Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 293 posts

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#21

Post by dade_ »

I think that we should have started with municipal composting, paper recycle and plastic Reduce programs. Most of the contamination is from food waste and it makes up most of the weight of trash (obviously because of water content) and I imagine is the major source of methane in our landfills.

Somehow we started with recycling plastics programs (perhaps industry manipulation) which is a complicated mess. Where I live, they still can't recycle black plastics so they end up in the landfill anyway. The these latest developments, I am sure if we actually looked, we would find out that there are provinces in China making a fortune importing recyclables that actually just went straight to a landfill. Of course, now they have decades of trash to contend with. Meanwhile we can all sit pretty thinking about how wonderful we were for separating our recyclables.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#22

Post by glial »

aviv wrote: post #14

Recycling is treating the symptom and not the root cause. The real problem is people buying too much crap they don't really need or shouldn't consume in the first place.

That's a narrow perspective - the root case is the broader expectations about packaging, from both producers and consumers. Lots of food comes wrapped in single-use plastic, too. It's one way to keep food shelf-stable. We need alternative packaging (or package re-use), since can't stop buying food.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#23

Post by SiempreViernes »

rdtsc wrote: post #19

> In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. I heard other cities doing that. It is interesting in municipalities where people diligently separate their recycling into multiple streams, everything neatly going into a separate bins and so on, and then it all goes and gets dumped in the landfill. That says som…

Well no, the environment gets ruined so it's more of a "everyone suffers and die ahead of time" situation

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#24

Post by cc81 »

NullPrefix wrote: post #17
cc81 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In countries with good waste management I assume they are burned if they are not recycled. Other containers such as paper might sometimes even be worse as it will cost more energy to produce them than plastic.

>paper might sometimes even be worse as it will cost more energy to produce them than plastic That's the point. Plastic is cheap to produce but costly to look after. Paper is costly to produce but cheap to look after.

And my point is that it is not necessarily true in countries with good waste management. I will take Sweden as an example with plastic bags.

I cannot find the quotation now but a researcher was asked about plastic bags and the environmental impact on them and the point was that it was not as clear as people think. In Sweden almost all plastic bags ends up being burned like this: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/e...

That is very cheap. And the result would be that the total environmental impact for the complete life cycle might be greater if you choose a paper bag as more energy was required in creating it.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#25

Post by aviv »

glial wrote: post #22
aviv wrote: post #14

Recycling is treating the symptom and not the root cause. The real problem is people buying too much crap they don't really need or shouldn't consume in the first place.

That's a narrow perspective - the root case is the broader expectations about packaging, from both producers and consumers. Lots of food comes wrapped in single-use plastic, too. It's one way to keep food shelf-stable. We need alternative packaging (or package re-use), since can't stop buying food.

I would argue most of what you are referring to as "food" is not and should not be considered food for humans though.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#26

Post by genocidicbunny »

maxxxxx wrote: post #12

In Germany you pay a deposit when you buy a bottle and when you bring it back, you get your money back. At least when I lived there the system worked well. there is always a lot of pressure from industry to go one-way though.

California has this as well -- CRV, but I dont see too many people taking advantage of it. Part of the problem is that most stores dont accept the bottles back -- you need to bring them to a recycling dropoff point that seem to be relatively rare and far in between.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#28

Post by thundergolfer »

nraynaud wrote: post #20
coldtea wrote: post #16

Recycling was always a lipstick on a pig. Inefficient, subsidized, hypocrisy. Wanna help the environment? Reduce consumption overall.

very specifically: don't take the plane, don't got to work with your car, and live in high density housing.

And have a vegan/vegetarian diet.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#29

Post by abainbridge »

ddebernardy wrote: post #11
tyoma wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a counterpoint, single use packaging is a godsend to people with food allergies.

Out of curiosity, what's wrong with single use paper packaging or some other non-plastic alternative to the same effect?

Broadly speaking, I expect the answer is that plastic better prolongs shelf life and leads to less food waste. And plastic is cheaper.

Re: As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling

#30

Post by maxxxxx »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #26
maxxxxx wrote: post #12

In Germany you pay a deposit when you buy a bottle and when you bring it back, you get your money back. At least when I lived there the system worked well. there is always a lot of pressure from industry to go one-way though.

California has this as well -- CRV, but I dont see too many people taking advantage of it. Part of the problem is that most stores dont accept the bottles back -- you need to bring them to a recycling dropoff point that seem to be relatively rare and far in between.

It's also too cheap. The deposit needs to be significant to make sure people bring things back.
Post reply on HN