Why don't you recycle?

[Kryssan]

Hard for me to care about the recycling gig that'll affect us later when the same people preaching it are also the ones generally blocking nuclear power that will be affecting us much sooner. Priorities, much.

[Annihilator]

I do recycle every chance I get. The painful part of it is rincing the dirty containers like sauce bottles and the likes in order to recycle it. And I yell at my coworkers if they throw away recyclables when theres a recycle bin right next to the trash can.

I'm in Canada, and every city I've lived in had city wide recycling programs with bins given by the city and picked up at the same time as the trash. They are also starting the compost bin, but thats a whole other story (ew @ smell in summer)

[Mellema]

I'm actually a recycle-holic, as my boyfriend can attest to... I was actually looking for a place to recycle staples since we go through a LOT at my work and all have mugs full of them. Anyone know?

Don't remove the staples from the paper you put in the recycling bin. The recycling centers shred the paper and then use magnets to remove any iron from the mix. That iron is also recycled.

Not saying there is anything wrong with following the three R's, but the landfill-taking-over argument is old.

Glad someone knows there is more to solving this problem than just recycling. The 3 R's are: Reduce, Re-use, and Recycle. Recycling is the last step, but the first 2 can help cut down even more.

The less that has to be recycled or thrown away later, the better. All the packaging on products is waste, so look for items with less packaging and packaging that is more easily recycled. I purchase all my meat from the butcher or deli and I have them wrap it in just butcher paper. The meat elsewhere in the store is wrapped in plastic and styrofoam. Bring your own bags to take home groceries. The plastic bags are recyclable, but why not just avoid them completely. I also bring brown paper bags to put my fruit and vegetables in, to avoid using the plastic ones they offer, plus I can use them several times before needing to recycle the bags. Also, fresh veggies use no packaging compared to canned or frozen, plus they taste better and are usually cheaper anyway.

Given a choice between a glass bottle and a plastic bottle, choose glass. Glass is infinitely recyclable (doesn't lose quality when repeatedly recycled), whereas plastics become brittle after several cycles. If you do buy something in plastic, look on the bottom for the number 1 or 2. These types are the most easily recycled.

I've seen several people post about water bottles. Don't buy them. Okay, occasionally I can understand being in a hurry and grabbing one at the corner store, but they really are such a waste and a rip off. Buy a filter for your faucet or a brita-type filter pitcher, then just fill your own bottles of water, and save the bottle to refill again later.

After you have used an item, think about it before you put it in the trash or recycling bin. Can it be re-used? An empty jar can be cleaned and used to hold left overs. Books, magazines, old clothes, old appliances, etc., donate to a local charity. Someone will likely use it. Old electronics, cellphones, consoles, etc.? Google a eCycle center near you. Often you can make some money off your old electronics.

[#686578]

I only "recycle" because we have to due to our Home Owners Association and the way our garbage is picked up. In many cases I put my bottles/cans/whatever in the appropriate bin wherever I am, but I make no special effort to do so.

Technically I DO recycle because there are recycling bins pretty much everywhere, but if it weren't convenient I wouldnt do it. I also believe along the lines of Alleya and someone else here who mentioned Penn and Teller and think that recycling for most products does more harm than good.

[Takedown3]

Hard for me to care about the recycling gig that'll affect us later when the same people preaching it are also the ones generally blocking nuclear power that will be affecting us much sooner. Priorities, much.

who said that people who recycle dont support nuclear? other then you i mean.

i support nuclear 100%, would rather see that then coal, oil, natural gas.

[#686578]

pass the buck much? it's just irresponsible to dump our trash on the land that we want to keep beautiful and whole. sure we need landfills until we find some way that works better then just recycling, but why not work towards reducing what we dump in landfills while we work on a solution that makes it so we don't have to have them at all?

I dont think anyone's actually against recycling as a principle. I'm fairly confident I can say that everyone here would like the idea that we could use less resources and somehow also save energy, reduce pollution, and save money... but that's not how it actually works right now. I'm all for trying to head in that direction, but why use a method that's cumbersome and only hurting us just because we want to be idealistic? Why cant we use methods that are proven to be less harmful (yes, landfills are less harmful than recycling) until our lofty goals are achieved and we've actually developed a method for cheap and efficient recycling?

who said that people who recycle dont support nuclear? other then you i mean.

i support nuclear 100%, would rather see that then coal, oil, natural gas.

He's talking about stereotypical hippies that think you shouldnt eat any meat, recycle all day, wear hemp, oppose The Man, I think you get it. By large the same party that encourages recycling also opposes nuclear alternative energies

[BardonGaruda]

In the part of Ireland where I live you get 3 bins for your rubbish. Brown for food waste, green bin for anything that can be recycled and black bin for everything else.

Anytime you put your black bin out for collection you need to put a tag on it which costs €12. But the green and brown bins don't require tags. That's a pretty big motivator for ppl to recyle here.

Also we have a 20 cent tax on plastic bags. So when you go to the grocery store if you ask for a plastic bag they have to charge you 20 cent for each bag. Some places ignore it but almost everywhere will charge you. Now most ppl will get durable reusable bags and bring them with them when they go shopping.

These are some good initiatives we have here. But on the flip side the local recycling centre used to take anything free of charge. This was great for bulky items such as appliances. But in the last year the closest recycling centre has closed and the other one in the area now charges for anything you wish to drop off.

[Psilocybin]

Sometimes I'll put things in their appropriate bins and sometimes I just throw recyclables into the trash.
Mostly laziness and I really don't care about 10 generations from now.
The way I see it is if we don't find some kind of new technology to eliminate garbage/recycling almost completely and find clean/renewable energy sources 10 generations from now is fucked either way so why stress about our current state of garbage collection.

wtf 20 cents per plastic bag?! Where I live in Canada we have to pay 5 cents a bag which really doesn't deter you from buying as many as you need.

[Absolutely Virtue]

Nor did I mention anything about nuclear power. I honestly don't even know where that came from.

I think it's precious that Penn and Teller, comedians, are now being cited as authoritative on the subject of recycling. Cause you know, fuck all those scientists and engineers who think this is a good idea. Watch the episode people have referred to (it's on Google). Not exactly a lot of scientific rigor, lol.

[OzzofAsura]

Don't remove the staples from the paper you put in the recycling bin. The recycling centers shred the paper and then use magnets to remove any iron from the mix. That iron is also recycled.

That's a good plan, but I don't think they are given a choice. They have to separate bundles of paper constantly. If only they could reuse the staples!

[Takedown3]

because this is coming up a bit i decided to look it up.

MYTH #3: Landfills and incinerators are more cost-effective and environmentally sound than recycling options.(15)

FACT: Recycling programs, when designed properly, are cost-competitive with landfills and incinerators, and provide net pollution prevention benefits. Recycling materials not only avoids the pollution that would be generated through landfilling and incinerating these, but also reduces the environmental burden of virgin materials extraction and manufacturing processes.

Even when landfill tipping fees are low, recycling and composting may still be preferable to disposal options. At least 22 states have less than 10 years of landfill capacity left. Southern states reportedly average five years of remaining capacity. New landfills may cost far more than existing ones. Recent U.S. EPA rules requiring municipal landfills to install liners and leachate collection systems are closing hundreds of landfills. One result is the trend toward fewer but larger and privately owned landfills. Fewer landfills will mean increased transportation costs. There may be no scarcity of land for new landfills but new landfills being built tend be quite remote from population centers. Long hauling and disposing municipal solid waste at distant landfills is already costing some cities on the West and East Coasts between $40 and $70 per ton. Privately owned landfills may increase costs. One study found that publicly owned landfills are 20% less expensive than privately owned landfills and provide greater local control over disposal activities.(16) Thus, existing landfills are a precious possession. Recycling extends their lives. Projected as well as current costs and availability of landfills should be taken into account in any evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of waste reduction and recovery options. In addition, while we may have no shortage of nearby land to dump our trash, few communities want to be dumped upon. Thus, national policy should be to reduce the burden on the environment and on local communities from the transportation and dumping of trash.

Many communities have turned to incineration as an alternative to landfills. But incinerators are expensive. Tip fees at incinerators built between 1989 and 1993 average $60 per ton.(17) Some more recent incinerators have had to lower tip fees in order to compete with other disposal facilities. Montgomery County, Maryland, for instance, increased taxes to property owners to cover the operating costs of its newly built incinerator after it lowered the facility's tip fees in order to attract waste. Incinerators are always the most capital-intensive solid waste management option; materials recovery can be the least. While landfills polluteÄone out of every five Superfund toxic waste sites is a former municipal solid waste landfill, and, even the best landfills will eventually leak contaminating groundwater- incinerators are potentially more polluting. Thirty percent by weight of trash entering incinerators exits as ash, a waste product that may contain high levels of toxic residues. Moreover, incinerators emit organic compounds, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other acid gases that landfills do not. Incineration has another drawback; it competes with recycling and composting programs for the same materials. A study evaluating Florida's seven largest incinerators found that these facilities regularly burn significant amounts of highly recyclable materials.(18) "Put-or-pay" contracts, which require local governments to deliver guaranteed tonnage of waste to incinerators, are a major disincentive to maximizing recycling or waste reduction, and thus an obstacle to low-cost materials recovery programs.


source: http://www.grn.com/library/5myths.htm

i admit this particular link is outdated, i would love to see more recent studies proving the contrary

[Kohan]

That's a good plan, but I don't think they are given a choice. They have to separate bundles of paper constantly. If only they could reuse the staples!

Just put them in with the paper. It isn't as if the magnets won't find them if they're loose.

[Absolutely Virtue]

i admit this particular link is outdated, i would love to see more recent studies proving the contrary

I am by no means an environmental economist, but my understanding of the criticism of the cost of recycling is that our original plans were flawed and prohibitively expensive. Everyone agreed recycling was a great, altruistic idea, but the infrastructure to collect, recycle, and re-use all that shit didn't exist yet. So the government subsidized (and in many places continues to subsidize) the industry to get it off the ground. Over time, efficiency improved, the market for post-consumer material matured, and recycling became a more attractive option.

It's not that landfills > recycling is a myth, it's just that it's not really true anymore. But once someone believes something to be true, it's almost impossible to convince them that it's actually false.

[Takedown3]

kind of silly to throw plastic/glass away when you see some of the decomp times. don't forget these are in optimal decomp situations when not sitting underneath 40 years of waste

Cotton rags
1-5 months

Paper
2-5 months

Rope
3-14 months

Orange peels
6 months

Wool socks
1 to 5 years

Cigarette butts
1 to 12 years

Plastic coated paper milk cartons
5 years

Leather shoes
25 to 40 years

Nylon fabric
30 to 40 years

Tin cans
50 to 100 years

Aluminum cans
80 to 100 years

Plastic 6-pack holder rings
450 years

Glass bottles
1 million years

Plastic bottles
Forever

[#686578]

I think it's precious that Penn and Teller, comedians, are now being cited as authoritative on the subject of recycling. Cause you know, fuck all those scientists and engineers who think this is a good idea. Watch the episode people have referred to (it's on Google). Not exactly a lot of scientific rigor, lol.

Look, I dont exactly trust wikipedia either, but the citations that wikipedia uses I tend to trust more often than not.

[Takedown3]

penn and teller are hit and miss, i've seen most of the eps and im about 50/50 with them on shit. sometimes i think they hit the nail on the head and others they are just way off.

they usually do a great job of showing both sides and disproving one of them, altho i dont take stock in a TV show as proof of one thing or another. i haven't seen the recycling ep but i will look for it.

[SephYuyX]

Who cares anyway. In 20 years someone will invent
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/upl...or__robot_.jpg
And it will just go around to all the landfills and recycle everything it processes in to a usable substance that can be used in anything.

Only somewhat joking.

[Absolutely Virtue]

I just read the Penn and Teller thing like parody, and controversial for the sake of being controversial. Like Colbert or the Daily Show. Sure, there is some basis for truth in there. But they're stretching the truth a bit for the lulz/omgz factor. It's truthiness, if you will.

[#686578]

Penn and Teller are completely biased. 100% of the time. Always. They've never attempted to hide that. They DO however, as mentioned, present both sides (in context might I add!), but they will do it in such a way to make their "opponents" look like idiots.

They're highly unreliable as a primary source, given that they base their arguments off of solid research for the most part, they themselves are not authorities, but what they use to build their arguments are usually in high enough regard to take seriously.

[Kryssan]

Numbers pretty much nailed it. Too lazy to type all that though. Kudos for doing so.


Recycled materials have their own downfalls, and while everyone seems to go around trumpeting the save the planet message, economically and politically, it isn't that simple (just like nuclear power). For one example, it tends to be more expensive to create products with recycled materials than it is to make it from the virgin material. While keeping it separate from normal waste creates more jobs, the extra processing and trucks used are only increasing pollution. While it is becoming more convenient to recycle (for example a lot of the grocery stores around here have the automated machines), it is by no means a mainstream process. Governments (local/state/federal) differ in their opinions of programs for how to process the efforts of recycling, and the mandated programs tend to be more expensive than simply using the other disposal options. Incineration tends to be better at certain tasks (such as chemical waste disposal), and it can be argued in some cases that the costs saved in a recycling scenario are outweighed by the money made via energy produced from incineration for both electricity and heat.


Like I said before, I don't have anything against the three Rs, but this is no black and white scenario where recycling trumps the landfill.