4 ms·

I think your given example could benefit from spelling it out further. Let’s say that I read "Rinsing your recycling (in water heated by electricity generated

• ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  That multiple, independant, well-regarded and thorough lifecycle analyses of recycling have consistently shown it to be both financially and environmentally (including but not limited to carbon output specifically) beneficial. edit: I removed a "not" to clear up the ambiguous double-negative. Summary, my position is that science says recycling is a good thing. Numerous media stories will focus relentlessly on any small flaw in it, either to get a reaction from the people who do it and think it's a good thing, or support the people who fight against it for political reasons as it represents (like global warming) a massive failure of free markets.