Recycling, a rant

[Joh.Ghurt]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

So, the manufacturer is in China. It’s packaged in Vietnam, it’s sold to say, Walmart and 100 other distributors.

This situation has been solved before when governments cared. They just make everyone in the local chain responsible, from vendor to importer and go for those with the deepest pockets. The offshore companies will just be blacklisted.

Check the fight against fake brands, where customs became the willing puppets of big brand owners like Apple, Nike, Rolex etc. Same with copyright infringement specially for Disney. Another good example are all those protected animals / woods or blood diamond treaties.

[Bycrick]

A law requiring the manufacturer to define how their product (including the packaging) will be properly disposed of or recycled and to set aside the money to do that. When they realize how expensive and difficult it is to recycle bubble wrap they will have plenty of incentive to stop using it.
---End Quote---

This kind of inconsistent and contradictory nonsense is what I’m complaining about.

We’re going to promote a "free market approach" by passing new laws that push people to do what the government wants. We will pass laws in the US to require a Chinese company to "define" how a product will be disposed of in Kansas at some time in the unspecified future. Then the US will require the Chinese manufacturer to "set aside money" (where? in a Chinese bank? In his backyard? What if he doesn’t? How does the Kansas recycler get his hands on the money?)

Do you collect this set-aside, which isn’t, of course a tax, from the manufacturer of the resin used in the bubble wrap, or the maker or the film, or the assembler of the bubble wrap, or the distributor of the finished wrap, or the shop that wraps your glass pipe in it?

When you’ve finally banished the evil bubble wrap to the waste dump of history, what will we use instead to protect products?


You’ll pardon me if I have some slight doubts regarding the efficacy of that plan.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

We will pass laws in the US to require a Chinese company to "define" how a product will be disposed of in Kansas at some time in the unspecified future. Then the US will require the Chinese manufacturer to "set aside money" (where? in a Chinese bank? In his backyard? What if he doesn’t? How does the Kansas recycler get his hands on the money?)

Do you collect this set-aside, which isn’t, of course a tax, from the manufacturer of the resin used in the bubble wrap, or the maker or the film, or the assembler of the bubble wrap, or the distributor of the finished wrap, or the shop that wraps your glass pipe in it?

I'm sorry this is so boring that you've missed what's been said or proposed as an example. Probably a waste of time to repeat it. But it's in this thread, if you care to look for it.

When you’ve finally banished the evil bubble wrap to the waste dump of history, what will we use instead to protect products?

Really?

You’ll pardon me if I have some slight doubts regarding the efficacy of that plan.

It's your plan; we'll let you iron out the details with yourself.

[valhalla360]

Funny how the green faith people claim govt rules, regulations and taxes are justified because the common people demand them....

But when it comes time to buy, the common people don't simply demand products that would meet those rules of the manufacturer.

If there's a demand for it, industry will supply it.
As the old saying goes, it's easy to spend other people's money.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If there's a demand for it, industry will supply it.

Agreed. That's why all functioning market economies operate as regulated capitalism. We regulate all manner of aspects of trade and commerce. This is no different. But it's amusing that this one seems to be a bridge-too-far for a few here.

There are endless details to address with this approach. And no, it won't be easy. But I think most of us agree the current approach to recycling isn't working very well. So if not this approach, then what? Feel free to suggest an alternative to producer-pays approach. We're all ears.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Agreed. That's why all functioning market economies operate as regulated capitalism. We regulate all manner of aspects of trade and commerce. This is no different. But it's amusing that this one seems to be a bridge-too-far for a few here.

There are endless details to address with this approach. And no, it won't be easy. But I think most of us agree the current approach to recycling isn't working very well. So if not this approach, then what? Feel free to suggest an alternative to producer-pays approach. We're all ears.

There is a place for regulation but it really should be limited as much as possible or it quickly becomes govt picking winners and losers rather than the common people picking what they want...and often the chosen winners bring a whole new set of problems.

As far as a viable approach...
- Key items are already economically recyclable. Scrap metal, office paper, big box store boxes...these all get recycled not because there is a govt regulation but because there is a concentrated stream of usable material that has value.
- For the rest, waste to energy is probably the best option. Drastically reduces landfill space required, provides a usable end product (electricity) and in some cases, it's easier to separate out usable material such as metal from screws and misc hardware from the ash stream. Ends the energy, labor and expense waste collecting and separating non-economic items. And yes, with modern plants, they can control the emissions very well.
- If new uses arrive that are economically viable, they can be moved into the first catagory.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Exile

Was it formaldehyde by chance? ...

No. As you say, that is old news. At least formaldahyde is biodegradable (I consult for a a 1 MGPD plant that treats port-a-potty waste as a major stream).


Zinc sulfate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There is a place for regulation but it really should be limited as much as possible or it quickly becomes govt picking winners and losers rather than the common people picking what they want...and often the chosen winners bring a whole new set of problems.

Business constantly develops and offers new and interesting stuff, but often they also aim to entice us to buy, and buy more, and to buy things (and packaging) that are not necessarily beneficial. And sometimes business doesn't provide the safer/less-polluting option that many of us would buy instead, given the chance.

On the other hand, the public has a right to choose and demand action towards social and other common goals, and to have their will expressed by the government they elect, through regulations etc when necessary.

So we have to work with both: regulations set the minimum standards we require for goals like less pollution, sustainability, safety, etc, then business is free to experiment with and develop products as they please, as long as they meet the minimum standards. There's nothing really radical or hard about this; just about every country already does this to a greater or lesser extent.

tl;dr: hell yeah, irresponsible polluters should lose the right to make and sell the offending products. Industry is as much responsible for what they choose to offer, as the consumer is for what they choose to buy. Arguably more, since they have more knowledge, and more levers to pull.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There is a place for regulation but it really should be limited as much as possible or it quickly becomes govt picking winners and losers rather than the common people picking what they want...and often the chosen winners bring a whole new set of problems.

Yes... everyone agrees. Too much regulation can be bad, just as too little. The constant challenge is to keep the right balance.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

As far as a viable approach...
- Key items are already economically recyclable. Scrap metal, office paper, big box store boxes...these all get recycled not because there is a govt regulation but because there is a concentrated stream of usable material that has value.

I don't know about you, but I've never been paid to recycle my office paper or boxboard. Maybe it works differently in your market, but I doubt there is a viable market outside of very large operations.

As part of my training to be an federal Environmental Assessor (under the federal Environmental Assessment Act) we used paper products as case studies. None of the programs came out as cost-effective or even environmentally wise, but this was a while ago. Maybe things have changed.

Some metals do have an operating market, but mostly that's in large volume sectors. I'm not sure how we collect all those metal food cans from all the individual homes without some sort of blue box program, but maybe if we put hefty deposits on them, this might motivate action.

I'm all for incineration and energy capture. These types of incinerators do exist. They are difficult to operate and expensive to build. But it is possible.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don't know about you, but I've never been paid to recycle my office paper or boxboard. Maybe it works differently in your market, but I doubt there is a viable market outside of very large operations.

As part of my training to be an federal Environmental Assessor (under the federal Environmental Assessment Act) we used paper products as case studies. None of the programs came out as cost-effective or even environmentally wise, but this was a while ago. Maybe things have changed.

Some metals do have an operating market, but mostly that's in large volume sectors. I'm not sure how we collect all those metal food cans from all the individual homes without some sort of blue box program, but maybe if we put hefty deposits on them, this might motivate action.

I'm all for incineration and energy capture. These types of incinerators do exist. They are difficult to operate and expensive to build. But it is possible.

Scrap metal, they will actually pay the person disposing of it but as you say, it generally needs to be in financially viable quantities (cars for example are almost all recycled and have been for decades). Using recycle bins for individual cans is extremely expensive and usually winds up adding so much cost it kills the viability. Though I know people who have can crushers and take them in and get paid for it once they have 50lb or so to get a few bucks. You won't get rich but it's something the producers want.

At least with office paper, producers will happily take that waste stream in and use it because it a good source stock with minimal adulteration. This is unlike most non-concentrated residential waste where even if provided free, it's not viable for producers to use without lots of expensive post processing.

I haven't dealt with it recently but back in highschool/college I worked at a drug store and we had a compactor for boxes and we'd send back literally a couple thousand pounds worth per week. This was 30yrs ago but they were getting paid for the bales. Likewise, newspapers used to buy back old paper to reuse...obviously that's a dying industry, so you don't hear about paper drives anymore.

The biggest problem with waste to energy is NIMBY and the regulations that spawns. There are some technological challenges but they mostly relate to regulations intended to stop them from being built.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Business constantly develops and offers new and interesting stuff, but often they also aim to entice us to buy, and buy more, and to buy things (and packaging) that are not necessarily beneficial. And sometimes business doesn't provide the safer/less-polluting option that many of us would buy instead, given the chance.

On the other hand, the public has a right to choose and demand action towards social and other common goals, and to have their will expressed by the government they elect, through regulations etc when necessary.

So consumers are smart enough to see the problem and demand regulation but not smart enough to see the problem and buy appropriate products.

[Bycrick]

If consumers could be depended on to do the "right thing" with regards to the trash problem, they would:
1. Never buy bottled water.
2. Buy only beer and juices in returnable/reusable bottles.
3. Never buy takeout or home delivered food in single use packaging.
4. Demand that food served in restaurants be served on reusable plates and with reusable utensils.

Those things don’t require international treaties, have no new taxes, and have a major impact on solid waste. But we’d rather pass laws banning plastic straws and stirrers, because "that’s a start."

The "people" all want somebody else to do the right thing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So consumers are smart enough to see the problem and demand regulation but not smart enough to see the problem and buy appropriate products.

Point us to all the appropriate products, packaged reasonably. We'll wait.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

If consumers could be depended on to do the "right thing" with regards to the trash problem, they would:
1. Never buy bottled water.
2. Buy only beer and juices in returnable/reusable bottles.
3. Never buy takeout or home delivered food in single use packaging.
4. Demand that food served in restaurants be served on reusable plates and with reusable utensils.

Those things don’t require international treaties, have no new taxes, and have a major impact on solid waste. But we’d rather pass laws banning plastic straws and stirrers, because "that’s a start."

The "people" all want somebody else to do the right thing.

The people want a level playing field, and sensible choices.

[Bycrick]

Now please write a one paragraph description of exactly what is "a level playing field" and what choices are "sensible." Then see I how many people agree with you.