6 ms·

The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. I think I lost faith in the concept (at least in the current

by taneq 6y ago

The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. I think I lost faith in the concept (at least in the current economic climate) right about the time I found out that old glass isn't re-melted for use as new glass items, it's just smashed up and used as aggregate for road beds.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. The only solution to this is to enact taxes on the sale of fossil fuels so high that it forces people to consume less, and/or makes reuse economical.
- bfdm 6y ago
  Exactly, the new stuff is too cheap compared to the recycling option only because we don't properly account for the long term costs of the new goods. I'd like to see the cost of waste and re-use placed entirely on producers. If you sell something you have to accept it's waste back. I think we would see a big shift to reusable durable containers.
- __MatrixMan__ 6y ago
  Focusing on fossil fuels would handle the plastic aspect, but if we're rewriting tax code I think we're better off trying to cast a wider net. I'd propose that we tax the hell out of manufacturers' that won't accept delivery of things they manufactured (be it packaging or the products themselves--in whatever state). To avoid this tax they must also meet transparency guidelines for how inbound waste of this sort is disposed of. This way the "how do we deal with the waste?" problem is handled by the same people who decide what materials to use in the first place. We use the tax money to set up municipal recycling facilities that use the bar codes on the waste to sort it based on who made it, and instead of shipping it to third world countries they ship it there instead.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Yes, that's an interesting idea too as fossil fuels aren't the only problem.
sippingjippers 6y ago
It's supposedly possible to produce load-bearing bricks out of glass, no idea if it is easy to do at scale though
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
If you don't account for the externalities of climate change, this is true. The true cost likely makes recycling economically productive.
- ars 6y ago
  The reverse actually! If you account for all the externalities recycling (except for metal) is terrible for the environment. People only do it because it "feels good". If you actually cared about the environment, metal should be recycled, and everything else burned for energy.
  - codeulike 6y ago
    citation needed
- missedthecue 6y ago
  How does poorly discarded plastic waste contribute to climate change? In fact, plastic is anti-climate change because the weight of it is much less than producing and transporting glass.
nkurz 6y ago
> old glass isn't re-melted for use as new glass items Are you sure this is true? Searching now, I seem to find claims that the majority of recycled glass is often made into new containers as one would expect. Here, for example, is a source that says "Up to 90% of glass collected via multi-stream recycling programs becomes new glass products": https://ourhappyplanet.org/glass-recycling/ https://ourhappyplanet.org/glass-recycling/. Obviously, "up to" is weasel-speak, but I found some other sites making similar although slightly lower claims. Also, there is a distinction between "single stream" and "multi stream" recycling, with this source claiming that the percentage for "single stream" is only 45%. Do you know of better numbers? Or economic arguments for why clean glass would not be recycled?
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Yes, see EPA numbers [1] and an ACS article [2]. It's probably between the two (26% and 33%) depending on your definition of "recycling", the particular state/city, and year. [1] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/glass-material-specific-data https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-... [2] https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recycling-US-broken/97/i6 https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recy...
  - nkurz 6y ago
    I don't think those percentages pertain to the right question. What I think we are looking for is the amount [melted down for reuse] divided by the amount [properly put into a recycling container]. The first link (EPA) is dividing the [tons of glass recycled] (presumably entering the recycling stream) by the [tons of glass generated] (manufactured). The second (ACS) says 33% is recycled (as opposed to put into general trash), but also repeats the claim that "90% of glass put into multistream collections gets recycled" (presumably meaning actually remelted).
    - mdorazio 6y ago
      "Recycled" doesn't mean only "remelted" - it includes things like using it as aggregate in concrete. I don't think you're going to find the numbers you're looking for short of going to a recycling facility and a bottling plant.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
afterburner 6y ago
That's why banning single use plastics is a solution.
- xadhominemx 6y ago
  A solution to what?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foofoo4u 6y ago
> The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. I think I lost faith in the concept (at least in the current economic climate) right about the time I found out that old glass isn't re-melted for use as new glass items, it's just smashed up and used as aggregate for road beds. Yes, this is correct, although, it is also important to note that the reason why plastic is so "cheap" is because the externalities of it are not captured in the price. To put this in a different perspective, it is best to think of plastic as having a price that is below its costs. Plastic today has a low price. At the same time, the world is becoming filled with it. This accumulation is developing severe and systemic long term consequences. Reverting the damage is extremely difficult, expensive, and some damage may be irreversible, such as the loss of life and ecosystems. The externalities produced by plastics can be seen as a form of long term debt. In this way, it makes it clear that plastic is not all that cheap. In fact, it's quite expensive. So how can we alter this behavior? I'll venture on my own here by suggesting a similar proposal by Professor Nordhaus and his book The Climate Casino, which is to capture the cost of the externalities into the price through the use of taxation. Carbon taxes is the most supported form of reducing carbon emissions by economists. I wouldn't be surprised if the same support exists for reducing our plastic production. If the production of plastic is taxed at the bottom of the supply chain, thus making it more costly compared to alternative materials, then we should expect an automatic market restructure that will naturally phase it out.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  I like the idea of carbon taxes in principle, however I'm afraid of public revolt against such taxes if it were introduced in practice. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think you can convince large swaths of the population and the immense private companies that control every aspect of daily life will willingly accept these as an added cost, but chaos instead and worse realities beyond that. Maybe we do trial runs of these taxes or something? Has that been done before? A/B testing on public tax money?
  - foofoo4u 6y ago
    This is a good point you are bringing up. There will naturally be push back. It is in our natural self-interest, and especially the self-interest of corporations, to not have to pay more. I did not mention this in my comment, but I will have you know that Professor Nordhaus is equally supportive of cap-and-trade. They are both equally effective in his eyes if executed to their potential. Which one is best is dependent on the country and its culture. For instance, Americans are particularly sensitive to rising taxation proposals than their European counterparts. Given this, it may be challenging to pass a carbon tax in the United States. It may be easier to have a cap-and-trade policy passed instead. It's nice to know we have this swift alternative, especially in this time of urgency. But something to consider is that the institutions needed to implement and support cap-and-trade are either non-existent or immature within the United States. Execution may be poor as a result. A carbon tax, however, will likely have greater success given tax institutions are well established here. Although American Conservatives are more resistant to the idea of rising taxation than their Liberal counterparts, know though that a portion of them do believe global warming is an issue that should be addressed. Given this, I believe a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is a winning strategy to win them over versus the popular proposals on the left, which is to reduce emissions through the means of overt regulation or government-owned projects.

by taneq 6y ago

lotsofpulp 6y ago

> The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. The only solution to this is to enact taxes on the sale of fossil fuels so high that it forces people to consume less, and/or makes reuse economical.

bfdm 6y ago
Exactly, the new stuff is too cheap compared to the recycling option only because we don't properly account for the long term costs of the new goods. I'd like to see the cost of waste and re-use placed entirely on producers. If you sell something you have to accept it's waste back. I think we would see a big shift to reusable durable containers.
__MatrixMan__ 6y ago
Focusing on fossil fuels would handle the plastic aspect, but if we're rewriting tax code I think we're better off trying to cast a wider net. I'd propose that we tax the hell out of manufacturers' that won't accept delivery of things they manufactured (be it packaging or the products themselves--in whatever state). To avoid this tax they must also meet transparency guidelines for how inbound waste of this sort is disposed of. This way the "how do we deal with the waste?" problem is handled by the same people who decide what materials to use in the first place. We use the tax money to set up municipal recycling facilities that use the bar codes on the waste to sort it based on who made it, and instead of shipping it to third world countries they ship it there instead.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Yes, that's an interesting idea too as fossil fuels aren't the only problem.

sippingjippers 6y ago

It's supposedly possible to produce load-bearing bricks out of glass, no idea if it is easy to do at scale though

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

If you don't account for the externalities of climate change, this is true. The true cost likely makes recycling economically productive.

ars 6y ago
The reverse actually! If you account for all the externalities recycling (except for metal) is terrible for the environment. People only do it because it "feels good". If you actually cared about the environment, metal should be recycled, and everything else burned for energy.
- codeulike 6y ago
  citation needed
missedthecue 6y ago
How does poorly discarded plastic waste contribute to climate change? In fact, plastic is anti-climate change because the weight of it is much less than producing and transporting glass.

nkurz 6y ago

> old glass isn't re-melted for use as new glass items Are you sure this is true? Searching now, I seem to find claims that the majority of recycled glass is often made into new containers as one would expect. Here, for example, is a source that says "Up to 90% of glass collected via multi-stream recycling programs becomes new glass products": https://ourhappyplanet.org/glass-recycling/ https://ourhappyplanet.org/glass-recycling/. Obviously, "up to" is weasel-speak, but I found some other sites making similar although slightly lower claims. Also, there is a distinction between "single stream" and "multi stream" recycling, with this source claiming that the percentage for "single stream" is only 45%. Do you know of better numbers? Or economic arguments for why clean glass would not be recycled?

mdorazio 6y ago
Yes, see EPA numbers [1] and an ACS article [2]. It's probably between the two (26% and 33%) depending on your definition of "recycling", the particular state/city, and year. [1] https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/glass-material-specific-data https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-... [2] https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recycling-US-broken/97/i6 https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/glass-recy...
- nkurz 6y ago
  I don't think those percentages pertain to the right question. What I think we are looking for is the amount [melted down for reuse] divided by the amount [properly put into a recycling container]. The first link (EPA) is dividing the [tons of glass recycled] (presumably entering the recycling stream) by the [tons of glass generated] (manufactured). The second (ACS) says 33% is recycled (as opposed to put into general trash), but also repeats the claim that "90% of glass put into multistream collections gets recycled" (presumably meaning actually remelted).
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    "Recycled" doesn't mean only "remelted" - it includes things like using it as aggregate in concrete. I don't think you're going to find the numbers you're looking for short of going to a recycling facility and a bottling plant.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

afterburner 6y ago

That's why banning single use plastics is a solution.

xadhominemx 6y ago
A solution to what?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

foofoo4u 6y ago

> The problem is that it's so cheap to make new things that recycling is almost never cost effective. I think I lost faith in the concept (at least in the current economic climate) right about the time I found out that old glass isn't re-melted for use as new glass items, it's just smashed up and used as aggregate for road beds. Yes, this is correct, although, it is also important to note that the reason why plastic is so "cheap" is because the externalities of it are not captured in the price. To put this in a different perspective, it is best to think of plastic as having a price that is below its costs. Plastic today has a low price. At the same time, the world is becoming filled with it. This accumulation is developing severe and systemic long term consequences. Reverting the damage is extremely difficult, expensive, and some damage may be irreversible, such as the loss of life and ecosystems. The externalities produced by plastics can be seen as a form of long term debt. In this way, it makes it clear that plastic is not all that cheap. In fact, it's quite expensive. So how can we alter this behavior? I'll venture on my own here by suggesting a similar proposal by Professor Nordhaus and his book The Climate Casino, which is to capture the cost of the externalities into the price through the use of taxation. Carbon taxes is the most supported form of reducing carbon emissions by economists. I wouldn't be surprised if the same support exists for reducing our plastic production. If the production of plastic is taxed at the bottom of the supply chain, thus making it more costly compared to alternative materials, then we should expect an automatic market restructure that will naturally phase it out.

animal_spirits 6y ago
I like the idea of carbon taxes in principle, however I'm afraid of public revolt against such taxes if it were introduced in practice. Hopefully I'm wrong but I don't think you can convince large swaths of the population and the immense private companies that control every aspect of daily life will willingly accept these as an added cost, but chaos instead and worse realities beyond that. Maybe we do trial runs of these taxes or something? Has that been done before? A/B testing on public tax money?
- foofoo4u 6y ago
  This is a good point you are bringing up. There will naturally be push back. It is in our natural self-interest, and especially the self-interest of corporations, to not have to pay more. I did not mention this in my comment, but I will have you know that Professor Nordhaus is equally supportive of cap-and-trade. They are both equally effective in his eyes if executed to their potential. Which one is best is dependent on the country and its culture. For instance, Americans are particularly sensitive to rising taxation proposals than their European counterparts. Given this, it may be challenging to pass a carbon tax in the United States. It may be easier to have a cap-and-trade policy passed instead. It's nice to know we have this swift alternative, especially in this time of urgency. But something to consider is that the institutions needed to implement and support cap-and-trade are either non-existent or immature within the United States. Execution may be poor as a result. A carbon tax, however, will likely have greater success given tax institutions are well established here. Although American Conservatives are more resistant to the idea of rising taxation than their Liberal counterparts, know though that a portion of them do believe global warming is an issue that should be addressed. Given this, I believe a carbon tax or cap-and-trade is a winning strategy to win them over versus the popular proposals on the left, which is to reduce emissions through the means of overt regulation or government-owned projects.