7 ms·

If the agreement was Canada as a country ensures their recyclable exporters will only export things that conform to some standard, then the burden would be on C

If the agreement was Canada as a country ensures their recyclable exporters will only export things that conform to some standard, then the burden would be on Canada, yes. But, what kind of bizarre world do we live in where we ship our trash to overseas places to be 'recycled' ? It just doesn't make any sense. We are exporting our waste and pollution to developing nations, those people are probably facing much worse environmental conditions than those in the developed world. It's truly despicable.

Waterluvian 7y ago
Yeah that's a good point. It's unusual that the articles keep mentioning "a Canadian company" but never names it. Maybe the agreement was at a national level. And yeah, it's absurd. I just moved somewhere in Ontario where every garbage bag I put at the curbside costs $2. It's absolutely amazing to stand out on garbage day and see just how little people have set out. The system works. The recycling is still "free" but I would love to see the same happen.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  It really is amazing how much you can adapt. I live in a building in Toronto and we don't get charged (directly) for trash. But the building has an organics path on the garbage shoots. My partner and I started making the effort since then to separate our organics and recycling, etc. I think we've maybe put a bag or two of actual "garbage" out in the past year or more. Most things can be recycled—that we use at home anyway. I'm glad we have the compost shoot. That's the thing we put out the most. Some things that seem like major uphill battles are really just a little mindfulness and a modicum of effort—and they become mindless routine after a short while.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    Sorry for the pedantic aside, but I think 'chute' is the correct term/spelling. Shooting garbage does sound like fun though :)
    - antsar 7y ago
      If we define "shooting" as rapid acceleration thru a tube, that is a thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/nyregion/garbage-collection-without-the-noise-or-the-smell.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/nyregion/garbage-collecti...
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      Haha you're right! Well it's stuck now—past my edit window!
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    I wish more takeout places stopped using styrofoam in favor of greener alternatives. At least A&W has most of their packaging to be compostable or recyclable. I think the only thing that goes in the garbage is the damned softdrink lid.
    - 52-6F-62 7y ago
      Agreed. The cafeteria at my workplace finally moved over to all-paper takeout containers. Even those damned lids—I wish they could move over to something at least cellulose-based. The lid doesn't have to last long after usage—but I wonder if that affects shelf-life... or whether it's just a matter of costs.
- mcny 7y ago
  > And yeah, it's absurd. I just moved somewhere in Ontario where every garbage bag I put at the curbside costs $2. It's absolutely amazing to stand out on garbage day and see just how little people have set out. The system works. And I'll continue to advocate that nobody except perhaps the 1% should have children in developed countries. A baby won't poop any less because trash costs $2 a bag. From what I understand diapers by nature don't break down for a long time.
  - jeromegv 7y ago
    Except there are re-usable diapers.
    - Thlom 7y ago
      Tried those. They work, but require some work. The diapers must be washed, depending on the diaper type you might have to separate the fillings and the diaper before washing and put together again afterwards. You also need to insert a rice paper for the poop ... It works, but it’s more work with them than with disposable diapers. We tried reusable for our two first, but the last one we have only used disposable diapers.
    - m-p-3 7y ago
      Unfortunately, most kindergarten do not accept those as it is way more work, as well as time-consuming for them.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    There are cloth diapers, but they leak more than disposable diapers and cleaning them is less than pleasant. I have seen diaper services where you put out a bag full of dirty diapers every few days and they drop off fresh ones to replace them. My wife and I looked at them, but in the end they cost roughly twice what we would be spending on disposable diapers. Maybe our calculus would be different if trash pickup was more expensive.
    - mcny 7y ago
      > There are cloth diapers, but they leak more than disposable diapers and cleaning them is less than pleasant. > I have seen diaper services where you put out a bag full of dirty diapers every few days and they drop off fresh ones to replace them. My wife and I looked at them, but in the end they cost roughly twice what we would be spending on disposable diapers. Maybe our calculus would be different if trash pickup was more expensive. I agree with you. I didn't say anything to the contrary. Perhaps it is for the best if people like me do not have any children. This is perhaps the most humane way of population control and therefore environment protection. The point is diapers are already expensive for many people. We could continue to externalize the cost of disposing them like we do now or we can force people who have children to bear the cost. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices. Previously, on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761349 Similar question comes up when we discuss transit. Maybe I am in a bubble in this city but people seem to agree that public transit is something New York City (and surrounding areas) must push forward. Who pays for it though[1]? [1] New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices. from https://outline.com/UCsyRd https://outline.com/UCsyRd
- linuxftw 7y ago
  The system probably works in cities and in particular areas that are relatively well-off. In other areas, I think it would encourage dumping. And what if you don't pay the trash bill? Do they cease picking it up? What if trash pickup was $20 a bag, what kind of behavior would that encourage? For some people $2 a bag is probably a similar impact to their budget as $20 a bag is to others. If anything, people should be paid for their garbage to be disposed of properly. Of course, this creates perverse incentives to put things in the garbage that don't belong there (such as going out of your way to throw out sticks, stones, what have you), but would most likely lead to the least amount of garbage being disposed of improperly. I imagine this could work on a deposit-basis similar to cans and bottles, but needs a more nuanced mechanism.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    > What if trash pickup was $20 a bag, what kind of behavior would that encourage? https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/19.30.EhBrah-trash-dumping-ron-pitts.jpg https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/19.30.EhBrah... Remember, the free(illegal) solution makes the land worse off for all of us. In fact, I'd use this very idea as a reason this should be under general taxation and not taxed per bag. The game theory 'defect' solution is to dump.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    > What if trash pickup was $20 a bag Does the term "illegal dumping" sound ominous to you? If you could somehow offset that charge by having a reasonable amount of well sorted and usable recycling then there's a chance it could work, but it's hard to see this not backfiring on the population at large. Any solution that has to fight against the "people are lazy assholes" truth is going to be difficult to implement, sometimes requiring an entire cultural shift to achieve. For what it is wroth, I have seen this work to an extent on the small scale. When I was young the county sold our trash service off to a private company. This private company required you to use the bags they provided to pick up the trash. They made these bags a hassle to acquire by only offering them at their office, which was way out in the middle of nowhere and only open one day a week for 4 hours. They were also fairly expensive. We managed, as an American family of 5, to only put out a single bag of trash a week, and this was in an area that didn't have recycling except for a "you bring it" aluminum can place. We did have a compost heap though, which isn't legal in some areas. My parents were very conscious of how much packaging was on anything before they bought it.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  Taking the trash out of my apartment involves walking about 400 ft across the lot. That very tiny disincentive was enough to get me to probably halve my trash production, just by considering packaging during purchases.
ars 7y ago
> But, what kind of bizarre world do we live in where we ship our trash to overseas places to be 'recycled' ? This story is not that, but normally they buy the recycling, process it, then resell it as usable plastic. We aren't paying to ship it to them - they pay to ship it because they buy it.
Thlom 7y ago
Would probably be better for the environment to burn the plastic and use the heat energy. In my city general waste is burned and the heat is used to heat office buildings and such. Paper, glass, metal and plastic is recycled, but not really sure if it is recycled locally or shipped somewhere to be dumped ...
jariel 7y ago
"what kind of bizarre world do we live in where we ship our trash to overseas places to be 'recycled' ? It just doesn't make any sense" It actually makes a lot of sense. If recycling is somehow labour intense (it might be), and if the value of recycled plastic is worth more in one place to another, then at this point is just basic arbitrage. As far as 'long term storage of garbage' that's one thing - but there are enough basic economic components to recycling that it should be thought of as a product, just like any other. Every product has weird externalities, not just recycling.

Waterluvian 7y ago

Yeah that's a good point. It's unusual that the articles keep mentioning "a Canadian company" but never names it. Maybe the agreement was at a national level. And yeah, it's absurd. I just moved somewhere in Ontario where every garbage bag I put at the curbside costs $2. It's absolutely amazing to stand out on garbage day and see just how little people have set out. The system works. The recycling is still "free" but I would love to see the same happen.

52-6F-62 7y ago
It really is amazing how much you can adapt. I live in a building in Toronto and we don't get charged (directly) for trash. But the building has an organics path on the garbage shoots. My partner and I started making the effort since then to separate our organics and recycling, etc. I think we've maybe put a bag or two of actual "garbage" out in the past year or more. Most things can be recycled—that we use at home anyway. I'm glad we have the compost shoot. That's the thing we put out the most. Some things that seem like major uphill battles are really just a little mindfulness and a modicum of effort—and they become mindless routine after a short while.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  Sorry for the pedantic aside, but I think 'chute' is the correct term/spelling. Shooting garbage does sound like fun though :)
  - antsar 7y ago
    If we define "shooting" as rapid acceleration thru a tube, that is a thing: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/nyregion/garbage-collection-without-the-noise-or-the-smell.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/nyregion/garbage-collecti...
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Haha you're right! Well it's stuck now—past my edit window!
- m-p-3 7y ago
  I wish more takeout places stopped using styrofoam in favor of greener alternatives. At least A&W has most of their packaging to be compostable or recyclable. I think the only thing that goes in the garbage is the damned softdrink lid.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Agreed. The cafeteria at my workplace finally moved over to all-paper takeout containers. Even those damned lids—I wish they could move over to something at least cellulose-based. The lid doesn't have to last long after usage—but I wonder if that affects shelf-life... or whether it's just a matter of costs.
mcny 7y ago
> And yeah, it's absurd. I just moved somewhere in Ontario where every garbage bag I put at the curbside costs $2. It's absolutely amazing to stand out on garbage day and see just how little people have set out. The system works. And I'll continue to advocate that nobody except perhaps the 1% should have children in developed countries. A baby won't poop any less because trash costs $2 a bag. From what I understand diapers by nature don't break down for a long time.
- jeromegv 7y ago
  Except there are re-usable diapers.
  - Thlom 7y ago
    Tried those. They work, but require some work. The diapers must be washed, depending on the diaper type you might have to separate the fillings and the diaper before washing and put together again afterwards. You also need to insert a rice paper for the poop ... It works, but it’s more work with them than with disposable diapers. We tried reusable for our two first, but the last one we have only used disposable diapers.
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    Unfortunately, most kindergarten do not accept those as it is way more work, as well as time-consuming for them.
- jandrese 7y ago
  There are cloth diapers, but they leak more than disposable diapers and cleaning them is less than pleasant. I have seen diaper services where you put out a bag full of dirty diapers every few days and they drop off fresh ones to replace them. My wife and I looked at them, but in the end they cost roughly twice what we would be spending on disposable diapers. Maybe our calculus would be different if trash pickup was more expensive.
  - mcny 7y ago
    > There are cloth diapers, but they leak more than disposable diapers and cleaning them is less than pleasant. > I have seen diaper services where you put out a bag full of dirty diapers every few days and they drop off fresh ones to replace them. My wife and I looked at them, but in the end they cost roughly twice what we would be spending on disposable diapers. Maybe our calculus would be different if trash pickup was more expensive. I agree with you. I didn't say anything to the contrary. Perhaps it is for the best if people like me do not have any children. This is perhaps the most humane way of population control and therefore environment protection. The point is diapers are already expensive for many people. We could continue to externalize the cost of disposing them like we do now or we can force people who have children to bear the cost. There are no right or wrong answers, just choices. Previously, on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16761349 Similar question comes up when we discuss transit. Maybe I am in a bubble in this city but people seem to agree that public transit is something New York City (and surrounding areas) must push forward. Who pays for it though[1]? [1] New Yorkers are famous for complaining about the city's subway: despite an ever-increasing rise in fares, service never seems to get any better. And even still, ticket-sales still only funds part of the New York City subway system; the city still relies on supplementary taxes and government grants to keep trains running, as fares only cover about 45 percent of the day-to-day operating costs. Capital costs (system expansions, upgrades, and repairs) are an entirely different question, and require more state and federal grants as well as capital market bonds. And New York’s system is not unique: as in other cities, New York struggles to pay existing expenses and must go into debt to pay for upgrades, that is, without raising prices. from https://outline.com/UCsyRd https://outline.com/UCsyRd
linuxftw 7y ago
The system probably works in cities and in particular areas that are relatively well-off. In other areas, I think it would encourage dumping. And what if you don't pay the trash bill? Do they cease picking it up? What if trash pickup was $20 a bag, what kind of behavior would that encourage? For some people $2 a bag is probably a similar impact to their budget as $20 a bag is to others. If anything, people should be paid for their garbage to be disposed of properly. Of course, this creates perverse incentives to put things in the garbage that don't belong there (such as going out of your way to throw out sticks, stones, what have you), but would most likely lead to the least amount of garbage being disposed of improperly. I imagine this could work on a deposit-basis similar to cans and bottles, but needs a more nuanced mechanism.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  > What if trash pickup was $20 a bag, what kind of behavior would that encourage? https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/19.30.EhBrah-trash-dumping-ron-pitts.jpg https://mauitime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/19.30.EhBrah... Remember, the free(illegal) solution makes the land worse off for all of us. In fact, I'd use this very idea as a reason this should be under general taxation and not taxed per bag. The game theory 'defect' solution is to dump.
- jandrese 7y ago
  > What if trash pickup was $20 a bag Does the term "illegal dumping" sound ominous to you? If you could somehow offset that charge by having a reasonable amount of well sorted and usable recycling then there's a chance it could work, but it's hard to see this not backfiring on the population at large. Any solution that has to fight against the "people are lazy assholes" truth is going to be difficult to implement, sometimes requiring an entire cultural shift to achieve. For what it is wroth, I have seen this work to an extent on the small scale. When I was young the county sold our trash service off to a private company. This private company required you to use the bags they provided to pick up the trash. They made these bags a hassle to acquire by only offering them at their office, which was way out in the middle of nowhere and only open one day a week for 4 hours. They were also fairly expensive. We managed, as an American family of 5, to only put out a single bag of trash a week, and this was in an area that didn't have recycling except for a "you bring it" aluminum can place. We did have a compost heap though, which isn't legal in some areas. My parents were very conscious of how much packaging was on anything before they bought it.
mrguyorama 7y ago
Taking the trash out of my apartment involves walking about 400 ft across the lot. That very tiny disincentive was enough to get me to probably halve my trash production, just by considering packaging during purchases.

ars 7y ago

> But, what kind of bizarre world do we live in where we ship our trash to overseas places to be 'recycled' ? This story is not that, but normally they buy the recycling, process it, then resell it as usable plastic. We aren't paying to ship it to them - they pay to ship it because they buy it.

Thlom 7y ago

Would probably be better for the environment to burn the plastic and use the heat energy. In my city general waste is burned and the heat is used to heat office buildings and such. Paper, glass, metal and plastic is recycled, but not really sure if it is recycled locally or shipped somewhere to be dumped ...

jariel 7y ago

"what kind of bizarre world do we live in where we ship our trash to overseas places to be 'recycled' ? It just doesn't make any sense" It actually makes a lot of sense. If recycling is somehow labour intense (it might be), and if the value of recycled plastic is worth more in one place to another, then at this point is just basic arbitrage. As far as 'long term storage of garbage' that's one thing - but there are enough basic economic components to recycling that it should be thought of as a product, just like any other. Every product has weird externalities, not just recycling.