5 ms·

Despite loving such projects, sometimes I have a feeling that concentration on recycling shifts attention too much from the real causes of waste pollution, such

Despite loving such projects, sometimes I have a feeling that concentration on recycling shifts attention too much from the real causes of waste pollution, such as overproduction, overconsumption and lack of investment in biodegradable materials.

dimitrios1 5y ago
You are going to have to define what "over" means for each of those categories. Contrary to popular belief, I believe people generally consume what they need. It's much of the world coming "online", due to the global prosperity capitalism has enabled, that has resulted in such mass production of things we would do well to get rid of such as single use disposable plastics (that aren't for medical purposes, of course).
- titzer 5y ago
  If "need" includes paying $NN/mo to rent a storage container to put your extra junk, then sure, people are consuming what they need.
  - dimitrios1 5y ago
    Most was the key qualifier in my statement. There is no doubt that about 5% of the population have some sort of compulsive hoarding habit. But it wouldn't matter because this is irrelevant to the issue of single use plastics, the thing that generates the most waste in oceans and waterways. Nice attempt at a "gotcha" though. Let's try a good faith dialogue next time.
    - titzer 5y ago
      It's not only that. Do we "need" to consume sodas and bottled water? Americans throw away 35 billion plastic bottles every year. That's just the US. Literally every country I've visited, including third world countries, are consuming ungodly amounts of one-time use plastics. The reason? Plastics make the job of global megacorporations, whose only goal is to make more money, much easier, since they can package their junk food and drinks and ship them the world over. It's not a "gotcha." I just very strongly disagree, given what I've seen everywhere I've traveled.
- dinamic 5y ago
  Fast fashion is a vivid example of overconsumption, and planned obsolescence would be a good example of overproduction. Regarding person's "needs" - I believe they are endless up to the point where person can afford them.
ravenstine 5y ago
Or even from using truly† recyclable materials like aluminum. If we weren't so obsessed with seeing the liquid inside of containers, many things could be converted to use aluminum. [Obviously, aluminum waste isn't 100% recyclable, but it's about as close as you can get besides maybe glass.
- dwohnitmok 5y ago
  RE your disclaimer what about aluminum isn't recyclable?
  - goda90 5y ago
    Maybe the plastic liner that most aluminum cans have?
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      Yeah, the plastic liner and the paint add impurities that have to be removed, and of course those components are not recyclable, scant they may be. This isn't to say that the aluminum element itself isn't recyclable, but inevitably there's some loss because of impurities, so I added the disclaimer to save people time from replying with "Ackshually..."
      - dwohnitmok 5y ago
        Out of curiosity do you have any idea of how much loss that adds up to (say by mass)?
        ravenstine 5y ago
        Off the top of my head, I don't truly know, but I would bet it's a very small fraction. Let's find out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Recycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Recycling > Recycling involves melting the scrap, a process that requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore, though a significant part (up to 15% of the input material) is lost as dross (ash-like oxide).[134] An aluminium stack melter produces significantly less dross, with values reported below 1%. That amount seems to fit with my amateur experience of melting aluminum cans. Dross pretty much floats up to the top of the molten aluminum, and you basically just scrape it off. Even bar stock aluminum from Home Depot would produce a small amount of it. According to this page, aluminum is separated from dross in a separate process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling#Secondary_aluminium_recycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling#Secondary_... So yeah, the loss is non-zero, but the the recyclability of aluminum might as well be considered infinite, especially in contrast to plastics.

dimitrios1 5y ago

You are going to have to define what "over" means for each of those categories. Contrary to popular belief, I believe people generally consume what they need. It's much of the world coming "online", due to the global prosperity capitalism has enabled, that has resulted in such mass production of things we would do well to get rid of such as single use disposable plastics (that aren't for medical purposes, of course).

titzer 5y ago
If "need" includes paying $NN/mo to rent a storage container to put your extra junk, then sure, people are consuming what they need.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  Most was the key qualifier in my statement. There is no doubt that about 5% of the population have some sort of compulsive hoarding habit. But it wouldn't matter because this is irrelevant to the issue of single use plastics, the thing that generates the most waste in oceans and waterways. Nice attempt at a "gotcha" though. Let's try a good faith dialogue next time.
  - titzer 5y ago
    It's not only that. Do we "need" to consume sodas and bottled water? Americans throw away 35 billion plastic bottles every year. That's just the US. Literally every country I've visited, including third world countries, are consuming ungodly amounts of one-time use plastics. The reason? Plastics make the job of global megacorporations, whose only goal is to make more money, much easier, since they can package their junk food and drinks and ship them the world over. It's not a "gotcha." I just very strongly disagree, given what I've seen everywhere I've traveled.
dinamic 5y ago
Fast fashion is a vivid example of overconsumption, and planned obsolescence would be a good example of overproduction. Regarding person's "needs" - I believe they are endless up to the point where person can afford them.

ravenstine 5y ago

Or even from using truly† recyclable materials like aluminum. If we weren't so obsessed with seeing the liquid inside of containers, many things could be converted to use aluminum. [Obviously, aluminum waste isn't 100% recyclable, but it's about as close as you can get besides maybe glass.

dwohnitmok 5y ago
RE your disclaimer what about aluminum isn't recyclable?
- goda90 5y ago
  Maybe the plastic liner that most aluminum cans have?
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    Yeah, the plastic liner and the paint add impurities that have to be removed, and of course those components are not recyclable, scant they may be. This isn't to say that the aluminum element itself isn't recyclable, but inevitably there's some loss because of impurities, so I added the disclaimer to save people time from replying with "Ackshually..."
    - dwohnitmok 5y ago
      Out of curiosity do you have any idea of how much loss that adds up to (say by mass)?
      - ravenstine 5y ago
        Off the top of my head, I don't truly know, but I would bet it's a very small fraction. Let's find out... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Recycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Recycling > Recycling involves melting the scrap, a process that requires only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore, though a significant part (up to 15% of the input material) is lost as dross (ash-like oxide).[134] An aluminium stack melter produces significantly less dross, with values reported below 1%. That amount seems to fit with my amateur experience of melting aluminum cans. Dross pretty much floats up to the top of the molten aluminum, and you basically just scrape it off. Even bar stock aluminum from Home Depot would produce a small amount of it. According to this page, aluminum is separated from dross in a separate process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling#Secondary_aluminium_recycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_recycling#Secondary_... So yeah, the loss is non-zero, but the the recyclability of aluminum might as well be considered infinite, especially in contrast to plastics.