5 ms·

Recycling is Bullshit; Make Nov. 15 Zero Waste Day, not America Recycles Day

18 points by monkeygrinder 17y ago

lionhearted 17y ago
Waffling on whether to flag this one - the charts and some of the facts are rather interesting, the political handwaving not so much. Edit: Made that comment when I was only two-thirds of the way through. The conclusion is very poorly thought out: > Let's demand returnable bottles and deposits on everything Let's refrain from conscripting people who don't agree with the author's stance: The author can patronize companies like Starbucks and Whole Foods that encourage bringing your own mug or shopping bag and give discounts for that, meanwhile we avoid adding bureaucracy and hassle to people who make the choice to go for a disposable cup or bag. The facts of the article are somewhat interesting, the political side not so much.
JoeAltmaier 17y ago
Economic arguments, not "green" ones. Mostly about who pays for recycling. Reminds me of passengers on the Titanic arguing about who will sit in front of the lifeboat and who in the rear.
- steamer25 17y ago
  I believe economics largely obviates environmentalism. To the degree people value clean water, clear air and all things green (even a mild climate), a good economy will provide them. There are exceptional cases of, "you poured your motor oil on my lawn" but I'm not as concerned as many are about systemic environmental problems. Systemic economic problems do concern me so I found the article interesting. My theory is that if all of the recyclable resources are so scarce, why don't they pay me for it instead of taxing me? Or why is isn't landfilling more cost prohibitive if that space is so scarce?
  - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
    More economic arguments? Try this: you are on a spaceship heading to another star, help is years away. The air and water recycling systems are fragile and need maintenance. All the passengers are arguing about who pays for it, all the while the air is growing stale and the water tastes funny. I imagine they would sound a little like your post above.
    - steamer25 17y ago
      Sounds like our priorities are less about getting to that distant star than finding additional resources or efficiencies. Whoever's had the best track record with improving/maintaining the systems so far is getting the bulk of my attention/help.
      - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
        I guess my point was, some things must be done even if not economical.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    One word answer from economics: externalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
    - steamer25 17y ago
      Agreed. Economic systems that lend themselves to negative externalities do concern me.
MikeCapone 17y ago
Recycling is bullshit only if you don't also try to reduce waste as much as possible in the first place. If you use recycling as an excuse to generate lots of unnecessary waste (disposable everything), then it can nullify a big part of the positive effects in the first place.
- araneae 17y ago
  Recycling is bullshit even if you do try to reduce waste as much as possible. (In fact, there's a TV show called Bullshit that did an episode on recycling.) Not all of it, but enough of it to be pretty heartbreaking. Recycling metals makes a lot of sense, because mining is energetically costly. Recycling glass does too, because there's a lot of refining that goes into getting glass into a usable form. And both of these are easily separated from the junk they come in with. Plastics, on the other hand, are a total nightmare. There are so many different types of plastics, some of them are completely unrecyclable, and people are usually too lazy or ignorant to sort correctly. What it means is that a ton of energy and pollutants are devoted to separating them from each other. Some calculations say that more energy is involved in recycling plastics (incl. transport, etc.) than to make them from scratch from crude oil. Paper I'm still up in the air on. The end product isn't great, which reduces its viability. Plus, the vast majority of trees used in paper production are from tree farms. I don't know much about the rest of it.
  - warfangle 17y ago
    Even metal is very difficult to recycle, especially cars - it's often very difficult to separate the non-recyclable materials from the recyclable materials. Cradle to Cradle (McDonough) addresses these concerns. The book is printed with a hot-water soluble ink on infinitely recyclable plastic. Most recycled plastic bottles end up in carpet, which cannot be recycled again - and is thrown out. Paper I wouldn't be so concerned about if we used something a little more environmentally friendly to farm and process - like hemp (the processing step for tree-paper contains many noxious chemicals that are unnecessary in processing hemp for paper).
igrekel 17y ago
Wow... I am surprised refillable beer bottles are so rare in the US. You drink that much of your beer from aluminum cans? Sounds strange because for me, beer in cans is just for camping... and even...
- tvon 17y ago
  If those charts are accurate, then bottled beer does not count as "refillable", or at least I don't see how it could.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    I'm assuming refillable means growlers and the like. Anecdotal, but with the spread of microbreweries over the last 10-20 years, the number of beer drinkers I know buying theirs that way has greatly increased. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a beer nut (and brewer) though.
  - thirdusername 17y ago
    The only way that graph could be accurate for Sweden is if any non-canned beer counts as refillable. I say that with absolute certainty since we have a state monopoly and government stores with the same stuff in them across the entire country. Glass bottles don't get refilled, they get recycled.
- mdg 17y ago
  I prefer a frosty mug and a tap
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
So is recycling only bullshit in the US? Or did some other completely separate nefarious plot convince Norway and Canada to recycle while still using refillable beer containers? edit: just flicking through the Wikipedia references on this it appears all the major government agencies around the world think that recycling will directly save money even if you discount externalities. On the other hand you have a 14 year old NY Times article by a professional contrarian which "relied heavily on quotes and information supplied by a group of consultants and think tanks that have strong ideological objections to recycling". I shudder to think what kind of organisation has ideological objections to recycling, but they must have been busy as this seems to be a popular meme in America. I don't recall hearing much about it in europe though, maybe one of those libertarian things?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  For any other Europeans confused by this, I looked into it. It is a libertarian thing: The libertarian position summarized, in their own words: "If recycling makes economic sense, we don't need to mandate it. And if it doesn't, we shouldn't." -- http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6158 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6158 The other side of course is that recycling is a widespread and popular example of government intervention to fix a market failure, which is of course anathema for libertarians.

18 points by monkeygrinder 17y ago

Waffling on whether to flag this one - the charts and some of the facts are rather interesting, the political handwaving not so much. Edit: Made that comment when I was only two-thirds of the way through. The conclusion is very poorly thought out: > Let's demand returnable bottles and deposits on everything Let's refrain from conscripting people who don't agree with the author's stance: The author can patronize companies like Starbucks and Whole Foods that encourage bringing your own mug or shopping bag and give discounts for that, meanwhile we avoid adding bureaucracy and hassle to people who make the choice to go for a disposable cup or bag. The facts of the article are somewhat interesting, the political side not so much.

JoeAltmaier 17y ago

Economic arguments, not "green" ones. Mostly about who pays for recycling. Reminds me of passengers on the Titanic arguing about who will sit in front of the lifeboat and who in the rear.

steamer25 17y ago
I believe economics largely obviates environmentalism. To the degree people value clean water, clear air and all things green (even a mild climate), a good economy will provide them. There are exceptional cases of, "you poured your motor oil on my lawn" but I'm not as concerned as many are about systemic environmental problems. Systemic economic problems do concern me so I found the article interesting. My theory is that if all of the recyclable resources are so scarce, why don't they pay me for it instead of taxing me? Or why is isn't landfilling more cost prohibitive if that space is so scarce?
- JoeAltmaier 17y ago
  More economic arguments? Try this: you are on a spaceship heading to another star, help is years away. The air and water recycling systems are fragile and need maintenance. All the passengers are arguing about who pays for it, all the while the air is growing stale and the water tastes funny. I imagine they would sound a little like your post above.
  - steamer25 17y ago
    Sounds like our priorities are less about getting to that distant star than finding additional resources or efficiencies. Whoever's had the best track record with improving/maintaining the systems so far is getting the bulk of my attention/help.
    - JoeAltmaier 17y ago
      I guess my point was, some things must be done even if not economical.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  One word answer from economics: externalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
  - steamer25 17y ago
    Agreed. Economic systems that lend themselves to negative externalities do concern me.

MikeCapone 17y ago

Recycling is bullshit only if you don't also try to reduce waste as much as possible in the first place. If you use recycling as an excuse to generate lots of unnecessary waste (disposable everything), then it can nullify a big part of the positive effects in the first place.

araneae 17y ago
Recycling is bullshit even if you do try to reduce waste as much as possible. (In fact, there's a TV show called Bullshit that did an episode on recycling.) Not all of it, but enough of it to be pretty heartbreaking. Recycling metals makes a lot of sense, because mining is energetically costly. Recycling glass does too, because there's a lot of refining that goes into getting glass into a usable form. And both of these are easily separated from the junk they come in with. Plastics, on the other hand, are a total nightmare. There are so many different types of plastics, some of them are completely unrecyclable, and people are usually too lazy or ignorant to sort correctly. What it means is that a ton of energy and pollutants are devoted to separating them from each other. Some calculations say that more energy is involved in recycling plastics (incl. transport, etc.) than to make them from scratch from crude oil. Paper I'm still up in the air on. The end product isn't great, which reduces its viability. Plus, the vast majority of trees used in paper production are from tree farms. I don't know much about the rest of it.
- warfangle 17y ago
  Even metal is very difficult to recycle, especially cars - it's often very difficult to separate the non-recyclable materials from the recyclable materials. Cradle to Cradle (McDonough) addresses these concerns. The book is printed with a hot-water soluble ink on infinitely recyclable plastic. Most recycled plastic bottles end up in carpet, which cannot be recycled again - and is thrown out. Paper I wouldn't be so concerned about if we used something a little more environmentally friendly to farm and process - like hemp (the processing step for tree-paper contains many noxious chemicals that are unnecessary in processing hemp for paper).

igrekel 17y ago

Wow... I am surprised refillable beer bottles are so rare in the US. You drink that much of your beer from aluminum cans? Sounds strange because for me, beer in cans is just for camping... and even...

tvon 17y ago
If those charts are accurate, then bottled beer does not count as "refillable", or at least I don't see how it could.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  I'm assuming refillable means growlers and the like. Anecdotal, but with the spread of microbreweries over the last 10-20 years, the number of beer drinkers I know buying theirs that way has greatly increased. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a beer nut (and brewer) though.
- thirdusername 17y ago
  The only way that graph could be accurate for Sweden is if any non-canned beer counts as refillable. I say that with absolute certainty since we have a state monopoly and government stores with the same stuff in them across the entire country. Glass bottles don't get refilled, they get recycled.
mdg 17y ago
I prefer a frosty mug and a tap

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

So is recycling only bullshit in the US? Or did some other completely separate nefarious plot convince Norway and Canada to recycle while still using refillable beer containers? edit: just flicking through the Wikipedia references on this it appears all the major government agencies around the world think that recycling will directly save money even if you discount externalities. On the other hand you have a 14 year old NY Times article by a professional contrarian which "relied heavily on quotes and information supplied by a group of consultants and think tanks that have strong ideological objections to recycling". I shudder to think what kind of organisation has ideological objections to recycling, but they must have been busy as this seems to be a popular meme in America. I don't recall hearing much about it in europe though, maybe one of those libertarian things?

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
For any other Europeans confused by this, I looked into it. It is a libertarian thing: The libertarian position summarized, in their own words: "If recycling makes economic sense, we don't need to mandate it. And if it doesn't, we shouldn't." -- http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6158 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6158 The other side of course is that recycling is a widespread and popular example of government intervention to fix a market failure, which is of course anathema for libertarians.