5 ms·

If you want to have your eyes opened about just how little of the material you probably think you are recycling actually gets recycled, watch the recent Frontli

by kbos87 6y ago

If you want to have your eyes opened about just how little of the material you probably think you are recycling actually gets recycled, watch the recent Frontline episode called “Plastic Wars”. The sad truth is that while recycling is worthwhile, it’s also a woefully insufficient solution that has been held up by the petroleum industry as a cure all to prevent a backlash against plastic. Even products that are labeled recyclable often aren’t once they are processed. One thing that sticks with me (and this is just one representative example) is that almost none of those plastic salad containers that have overtaken supermarkets are ever recycled. https://youtu.be/-dk3NOEgX7o https://youtu.be/-dk3NOEgX7o

srtjstjsj 6y ago
And many cities subsidize waste by charging money for trash hauling but not for putting trash in the recycling bin. Seattle even introduced a punitive fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream!
- Zippogriff 6y ago
  Regular trash costs extra money after a couple bags, here, so we're encouraged to put anything in recycling that can go there. Our city has us put recycling out at the curb, unbagged and uncovered, in plastic bins. Meanwhile, wind exists. It's more of a littering program than a recycling program, really.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Do they still have a plastic bin? Where does it go I wonder, now that China isn't taking it.
    - Zippogriff 6y ago
      Oh it's much worse. It's all mixed up together, no sorting. I doubt any of it actual gets recycled, except maybe the metal. It's such an obviously terrible program that surely it only exists to funnel money to someone's cousin, or something. Ineffective, and directly causes several trash-devils swirling down the street every year. Been that way for at least a decade, and there's little or no agitation to eliminate or fix the program. [EDIT] that is, I meant the bins are all made of plastic, so light and prone to blowing around or tipping, not that it's a bin dedicated to plastic. We don't sort, here, all the metal, cardboard, and plastic goes in the same open-topped plastic containers. No glass collection is done whatsoever, as it's not permitted in regular trash or recycling, so you have to sort that out on your own.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        > It's such an obviously terrible program that surely it only exists to funnel money to someone's cousin, or something. Primarily, it makes people feel good about their excessive consumption and it helps people win elections by letting them claim they did something. But really, the only solution to prevent or reverse environmental damage is drastically reducing consumption. Reusing isn’t going to work, recycling definitely doesn’t work, but no one will win political points for that viewpoint and who really wants to reduce their consumption. But if people around the world became united against this issue, the solution would be dead simple. Hit fossil fuels with a huge tax. A tax big enough to make prices for everything rise and we will immediately see a reduction in consumption.
  - andrewxdiamond 6y ago
    You can request an extra recycling bin free of charge in Seattle. I believe you can even do it via the app
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  Can you explain how Seattle has a fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream? I know there's a fine for putting compostables in your trash, but I've never heard of another fine.
treis 6y ago
>while recycling is worthwhile, I'm not sure it's that worthwhile for most things. Glass is made of sand, which we have plenty of. Cardboard is trees which are renewable. Plastic is petroleum and it's probably better that we use it and bury it then burn it. Metal is rarer and some of that is worthwhile to recycle but again not like we're running out of iron ore. We also have plenty of land to bury stuff in. The thing we should focus on is carbon footprint. Reducing that is an immediate need and has long term benefits. We should not be burning more carbon to conserve the things we have plenty of.
- qwertygnu 6y ago
  > Plastic is petroleum and it's probably better that we use it and bury it then burn it. > We also have plenty of land to bury stuff in. > The thing we should focus on is carbon footprint. Is this a joke?
  - treis 6y ago
    ... No. Which part do you disagree with?
    - qwertygnu 6y ago
      I'm finding a huge disparity with your ideas. Saying that we need not worry about using too much glass, paper, or plastic because we have plenty of sand, trees, and land to bury waste, then saying we need to reduce our carbon footprint doesn't make sense. Do you not think creating waste and dumping it in landfills, in oceans, in nature, is part of our carbon footprint? Do you not think the processes to make and transport and dispose of these materials is part of our carbon footprint? Even if trees are renewable, we in no way are using them in a sustainable way. Another commenter also linked an article about running out of sand. Recycling is not a good answer, even doing more harm than good, but that doesn't mean to give up on reducing and reusing. And I don't mean (only) at a consumer level. We need large scale industrial and societal changes in how manufacture, consume, and dispose of goods.
      - 6y ago

by kbos87 6y ago

srtjstjsj 6y ago

And many cities subsidize waste by charging money for trash hauling but not for putting trash in the recycling bin. Seattle even introduced a punitive fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream!

Zippogriff 6y ago
Regular trash costs extra money after a couple bags, here, so we're encouraged to put anything in recycling that can go there. Our city has us put recycling out at the curb, unbagged and uncovered, in plastic bins. Meanwhile, wind exists. It's more of a littering program than a recycling program, really.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Do they still have a plastic bin? Where does it go I wonder, now that China isn't taking it.
  - Zippogriff 6y ago
    Oh it's much worse. It's all mixed up together, no sorting. I doubt any of it actual gets recycled, except maybe the metal. It's such an obviously terrible program that surely it only exists to funnel money to someone's cousin, or something. Ineffective, and directly causes several trash-devils swirling down the street every year. Been that way for at least a decade, and there's little or no agitation to eliminate or fix the program. [EDIT] that is, I meant the bins are all made of plastic, so light and prone to blowing around or tipping, not that it's a bin dedicated to plastic. We don't sort, here, all the metal, cardboard, and plastic goes in the same open-topped plastic containers. No glass collection is done whatsoever, as it's not permitted in regular trash or recycling, so you have to sort that out on your own.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      > It's such an obviously terrible program that surely it only exists to funnel money to someone's cousin, or something. Primarily, it makes people feel good about their excessive consumption and it helps people win elections by letting them claim they did something. But really, the only solution to prevent or reverse environmental damage is drastically reducing consumption. Reusing isn’t going to work, recycling definitely doesn’t work, but no one will win political points for that viewpoint and who really wants to reduce their consumption. But if people around the world became united against this issue, the solution would be dead simple. Hit fossil fuels with a huge tax. A tax big enough to make prices for everything rise and we will immediately see a reduction in consumption.
- andrewxdiamond 6y ago
  You can request an extra recycling bin free of charge in Seattle. I believe you can even do it via the app
RandallBrown 6y ago
Can you explain how Seattle has a fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream? I know there's a fine for putting compostables in your trash, but I've never heard of another fine.

treis 6y ago

>while recycling is worthwhile, I'm not sure it's that worthwhile for most things. Glass is made of sand, which we have plenty of. Cardboard is trees which are renewable. Plastic is petroleum and it's probably better that we use it and bury it then burn it. Metal is rarer and some of that is worthwhile to recycle but again not like we're running out of iron ore. We also have plenty of land to bury stuff in. The thing we should focus on is carbon footprint. Reducing that is an immediate need and has long term benefits. We should not be burning more carbon to conserve the things we have plenty of.

qwertygnu 6y ago
> Plastic is petroleum and it's probably better that we use it and bury it then burn it. > We also have plenty of land to bury stuff in. > The thing we should focus on is carbon footprint. Is this a joke?
- treis 6y ago
  ... No. Which part do you disagree with?
  - qwertygnu 6y ago
    I'm finding a huge disparity with your ideas. Saying that we need not worry about using too much glass, paper, or plastic because we have plenty of sand, trees, and land to bury waste, then saying we need to reduce our carbon footprint doesn't make sense. Do you not think creating waste and dumping it in landfills, in oceans, in nature, is part of our carbon footprint? Do you not think the processes to make and transport and dispose of these materials is part of our carbon footprint? Even if trees are renewable, we in no way are using them in a sustainable way. Another commenter also linked an article about running out of sand. Recycling is not a good answer, even doing more harm than good, but that doesn't mean to give up on reducing and reusing. And I don't mean (only) at a consumer level. We need large scale industrial and societal changes in how manufacture, consume, and dispose of goods.
    - 6y ago