, for a start they have to through out all food at the end of the day where I work (we get free food for lunch), rather than save any of it for the next day (even if it would have been perfectly fine). That is most of the food waste, but not the part that is mostly visible, which can't really be avoided, because few people have chickens to feed it to.