4 ms·

As far as I can understand it, the recycling industry is a well-intentioned waste of resources. It would be much better for the environment for all this waste t

As far as I can understand it, the recycling industry is a well-intentioned waste of resources. It would be much better for the environment for all this waste to be sequestered in a landfill than for people to pay to ship it around the world only for most of it to be dumped or rejected (which, even when the Asian countries in question do accept it, they are likely to do anyway). These materials (plastics) are so cheap to produce that it will probably never be economical to recycle them, unless recycling them entails cleaning them and reusing them in their original state. I think a lot of people have undeservedly negative emotional reactions to the concept of sending waste to landfills. Waste in landfills is waste that won't find its way into the rest of the environment. Plastic not decomposing is bad in that it ties up resources for a very long time, but it's good in that it doesn't even produce methane waste in landfills. And I'm guessing it takes less CO2 to ship X kilos of plastic around the world and reprocess it than to dispose of the plastic close to its source and produce X new kilos of plastic.

Scoundreller 7y ago
And plastics are cheaper than ever in N. America. We fractionate the ethane out from natural gas, and we’re fracking a lot of natural gas. And it isn’t easy to store ethane, so we’re turning on more and more plants to turn it into polyethylene. At least in winter, the ethane can be used to froth up gasoline, but in summer, there’s not a lot to do with ethane.
Reedx 7y ago
And with that approach it'd be easier to reclaim if/when we figure out a good way to re-use it. Basically plastic deposits that could be conveniently mined in the future.
umvi 7y ago
So what you are saying is we need to create more plastics since they sequester carbon better than plants!
- tomjakubowski 7y ago
  Like the comforting lie I tell myself when printing a long paper: you're sequestering carbon!
Bakary 7y ago
A more prosaic explanation is that recycling is primarily aimed at removing garbage from the first world rather than environmental friendliness.
jlawson 7y ago
Non-biodegradeable plastic is a carbon sequestering scheme.
- undersuit 7y ago
  Breaking windows stimulates the local economy.
mediaman 7y ago
You're confusing mixed waste, the subject of the article, with all recycling. It's true that mixed waste is difficult to process and is often best in a landfill or clean incinerator. But properly sorted plastics are perfectly usable, and they are cheaper than virgin plastics. The reason they are cheaper is that it is less expensive to clean and regrind them than it is to process new, virgin plastic. Virgin polypropylene currently fetches about $0.65 a pound, whereas recycled clear polypropylene is sold for $0.50-0.55 a pound. These plastics are typically recycled within the same region as the origin of the waste plastic, and, due to freight, often get re-used in industry in the same region as well.
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Well-intentioned is a stretch. We really just shouldn’t be using plastic for disposable products, and corporations take advantage of peoples’ lack of knowledge of recycling to neglect their responsibility of proper disposal and pricing. Given the effect of plastic on the environment single use plastics should be priced higher than their (eg) metal counterparts. (This is assuming those have priced in externalities, so I realize this is reductive, but I believe my point is clear.) I’m staring at a unilever plastic container with cute recycling logos on the side, and I have no consumer option to price compare with a more sustainable option, let alone vote with my wallet. What a waste of materials. Granted, lighting the materials on fire so I can drive around the countryside isn’t much better.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  > We really just shouldn’t be using plastic for disposable products Huh... I would've expected to read we very much should be using plastics for disposables. (Do you want a metal or cloth trash bag?) Rather the problem I see is disposing so much in the first place.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    I was more implying things like paper, but I see your confusion.
    - philliphaydon 7y ago
      Paper cups for coffee and paper containers for food are lined which makes them difficult to recycle. Despite having a recycle logo on them they are often not recyclable.
      - spraak 7y ago
        They can be lined in a way to be easily compostable
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
rlpb 7y ago
> it will probably never be economical to recycle them While we're talking in hypotheticals, I think the economics of recycling needs to take into account the negative externality of environmentally safe disposal cost in production. In other words, if we actually priced in the cost of safe disposal into the cost of plastic products, then recycling wouldn't have to be viable economically based on the price of recycled plastic alone. Europe already does this for household electrical waste; there is no reason it cannot be done for plastics.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Are you talking the cost of putting it into a landfill?
spullara 7y ago
It seems obvious to me that we will eventually be a lot better at recycling or the materials will be worth a lot more. If you can keep it around without it polluting the environment outside of the landfill, you should dig it up later and recycle it with superior technology and/or when there is much more demand.

Scoundreller 7y ago

And plastics are cheaper than ever in N. America. We fractionate the ethane out from natural gas, and we’re fracking a lot of natural gas. And it isn’t easy to store ethane, so we’re turning on more and more plants to turn it into polyethylene. At least in winter, the ethane can be used to froth up gasoline, but in summer, there’s not a lot to do with ethane.

Reedx 7y ago

And with that approach it'd be easier to reclaim if/when we figure out a good way to re-use it. Basically plastic deposits that could be conveniently mined in the future.

umvi 7y ago

So what you are saying is we need to create more plastics since they sequester carbon better than plants!

tomjakubowski 7y ago
Like the comforting lie I tell myself when printing a long paper: you're sequestering carbon!

Bakary 7y ago

A more prosaic explanation is that recycling is primarily aimed at removing garbage from the first world rather than environmental friendliness.

jlawson 7y ago

Non-biodegradeable plastic is a carbon sequestering scheme.

undersuit 7y ago
Breaking windows stimulates the local economy.

mediaman 7y ago

You're confusing mixed waste, the subject of the article, with all recycling. It's true that mixed waste is difficult to process and is often best in a landfill or clean incinerator. But properly sorted plastics are perfectly usable, and they are cheaper than virgin plastics. The reason they are cheaper is that it is less expensive to clean and regrind them than it is to process new, virgin plastic. Virgin polypropylene currently fetches about $0.65 a pound, whereas recycled clear polypropylene is sold for $0.50-0.55 a pound. These plastics are typically recycled within the same region as the origin of the waste plastic, and, due to freight, often get re-used in industry in the same region as well.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Well-intentioned is a stretch. We really just shouldn’t be using plastic for disposable products, and corporations take advantage of peoples’ lack of knowledge of recycling to neglect their responsibility of proper disposal and pricing. Given the effect of plastic on the environment single use plastics should be priced higher than their (eg) metal counterparts. (This is assuming those have priced in externalities, so I realize this is reductive, but I believe my point is clear.) I’m staring at a unilever plastic container with cute recycling logos on the side, and I have no consumer option to price compare with a more sustainable option, let alone vote with my wallet. What a waste of materials. Granted, lighting the materials on fire so I can drive around the countryside isn’t much better.

mehrdadn 7y ago
> We really just shouldn’t be using plastic for disposable products Huh... I would've expected to read we very much should be using plastics for disposables. (Do you want a metal or cloth trash bag?) Rather the problem I see is disposing so much in the first place.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  I was more implying things like paper, but I see your confusion.
  - philliphaydon 7y ago
    Paper cups for coffee and paper containers for food are lined which makes them difficult to recycle. Despite having a recycle logo on them they are often not recyclable.
    - spraak 7y ago
      They can be lined in a way to be easily compostable
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

rlpb 7y ago

> it will probably never be economical to recycle them While we're talking in hypotheticals, I think the economics of recycling needs to take into account the negative externality of environmentally safe disposal cost in production. In other words, if we actually priced in the cost of safe disposal into the cost of plastic products, then recycling wouldn't have to be viable economically based on the price of recycled plastic alone. Europe already does this for household electrical waste; there is no reason it cannot be done for plastics.

JamesBarney 7y ago
Are you talking the cost of putting it into a landfill?

spullara 7y ago

It seems obvious to me that we will eventually be a lot better at recycling or the materials will be worth a lot more. If you can keep it around without it polluting the environment outside of the landfill, you should dig it up later and recycle it with superior technology and/or when there is much more demand.