3 ms·

Right. I think parent commenter hasn't read the article, and doesn't realize that these are _recycling_ companies, not just your average tech office with a blue

by bzbz 7y ago

Right. I think parent commenter hasn't read the article, and doesn't realize that these are _recycling_ companies, not just your average tech office with a blue bin in the snack room.

lonelappde 7y ago
It's a white lie. It's not really the garbage seller's business whether it is recycled into fire or buried. They aren't harmed. It's a violation of HN etiquette to accuse people not not reading the articles.
- dictum 7y ago
  > It's not really the garbage seller's business whether it is recycled into fire or buried. They aren't harmed. Apparently the companies use artful language to imply certain processes without specifically naming them: "All three companies make green promises on their websites and in promotional videos, using buzzwords like "sustainability" and "environmental solutions." One Waste Connections video goes as far as to say, "sustainability and becoming more green … have been hallmarks and backbones of Waste Connections from the day we formed the company." But if any company specifically contracted for recycling and did not recycle, it is a breach of contract with possible repercussions. Recycling requires that the materials return to the market at a certain point, but it does not require a short window of time between collection and processing of materials. This is where some creative lawyering can go a long way: if you can say that you're going to process it at some indefinite point in the future, you're not comitting fraud unless the contract defines an specific time limit, specific technical processes, and an specific destination for the processed materials. I don't think commercial contracts that meet all these criteria are viable at scale.
Thorrez 7y ago
golemiprague might not be saying anything about those specific companies, just saying that in general, there's not a reason for us to want to recycle plastic.

by bzbz 7y ago

Right. I think parent commenter hasn't read the article, and doesn't realize that these are _recycling_ companies, not just your average tech office with a blue bin in the snack room.

lonelappde 7y ago

It's a white lie. It's not really the garbage seller's business whether it is recycled into fire or buried. They aren't harmed. It's a violation of HN etiquette to accuse people not not reading the articles.

dictum 7y ago
> It's not really the garbage seller's business whether it is recycled into fire or buried. They aren't harmed. Apparently the companies use artful language to imply certain processes without specifically naming them: "All three companies make green promises on their websites and in promotional videos, using buzzwords like "sustainability" and "environmental solutions." One Waste Connections video goes as far as to say, "sustainability and becoming more green … have been hallmarks and backbones of Waste Connections from the day we formed the company." But if any company specifically contracted for recycling and did not recycle, it is a breach of contract with possible repercussions. Recycling requires that the materials return to the market at a certain point, but it does not require a short window of time between collection and processing of materials. This is where some creative lawyering can go a long way: if you can say that you're going to process it at some indefinite point in the future, you're not comitting fraud unless the contract defines an specific time limit, specific technical processes, and an specific destination for the processed materials. I don't think commercial contracts that meet all these criteria are viable at scale.

Thorrez 7y ago

golemiprague might not be saying anything about those specific companies, just saying that in general, there's not a reason for us to want to recycle plastic.