Recycling |
Post Reply |
Author | |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 16913 |
Topic: Recycling Posted: October 04 2015 at 11:29 |
Any thoughts on this piece....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-reign-of-recycling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 |
|
|
|
infocat
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: June 10 2011 Location: Colorado, USA Status: Offline Points: 4671 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 13:36 |
I've long thought all of this recycling craze was mostly just "political correctness", and this seems to agree with that. My mom tends to put most anything that is not food waste in the recycle bin, even though I tell her it just takes more time and manpower to remove the non-recyclable trash from the recycle. I think she thinks there is some magic machine out there that separates everything with ease.
|
|
--
Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
|
Raff
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 29 2005 Location: None Status: Offline Points: 24391 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 13:48 |
I have been recycling for many years now - paper for the longest time of all. In my case, recycling has more to do with my inherent dislike of waste (which was taught to me by my parents) than "political correctness". I have seen people become really obsessive about it, not realizing that dirty paper/plastic dishes are not recyclable any more. What I am obsessive about (and that also comes from my upbringing) is not wasting food, and I try never to toss anything unless it's gone bad (which doesn't often happen).
|
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 27 2014 Location: Norwalk, CA Status: Offline Points: 9319 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 13:55 |
^ I have recently heard that one third of all the food produced and purchased in this country
ends up in the dumpster.
|
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 27 2014 Location: Norwalk, CA Status: Offline Points: 9319 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 14:02 |
As far as recycling is concerned, I found the article to be very interesting and probably
not far off the mark. An industry exists now that did not exist before so that means jobs were created. Is that industry doing more for the economy or for the environment? Does it matter as long as it's doing good?
|
|
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 03 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 17995 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 14:12 |
Last I heard it costs more and requires more power to recycle aluminium cans than it does to make new ones from scratch (I could be wrong). If it was a material in short supply maybe I could see the benefit. Stuff like paper and glass recycling isn't as bad.
Edited by Triceratopsoil - October 04 2015 at 14:12 |
|
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20449 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 16:31 |
For any article like that one can probably find an alternative opinion.
We have recycled in our town for many years and I hope it's doing some good.
|
|
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|
emigre80
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 25 2015 Location: kentucky Status: Offline Points: 2223 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 17:10 |
I'm with Raff. I would do it solely to reduce waste if it had no other benefit.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 64238 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 17:32 |
Sounds like veiled right-wing claptrap: he keeps talking about how we're not saving as much money as thought or that rinsing bottles before recycling them causes more coal-derived pollution. I'm betting more water is used brushing teeth. It's the kind of John Stossel-esque, perpetually contrarian, anti-anything mindset that assumes any amount of progress is bad. And then on to how there's plenty of room for landfill, why not shove it all into the ground? "A modern well-lined landfill in a rural area can have relatively little environmental impact". Yes of course, brilliant.
|
|
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 16913 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 18:10 |
I've recycled for years but I would want the programs based on facts and
actual benefit, not blind ideology. If the facts would happen to show that
more energy (and/or emissions, air/water pollution, etc) are expended trying to recycle some new product just because politicians want it, or that poor homeowners are spending more and
more money they don't have to implement said new programs, then we
should be examining costs/benefit closely. Doing it for the sake of it, without examining all aspects, is not progress. I think we need to stay open minded about it going forward and recycle what makes sense.
And I'm all with Raff's main point as well. Buy less, waste less. That's the first line. |
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 30 2007 Location: Raeford, NC Status: Offline Points: 32473 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 18:28 |
I agree with not wasting, but I don't think recycling, as it happens now, serves that purpose. Recycling largely contributes to waste, but as long as you can convince people that recycling is the answer (when it contributes to the problem), it becomes a racket.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 19:16 |
I am big on not wasting, consuming modestly and am a pretty "pro green" person.
That said, I have long heard various issues with recycling, ranging from the cost effectiveness (which I'll admit I can look past for a good cause) but also things like: What about the additional pollution created for all the extra trucks for recycling pick up, the energy needed to run all the physical processes, the not so good by product that comes from the process of recycling paper, and that large quantities of our recyclables wind up in the exact same dump as our garbage anyway. That's a literal fact and not opinion. There's some even deeper issues to ponder: Does it encourage even more consumption? http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/04/25/can-recycling-be-bad-for-the-environment/ This Forbes article discusses it, among other things, and it's something that has long made me think. EDIT: Landfills aren't dumps by the way, many may think it's a pit we throw stuff in. It is sealed, layered, allows rain drainage (so that it just doesn't fill up with stagnant water) some actually are powered by the gas produced from the landfill and when filled you cover it up with grass so it need not be a festering pit. Just like how we shouldn't scrap recycling, I'm not saying we should use only landfills, but it's a lot to ponder if you are sincere and not just blindly following. Hopefully some team of smart people can take a deep look into some of the above issues and figure out the best way to go forward. Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2015 at 19:24 |
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 03 2007 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 16913 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 19:27 |
^That's how I feel, I'm certainly not for dumping it. I just want to
be sure it truly makes sense on all levels, for each material we choose
to pursue recycling for. Sometimes these things can get on auto pilot
as structures and careers that need to be maintained by those who
benefit from them, and we stop looking at them critically.
I buy so much less stuff than most people I'm around every day. sh*t if you take away CDs and DVDs, I buy almost nothing besides basic living items. The older I get, the less "stuff" I want around me. I don't like clutter at all. |
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 19:37 |
Indeed, I've never been one for things, and try to use what I have to the most.
Can't force this upon the many, (especially since modern society loooooooooves spending and wasting ) but it's what I can do, and that's ideally the best solution for most things: every person doing what they can. Yeah, we should take a sincere look into it all, especially since the truly best environmental solutions are not very popular. No one wants to be told what to do...so we can't limit consumption, and many middle class progressives sure love their big ass houses (I can attest personally, having grown up in one of the foamiest parts of the housing bubble) Which btw, the McMansions have been sprouting up again. I'd love nothing more than to live in a small place, fairly minimally, and using what I do have till I can't and generally being smart about usage.
Edited by JJLehto - October 04 2015 at 19:44 |
|
TeleStrat
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 27 2014 Location: Norwalk, CA Status: Offline Points: 9319 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 21:52 |
Unfortunately, Americans are major consumers who have been programmed to believe that
the more money they spend the better it is for the economy. They buy more than they need more often than they need to and all that consumption creates a lot of waste. Again, unfortunately, the majority of that waste is not being recycled either because of cost or because it's just not recyclable. Landfills can solve some of the problem but there's not much room for them in highly populated areas and no waste management company is going to pay to truck the waste a hundred miles away.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 22:03 |
You are wrong. By a huge margin in fact. It takes 20 time more power to convert bauxite into aluminium than it does to recycle, the equipment is 10 times more expensive and it produces over 30 times more greenhouse gases. It's going to take a hell of a lot of spin to make those figures look bad for recycling.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: October 04 2015 at 23:07 |
It's a specious article on several levels in my estimation. Statements like: "Worst of all is yard waste: it takes 20 tons of it to save a single ton of carbon dioxide." and "...the total annual savings in the United States from recycling everything else ... is only two-tenths of 1 percent of America’s carbon footprint." are presented like they are a bad-thing... duh, no: every ton of carbon that is not released into the atmosphere is a win. You save 1 ton of carbon dioxide, get 11 tons of usable (saleable) compost & mulch, and 20 tons of organic waste doesn't go into landfill. When recycling yard waste the material undergoes aerobic decomposition and releases CO2, in landfill it undergoes anaerobic decomposition and releases CH4 (methane). Also 0.2% of America's carbon footprint is equivalent to the carbon footprint of Luxembourg.
|
|
What?
|
|
Post Reply | |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |