4 ms·

This * 1000. The way things work nowadays is the supermarket chain doesn’t pay the cost of polluting the planet. Every goddamn product is planed obsoletion so

by nojvek 8y ago

This * 1000. The way things work nowadays is the supermarket chain doesn’t pay the cost of polluting the planet. Every goddamn product is planed obsoletion so it can be cheap with a fat price margin and the customer has to keep on buying every couple of years. Charge supermarkets for plastics and pay customers to return recyclable things and that’s a huge motivator to reduce landfill garbage in half. I’m also a big believer that we need better robotics. When I saw Wall-E I just got super excited by seeing trash recycling robots. Robots should be doing stuff humans don’t do, not replacing them. It shouldn’t be a zero sum game.

JimboOmega 8y ago
There are already some pretty impressive recycling robots, especially in the field of sorting out mixed recyclables (scanning the incoming stream and shooting stuff that matches certain parameters into a separate area). It's pretty cool, you should check it out. I don't know how economical they are but they still require human backup because of the sheer variety of (incorrect) crap put in recycling bins. You need to be careful putting taxes on these things because of their regressive nature. Who winds up feeling the pinch when you add a $.05/can tax on soda cans? Does that person really have time to make extra trips to the supermarket to redeem a few dollars worth of cans? Also while landfills are among the ultimate NIMBY things, we're not running out of space on this earth in any real sense. Some things are just not worth doing economically. Maybe we should go back to the old ways and have consumers sort into only a few categories that are easier to manage - e.g. "paper" and "bottles and cans", and not bother with the rest.
- kungtotte 8y ago
  Have you been to a landfill? We shouldn't be doing that to our planet even if it was twice the size. The amount of garbage piling up on this rock is mind-blowing, and there's literally nothing we are doing about it once it's in the ground. It just stays there seeping out heinous juices into the surrounding area. People are worried about tens of tons of radioactive waste material that we're sealing inside special containers and putting in specially designed vaults when hundreds of tons of trash are being dumped per day per landfill. I'm not worried about people getting cancer from radioactive waste 10000 years from now, I'm worried about people catching the plague from all the footlong rats crawling over their local landfill.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > It just stays there seeping out heinous juices into the surrounding area. A proper landfill has multiple layers of protection to the ground below it and a web of drain pipes to ensure that the fluids don't collect up or, worse, leak out into the ground.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      How many landfills are proper landfills, and not half-assed landfills, or just holes in the ground? Out of all those proper landfills, how many are properly maintained? Like everything, protection and drainage degrades with time.
      - bluGill 8y ago
        Are you asking about any first world country, or about random third world countries? In rich countries the norm is all active landfills are properly maintained. There are a few bad apples that are caught once in a while, and a number of long abandoned landfills that cause problems, but for the most part a landfill in any first world country is not an environmental disaster. In poor countries people just toss things wherever with no concern.
    - thachmai 8y ago
      Do you have examples of such proper landfill, as well as their cost vs capacity? It sounds awfully expensive for a trash stock pile.
  - tspike 8y ago
    I just watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRVhRt1p54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRVhRt1p54, which another commenter said may be the catalyst for China's ban on importing recycling. I'd be hard-pressed to say a well-run landfill is worse than what I just watched.
- jfim 8y ago
  > Who winds up feeling the pinch when you add a $.05/can tax on soda cans? Does that person really have time to make extra trips to the supermarket to redeem a few dollars worth of cans? Where grocery stores take back empties, one just needs to collect the empties and bring them on their next trip to the grocery store, then put them in the recycling machine. You need to go to the store to buy more soda anyway, so it's not really an extra trip. If anything, the problem in California (not sure about other states), is that grocery stores don't take back empties. Instead, they need to be brought to a recycling plant, which is usually out of the way as well. In practice, it just becomes a 5 cent tax since going to the recycling plant is an extra trip, unlike the grocery store.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
notabee 8y ago
The issue is energy. Energy to build the robots, energy to power their efforts. Both the power and the plastics come from the same finite fossil fuel resources and will get ever more expensive as extracting that resource gets more expensive. To tackle the recycling problem we have to tackle the energy problem or we'll make no progress addressing the essential cost. The only viable thing to do otherwise is reduce plastic production and use.
- 2sk21 8y ago
  I agree but the only way we will reduce plastic production is if we price in the cost of disposal.

by nojvek 8y ago

JimboOmega 8y ago

There are already some pretty impressive recycling robots, especially in the field of sorting out mixed recyclables (scanning the incoming stream and shooting stuff that matches certain parameters into a separate area). It's pretty cool, you should check it out. I don't know how economical they are but they still require human backup because of the sheer variety of (incorrect) crap put in recycling bins. You need to be careful putting taxes on these things because of their regressive nature. Who winds up feeling the pinch when you add a $.05/can tax on soda cans? Does that person really have time to make extra trips to the supermarket to redeem a few dollars worth of cans? Also while landfills are among the ultimate NIMBY things, we're not running out of space on this earth in any real sense. Some things are just not worth doing economically. Maybe we should go back to the old ways and have consumers sort into only a few categories that are easier to manage - e.g. "paper" and "bottles and cans", and not bother with the rest.

kungtotte 8y ago
Have you been to a landfill? We shouldn't be doing that to our planet even if it was twice the size. The amount of garbage piling up on this rock is mind-blowing, and there's literally nothing we are doing about it once it's in the ground. It just stays there seeping out heinous juices into the surrounding area. People are worried about tens of tons of radioactive waste material that we're sealing inside special containers and putting in specially designed vaults when hundreds of tons of trash are being dumped per day per landfill. I'm not worried about people getting cancer from radioactive waste 10000 years from now, I'm worried about people catching the plague from all the footlong rats crawling over their local landfill.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > It just stays there seeping out heinous juices into the surrounding area. A proper landfill has multiple layers of protection to the ground below it and a web of drain pipes to ensure that the fluids don't collect up or, worse, leak out into the ground.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    How many landfills are proper landfills, and not half-assed landfills, or just holes in the ground? Out of all those proper landfills, how many are properly maintained? Like everything, protection and drainage degrades with time.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      Are you asking about any first world country, or about random third world countries? In rich countries the norm is all active landfills are properly maintained. There are a few bad apples that are caught once in a while, and a number of long abandoned landfills that cause problems, but for the most part a landfill in any first world country is not an environmental disaster. In poor countries people just toss things wherever with no concern.
  - thachmai 8y ago
    Do you have examples of such proper landfill, as well as their cost vs capacity? It sounds awfully expensive for a trash stock pile.
- tspike 8y ago
  I just watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRVhRt1p54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooRVhRt1p54, which another commenter said may be the catalyst for China's ban on importing recycling. I'd be hard-pressed to say a well-run landfill is worse than what I just watched.
jfim 8y ago
> Who winds up feeling the pinch when you add a $.05/can tax on soda cans? Does that person really have time to make extra trips to the supermarket to redeem a few dollars worth of cans? Where grocery stores take back empties, one just needs to collect the empties and bring them on their next trip to the grocery store, then put them in the recycling machine. You need to go to the store to buy more soda anyway, so it's not really an extra trip. If anything, the problem in California (not sure about other states), is that grocery stores don't take back empties. Instead, they need to be brought to a recycling plant, which is usually out of the way as well. In practice, it just becomes a 5 cent tax since going to the recycling plant is an extra trip, unlike the grocery store.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

notabee 8y ago

The issue is energy. Energy to build the robots, energy to power their efforts. Both the power and the plastics come from the same finite fossil fuel resources and will get ever more expensive as extracting that resource gets more expensive. To tackle the recycling problem we have to tackle the energy problem or we'll make no progress addressing the essential cost. The only viable thing to do otherwise is reduce plastic production and use.

2sk21 8y ago
I agree but the only way we will reduce plastic production is if we price in the cost of disposal.