4 ms·

I feel like this is one of the most important underreported stories today. It's a massive, sudden change that is having ripple affects on the entire global supp

by eli 8y ago

I feel like this is one of the most important underreported stories today. It's a massive, sudden change that is having ripple affects on the entire global supply chain. We've written quite a bit about it on Waste Dive: https://www.wastedive.com/news/what-chinese-import-policies-mean-for-all-50-states/510751/ https://www.wastedive.com/news/what-chinese-import-policies-... California is particularly hard hit and is likely to relax laws about how much recyclable material is allowed to be sent to landfills. There's nowhere else for it to go.

jseliger 8y ago
A useful post. Have you read the Adam Minter book Junkyard Planet? https://jakeseliger.com/2018/04/10/junkyard-planet-adam-minter https://jakeseliger.com/2018/04/10/junkyard-planet-adam-mint.... It's a deep and excellent look into how the junk supply starts in the United States and goes (went, now, I guess) to China. "Waste" made sense for China when the country was poor and desperately starved for raw materials. Now the country is less poor; we are going to have to somehow subsidize the recycling of waste (expensive) or landfill it (terrible for the environment).
- RealityVoid 8y ago
  Is landfilling truly terrible for the environment? It seems to me as though if a concentrated area were used for landfilling, that area is ruined, but overall the surface is small in the grand scheme of things, so it should have a relatively small impact. Can anybody expand _why_ landfills are bad? It certainly seems better than simply leaving junk everywhere.
  - bmer 8y ago
    Landfills are not sustainable, and are best used as a stop gap measure. It might seem like we have lots of easily accessible empty land right now, but eventually easily accessible land is going to become harder to find. It seems that it would be wise to come up with a sustainable solution, rather than assuming we can rely on a non-renewable resource forever. That being said, why can't volcanoes be used as some sort of a landfill?
    - eli 8y ago
      The same reasons we don't just burn all our trash in incinerators plus the inaccessibility and relatively small number of active volcanoes.
      - thinkcontext 8y ago
        Sweden has such good waste to energy plants they now have to import waste to keep them at full production. It helps that they recycle a tremendous amount so they don't have all that much to deal with.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - RealityVoid 8y ago
      I am unconvinced by this argument. I would like to believe it, but I can't, I would need some numbers, for example, how much of the available terrain do we cover with trash each year? I think I'd instinctively agree with you if landfills were everywhere... but they are not. They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness.
      - bmer 8y ago
        > They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness. I didn't make any claims landfills grow in space at a faster rate than other human land uses, and like you, I agree that they probably just increase linearly with human spread (maybe even more slowly than linearly). My point is that space on earth is still a finite resource. It doesn't matter how quickly it's getting used up right now, and it may be many generations before we start to hit "peak earth land", but eventually, we'll get there. Plus, there is something to be said about conserving resources (such as usable land) in the same way that we save money for future generations to use: you never know what unforeseen circumstances may come up requiring some "cash in the bank", so to speak. That's why I think landfills are nothing are temporary measures, rather than a sustainable way of dealing with waste. It's not something we can hope to do for a few millennia and be cool.
- gascan 8y ago
  we are going to have to somehow subsidize the recycling of waste Our recycling would be worth a lot more if we could train consumers to stop throwing junk in the recycling. Supposedly, junk in the recycling was a big part of the crash in the value of recycled material, and China's subsequent refusal to take more. Maybe if it's no longer something we can ship off to "far away" and forget about, people will begin to care enough to sort their recycling out better.
cdolan 8y ago
As a fellow member of the waste and recycling industry, thank you for your work. I love Smart City and Waste Dives.
- eli 8y ago
  Thanks! Feel free to reach out if you ever have any ideas or suggestions.

by eli 8y ago

jseliger 8y ago

A useful post. Have you read the Adam Minter book Junkyard Planet? https://jakeseliger.com/2018/04/10/junkyard-planet-adam-minter https://jakeseliger.com/2018/04/10/junkyard-planet-adam-mint.... It's a deep and excellent look into how the junk supply starts in the United States and goes (went, now, I guess) to China. "Waste" made sense for China when the country was poor and desperately starved for raw materials. Now the country is less poor; we are going to have to somehow subsidize the recycling of waste (expensive) or landfill it (terrible for the environment).

RealityVoid 8y ago
Is landfilling truly terrible for the environment? It seems to me as though if a concentrated area were used for landfilling, that area is ruined, but overall the surface is small in the grand scheme of things, so it should have a relatively small impact. Can anybody expand _why_ landfills are bad? It certainly seems better than simply leaving junk everywhere.
- bmer 8y ago
  Landfills are not sustainable, and are best used as a stop gap measure. It might seem like we have lots of easily accessible empty land right now, but eventually easily accessible land is going to become harder to find. It seems that it would be wise to come up with a sustainable solution, rather than assuming we can rely on a non-renewable resource forever. That being said, why can't volcanoes be used as some sort of a landfill?
  - eli 8y ago
    The same reasons we don't just burn all our trash in incinerators plus the inaccessibility and relatively small number of active volcanoes.
    - thinkcontext 8y ago
      Sweden has such good waste to energy plants they now have to import waste to keep them at full production. It helps that they recycle a tremendous amount so they don't have all that much to deal with.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - RealityVoid 8y ago
    I am unconvinced by this argument. I would like to believe it, but I can't, I would need some numbers, for example, how much of the available terrain do we cover with trash each year? I think I'd instinctively agree with you if landfills were everywhere... but they are not. They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness.
    - bmer 8y ago
      > They actually seem to be pretty constant in proportion to the space human population occupies, and if this is so, they aren't a bigger problem than human spread and encroachment of wilderness. I didn't make any claims landfills grow in space at a faster rate than other human land uses, and like you, I agree that they probably just increase linearly with human spread (maybe even more slowly than linearly). My point is that space on earth is still a finite resource. It doesn't matter how quickly it's getting used up right now, and it may be many generations before we start to hit "peak earth land", but eventually, we'll get there. Plus, there is something to be said about conserving resources (such as usable land) in the same way that we save money for future generations to use: you never know what unforeseen circumstances may come up requiring some "cash in the bank", so to speak. That's why I think landfills are nothing are temporary measures, rather than a sustainable way of dealing with waste. It's not something we can hope to do for a few millennia and be cool.
gascan 8y ago
we are going to have to somehow subsidize the recycling of waste Our recycling would be worth a lot more if we could train consumers to stop throwing junk in the recycling. Supposedly, junk in the recycling was a big part of the crash in the value of recycled material, and China's subsequent refusal to take more. Maybe if it's no longer something we can ship off to "far away" and forget about, people will begin to care enough to sort their recycling out better.

cdolan 8y ago

As a fellow member of the waste and recycling industry, thank you for your work. I love Smart City and Waste Dives.

eli 8y ago
Thanks! Feel free to reach out if you ever have any ideas or suggestions.