Recycling, a rant

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

When it comes to plastics, the problem may be that it's just not easily recyclable, with only a limited number of facilities that can handle it. That's one reason why I was curious what the labels on various plastics actually mean.

The plastic type codes: or as door-sized art

As they state:

Although plastic can be recycled these numbers do not automatically mean they are accepted in your local recycling program. Accepted materials in recycling programs vary from city to city.

Here in Toronto, we currently separate household waste into 3 containers:

• organic (food waste, kitchen scraps, disposable diapers, dog poop, etc). Plastic bags are ok; they can strip those out
• recycling (paper, cardboard, plastics, glass)
• garbage (whatever's left)

They also separately collect yard waste (leaves, grass, small branches)

Re plastics, the chain takeouts and many of the Asian takeout places use these black plastic dishes with clear lids (ideal to use for small parts, parts washing, etc... and even as reusable lunch containers...but you can only keep so many)... but our recycling program doesn't accept dark plastics. . Such a disconnect...

[gonesail]

we don't waste our time with recycling anymore .. at home or on the boat. not worth my time or effort. it's all trash to me.

[Buzzman]

I get absolutely furious at the complacency of "we humans".

Sure, a lot of so-called "recycling schemes" are just about churn, and giving an appearance of 'doing something', and yes, I'm utterly cynical as many of you are over the 'green badging' of stuff that can't and isn't being actually recycled.

What REALLY gets my goat is that no-one ever seems to point out the REAL problem is that the 'environmental disposal cost' of any given product or packaging is not factored into the purchase price *properly*.

In South Australia (and now to a lesser extent in NSW) we have 'container deposit legislation' or CDL, which requires makers of products to charge an extra small amount that is then recouped when the product or packaging is recycled.

This provides a 'market' for collection.

OK, it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be an actual re-use of the components of the product or packaging, but it shows the way we ought to be going.

In NSW govt implemented a 'simple' automated centre that can detect from shape and weight what product is being shoved through the hole. These machines will take beer bottles, aluminium cans, PET bottles and plastic milk containers. That's it. Not wine bottles, jars or other glass bottles, which *could* also be recycled in the exsisting 'waste streams'. Everything is a compromise, not having to add 'slots' for wine bottles or jars simplified the machine and it's footprint. But, theoretically, a 'module' could be developed that could be added to all of these 'recycling centres' down track to take the wine bottles and jars. It's a start.

The REAL problem, as someone pointed out up thread, is that our pollies are being bought and leveraged and arm-twisted by industry to prevent any such recycling schemes being implemented.

The long, long fight to get the limited CDL scheme in NSW has been going on for 40+ years, and all we got was yet another compromise.

I have also recently discovered that any aluminium foil, dishes, pill packs etc if not 'bundled' into a ball prior to dropping in the recycling bin, will not actually be recycled. So have started doing that at home as well.

I also recently discovered (via a TV doco of all things) that there are collection points at the major supermarkets for plastic film - specifically their 'single use' shopping bags, but effectively all forms of thin plastic film, so I now separate those as well and place them in the collection bins.

The biggest issue is that it's "all too hard" for most 'ordinary humans' to be arsed to do the actual 'separation at site' - i.e. before the product ends up in the 'waste stream' where it then has to be separated out, which costs time, money and/or specialist machinery.

So, from my reasonable analysis, if humans won't/can't separate at source, then we need to place a 'cost of separation' and a separate 'cost of landfill' to *encourage* packaging makers and product makers to use materials that can actually be upcycled, re-used, recycled or otherwise repurposed at least once.

We can't simply not use packaging for most things, so we need to accept the 'recycling phase' as a cost that has to be borne within the product manufacture, marketing, purchase and disposal cycle.

And only via govt regulation and legislation can this be made into a 'level playing field' so no manufacturer is unevenly advantaged or disadvantaged.

Some of the smarter ones can see the writing on the wall and are looking to differentiate themselves by using packaging which is made from either natural products, so is compostable, or from products that can be more easily recyclable, like brown cardboard, rather than luridly printed (with oil-based ink). But a lot of this is 'greenwashing' as well. Value signalling that doesn't actually achieve any real change.

The ONLY reason a maker uses a certain type of packaging material is A) they can and B) it's cheap.

Make the 'ceapest possible solution' not as cheap, and then some of the slightly more expensive but better recycling solutions become 'cost-effective. Legislate to 'encourage' the use of better options, and bingo, it happens.

But as the long fight for CDL in NSW shows WE have to demand the changes, and keep on demanding it.

So, as a suggestion, could I ask/request/beg that ALL of us ask, at every marina we enter "where are the separation bins for recycling"?

If we don't ask, we will never get....

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

What REALLY gets my goat is that no-one ever seems to point out the REAL problem is that the 'environmental disposal cost' of any given product or packaging is not factored into the purchase price *properly*.

Agreed Buzz. This was the point I, and others, were making earlier. Recycling programs, as they operate now, just allow producers to offload or externalize the cost of their wasteful ways. They dump all the disposal and 'recycling' costs onto the public purse, neatly avoiding any responsibility and cost.

This removes any incentive the producers have to find efficiencies in the production of their products, or the packaging of the items. And they are further incentivized by consumer behaviour which, despite all the complaining here, generally prefers bubble-wrapped packaged perfection.

This is why a few of us have pushed the idea of making producers responsible for the life cycle of their products, including the packaging that in involved. This would allow the market to operate as it often does, to find efficiencies, and reduce cost. The system we have no erases all market signals, allowing producers to do what is easiest and cheapest, and consumers to buy, Buy, BUY with no concern for the true cost of all the stuff they toss.

[Buzzman]

I totally agree. With all you said.

The point, which may have gotten lost in the rant, was for *us* - cruisers - to start *demanding* recycling separation facilities at dock side.

The theory is, if enough of us keep on asking for it, and complain to all and sundry that XYZ Marina does NOT have 'suitable recycling facilities', they will eventually come to the party.

I noted in the thread that several people said "my/our/XYZ marina does not have separation facilities" without any mention of whether or not they had asked why or why not...

If you never ask, you never get....

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

I get absolutely furious at the complacency of "we humans".

Sure, a lot of so-called "recycling schemes" are just about churn, and giving an appearance of 'doing something', and yes, I'm utterly cynical as many of you are over the 'green badging' of stuff that can't and isn't being actually recycled.

What REALLY gets my goat is that no-one ever seems to point out the REAL problem is that the 'environmental disposal cost' of any given product or packaging is not factored into the purchase price *properly*...

... So, from my reasonable analysis, if humans won't/can't separate at source, then we need to place a 'cost of separation' and a separate 'cost of landfill' to *encourage* packaging makers and product makers to use materials that can actually be upcycled, re-used, recycled or otherwise repurposed at least once.

And only via govt regulation and legislation can this be made into a 'level playing field' so no manufacturer is unevenly advantaged or disadvantaged...

... Make the 'ceapest possible solution' not as cheap, and then some of the slightly more expensive but better recycling solutions become 'cost-effective. Legislate to 'encourage' the use of better options, and bingo, it happens...

INDEED!

When the full private & external life-cycle cost benefit [economic & environmental] is calculated, recycling might prove much less costly.

Even though the benefits of recycling, over disposal, are manifold, we should also keep in mind, that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse”, before recycling even becomes an option.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The plastic type codes: or as door-sized art

As they state:

Although plastic can be recycled these numbers do not automatically mean they are accepted in your local recycling program. Accepted materials in recycling programs vary from city to city.

Here in Toronto, we currently separate household waste into 3 containers:

• organic (food waste, kitchen scraps, disposable diapers, dog poop, etc). Plastic bags are ok; they can strip those out
• recycling (paper, cardboard, plastics, glass)
• garbage (whatever's left)

They also separately collect yard waste (leaves, grass, small branches)

Re plastics, the chain takeouts and many of the Asian takeout places use these black plastic dishes with clear lids (ideal to use for small parts, parts washing, etc... and even as reusable lunch containers...but you can only keep so many)... but our recycling program doesn't accept dark plastics. . Such a disconnect...

And this: "The recycling symbol found on plastic products does not indicate that a product is necessarily recyclable nor recycled."

It's this symbol, rather than the numbers (helpful info on that btw), that I find particularly misleading if a municipality is simply commingling and burying it with ordinary trash. It does show, however, that consumers seem to be doing their part, at least on the initial phase of the recycling process. The purchasing/consumption end, of course, is another matter as discussed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Buzzman

I totally agree. With all you said.

The point, which may have gotten lost in the rant, was for *us* - cruisers - to start *demanding* recycling separation facilities at dock side.

The theory is, if enough of us keep on asking for it, and complain to all and sundry that XYZ Marina does NOT have 'suitable recycling facilities', they will eventually come to the party.

I noted in the thread that several people said "my/our/XYZ marina does not have separation facilities" without any mention of whether or not they had asked why or why not...

If you never ask, you never get....

And if you ask the entity that has no control over what happens to all those nicely sorted bins after they leave your marina, you'll be assured never to get.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

And if you ask the entity that has no control over what happens to all those nicely sorted bins after they leave your marina, you'll be assured never to get.

Is that, [partly] because, after all, we don't cast informed votes, in municipal, state, and federal elections?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Is that, [partly] because, after all, we don't cast informed votes, in municipal, state, and federal elections?

Unfortunately for those constantly looking to politicize any and every issue wherever they may be found, I think the benefits of recycling are recognized and shared pretty well across the board at this point. Notwithstanding a few posts to the contrary here on CF. I also doubt that having proper recycling facilities ranks as the highest priority for many people, especially working families and small business owners who have more immediate concerns about who they elect into office, for example taxes, onerous regulations, schools, and their families' basic safety, i.e. support for law enforcement. And the ones casting more "informed" votes probably also recognize that the primary problem in developed countries is one of over-consumption, with the resulting overfilling of landfills, shipping the stuff overseas (not so much anymore), and increased fossil fuel consumption used in production. As you know, the more immediate cause of plastic inundating waterways & oceans is the improper and environmentally harmful disposal by only a few mostly Asian countries, most notably China. Surely China, if not other countries, can afford to build proper landfills to deal with this blight until the world gets a better handle on the complexities involved in coming up with rational solutions.

So no, I think casting votes in favor of politicians you likely favor will only result in what we already have, namely misleading symbols on plastic packaging, lots of green colored bins for sorting recyclables that wind up in the same place as ordinary trash, and other empty promises that dupe people into believing they are doing something positive for the environment. Only when the wider, i.e. less partisan middle can be swayed to adopt sensible remedies will anything really get done.

[sgl]

Counter intuitive, I know, but the solution might be to eliminate waste management services, or charge for disposal by the pound. Tokyo got much cleaner after they got rid of all trash cans in the city. Make people responsible for disposing of their trash and everyone is going to get tired of unnecessary packaging real quick. As was mentioned, we need to use less. Re-use more. Recycling should be the last resort since its the most complex part of the problem.

We moved to Bocas Del Toro, PA. We need to improvise garbage management with our community. It's a PITA, but it forced us to use much less. All organic goes to compost or ocean, paper gets burnt, beer glass bottles and aluminum are recycled, plastic containers get reused for potted plans or storage, the rest is buried. If we could simply do away with plastic packaging that would solve most of our issues.

[Tonali99]

Originally Posted by dannc

I can remember the garbage incinerator that used to be in Orlando and seeing the garbage trucks dumping their loads to burn but it was not making power. I think that incinerator just burned the trash.

Dublin, Ireland has a large incinerator that produces energy. The only thing similar to the Dublin incinerator and the old Orlando one, was the burning of garbage. The Orlando incinerator just burnt the trash and the emissions were not filtered in any way.

Incinerators would seem to be a viable way to get rid of garbage where landfills are expensive. South Florida would seem to fit that requirement. When I left South Florida, the Sample road dump was filling up and they were going to open another dump further west. Tain't no more room down there, so what are they going to do with the garbage? Ship it to the central part of the state?

No matter what path is decided people will complain.

One would think there is a quite a bit of recyclable material in the Sample road dump. Whether it makes money sense to "mine" it is a different question.

Later,
Dan

I've seen some of those. In Ft.Pierce they actually use the methane to run machinery like generators.On the other hand, when a landfill is closed it could be that hilltop housing development snowbirds dream of.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unfortunately for those constantly looking to politicize any and every issue wherever they may be found, I think the benefits of recycling are recognized and shared pretty well across the board at this point.[except by industry] Notwithstanding a few posts to the contrary here on CF. I also doubt that having proper recycling facilities ranks as the highest priority for many people, especially working families and small business owners who have more immediate concerns about who they elect into office, for example taxes, onerous regulations, schools, and their families' basic safety, i.e. support for law enforcement. And the ones casting more "informed" votes probably also recognize that the primary problem in developed countries is one of over-consumption, with the resulting overfilling of landfills, shipping the stuff overseas (not so much anymore), and increased fossil fuel consumption used in production.

This is kind of saying "we can't get there from here" or maybe "we won't...". Overconsumption is its own issue, with very deep and stubborn roots, and tied very closely to the dominant economic beliefs of most of the west. Packaging is an issue regardless, unless the big box stores and Amazon suddenly disappear, and local markets pop up everywhere.

Of course it must be political. In fact it is. Most people have some notion of the many environmental issues we face, and are broadly in favour of some action, but can be persuaded to push this down in priority if it's not in their face. And some political parties treat environmental concern as a red flag (green flag) of the other side, and use it as a wedge. So they're invested in NOT being very concerned. And industry is very happy to fund this standoff. You know all this.

As you know, the more immediate cause of plastic inundating waterways & oceans is the improper and environmentally harmful disposal by only a few mostly Asian countries, most notably China. Surely China, if not other countries, can afford to build proper landfills to deal with this blight until the world gets a better handle on the complexities involved in coming up with rational solutions.

I'm sure that much of this waste was until recently from the stuff we exported to them for "recycling". And there's fishing nets and gear. Let's also bear in mind that we haven't always done so well with waste.

So no, I think casting votes in favor of politicians you likely favor will only result in what we already have, namely misleading symbols on plastic packaging, lots of green colored bins for sorting recyclables that wind up in the same place as ordinary trash, and other empty promises that dupe people into believing they are doing something positive for the environment. Only when the wider, i.e. less partisan middle can be swayed to adopt sensible remedies will anything really get done.

The middle you point to has apparently been persuaded that real action would have unacceptable negative economic consequences. Just like with climate change. Propaganda and lobbying works.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unfortunately for those constantly looking to politicize any and every issue wherever they may be found, I think the benefits of recycling are recognized and shared pretty well across the board at this point...
...Only when the wider, i.e. less partisan middle can be swayed to adopt sensible remedies will anything really get done.

The solutions to these issues are political, in nature.

However, they don't have to be overly partisan, if the vast majority of the electorate can agree on the broad strokes.

For instance:
In Canada, carbon pricing isn’t much of a “ partisan” political issue, any more.
All 5 of Canada’s main political parties now [during an election campaign] include “carbon pricing”, in their official party platform. Admittedly, they do differ in their details, and perhaps their level of commitment.

According to Elections Canada, we have 22 Registered Political Parties; but only 5 parties had representatives elected to the federal parliament, in the [last] 2019 election:
the Liberal Party who currently form the government, the Conservative Party who are the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party of Canada.

[Bycrick]

Here’s an entire thread on what to do with huge quantities of "plastic stuff" that have increasingly been built-in to the entire world economy for a century. To change those habits means changing everything: manufacturing, packaging, stocking, delivering, et al. Changing existing practice after the fact is always more difficult than doing it "right" the first time.

So now you have the hue and cry from the environmentalists: solar power, wind power, and that panacea, electric cars. Instead of trying to change the world, why aren’t the "save the world" people out there demanding that all their great "make the producers pay for the cleanup" ideas be applied to solar panels, lithium batteries, and windmills? Why? Because if you did that, got rid of the government subsidies and paid the disposal fees up front, they’d be uncompetitive. Here’s a chance to avoid a problem before it happens. Do you see any political will from either side to make it happen?