Recycling, a rant

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Exile

I think this is spot on, with the caveat that shifting the (packaging/recycling/disposal) costs back onto industry really means making the product more expensive for the consumer.

Absolutely true, but then the consumers would start making choices that have a lesser environmental impact, and therefore cost less. The packaging of the rubber bands mentioned above is a perfect example. If buying them in hard plastic containers cost more than buying them in a simple paper wrap, most consumers would opt for the paper wrap.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Because lithium reacts with water, to create flammable hydrogen gas [and lithium-hydroxide], pouring water on a lithium fire is often counterproductive, and very, very dangerous. . Furthermore, lithium floats in water, due to its low density, so smothering or submerging a lithium fire can be troublesome.

Water on raw lithium is bad / dangerous, but in the case of a thermal runaway of a lithium based battery, the water is strictly to cool things down, not to smother the fire. By cooling things down enough, you stop the runaway.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Absolutely true, but then the consumers would start making choices that have a lesser environmental impact, and therefore cost less. The packaging of the rubber bands mentioned above is a perfect example. If buying them in hard plastic containers cost more than buying them in a simple paper wrap, most consumers would opt for the paper wrap.

Yes, agreed. Consumers demanding more responsible packaging could result in incentivizing industry changes for the better. That, plus some responsible govt regulation disincentivizing overuse of plastic packaging, could result in progress. Much depends on greater levels of awareness, perhaps like we've seen in the retail food industry with the demand for higher quality and more environmentally responsible meat, dairy and produce. Still, your run-of-the-mill supermarket has a shocking amount of mostly ready to go food in single use plastic packaging.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

As usual, you're souring an otherwise worthwhile discussion....Let people express their views and, when necessary, disagree agreeably.

There's a worthwhile discussion to be had, but when people blithely spout unsupported nonsense about recycling,

...it's the consumer who is more interested in the appearance of being green than actually fixing any problem. Industry simply supplies what the consumer demands.

or otherwise try to rewrite history to fit a childishly naive concept of industry...

Catalytic converters were the result of a wide, bipartisan consensus...

I personally find propaganda to not be agreeable; I recall there are some viewpoints that you have been less than civil about. Is a discussion worth having if prejudices and dogma aren't challenged?

Is your scolding because of a sincere desire to foster productive discourse, or because you simply can't refute the points raised?

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Exile

As usual, you're souring an otherwise worthwhile discussion where most share common goals but also have differing points of view. Shouldn't be a surprise, and some actually find a diversity of views educational and not personally threatening. Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of what's "amoral," or in any position to categorize people you don't know as "arch-capitalists" or anything else because they don't share your world view. Looking for demons to rail against makes for good theater but rarely builds the consensus needed to solve complex societal problems. Let people express their views and, when necessary, disagree agreeably.

Having worked intimately (inside the petroleum industry) with the lead issue in the 70s and 80s, I promise you industry was not playing nice. It was a different time. I work in a different industry now, and it has changed... just a very little, mostly on the surface. What they think you might see, which is more than it used to be.



Cynical? He probably has good reasons. Most industries would love to see environmental controls rolled back. I'm involved in the budget discussion and project planning. Marketing and packaging get a lot more attention than regulated pollution, like wastewater treatment, and unregulated impacts get lip service when they must.


I'm sure some businesses are much better than others. I have also seen that.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Absolutely true, but then the consumers would start making choices that have a lesser environmental impact, and therefore cost less. The packaging of the rubber bands mentioned above is a perfect example. If buying them in hard plastic containers cost more than buying them in a simple paper wrap, most consumers would opt for the paper wrap.

Furthermore, if manufacturers had to plan for and pay for the eventual recycling of their products then there would be incentive to avoid products which are hard or expensive to recycle.

Consumers choosing less expensive products over more expensive products provide that incentive.

Right now there is no incentive to reduce non-recyclable packaging. It is produced and sold at little cost, the consumer buys it with no penalty, and eventually most of it get put into land fills at a cost to the community which the consumer does not feel.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There's a worthwhile discussion to be had, but when people blithely spout unsupported nonsense about recycling,

...it's the consumer who is more interested in the appearance of being green than actually fixing any problem. Industry simply supplies what the consumer demands.

or otherwise try to rewrite history to fit a childishly naive concept of industry...

Catalytic converters were the result of a wide, bipartisan consensus...

I personally find propaganda to not be agreeable; I recall there are some viewpoints that you have been less than civil about. Is a discussion worth having if prejudices and dogma aren't challenged?

Is your scolding because of a sincere desire to foster productive discourse, or because you simply can't refute the points raised?

I'm not going to help you facilitate unnecessarily and divisively sidetracking the discussion into yet another angry labeling and name-calling exercise which leads to thread closure. Which points are you seeking vindication on?

That certain industries have knowingly engaged (and still engage) in irresponsible and at times reckless practices that put profits ahead of consumer safety? AGREED! Ready to move on to discuss how the plastics and related industries can be induced to be more responsible about their packaging and overall wastage? Hope so.

That in many instances consumers are duped into making feel good choices based on bogus marketing that do nothing but help maximize corporate profits? Hello?? Be sure the barista doesn't offer you that straw with your $4.00 Frappacino and you'll be doing your part.

That costs imposed on producers -- whether they be from mfg, govt regs, taxes, etc. -- are inevitably passed onto consumers? That's just economic reality, not any sort of statement of "morality." If you don't understand that you'll never understand the economic incentives & disincentives required to get to a desired outcome. Talk about "naivete!"

Never claimed that catalytic converters per se, or any other instrumentality developed by industry to meet the goals of the widely supported Clean Air Act, were the direct result themselves of a bipartisan consensus. The consensus supported the overall legislation (signed into law by Richard Nixon), and lead removal, catalytic converters, etc., etc. were simply some of the means to accomplish the overall goals. You should be able to make your points without distorting other peoples' posts to suit your personal agenda.

Labeling comments you don't find agreeable as propaganda or dogma doesn't make them so, and I don't see any conflict between challenging peoples' opinions and doing it respectfully. More often than not you seem to be the only one who finds this challenging, and it only detracts from some of your more worthwhile contributions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Having worked intimately (inside the petroleum industry) with the lead issue in the 70s and 80s, I promise you industry was not playing nice. It was a different time. I work in a different industry now, and it has changed... just a very little, mostly on the surface. What they think you might see, which is more than it used to be.



Cynical? He probably has good reasons. Most industries would love to see environmental controls rolled back. I'm involved in the budget discussion and project planning. Marketing and packaging get a lot more attention than regulated pollution, like wastewater treatment, and unregulated impacts get lip service when they must.


I'm sure some businesses are much better than others. I have also seen that.

I don't dispute or doubt any of this. It's a given that govt regulation is a necessary component to balance corporate profit with consumer safety and societal good. It's the over-generalizations that I don't useful.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Furthermore, if manufacturers had to plan for and pay for the eventual recycling of their products then there would be incentive to avoid products which are hard or expensive to recycle.

Consumers choosing less expensive products over more expensive products provide that incentive.

Right now there is no incentive to reduce non-recyclable packaging. It is produced and sold at little cost, the consumer buys it with no penalty, and eventually most of it get put into land fills at a cost to the community which the consumer does not feel.

Well said... (by others as well). I was trying to make the same point, although perhaps too flippantly, when I referred to the "invisible hand." But the point is, right now there are no market messages which would incentivize more efficient use of packaging. By putting it onto the producers -- where it used to be in many cases in the past -- this would naturally produce price changes that would allow both consumers, retailers and producers to respond. The "invisible hand" would naturally drive efficiencies.

As it is now, the costs of all the plastic crap are externalized to the commons. We all pay the price, the producers reap greater profits, and consumers prioritize non-price factors such as convenience and aesthetics, all the while wrapped in the belief that all their throwaways get recycled into new products.

The current system does have its advantages and strengths. We're potentially capturing (at least collecting) a broader range of recyclable products. Large recycle businesses, like the one Tim works with, are probably more efficient than a whole bunch of decentralized producer-owned, operations. So maybe there is a better way that combines the two.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

That certain industries have knowingly engaged (and still engage) in irresponsible and at times reckless practices that put profits ahead of consumer safety? AGREED! Ready to move on to discuss how the plastics and related industries can be induced to be more responsible about their packaging and overall wastage? Hope so.

We will get there sooner if you'd stop pretending that business and industry are blameless and have no responsibility for being part of a solution.

That in many instances consumers are duped into making feel good choices based on bogus marketing that do nothing but help maximize corporate profits? Hello??

WHO duped the consumers (and governments)? Business and industry! Hello...

That costs imposed on producers -- whether they be from mfg, govt regs, taxes, etc. -- are inevitably passed onto consumers?

It's not as clear-cut as that. No one owes or guarantees a set profit margin to industry. So it's not a given that costs or penalties always get passed penny for penny through to the consumer. This is only your naivité.

Never claimed that catalytic converters per se, or any other instrumentality developed by industry to meet the goals of the widely supported Clean Air Act, were the direct result themselves of a bipartisan consensus.

... yeah you did. You poured on the soft soap and lathered it up good. No-one bought it, though. Sorry.

Labeling comments you don't find agreeable as propaganda or dogma doesn't make them so, and I don't see any conflict between challenging peoples' opinions and doing it respectfully. More often than not you seem to be the only one who finds this challenging, and it only detracts from some of your more worthwhile contributions.

I suck. I know. But bad arguments are still bad arguments. And you still have this rosy, blinkered, idyllic concept of business.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We will get there sooner if you'd stop pretending that business and industry are blameless and have no responsibility for being part of a solution.

Been saying the exact opposite actually. Only point I suggested was not to demonize people and entities that, as you correctly point out, are a necessary part of any solution. I'm fully aware that much of industry will prioritize profit-making. Your hatred of "industry" sounds rather personal. What gives?

WHO duped the consumers (and governments)? Business and industry! Hello...

And from prior related threads with similar displays of hysteria, it sounds like perhaps you were one of those consumers who got duped. Maybe explains why you're so angry?

It's not as clear-cut as that. No one owes or guarantees a set profit margin to industry. So it's not a given that costs or penalties always get passed penny for penny through to the consumer. This is only your naivité.

Can't imagine you have any experience running a business.

... yeah you did. You poured on the soft soap and lathered it up good. No-one bought it, though. Sorry.

Bought what? An argument over the origins of the catalytic converter in a recycling thread? Or are you now going to somehow extrapolate from my posts that I'm opposed to catalytic converters and unleaded gas? (Spoiler alert: I'm not). Or how about that I don't approve of the govt regulations authorized by the US Congress to enforce the goals of the Clean Air Act? (Spoiler alert: I approve). What in the world is jamming you up this time L-E? Or do you just need a time out?

I suck. I know. But bad arguments are still bad arguments. And you still have this rosy, blinkered, idyllic realistic concept of business.

Fixed.

[Allied39]

Whoah, lots going on in this thread eh?

So recently our garbage pickup changed from pretty damned awesome to.....well...pretty much the opposite.

The county contract got given to a different company. So now the new company will not pick up anything unless in a big black bag. They used to pickup what was out there no matter how it was placed.

I would estimate that at least 10,000 more bags go to waste management/ landfill per week.

10,000 more big black bags per week!

And now the recycle is no longer picked up. The reason given for the no recycle is that they cant find workers......something about folks being paid more to stay at home or some such blather. Like that could ever happen...

Yes, the effectiveness of recycle is in question and it would'nt surprise me if it all went into landfill......but I felt good....and that counts....or at least it did.

So, if they want more bags, hey more bags it is. I'll bag bags if thats what they want.

Not me that did it, I think it was the county commissioners that made the decision (poor decision)....but it is what it is right.....right? Being held accountable is a thing of the past.....old timer talk.

I am just gonna leave it all up to evolution and travel the road we all do....live (well) and then die. The planet will be just fine.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't dispute or doubt any of this. It's a given that govt regulation is a necessary component to balance corporate profit with consumer safety and societal good. It's the over-generalizations that I don't useful.

True.


And if the public is duped by recycling claims... it's because they want to believe everything is cheap and easy, and they can live the way they like and feel clean.



Unfortunately, "No common sense person would think we meant that literally" is becoming too common an excuse. I was just reading the specs on a holding tank treatment that was described in a bold heading as organic, green, and biodegradable. The sole ingredient is an inorganic listed marine toxin. I was dumbstruck. Not a single word of the advertising had ANY truth in it, the ingredients were disguised in the SDS (I had a sample).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

True.


And if the public is duped by recycling claims... it's because they want to believe everything is cheap and easy, and they can live the way they like and feel clean.



Unfortunately, "No common sense person would think we meant that literally" is becoming too common an excuse. I was just reading the specs on a holding tank treatment that was described in a bold heading as organic, green, and biodegradable. The sole ingredient is an inorganic listed marine toxin. I was dumbstruck. Not a single word of the advertising had ANY truth in it, the ingredients were disguised in the SDS (I had a sample).

Was it formaldehyde by chance? Only curious since I've noticed this doesn't appear to be available anymore from Dometic, and thought perhaps it had been banned for marine use by the EPA. Either that or I'm the one being duped this time. I should double-check the ingredients of the stuff I usually use.

I meant to ask, btw, if you (or anyone) knew the origin of the ubiquitous recycling logo (3 arrows forming a triangle) we see everywhere, most notably on plastics accompanied by a single-digit number. Curious if this denotes some sort of official, i.e. govt regulatory scheme or is derived from within the plastics/petroleum industry.

[Nauticus]

It identifies the manufacturing materials of plastic or its ID resin code. As for the 3 it represents PVC