Recycling

[JOEBIALEK]

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage , and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is bogus for most materials. Unless things have changed pretty dramatically in the past 5 years (my research is old) glass, plastic and paper all require more energy to recycle than to produce new ones. The major exception is aluminum, and you will notice no altruism or government intervention is needed in recycling those. Recycling plants have been offering cash for cans for a long time. If it really cost both fewer raw materials and less energy to recycle something the companies would pay people for that stuff.

[kevin017]

the parents of my senior english teacher in hs owned a lumber company. he told us it was more expensive and polluting to recycle paper than to just make new paper. dunno how right he exactly is or exactly what he claimed, but he had a phd and i would think there was some basis to it.

[foal]

Anyone have figures on how much paper is farmed rather than obtained unsustainably? I've heard arguments against paper recycling, but I don't have enough detail to conclude whether the benefits outweight the costs.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
The bolded part is bogus for most materials. Unless things have changed pretty dramatically in the past 5 years (my research is old) glass, plastic and paper all require more energy to recycle than to produce new ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the recent Penn & Teller episode on recycling they said that recycling cost 3x as much as just throwing it out.

[Low Key]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bolded part is bogus for most materials. Unless things have changed pretty dramatically in the past 5 years (my research is old) glass, plastic and paper all require more energy to recycle than to produce new ones.

[/ QUOTE ]


In the recent Penn & Teller episode on recycling they said that recycling cost 3x as much as just throwing it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

God knows we should get all our facts from a tv show called Bull [censored]..

Recycling isn't really the way to go, it must be said. Reusing is much more ideal and takes much less energy, especially if you're the one reusing something you bought. (I used to do this all the time when I was in school. If I bought a bottle of water, I'd just keep refilling it for a few weeks until I lost it in my car or it got damaged)

[anatta]

I pee in a 2 liter Mountain Dew bottle when I play poker, that way I save water from flushing and don't miss my rush. Nobody can tell its pee, either, it looks like Mountain Dew. I just leave it by the computer, stinks a little, but really no problem. People come over, and they don't even know, I'm like Hannibal Lecter, you know when he serves the orchestra dude to his dinner guests, except you know, it just sits there, I don't serve it to them or anything. Oh who am I kidding nobody ever comes over...

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
God knows we should get all our facts from a tv show called Bull [censored]..


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously its not an authority on the usbject, but if you have other facts I'd be interested in hearing them. I just dont see us running out of landfill space anytime soon and if it is a problem, reducing our waste will only postpone the problem. We need solutions that allow us to reuse landfills once they are done being used, which is what I believe currently happens.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God knows we should get all our facts from a tv show called Bull [censored]..


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously its not an authority on the usbject, but if you have other facts I'd be interested in hearing them. I just dont see us running out of landfill space anytime soon and if it is a problem, reducing our waste will only postpone the problem. We need solutions that allow us to reuse landfills once they are done being used, which is what I believe currently happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best thing about that episode was the landfill part. Landfill space is definitely not an issue in the United States despite what people might say. Some expert in the episode said that you could set aside a 24 mile piece of land in the continental United States and that it would be enough to hold all of our trash for the next 1,000 years. Since the 24 miles doesn't have to be all in one clump, this is the easiest thing ever.

Also - if you already have public recycling programs in your area, are you actually helping the environment by putting your recyclables in the trash instead, or since the truck is already driving past you might as well recycle?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Also - if you already have public recycling programs in your area, are you actually helping the environment by putting your recyclables in the trash instead, or since the truck is already driving past you might as well recycle?


[/ QUOTE ]

After watching that show I stopped recycling for the most part. There are more important things to worry about.