13 ms·

Good for China, they've got an environmental nightmare to deal with, and part of it comes from the US offloading lots of "recycling" operations there, and I use

Good for China, they've got an environmental nightmare to deal with, and part of it comes from the US offloading lots of "recycling" operations there, and I use that term loosely, particularly for electronics. We also "export" pollution to China by buying cheaper products that would be more expensive if they didn't externalize their pollution costs, and it's sure better to externalize that pollution abroad than domestically. The US, in my opinion, has been burying its head in the sand about the pollution which occurs when manufacturing everything that we use. Recycling, save for very specific things, is neither environmentally beneficial nor economically viable. We recycle so many things because the operations are subsidized, and we feel good because we assume the recycling bin doesn't end up in the dump. Sorting refuse for recycling is a time consuming, tedious process. I hope that automation can actually make recycling more things viable. Reuse is best, but lots of things can be recycled for raw materials, particularly metals. Plastics don't recycle very well, glass requires more energy to reprocess than making new glass, and paper can be allowed to biodegrade or mixed into existing paper process.

mc32 9y ago
If we were to add externalities into the cost of things, it's likely this will have the added effect of bringing some of the previously off-shored jobs back home. Win-win. Environment wins, blue-collar, non-college American workers win. Possibly offsetting some of the "sharing" economy jobs trend and bring back some real jobs.
- qbrass 9y ago
  More likely it gets off-shored somewhere else.
  - chii 9y ago
    once goods became cheap, it's hard to make it expensive again (as consumers will have gotten used to the lower price). If it was possible to have the off-shoring, it will happen.
    - mc32 9y ago
      I think you can, if you build in durability (a phone that lasts 7-10 years vs 1-3 year lifecycle, for example. Or a toaster oven, or shoes which get repaired at the cobblers, etc. We can make the TCO of something cheaper long term, if lifetime and repairability are taken into account. Now, unsaid is that means that advertising and consumerism must be minimized and provide utility other then make you buy the new shiny trendsetting thing.
- Feniks 9y ago
  Robots.
- sideshowb 9y ago
  The question is how to price in externalities without lobbyists getting the price reduced to a meaningless level.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Instead of finding better ways to sell ads it would be great if the smart people in SV worked on finding better ways for recycling. This would truly benefit mankind.
- oppositelock 9y ago
  I've had the pleasure (joking here) of living in some very poor countries, and people there waste little. Why waste a perfectly good glass or plastic bottle by throwing it away, instead of refilling? Generally, when the cost of a bottle or bag is statistically significant, people care for them. Stores sell more bulk stuff, refill bottles, and offer little in the way of their own packaging. It's all a lot less convenient. In the US, various bulk stores have tried to introduce the packaging reuse notion, but all have gone out of business because we take convenience over reuse. This will only change when reuse is equally convenient. If I knew how to accomplish that, I wouldn't be pontificating here, but running my own business doing just that.
  - dazc 9y ago
    In the UK, back in the 70's we had a deposit scheme for glass bottles. And if you couldn't be bothered taking your bottles back to the store for a few pennies each you could be sure some local kid would be more than happy to do it for you.
    - Sharlin 9y ago
      Uh, you don't have one now? In Finland the vast majority of glass or plastic beverage bottles and aluminum cans are under a national deposit system.
      - dazc 9y ago
        Not that I know of no. I have heard about the scheme in Northern Europe and it makes a lot of sense. I think the introduction of plastic bottles and paper cartons was the initial reason for dropping it? Back then recycling was purely a direct cost/benefit thing rather than for environmental reasons.
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Nobody forced china to take America’s trash. They simply undercut other recyclers, making them economically unviable. The same thing happened with rare earths, china didn’t mind to pollute their land to process them, again making cleaner but more expensive means of production economically unviable. This is really the crux of china’s environmental problems: if your competitors cheat by cutting corners in environmental protection while you don’t, you simply don’t exist after awhile. Unhindered capitalism. Until China starts be more aggressive in cleaning up their environment or the USA decides to sanction against polluting industries, nothing will change.
- oppositelock 9y ago
  It sounds like China is starting to crack down. It's a luxury you have once you're affluent enough. The bootstrapping process is sadly very dirty everywhere that it's happened.
  - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
    > The bootstrapping process is sadly very dirty everywhere that it's happened. Not on the scale China's has been. Their environmental destruction has been on such a scale that nearby countries, even those separated by ocean, have greatly impacted air quality and the oceans themselves have been greatly affected. Sweden wasn't wreaking Poland's skies and waters as it industrialised.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      > Sweden wasn't wreaking Poland's skies and waters as it industrialised. Citation needed. But just using logic, Sweden has about 10 million people today. During industrialization it probably had much less (there was a population explosion in Europe after WW2). Let's say Sweden had 5 million people. Industrializing country of 5 million of people vs industrializing country of 1-1.5 billion is something which is ridiculous to compare. Imagine trying to industrialize double or triple of Europe from agrarian society again and tell me you think it would be clean and tidy process.
sliverstorm 9y ago
Recycling, save for very specific things, is neither environmentally beneficial nor economically viable. To me that has always seemed like a problem to be solved, rather than just tossing it all. Sure, that's the way it is today, but is it the way it has to be? If metals are so eminently recyclable, why can't other materials be? I also have a sneaking suspicion that raw materials & landfills are just as subsidized if not more, making it difficult to rely on cost effectiveness as the ultimate arbiter of environmental friendliness or total social cost.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eveningcoffee 9y ago
To be honest, large chunk of this junk is also produced by China. So if you are appealing on fairness then this is not quite correct.
LusoTycoon 9y ago
All rich countries do it. There are industries that are inherently pollutant or energy intensive. Rich countries tax and regulate it. China welcomes it with open arms, allowing them to operate under very lax regulation. China put itself in this situation.

mc32 9y ago

If we were to add externalities into the cost of things, it's likely this will have the added effect of bringing some of the previously off-shored jobs back home. Win-win. Environment wins, blue-collar, non-college American workers win. Possibly offsetting some of the "sharing" economy jobs trend and bring back some real jobs.

qbrass 9y ago
More likely it gets off-shored somewhere else.
- chii 9y ago
  once goods became cheap, it's hard to make it expensive again (as consumers will have gotten used to the lower price). If it was possible to have the off-shoring, it will happen.
  - mc32 9y ago
    I think you can, if you build in durability (a phone that lasts 7-10 years vs 1-3 year lifecycle, for example. Or a toaster oven, or shoes which get repaired at the cobblers, etc. We can make the TCO of something cheaper long term, if lifetime and repairability are taken into account. Now, unsaid is that means that advertising and consumerism must be minimized and provide utility other then make you buy the new shiny trendsetting thing.
Feniks 9y ago
Robots.
sideshowb 9y ago
The question is how to price in externalities without lobbyists getting the price reduced to a meaningless level.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Instead of finding better ways to sell ads it would be great if the smart people in SV worked on finding better ways for recycling. This would truly benefit mankind.

oppositelock 9y ago
I've had the pleasure (joking here) of living in some very poor countries, and people there waste little. Why waste a perfectly good glass or plastic bottle by throwing it away, instead of refilling? Generally, when the cost of a bottle or bag is statistically significant, people care for them. Stores sell more bulk stuff, refill bottles, and offer little in the way of their own packaging. It's all a lot less convenient. In the US, various bulk stores have tried to introduce the packaging reuse notion, but all have gone out of business because we take convenience over reuse. This will only change when reuse is equally convenient. If I knew how to accomplish that, I wouldn't be pontificating here, but running my own business doing just that.
- dazc 9y ago
  In the UK, back in the 70's we had a deposit scheme for glass bottles. And if you couldn't be bothered taking your bottles back to the store for a few pennies each you could be sure some local kid would be more than happy to do it for you.
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    Uh, you don't have one now? In Finland the vast majority of glass or plastic beverage bottles and aluminum cans are under a national deposit system.
    - dazc 9y ago
      Not that I know of no. I have heard about the scheme in Northern Europe and it makes a lot of sense. I think the introduction of plastic bottles and paper cartons was the initial reason for dropping it? Back then recycling was purely a direct cost/benefit thing rather than for environmental reasons.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

Nobody forced china to take America’s trash. They simply undercut other recyclers, making them economically unviable. The same thing happened with rare earths, china didn’t mind to pollute their land to process them, again making cleaner but more expensive means of production economically unviable. This is really the crux of china’s environmental problems: if your competitors cheat by cutting corners in environmental protection while you don’t, you simply don’t exist after awhile. Unhindered capitalism. Until China starts be more aggressive in cleaning up their environment or the USA decides to sanction against polluting industries, nothing will change.

oppositelock 9y ago
It sounds like China is starting to crack down. It's a luxury you have once you're affluent enough. The bootstrapping process is sadly very dirty everywhere that it's happened.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  > The bootstrapping process is sadly very dirty everywhere that it's happened. Not on the scale China's has been. Their environmental destruction has been on such a scale that nearby countries, even those separated by ocean, have greatly impacted air quality and the oceans themselves have been greatly affected. Sweden wasn't wreaking Poland's skies and waters as it industrialised.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    > Sweden wasn't wreaking Poland's skies and waters as it industrialised. Citation needed. But just using logic, Sweden has about 10 million people today. During industrialization it probably had much less (there was a population explosion in Europe after WW2). Let's say Sweden had 5 million people. Industrializing country of 5 million of people vs industrializing country of 1-1.5 billion is something which is ridiculous to compare. Imagine trying to industrialize double or triple of Europe from agrarian society again and tell me you think it would be clean and tidy process.

sliverstorm 9y ago

Recycling, save for very specific things, is neither environmentally beneficial nor economically viable. To me that has always seemed like a problem to be solved, rather than just tossing it all. Sure, that's the way it is today, but is it the way it has to be? If metals are so eminently recyclable, why can't other materials be? I also have a sneaking suspicion that raw materials & landfills are just as subsidized if not more, making it difficult to rely on cost effectiveness as the ultimate arbiter of environmental friendliness or total social cost.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

eveningcoffee 9y ago

To be honest, large chunk of this junk is also produced by China. So if you are appealing on fairness then this is not quite correct.

LusoTycoon 9y ago

All rich countries do it. There are industries that are inherently pollutant or energy intensive. Rich countries tax and regulate it. China welcomes it with open arms, allowing them to operate under very lax regulation. China put itself in this situation.