13 ms·

The NYT has had several decent articles on this over the years: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html https://www.

The NYT has had several decent articles on this over the years: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfil... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/business/local-recycling-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/16/business/local-recycling-... https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-gar... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-... Ask yourself: how does recycling help the environment? It doesn't. Recycling arose out of 1980s landfill anxiety but we have plenty of space, what we don't have are plenty of climates. All the money wasted on making us feel better by recycling could be far better spent reducing carbon emissions. What a waste of tax dollars, especially now that most cities and counties just throw out recycling anyway.

mc32 7y ago
This is the key parts in one of the articles: >”Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems” And while the Three Rs make some sense, it’s overwhelmed by the above. The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. That’s not to say cheap consumerism isn’t s problem, I think if is, we should strive for quality and low impact, but beware behind every crisis are myriad bands of concerned groups making lots of money.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  > The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. That’s exactly what many conservative voters suspect about climate change. They know they’ve been burned at least once over environmental issues. Edit: I’m not promoting climate change denial. Just pointing out that it’s possible to hold that view in good faith.
  - hobs 7y ago
    The reason why certain voters in the USA dont believe in climate change is because there's a dedicated network of corporations pumping money into the media that repeats this bad-faith claim. At some point it became table stakes for the conservative identity in America that you should reject climate change.
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      Its not that they dont believe it, they just think its not that big a deal. 4ft sealevel increase in 100 years
      - VintageCool 7y ago
        I believe that's a recent movement of the goal posts; it's still quite common among conservatives to believe that climate change is a hoax.
        eanzenberg 7y ago
        Perhaps. Climate change has been scientific since what, the 70s or 80s? Only recently have we seen repeated significant increases in the global mean temperature. This means early skeptics now are forced to choose reality vs. being a conspiracy theorist. Politicians try to appeal to their base but both sides know climate change is 1) too far into the future to matter and 2) not much impact even in the far future.
        hobs 7y ago
        No, "both sides" absolutely don't know this. In fact - climate scientists are talking about changes that need to be made in the next decade if we want to put off major ecological collapse.
    - brightball 7y ago
      It really didn’t. There are always a few loud people who will make a global warming comment on a cold day, but for the most part I’ve seen more sentiment around how we stop it from a global perspective without just penalizing ourselves. There’s also a very high degree of sentiment for more nuclear power and seeing opposition to it as double speak when it comes to climate change. Essentially, if you’re truly concerned about the environmental impact of coal power, etc but you oppose nuclear then you don’t really want to solve the problem as much as push a specific agenda. IMO the recent trade deals in Europe mandating high tariffs on imports from countries who don’t have a carbon policy in place is on the right track.
- rdtsc 7y ago
  > They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations An important benefit is to the citizens who get to feel good about doing something to help the environment. This psychological / ritualistic aspect is probably just as important as the other ones.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    > An important benefit is to the citizens who get to feel good about doing something to help the environment. But... it's not actually good for the environment?
    - earenndil 7y ago
      It makes the idea of helping the environment more prominent in people's minds, thereby making them more likely to do more to help it in the future (although it could have the opposite effect for some, making them think that because they already recycle they don't have to do anything more).
      - Fezzik 7y ago
        I would argue that your parenthetical is more the norm, for the general population - given that people have the delusion that their zealous recycling is helping the environment, they feel like a large amount of their environmental-responsibility quota is fulfilled. They then pay little attention to all the actual harm they do through consumption and other activities. That is my perception having grown in a city that embraced recycling early (Portland, OR, USA) and where you are pilloried if you even hint that maybe recycling most things is a waste.
- dahart 7y ago
  > The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. How much money? Who’s getting rich? Just curious, what is the recycling budget in the US compared to, say, water bottle & soda & plastic bag revenues? Are the small time politicians really more motivated and walking away with more pie than Evian and Coca-cola? Are you certain the crisis isn’t real? > beware behind every crisis are myriad bands of concerned groups making lots of money In a way, this feels like a way to cast FUD on recycling when it’s successful. It’s supposed to generate some revenue, and people are supposed to get paid to recycle. All services have industry, everyone involved makes some money, that’s how it’s supposed to work. At least with recycling, unlike landfill, some money actually comes back.
Retric 7y ago
Recycling is not really a unified thing. Recycling large steel structures is a huge net win. Recycling plastic bottles is almost meaningless.
- mevile 7y ago
  I wish we would go back to having to bring our own containers and fill them up instead of single use plastics. It's so clearly a terrible thing. Whatever we can do to stop single-use containers we should.
  - jopsen 7y ago
    Or you could just buy oatmeal in 25kg bags :) The hygiene and manpower implications of bring-your-container easily makes that complicated. Maybe standardized containers could work. It would certainly be practical if all boxes had the same size :)
    - sdenton4 7y ago
      Lots of coop supermarkets here on the west coast allow you to bring your own container to fill from bulk bins... And refillable growlers of kombucha seem to be at least a bit trendy right now.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Why not bring the 25kg bag back and refill it?
    - estebank 7y ago
      I do a significant part of my grocery shopping in a co-op that is set up for you to take in your own package. I take jars and plastic bottles, weight them before using them in the shop, fill them up with sugar, flour, pasta, oil, soap, etc. I haven't noticed it taking any longer than a regular shop run, other than needing the foresight to prepare the bags of jars before hand and the need to go by car which is already kind of a given here.
  - ssorallen 7y ago
dang 7y ago
Many previous HN discussions too: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Recycling%20points%3E50&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Recycling%20points%3E50&sort=b...
acomjean 7y ago
There is an energy saving component to recycling. Aluminum for example takes a tremendous amount of power to produce and recycling reduces that. Recycling makes different amounts of sense depending on the material. I suspect that a fair amount of material mined is subsidized by different governments (natural resource extraction at least in the us often takes place on leased government land). I did some landfill design engineering in a previous career. while there is lots of space sometimes it’s far away, so there is trucking waste around. Plus landfills despite their liners and clay layers can leak nasty stuff into the groundwater. You pay for what you put in the landfill by weight, so reducing waste can save municipalities money.
- RobLach 7y ago
  Wouldn't you just make landfills hotspots for mining once the economics make sense for things like metals?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Isn't it better economically not to bury the stuff in the ground and then dig it up?
    - RobLach 7y ago
      Depends on the logistical costs. But I agree, it's kinda like a broken window thing.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  > Aluminum for example... What I've heard is that Aluminum is, by far, the only material it makes sense to recycle. Which, if true, means it's less of an example and more of an exception. Though an important one.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    PE, PP, PET and 1st grade paper/cardboard also makes sense to recycle.
dahart 7y ago
John Tierney’s writing was roundly, soundly debunked 20 years ago. It’s amazing to me that it continues to do damage. https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/4030.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publica... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/400100/recycling-is-not-garbage/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/400100/recycling-is-not-g... > Recycling arose out of 1980’s landfill anxiety That’s the first anti-recycling myth addressed above. It sure seems like this argument is being recycled. > we have plenty of space, Anti-recycling myth #3... > What a waste of tax dollars Garbage disposal is also funded by taxes. Whatever, fewer dollars are spent on both garbage and recycling combined than are lost in the margins of military spending. If you really cared about taxes at all, you’d know recycling is irrelevant.
- landon32 7y ago
  The first link you posted an article from over 25 years ago from an organization that denies human caused climate change and prioritizes science that makes their donors happy. I would take it with a grain of salt.
  - dahart 7y ago
    > an article from over 25 years ago It’s a direct response to an even older article the parent comment posted that preceded it. BTW, May 2019 - June 1996 is just less than 23 years. > from an organization that denies humans caused climate change The Environmental Defense Fund denies human factors? I think you’re mistaken. Can you please provide a source for that claim? Or are you talking about Heartland... did you confuse the hosting web site with the authors?
    - lupire 7y ago
      EDF was founded to ban DDT, widely but controversially regarded as one of the worst mistakes of environmentalism.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
hairytrog 7y ago
The goal of tax dollars is to make the people happy. If it makes them feel better, mission accomplished.
roystonvassey 7y ago
This might be true in wealthier and low-density areas. In India, for example, garbage disposal is a real problem, compounded by the fact that there have been no real recycling policies until recently [1]. Also, I am confused by the argument that ‘space is not a constraint’. If that was the case, you wouldn’t expect 1.6 Mn sq. m of the Pacific Ocean to be filled with trash. And it’s been growing. [2] If you want to study the effects of shutting down recycling, these serve primary examples. 1. http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/4494-where-is-bengalurus-garbage-goin-garbage-mess-4494 http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/4494-where-is-bengalurus-... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
waldovr 7y ago
https://screenshot-magazine.com/visual-cultures/climate-change-denier-trump-is-preparing-his-empire-for-rising-sea-levels/ https://screenshot-magazine.com/visual-cultures/climate-chan...
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344915301245 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134491... "With the exceptions of soil, plasterboard, and paint, the recycling of source-segregated materials resulted in net GHG savings"

mc32 7y ago

This is the key parts in one of the articles: >”Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems” And while the Three Rs make some sense, it’s overwhelmed by the above. The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. That’s not to say cheap consumerism isn’t s problem, I think if is, we should strive for quality and low impact, but beware behind every crisis are myriad bands of concerned groups making lots of money.

TimTheTinker 7y ago
> The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. That’s exactly what many conservative voters suspect about climate change. They know they’ve been burned at least once over environmental issues. Edit: I’m not promoting climate change denial. Just pointing out that it’s possible to hold that view in good faith.
- hobs 7y ago
  The reason why certain voters in the USA dont believe in climate change is because there's a dedicated network of corporations pumping money into the media that repeats this bad-faith claim. At some point it became table stakes for the conservative identity in America that you should reject climate change.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Its not that they dont believe it, they just think its not that big a deal. 4ft sealevel increase in 100 years
    - VintageCool 7y ago
      I believe that's a recent movement of the goal posts; it's still quite common among conservatives to believe that climate change is a hoax.
      - eanzenberg 7y ago
        Perhaps. Climate change has been scientific since what, the 70s or 80s? Only recently have we seen repeated significant increases in the global mean temperature. This means early skeptics now are forced to choose reality vs. being a conspiracy theorist. Politicians try to appeal to their base but both sides know climate change is 1) too far into the future to matter and 2) not much impact even in the far future.
        hobs 7y ago
        No, "both sides" absolutely don't know this. In fact - climate scientists are talking about changes that need to be made in the next decade if we want to put off major ecological collapse.
  - brightball 7y ago
    It really didn’t. There are always a few loud people who will make a global warming comment on a cold day, but for the most part I’ve seen more sentiment around how we stop it from a global perspective without just penalizing ourselves. There’s also a very high degree of sentiment for more nuclear power and seeing opposition to it as double speak when it comes to climate change. Essentially, if you’re truly concerned about the environmental impact of coal power, etc but you oppose nuclear then you don’t really want to solve the problem as much as push a specific agenda. IMO the recent trade deals in Europe mandating high tariffs on imports from countries who don’t have a carbon policy in place is on the right track.
rdtsc 7y ago
> They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations An important benefit is to the citizens who get to feel good about doing something to help the environment. This psychological / ritualistic aspect is probably just as important as the other ones.
- icelancer 7y ago
  > An important benefit is to the citizens who get to feel good about doing something to help the environment. But... it's not actually good for the environment?
  - earenndil 7y ago
    It makes the idea of helping the environment more prominent in people's minds, thereby making them more likely to do more to help it in the future (although it could have the opposite effect for some, making them think that because they already recycle they don't have to do anything more).
    - Fezzik 7y ago
      I would argue that your parenthetical is more the norm, for the general population - given that people have the delusion that their zealous recycling is helping the environment, they feel like a large amount of their environmental-responsibility quota is fulfilled. They then pay little attention to all the actual harm they do through consumption and other activities. That is my perception having grown in a city that embraced recycling early (Portland, OR, USA) and where you are pilloried if you even hint that maybe recycling most things is a waste.
dahart 7y ago
> The ‘crisis’ is kinda fabricated and a whole bunch of people make money off the fabricated crisis. How much money? Who’s getting rich? Just curious, what is the recycling budget in the US compared to, say, water bottle & soda & plastic bag revenues? Are the small time politicians really more motivated and walking away with more pie than Evian and Coca-cola? Are you certain the crisis isn’t real? > beware behind every crisis are myriad bands of concerned groups making lots of money In a way, this feels like a way to cast FUD on recycling when it’s successful. It’s supposed to generate some revenue, and people are supposed to get paid to recycle. All services have industry, everyone involved makes some money, that’s how it’s supposed to work. At least with recycling, unlike landfill, some money actually comes back.

Retric 7y ago

Recycling is not really a unified thing. Recycling large steel structures is a huge net win. Recycling plastic bottles is almost meaningless.

mevile 7y ago
I wish we would go back to having to bring our own containers and fill them up instead of single use plastics. It's so clearly a terrible thing. Whatever we can do to stop single-use containers we should.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Or you could just buy oatmeal in 25kg bags :) The hygiene and manpower implications of bring-your-container easily makes that complicated. Maybe standardized containers could work. It would certainly be practical if all boxes had the same size :)
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    Lots of coop supermarkets here on the west coast allow you to bring your own container to fill from bulk bins... And refillable growlers of kombucha seem to be at least a bit trendy right now.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Why not bring the 25kg bag back and refill it?
  - estebank 7y ago
    I do a significant part of my grocery shopping in a co-op that is set up for you to take in your own package. I take jars and plastic bottles, weight them before using them in the shop, fill them up with sugar, flour, pasta, oil, soap, etc. I haven't noticed it taking any longer than a regular shop run, other than needing the foresight to prepare the bags of jars before hand and the need to go by car which is already kind of a given here.
- ssorallen 7y ago

dang 7y ago

Many previous HN discussions too: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Recycling%20points%3E50&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Recycling%20points%3E50&sort=b...

acomjean 7y ago

There is an energy saving component to recycling. Aluminum for example takes a tremendous amount of power to produce and recycling reduces that. Recycling makes different amounts of sense depending on the material. I suspect that a fair amount of material mined is subsidized by different governments (natural resource extraction at least in the us often takes place on leased government land). I did some landfill design engineering in a previous career. while there is lots of space sometimes it’s far away, so there is trucking waste around. Plus landfills despite their liners and clay layers can leak nasty stuff into the groundwater. You pay for what you put in the landfill by weight, so reducing waste can save municipalities money.

RobLach 7y ago
Wouldn't you just make landfills hotspots for mining once the economics make sense for things like metals?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Isn't it better economically not to bury the stuff in the ground and then dig it up?
  - RobLach 7y ago
    Depends on the logistical costs. But I agree, it's kinda like a broken window thing.
BurningFrog 7y ago
> Aluminum for example... What I've heard is that Aluminum is, by far, the only material it makes sense to recycle. Which, if true, means it's less of an example and more of an exception. Though an important one.
- anticensor 7y ago
  PE, PP, PET and 1st grade paper/cardboard also makes sense to recycle.

dahart 7y ago

John Tierney’s writing was roundly, soundly debunked 20 years ago. It’s amazing to me that it continues to do damage. https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/4030.pdf https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publica... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/400100/recycling-is-not-garbage/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/400100/recycling-is-not-g... > Recycling arose out of 1980’s landfill anxiety That’s the first anti-recycling myth addressed above. It sure seems like this argument is being recycled. > we have plenty of space, Anti-recycling myth #3... > What a waste of tax dollars Garbage disposal is also funded by taxes. Whatever, fewer dollars are spent on both garbage and recycling combined than are lost in the margins of military spending. If you really cared about taxes at all, you’d know recycling is irrelevant.

landon32 7y ago
The first link you posted an article from over 25 years ago from an organization that denies human caused climate change and prioritizes science that makes their donors happy. I would take it with a grain of salt.
- dahart 7y ago
  > an article from over 25 years ago It’s a direct response to an even older article the parent comment posted that preceded it. BTW, May 2019 - June 1996 is just less than 23 years. > from an organization that denies humans caused climate change The Environmental Defense Fund denies human factors? I think you’re mistaken. Can you please provide a source for that claim? Or are you talking about Heartland... did you confuse the hosting web site with the authors?
  - lupire 7y ago
    EDF was founded to ban DDT, widely but controversially regarded as one of the worst mistakes of environmentalism.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago

hairytrog 7y ago

The goal of tax dollars is to make the people happy. If it makes them feel better, mission accomplished.

roystonvassey 7y ago

This might be true in wealthier and low-density areas. In India, for example, garbage disposal is a real problem, compounded by the fact that there have been no real recycling policies until recently [1]. Also, I am confused by the argument that ‘space is not a constraint’. If that was the case, you wouldn’t expect 1.6 Mn sq. m of the Pacific Ocean to be filled with trash. And it’s been growing. [2] If you want to study the effects of shutting down recycling, these serve primary examples. 1. http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/4494-where-is-bengalurus-garbage-goin-garbage-mess-4494 http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/4494-where-is-bengalurus-... 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

waldovr 7y ago

https://screenshot-magazine.com/visual-cultures/climate-change-denier-trump-is-preparing-his-empire-for-rising-sea-levels/ https://screenshot-magazine.com/visual-cultures/climate-chan...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344915301245 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134491... "With the exceptions of soil, plasterboard, and paint, the recycling of source-segregated materials resulted in net GHG savings"