6 ms·

I've wondered why they haven't implemented a compromise between recycling and tossing, which would just be segregating certain materials for later sale or recyc

I've wondered why they haven't implemented a compromise between recycling and tossing, which would just be segregating certain materials for later sale or recycling. If they put all the plastic bottles in one section of landfill, all the glass, etc it would be a bet toward there someday being a change in technology, materials science, or market prices that might make it worth mining. It would also be cheaper because the same trucks could pick it up (some cities have this, put your recyclables in a blue bag and throw them in the regular trash). One of the asinine things about recycling (to me) is that they have another has guzzling truck. There should be better accounting done on recycling so we can eliminate feel-good practices and only do things that actually help the environment. Sorting trash (at the landfill) would be a great step forward for this.

SoftTalker 3y ago
You should visit the average landfill to get a firsthand impression of the sheer volume of trash that arrives every day. Sorting at that point would require a huge investment in infrastructure and technology on-site. Individuals sorting their own trash at the other end of the stream is quite easy and costs only a few minutes of their time. It's like diverting the flow of a tributary stream vs. diverting the Mississippi River.
- robocat 3y ago
  > costs only a few minutes of their time. You are so casual about throwing away an irreplaceable resource. Like many conversations about the environment and taxation, many people seem happy to talk all day about how others can afford to pay and about how others should pay. Personally, I worry about how costly those defuse costs are overall. How often do we save uneconomic resources by wasting aggregate large amounts of resources. The tradeoffs seem to be rarely counted. Only one side of the ledger is looked at. In context Switzerland decided that all garbage is incinerated. Perhaps we should presume that Switzerland has done this because it is the most enviromentally friendly and least wasteful measure.
- gosub100 3y ago
  Big City: "Hey WM, we appreciate the valuable service you provide us just like you appreciate the monopoly on business we grant you. Trouble is, your industry doesn't seem to innovate at the same pace as other industries. Starting next year, we are going to levy taxes and fees on your business model. You can avoid paying these fees if you invest in technology to meet the following requirements: lower miles driven by your fleet, segregate 95% of plastic bottles, glass bottles, and food cans (they still go to the landfill, just in a particular place). Don't want to change? Fine, we'll bust your monopoly and you can compete with firms that will innovate."
  - speed_spread 3y ago
    Hey big city, we're actually the Mafia. We know where you live and have been financing your election and the next guy's. So stfu and keep paying.
- gosub100 3y ago
  I've been to landfills before, thank you. It's certainly possible with technology or manpower to separate the garbage. Sorting would require a "huge investment" ? well good thing WM is a XXX-billion dollar corporation, right? I mean, otherwise that might hurt their bottom line. Think of the corporations, amirite? The real concern is how much energy that would require, but luckily many landfills can capture the methane emitted by previous disposal and what better way to use it than power on-side sorting facilities. My main point is that WM (and any other trash haulers, I know someone will say "WM isn't the only company - as if that adds any value to the conversation) is stagnating instead of innovating. Thinking ahead that within a decade or two, we might have a bacteria that eats plastic (and maybe even turns it into fuel!) or that burning more diesel (to pick up recyclables) might not be such a good idea. In other industries, they have real-time cameras that can sort tiny shards of broken glass (or grains of wheat!) to keep out contaminants. Theres no reason to think WM can't innovate similarly, they just have no pressure/incentive to.
hinkley 3y ago
Seattle has a sorting facility for recycling in SODO, you can see it from I5 and 99 if you know where to look. It’s around half the size of the stadium. And that’s just recycling.
- gosub100 3y ago
  I'm not talking about recycling though. I'm talking about tossing the same category of waste into the same pile, so that at a future date it may be economical to retrieve and recycle. Haven't you seen the expose's (sorry I dont know how to type the accent char) about how the "recycled" plastic is shipped to china and burnt in a bonfire? But someday if there's a million tons of plastic soda bottles, someone might find it economical to make jet fuel out of them, whereas they wouldn't if they were mixed in with metal and organic waste.
nobodyandproud 3y ago
Something I haven’t seen ever answered? Why push this responsibility on consumers and down-stream waste management? Why not start at the end-product and manufacturing? Most of my trash is food or packaging. Why not reassign the packaging cost back to manufacturers?, rather than making it a cost born by consumers?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  This is called "Extended Producer Responsibility" and is the basis of modern regulations in the EU and California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    This is a take-back scheme. But does this extend to the daily, non-food trash meant to be thrown out by consumers? Think of how plastic packaging becomes waste, because it’s one-time use.
    - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
      This is not a take back scheme.

SoftTalker 3y ago

You should visit the average landfill to get a firsthand impression of the sheer volume of trash that arrives every day. Sorting at that point would require a huge investment in infrastructure and technology on-site. Individuals sorting their own trash at the other end of the stream is quite easy and costs only a few minutes of their time. It's like diverting the flow of a tributary stream vs. diverting the Mississippi River.

robocat 3y ago
> costs only a few minutes of their time. You are so casual about throwing away an irreplaceable resource. Like many conversations about the environment and taxation, many people seem happy to talk all day about how others can afford to pay and about how others should pay. Personally, I worry about how costly those defuse costs are overall. How often do we save uneconomic resources by wasting aggregate large amounts of resources. The tradeoffs seem to be rarely counted. Only one side of the ledger is looked at. In context Switzerland decided that all garbage is incinerated. Perhaps we should presume that Switzerland has done this because it is the most enviromentally friendly and least wasteful measure.
gosub100 3y ago
Big City: "Hey WM, we appreciate the valuable service you provide us just like you appreciate the monopoly on business we grant you. Trouble is, your industry doesn't seem to innovate at the same pace as other industries. Starting next year, we are going to levy taxes and fees on your business model. You can avoid paying these fees if you invest in technology to meet the following requirements: lower miles driven by your fleet, segregate 95% of plastic bottles, glass bottles, and food cans (they still go to the landfill, just in a particular place). Don't want to change? Fine, we'll bust your monopoly and you can compete with firms that will innovate."
- speed_spread 3y ago
  Hey big city, we're actually the Mafia. We know where you live and have been financing your election and the next guy's. So stfu and keep paying.
gosub100 3y ago
I've been to landfills before, thank you. It's certainly possible with technology or manpower to separate the garbage. Sorting would require a "huge investment" ? well good thing WM is a XXX-billion dollar corporation, right? I mean, otherwise that might hurt their bottom line. Think of the corporations, amirite? The real concern is how much energy that would require, but luckily many landfills can capture the methane emitted by previous disposal and what better way to use it than power on-side sorting facilities. My main point is that WM (and any other trash haulers, I know someone will say "WM isn't the only company - as if that adds any value to the conversation) is stagnating instead of innovating. Thinking ahead that within a decade or two, we might have a bacteria that eats plastic (and maybe even turns it into fuel!) or that burning more diesel (to pick up recyclables) might not be such a good idea. In other industries, they have real-time cameras that can sort tiny shards of broken glass (or grains of wheat!) to keep out contaminants. Theres no reason to think WM can't innovate similarly, they just have no pressure/incentive to.

hinkley 3y ago

Seattle has a sorting facility for recycling in SODO, you can see it from I5 and 99 if you know where to look. It’s around half the size of the stadium. And that’s just recycling.

gosub100 3y ago
I'm not talking about recycling though. I'm talking about tossing the same category of waste into the same pile, so that at a future date it may be economical to retrieve and recycle. Haven't you seen the expose's (sorry I dont know how to type the accent char) about how the "recycled" plastic is shipped to china and burnt in a bonfire? But someday if there's a million tons of plastic soda bottles, someone might find it economical to make jet fuel out of them, whereas they wouldn't if they were mixed in with metal and organic waste.

nobodyandproud 3y ago

Something I haven’t seen ever answered? Why push this responsibility on consumers and down-stream waste management? Why not start at the end-product and manufacturing? Most of my trash is food or packaging. Why not reassign the packaging cost back to manufacturers?, rather than making it a cost born by consumers?

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
This is called "Extended Producer Responsibility" and is the basis of modern regulations in the EU and California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  This is a take-back scheme. But does this extend to the daily, non-food trash meant to be thrown out by consumers? Think of how plastic packaging becomes waste, because it’s one-time use.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    This is not a take back scheme.