You're Probably Recycling Wrong

[Teallaura]

Psst......dubious.......

No, I meant ambiguous. The exact opposite of his very definite opinion.

[Teallaura]

I'm just saying one should make an attempt to do what's most responsible, even if it's not most economical.

Presumes facts not in evidence. If it's not economical then it probably isn't the most responsible thing in this instance. Remember, your case rested in part on the fact that it's better for the environment to recycle aluminum - which also happens to be more economical. The same case can't be made for all - not even most - other recyclables. If it's not economical enough to be worth paying someone to do - as we do with aluminum - then it brings up the question of just how well the C/B analysis holds up. You're demanding a LOT of unpaid labor - you need to show a LOT of return for that.

From the individual POV paper, steel and glass cannot survive a C/B analysis when you require meticulous sorting (not sure they do well with rough sorting, to be honest). It is NOT necessarily the most responsible thing for someone to waste time they could use productively elsewhere to to that sorting and in a number of circumstances it will be irresponsible (caregivers, first responders - anyone that has others depending on them and not a lot of time to waste). When you get outside the First world, it gets far worse. In some cases, home sorting could destroy parts of the local economy - and anything that won't be bought becomes a complete waste of time.

It's a mistake to assume that placing economic value on something is necessarily destructive. It's in the Third world where the type of meticulous sorting you want becomes feasible - BECAUSE the recyclables have economic value sufficient to make sorting worthwhile. Now, that's not to say that it's a good system - it isn't. But it does demonstrate the issue.

[Jedidiah]

I'm just saying one should make an attempt to do what's most responsible, even if it's not most economical.

This has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with spending lots of fossil fuel to take stuff from Alaska to Outside for recycling, using far more resources collecting and sorting the recyclables than they actually save.

ETA: I guess it does have to do with economics also as Teal pointed out.

[Sea of red]

Presumes facts not in evidence. If it's not economical then it probably isn't the most responsible thing in this instance. Remember, your case rested in part on the fact that it's better for the environment to recycle aluminum - which also happens to be more economical. The same case can't be made for all - not even most - other recyclables. If it's not economical enough to be worth paying someone to do - as we do with aluminum - then it brings up the question of just how well the C/B analysis holds up. You're demanding a LOT of unpaid labor - you need to show a LOT of return for that.

From the individual POV paper, steel and glass cannot survive a C/B analysis when you require meticulous sorting (not sure they do well with rough sorting, to be honest). It is NOT necessarily the most responsible thing for someone to waste time they could use productively elsewhere to to that sorting and in a number of circumstances it will be irresponsible (caregivers, first responders - anyone that has others depending on them and not a lot of time to waste). When you get outside the First world, it gets far worse. In some cases, home sorting could destroy parts of the local economy - and anything that won't be bought becomes a complete waste of time.

It's a mistake to assume that placing economic value on something is necessarily destructive. It's in the Third world where the type of meticulous sorting you want becomes feasible - BECAUSE the recyclables have economic value sufficient to make sorting worthwhile. Now, that's not to say that it's a good system - it isn't. But it does demonstrate the issue.

Unpaid labor? What are you talking about? The workers at the plant are paid a wage for their labor. In most districts, you toss in the recyclables and the workers remove the the things that can't be recycled, while the machines do most of the other work. The problem is people are not educated about what materials go in the bin and what materials DON'T. It grew into an even bigger problem when polycarts replaced 18-gallon bins, which resulted in even more containment being brought to recycle floors.

Lets take paper as an example: 40 percent of all waste is paper that ends up in the landfill. That is time, space, and energy that could be used for other things like... hazardous and medical materials.

http://www.epa.gov/region3/beyondtra...lleFeldman.pdf

The EIA also agrees with these figures on energy.

Case: Recycled Paper

Recycled paper cuts energy usage by 60 percent
energy, and its production uses 80 percent less
water

Recycled paper generates 95 percent less air
pollution

Recycling one ton of paper saves 17 trees, 7,000
gallons of water, 2 barrels of oil and 4100 kilowatt
hours of energy - enough to power the average
American home for six months

Every year, enough paper is thrown away to make
a 12-foot wall from New York to California

The economy can be fixed, the natural world can not be fixed so easily. Simply throwing things away and not taking the minute to walk to a bin is just pure neglect, that we shouldn't encourage. Our landfills are finite and should be used responsible, rather than recklessly. The fact that some stock swindlers made some bad business decisions is not anybodies problem but theirs. If they do want to do it, then the government and other groups can take over.

[Sea of red]

This has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with spending lots of fossil fuel to take stuff from Alaska to Outside for recycling, using far more resources collecting and sorting the recyclables than they actually save.

ETA: I guess it does have to do with economics also as Teal pointed out.

Because Alaska has SO many landfills you know.

[Sea of red]

Alright, this thread has run it's course. Now on to other things.

Thanks for the comments.

[rogue06]

I'm just saying one should make an attempt to do what's most responsible, even if it's not most economical.

What if you burn up more fossil fuels going around picking everything up than you would save (both economically and environmentally)? And there are somethings that use up more energy recycling than just making new ones (IIRC glass is an example)

[Jedidiah]

Because Alaska has SO many landfills you know.

Thanks for ignoring what I asked - twice.

[Teallaura]

Unpaid labor? What are you talking about? The workers at the plant are paid a wage for their labor. In most districts, you toss in the recyclables and the workers remove the the things that can't be recycled, while the machines do most of the other work. The problem is people are not educated about what materials go in the bin and what materials DON'T. It grew into an even bigger problem when polycarts replaced 18-gallon bins, which resulted in even more containment being brought to recycle floors.

Lets take paper as an example: 40 percent of all waste is paper that ends up in the landfill. That is time, space, and energy that could be used for other things like... hazardous and medical materials.

http://www.epa.gov/region3/beyondtra...lleFeldman.pdf

The EIA also agrees with these figures on energy.



The economy can be fixed, the natural world can not be fixed so easily. Simply throwing things away and not taking the minute to walk to a bin is just pure neglect, that we shouldn't encourage. Our landfills are finite and should be used responsible, rather than recklessly. The fact that some stock swindlers made some bad business decisions is not anybodies problem but theirs. If they do want to do it, then the government and other groups can take over.

Who pays the person who threw the thing out? The sorting begins before it gets curbside - and all of that is unpaid labor.

As far as the other part of your argument, you need to show moral/ethical obligation - and all you've shown is that you hold the opinion that everyone should recycle and contribute - for free - to the sorting process because it might do harm to the natural world (this is a really hard case to make - it has to be done in the aggregate but that won't work at the individual). What you haven't shown is that an actual moral/ethical obligation exists. Minus that, you have no basis for your assertion that not sorting is neglect.

Yes, I omitted legal. That's because legal should follow from moral/ethical - and in certain instances (like traffic laws) necessity. You can make a case for legal - but it would derive totally from necessity. That would have been difficult in the Sixties - it's next to impossible for the broader spectrum of recyclables now.

Briefly, although it wasn't what I argued, I will comment on the landfill thing - I think it's ridiculous. The issues with landfill space occur around major metropolitan areas - it's silly to assume the problems of big cities should necessitate similar measures in rural areas. Sure, there are legit issues - but landfills are potential resources instead of mere liabilities. Whether or not Bob sorts all the paper isn't going to save or destroy the planet. Whether or not Bob and a few hundred million of his buddies sort all the paper isn't going to save or destroy the planet. Telling Bob and his buddies that they are all bad people because they won't strip the cat food can IS a good way to end up destroying the planet - it wastes the 'good will capital' that green projects depend upon.

This is the greatest danger for the environment, in my opinion; too many of it's 'advocates' go to such extremes that it makes it far less likely that even good reforms will survive the inevitable political reversal. This is a really dumb battle to pick - it annoys people and people have a way of reacting very badly to such annoyance. Baby tends to get tossed with the bath water when that happens.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Teallaura;212888]Who pays the person who threw the thing out? The sorting begins before it gets curbside - and all of that is unpaid labor.

As far as the other part of your argument, you need to show moral/ethical obligation -

If you wish you can sort and sell your aluminum, other metals, and glass, but it will not get you much.

In the Baha'i Faith there is a moral and ethical obligation to conserve and be responsible resources, protect the environment.

. . . and all you've shown is that you hold the opinion that everyone should recycle and contribute - for free - to the sorting process because it might do harm to the natural world (this is a really hard case to make - it has to be done in the aggregate but that won't work at the individual). What you haven't shown is that an actual moral/ethical obligation exists. Minus that, you have no basis for your assertion that not sorting is neglect.

There is not good argument that not sorting is a direct harm or in some way, but it increases the inefficiency of recycling. It is basically the responsibility of the units of government and the recycling industry to determine the needs of sorting and how to sort.

One of the problems with recycling is that the USA has failed to develop a modern recycling industry, and relies foreign recycling industries like China to send our materials and buy the resources back.

Yes, I omitted legal. That's because legal should follow from moral/ethical - and in certain instances (like traffic laws) necessity. You can make a case for legal - but it would derive totally from necessity. That would have been difficult in the Sixties - it's next to impossible for the broader spectrum of recyclables now.

Moral and ethical grounds for recycling should be at foundation of our legal obligations. Actually with some effort the potential for recycling is better today then in the past. We have better opportunities for reuse and recycling despite the broader spectrum recyclables. The problem is the lack of consistent good management of recycling and the development of the USA industry.

Briefly, although it wasn't what I argued, I will comment on the landfill thing - I think it's ridiculous. The issues with landfill space occur around major metropolitan areas - it's silly to assume the problems of big cities should necessitate similar measures in rural areas. Sure, there are legit issues - but landfills are potential resources instead of mere liabilities. Whether or not Bob sorts all the paper isn't going to save or destroy the planet. Whether or not Bob and a few hundred million of his buddies sort all the paper isn't going to save or destroy the planet. Telling Bob and his buddies that they are all bad people because they won't strip the cat food can IS a good way to end up destroying the planet - it wastes the 'good will capital' that green projects depend upon.

The potential benefits of landfills is minimal compared to potential environmental damage, and waste problems they cause. Land used for landfills is for the most is pretty much taken out of most other possible uses in the near future. What potential benefits do you propose for landfills, other than a minor source of methane gas.

[Sea of red]

What if you burn up more fossil fuels going around picking everything up than you would save (both economically and environmentally)? And there are somethings that use up more energy recycling than just making new ones (IIRC glass is an example)

Well I thought that fossil fuels didn't cause global warming.

I guess it depends on which debate you're in.

[Sea of red]

I know I said I was done... but I'm not.

Who pays the person who threw the thing out? The sorting begins before it gets curbside - and all of that is unpaid labor.

Nobody. Do you get paid to clean your house or brush your teeth? It's called refuse for a reason. You NEED their service in order to not live in filth, so you don't get paid for them take away your refuse. The five seconds it takes to put something in a bin is hardly considered "labor", and if you consider it labor, that's really sad.

As far as the other part of your argument, you need to show moral/ethical obligation - and all you've shown is that you hold the opinion that everyone should recycle and contribute - for free - to the sorting process because it might do harm to the natural world (this is a really hard case to make - it has to be done in the aggregate but that won't work at the individual). What you haven't shown is that an actual moral/ethical obligation exists. Minus that, you have no basis for your assertion that not sorting is neglect.

I've shown the resources and environmental impact that not recycling does, while others have offered Penn & Teller. You need to show something other than it being a very slight inconvenience to argue against recycling. I've given you links, I've broken it down, and made it simple. If you don't want to contribute after all that, then I don't think I'm going to change your attitude with more replies.

Yes, I omitted legal. That's because legal should follow from moral/ethical - and in certain instances (like traffic laws) necessity. You can make a case for legal - but it would derive totally from necessity. That would have been difficult in the Sixties - it's next to impossible for the broader spectrum of recyclables now.

In the US, one is not forced under law to contribute to recycling, so I don't know what this is all about.

Briefly, although it wasn't what I argued, I will comment on the landfill thing - I think it's ridiculous. The issues with landfill space occur around major metropolitan areas - it's silly to assume the problems of big cities should necessitate similar measures in rural areas. Sure, there are legit issues - but landfills are potential resources instead of mere liabilities.

Do you consider leachate, air pollution, and methane resources?

[Teallaura]

I know I said I was done... but I'm not.

Nobody. Do you get paid to clean your house or brush your teeth? It's called refuse for a reason. You NEED their service in order to not live in filth, so you don't get paid for them take away your refuse. The five seconds it takes to put something in a bin is hardly considered "labor", and if you consider it labor, that's really sad.

That you don't is really silly. You're making a pretty basic error - just because Bob needs to throw trash away does not mean Bob needs to spend an hour sorting paper and plastic. Remember, we were discussing the sorting process - and you were describing a rather intensive process. But even rough sorting is in fact labor and a labor Bob gains no benefit from - and has no moral/ethical obligation to do. You can appeal to him for the rough sorting to a point - but he's not likely to buy that extensive sorting actually saves the planet.

I've shown the resources and environmental impact that not recycling does, while others have offered Penn & Teller. You need to show something other than it being a very slight inconvenience to argue against recycling. I've given you links, I've broken it down, and made it simple. If you don't want to contribute after all that, then I don't think I'm going to change your attitude with more replies.

No, you've shown the basics - which I grant. What you haven't shown - and I doubt that you can - is that pulling paper off tin cans will save the planet. It's at the point of diminishing return. I asserted and maintain that if a recyclable can be at least marginally economical you have a point - but if not the C/B will only rarely work for the individual.

If you can't make it work at the individual level then you do NOT have the moral \ ethical obligation necessary. I don't have an obligation merely because IF everyone else does X it MIGHT help the planet. X, done or undone at the individual level, simply has too minuscule an impact. Bob and I have other things to do.

In the US, one is not forced under law to contribute to recycling, so I don't know what this is all about.

It's a rather basic point - the legal obligation is the one you CAN actually show - but as you point out, it doesn't exist in all areas (it does in some). I simply went ahead and showed why it shouldn't - and why I had omitted it.

Do you consider leachate, air pollution, and methane resources?

Sometimes, often and yes. I thought you believed in recycling? Does your belief end at the curbside, or can we include all parts of the refuse stream? There are already efforts being made to reclaim resources from landfills.

Besides which, not all refuse ends up in a land fill. The cycle and its economics are highly complex - which is why 'simple' answers can have unfortunate side effects. But the truth is, if we stop sorting paper tomorrow, the planet would survive.

The danger is the all or nothing attitude. Political winds change - a lot. Thinking 'we can never go back' is foolishness - and making onerous demands in the name of saving the planet is a great way to end up doing the opposite. Most people don't mind rough sorting - some do, but most don't. But when it gets complicated (honey, does the 2 liter bottle go with the household cleaner bottles or the microwavable trays?) they begin to resent it. Eventually, you end up with all the regulations scraped - including the reasonable, even necessary, ones.

[Teallaura]

Well I thought that fossil fuels didn't cause global warming.

I guess it depends on which debate you're in.

Nope, not really. Fossil fuels do cause pollution - I don't think there are any serious contentions otherwise. It can be moderated but the more fossil fuel you use the more you pollute. Doesn't need to warm up the planet to be a bad idea.

If you're trying to make the world cleaner you have to figure in the effect of fossil fuel usage to the equation - and the more of that you use, the more likely that equation won't balance out like you want it to.

[Sea of red]

I had a whole response a then my laptop ran out of juice.

Anyways, you don't have to sort to the extend you're talking about. If you have to remove the paper off a can, you're probably not supposed to recycle it anyways. Like I said, this is not about sorting, it's about garbage ending up in recycle bins, which requires actual labor.