3 ms·

> That doesn't mean that recycling has "backfired". > This problem is routinely being solved by mostly boring but useful heavy machinery. So, yes, it did. You

> That doesn't mean that recycling has "backfired". > This problem is routinely being solved by mostly boring but useful heavy machinery. So, yes, it did. You are making the same point as in the article: as we focused the consumer attention on "reduce, reuse and recycle" (which we actually did), focus is lost from other problems (overproduction, microplastics in consumer waste) and solutions (awareness, modernizing the recycling plants).

mariusor 3y ago
> focus is lost from other problems (overproduction, microplastics in consumer waste) and solutions (awareness, modernizing the recycling plants). Which average Joe can do nothing.
- msm_ 3y ago
  Averega joe can Reduce (don't buy unnecessary stuff) and Reuse (don't buy unnecessary stuff).
  - mariusor 3y ago
    Which is exactly what parent is arguing against? That RRR is taking focus away from the "real" solutions, as if the "real" solutions are something I could do about at a personal level.
RetroTechie 3y ago
"Reduce" actually does attack the production side. Overall, something not bought = something not produced. So does "Reuse". If a take a throwaway plastic bag & reuse it 4x, I have reduced its waste footprint to 1/5th of the use-once scenario. Only recycling doesn't do this. It defers the waste problem to 3rd parties, which may or may not do what one would hope they do. That's... kind of weak. Which is why I go for the reduce option if possible. Whenever I'm about to buy something, I ask myself: do I need this? How am I going to use this? (vs. what could I potentially, possibly, one day, do with it). No clear answer to these questions = no buy. Environmental footprint of an item can weigh into such decisions. It's a simple approach, but produces a surprising difficult hurdle in most cases. Food purchases pass this hurdle 0 problem. For other things, "because I want it, got the money, my choice" (usually) doesn't cut it any more. Buying a winter coat 50% off won't cut it when it's mid summer & you've got an old but good winter coat sitting ready.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  I like your appraisal, especially "something not bought = something not produced". But I don't understand your final paragraph. How does the situation change if you replace an old but good winter coat in the winter rather than the summer? The season in which you buy something seems irrelevant to me.
  - slondr 3y ago
    Usually winter coats are offered at steep discounts in the summer.
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      Ah, I see - so that discount introduces an incentive to buy unnecessary additional coats.
      - hgsgm 3y ago
        Not really... That coat is usually discounted because it's going to landfill soon.
        kelnos 3y ago
        If it ultimately doesn't sell, that's a signal to the manufacturer that will affect forecasting and production next year. Manufacturers don't want to waste money manufacturing things that don't end up selling.

mariusor 3y ago

> focus is lost from other problems (overproduction, microplastics in consumer waste) and solutions (awareness, modernizing the recycling plants). Which average Joe can do nothing.

msm_ 3y ago
Averega joe can Reduce (don't buy unnecessary stuff) and Reuse (don't buy unnecessary stuff).
- mariusor 3y ago
  Which is exactly what parent is arguing against? That RRR is taking focus away from the "real" solutions, as if the "real" solutions are something I could do about at a personal level.

RetroTechie 3y ago

"Reduce" actually does attack the production side. Overall, something not bought = something not produced. So does "Reuse". If a take a throwaway plastic bag & reuse it 4x, I have reduced its waste footprint to 1/5th of the use-once scenario. Only recycling doesn't do this. It defers the waste problem to 3rd parties, which may or may not do what one would hope they do. That's... kind of weak. Which is why I go for the reduce option if possible. Whenever I'm about to buy something, I ask myself: do I need this? How am I going to use this? (vs. what could I potentially, possibly, one day, do with it). No clear answer to these questions = no buy. Environmental footprint of an item can weigh into such decisions. It's a simple approach, but produces a surprising difficult hurdle in most cases. Food purchases pass this hurdle 0 problem. For other things, "because I want it, got the money, my choice" (usually) doesn't cut it any more. Buying a winter coat 50% off won't cut it when it's mid summer & you've got an old but good winter coat sitting ready.

seabass-labrax 3y ago
I like your appraisal, especially "something not bought = something not produced". But I don't understand your final paragraph. How does the situation change if you replace an old but good winter coat in the winter rather than the summer? The season in which you buy something seems irrelevant to me.
- slondr 3y ago
  Usually winter coats are offered at steep discounts in the summer.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Ah, I see - so that discount introduces an incentive to buy unnecessary additional coats.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      Not really... That coat is usually discounted because it's going to landfill soon.
      - kelnos 3y ago
        If it ultimately doesn't sell, that's a signal to the manufacturer that will affect forecasting and production next year. Manufacturers don't want to waste money manufacturing things that don't end up selling.