Recycling, a rant

[JPA Cate]

to thinwater. Maybe if more people see you doing it, more will start doing it themselves.

Ann

[PirateFoxy]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I go for a walk most days, and I nearly ALWAYS carry a small trash bag with me. I generally fill it. Do the same. Doesn't matter that you didn't drop it. It makes up for the bag that blew off the deck, the stuff that blew out of your trash can at home, and some small bit of industrial waste that you commissioned.

Funnily just my last walk with the dog I was thinking I should get him a dog pack (he’s 120lb so they’d be decent sized bags) and line one with a trash bag and pick up stuff as we go. There’s a lot of random wrappers and plastic bottles scattered around.

When we go on a proper hike we take a (human) backpack so we will pick up anything we see ‘in the wild’ that doesn’t belong. Last time we were walking along the shores of a lake the amount of lost fishing line scattered around was quite impressive.

[Fore and Aft]

Our marina at Tin Can bay has a few big drums for aluminium cans. The money goes to some charity, then there is also your normal recycling bins.
Cheers

[HopCar]

With all you boat guys wandering around picking up trash I see a market for pointy sticks.
Of course I’ll turn them out of teak and use a 316 stainless nail in the end. Twelve coats of varnish enough?

[Barkingmad]

Not something I worry about, if the bins are there I'll use them if not I don't care.
Just another one of those government programs with a front end designed to make people feel good but the back end was never developed to actually deal with the recycled waste for the most part. Most of it seems or seemed to end up in 3rd world countries where it just became somebodiy elses problem before it washes out to sea.
I was just reading a few days ago about electronics reycling, talk about a disgusting reality!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vianney...h=3cbbb67b7381

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The solution is to USE LESS.

This is the real solution but like so many green initiatives, it's more about image than impact.

If there is a market, someone will pay to take the waste material. Have an old car, they will happily send out a wrecker to haul it away...why because they can recycle it for a profit...first from reusing viable parts and then selling the rest for the scrap metal value.

Household recycling programs have largely been a joke for 40-50yrs since they started.

Waste to energy is a great solution but NIMBY issues limit the use (there are some other challenges but it's mostly the NIMBY). Not so much because it keeps waste out of landfills (the waste breaks down in landfills anyway limiting the volume used) but because it efficiently converts it to a valuable power source.

[rwidman]

My city discontinued recycling.

My daughter is in the "trash" industry. She tells me that the best use for recycled materials is burning them for heat. The majority of what gets picked up for recycling isn't worth the cost of picking it up. As someone else posted, recycling is a "feel good" process, it makes people think they are reducing pollution and landfill use. They are not.

What really needs to happen is that manufacturers and consumers need to reduce the amount of waste they create. Plastic water bottles are a start and it's stupid to buy drinking water in single use plastic bottles.

Packaging: How many times have you brought a tool or something similar hole from the store and then had to get out a tool to cut it out of its plastic package? Too many times for me. How about a carboard box like they did years ago.

I will put stuff in the blue bins if it's convenient, but I'm not being fooled and I'm not going to put a lot of effort into it.

[GordMay]

The headline read: "Two babies found dead at recycling center..."
I guess, I’m going to hell, because my first thought was:
"Good job. We used to just throw those away. Now we're recycling."

[Bill O]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The headline read: "Two babies found dead at recycling center..."
I guess, I’m going to hell, because my first thought was:
"Good job. We used to just throw those away. Now we're recycling."

Gord,
Your comment reminded me of an old 70's movie, Soylent Green.

[wingssail]

Waste Maker's Responsibity

Why do we let manufacturers make and sell so many products which are hard to recycle? (for profit, of course). And why are consumers able to buy them then simply discard them for others to dispose of? (for the convenience, of course).

So, for the manufacturer's profit and the consumers convenience we are polluting the planet.

My solution is that every manufacturer would be required to define the proper disposal or recycling method of everything they make (you make something, you must describe how it can be disposed of or recycled).

Secondly the manufacturer would be required to deposit funds sufficient to perform that disposal.

Example: You make a phone and sell it for $500, and you have determined that it costs $100 to recycle it, you deposit $100 in a fund.

That money stays there until someone properly recycles or disposes of the product, then they get the money.

And if no one can recycle it for $100, they can simply give it back to the manufacturer who than must recycle it but gets the $100 back (you make it, you clean it up).

Yes, this is onerous for both the manufacturer and the consumer but far fewer products would be made then simply tossed out. Recycling would be competitive as people sought ways to recycle for less and therefore make a profit (if I can recycle that phone for $75, I get the $100 and keep $25).

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The solution is to USE LESS.

That's why the mantra from back in the 70s was "reduce, reuse, recycle." There is a reason it is in that order. Reduce first, so that you generate less waste. Then reuse what you can. Finally, recycle is the last option. Well, actually, toss it in the garbage is the last option, when you can't recycle.

Of course, as mentioned, what can usefully be recycled is limited. I used to work for a university. They had a recycling center with clearly marked bins for paper, plastic, glass, and cardboard. Did the students actually separate their recycling like that? No. They just tossed it all into whatever bin was convenient -- easier that way. And, of course, all kinds of trash that could not be recycled was tossed into the bins also.

But, boy, if they had a rally to support the environment, especially if the call was for the government to do more, then everyone on campus would turn out. They were all in favor of OTHER PEOPLE (again, especially the government) doing something for the environment, but they couldn't be bothered to actually "reduce, reuse, recycle" themselves!

Eventually, the recycling center was done away with. It was costing too much to separate the actual recyclables from the trash, never mind separating the recyclable stuff that the students were SUPPOSED to be separating themselves. Sad and disgusting, but those rallies still happen, and still draw a big crowd! Yeah, we're proud to be a "green" campus!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Barkingmad

I was just reading a few days ago about electronics reycling, talk about a disgusting reality!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vianney...h=3cbbb67b7381

There's no question that in a rapidly-changing field, (computers and cellphones) one is forced to upgrade frequently... it's the price of staying current. Computers that are 7+ years old only remain useable if you put something like Linux on them. Is it even possible to use a 6 year old smartphone on current networks? It's hard to see how this sort of obsolescence can be avoided.

Of course, other devices have no such excuses... a toaster shouldn't quit after 3 years (ours did, but I fixed it). And out of 5 major appliances we bought in 2006, all had minor but repairable faults, and stupid failures like cracking handles, chipping porcelain, fading/peeling lettering, and one has a failed controller. I'm told it's rare that major appliances last more than 10 years now. Yet I had a microwave from 1986 that lasted more than 30 years (Toshiba). My mom has a freezer that's pushing 40 - inefficient... but still works! I have 30 and 40 year old stereo components that still run well, and are usually repairable when they fail. But we've gone through 3 surround receivers in 12 years... not repairable.

The author makes the following point which I disagree with:

Beyond the inherent limitations of collection and recovery processes, we need to remember that recycling is first and foremost a removal from circulation, and therefore an implicit incentive to produce and buy new.

...not true. I don't know anyone whose decision to upgrade was influenced one way or another by the existence of recycling. Nor is it necessarily taking things out of circulation. If something is merely old or no longer fashionable in the first world, it can be cleaned up, reloaded, and resold elsewhere. And if something broke and is not repairable, it's already out of circulation.

I don't get the sneer that some of you have for consumers who attempt to recycle, or for those who have advocated for recycling. Sorting is a necessary part of any efforts to more efficiently manage waste. If a consumer takes the time and care to sort the waste as directed, and passes it into the proper channels, they've done their job there. The problem is with government and industry, not the consumer.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wingssail

My solution is that every manufacturer would be required to define the proper disposal or recycling method of everything they make (you make something, you must describe how it can be disposed of or recycled).

In some jurisdictions, there's now an e-waste surcharge added to the price of electronics. Or was, til replaced by something else. So confused...

[Mike OReilly]

Our current tax-payer-funded recycling programs are yet another example of corporations externalizing costs to reap even greater profits. And recycling programs are necessary in our consumerist economy because we need people to keep buying more, More, MORE.

Recycling is mostly about making consumers feel OK about throwing away the old, so they can buy the new. Without the warm fuzzy feeling we get by believing all that packaging, containers, boxboard and yes, electronics, are going to a 'better place,' we'd be far slower to toss the old and reach for the new.

There's a reason why "Recycle" is the last of the Three-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, and only if you must: Recycle. Industry could put effort and money into the second R (they have zero interest in the first, best, option), but it's more profitable to offload the cost of recycling onto the taxpayer.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's no question that in a rapidly-changing field, (computers and cellphones) one is forced to upgrade frequently... it's the price of staying current. Computers that are 7+ years old only remain useable if you put something like Linux on them. Is it even possible to use a 6 year old smartphone on current networks? It's hard to see how this sort of obsolescence can be avoided.

No, Lake-effect, we are not forced to upgrade frequently. We do that only because we are so affluent that we can.

It is not required to stay absolutely current on computers and even cell phones still work after several years.

My favorite computer right now is a 11 year old Dell Studio which is still fast enough for graphics and has an astonishingly gorgeous HD screen which I use for photo editing. My other two computers are both more than 7 years old and are perfectly useful.

Only because we have more money than brains and are technical fan-boys do we think we have to upgrade every other year.

(BTW, we see the same syndrome with sailing electronics)