Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

101–110 of 293 posts

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

#101

People keep saying that China was accepting recyclables. They weren't accepting them, they were buying them. It's hard to make a case that it was all just trash when somebody was paying for it.

It wasn't all trash, but a significant portion was. Without expensive sorting machinery, recycling is generally only profitable with extremely cheap labor and a disregard for environmental damage caused by tossing the unprofitable stuff in the nearest dump. What was profitable for 1990s China would not have been profitable for the US.

"What was profitable for 1990s China would not have been profitable for the US." And may not be "profitable" for China. Indeed, one might argue China got a leg up in development by trading environmental destruction for capital - but now they have the capital and the destruction is haunting them.

And that's the thing. Recycling everything might be affordable but when skimming the best and tossing the rest is more profitable, operations like that will squeeze out operations that pay some of the high cost of proper disposal. "Externalities are externalities"

Essentially, I think you can make an argument that private enterprise can not do recycling properly since collecting money for taking the junk and then disposing of the junk as cheaply as possible is going to be a better business model. And hiring an agency to watch the private contractors is going to cost less than having a state agency do it themselves. See the company that was paid to recycle all the CRTs from the early 2000s and wound-up just storing them.

Just as much, as recycling exploded, regulations wound-up pandering to upper-middle-class consumers and allow plastic to be marked as recyclable, using unsorted recycling and similar things that kept consumers lazy and ignorant. Of course, this contributed to no real recycling being possible even as a few years it seemed universal.

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

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And have a vegan/vegetarian diet.

And don't have kids.

I think this is a misguided sentiment, and this article sums up the reasons why pretty well: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-14/want-t...

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

#103
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.

If the deposit was more than a tiny token amount, they could make money taking them

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

#104
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a law or is it voluntary? I don't remember.

When you sell something with a deposit on it you have to accept returns of stuff with deposit on it.

A remember some stores stopped accepting recyclables after it became a pattern for homeless to scavenge for the good stuff and leave a mess behind.

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

#105
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?

Plastic is very cheap.

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

#106

Not sure about burning recyclables, but burning trash in general is more environmentally friendly than it seems. Sure it releases CO2 (which isn't really an issue if that energy would otherwise come from fossil fuels) but it's possible to scrub out most other contaminants, and it prevents the burnable materials from languishing in a landfill producing methane. It's not recycling, but it is reusing. I'm kind of skepti…

Wouldn’t it be better in terms of co2 production for plastics to stay in a landfill rather than being burned? seems like they would sequester carbon for a very long time

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

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it also the case that the bottles are reused, rather than recycled?

Glass water and beer bottles are reused, thick-walled PET water bottles are reused, while most plastic (mostly PET) bottles and all cans are, at best, recycled. For other and broken glass items there are glass containers pretty much everywhere, broken up by color (white glass, brown glass, green glass). Plastics delivered by consumers are separated but never recycled.

Assuming we are still talking about Germany, yes, plastics collected via "Der Grüne Punkt" (engl. the green dot, named after the label on the packing) are in fact commonly reused.

According to official figures about 51% of plastics are recycled, 38% is burned [1].

[1]: https://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/129/1712978.pdf

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

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it also the case that the bottles are reused, rather than recycled?

Standard shape glass bottles are, and those have the smallest deposit too: beer, soft drinks, water, I believe that's it? Non-standard glass bottles are recycled. PET and aluminum cans are obviously recycled, not reused, and have a steep 25¢ deposit.

For reference, Lidl (a German discount supermarket chain) advertises that ~50% of their bottles' PET comes from recycled bottles.

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

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you sell something with a deposit on it you have to accept returns of stuff with deposit on it.

Nit pick, things work differently for multi-way and one-way containers: - There are no special regulations for multi-way bottles (glass and plastic alike). Most stores will accept only those they are incentivized to, i.e. the brands they sell (manufacturers are eager to get them back to be able to reuse them). - As soon as a store sells a kind of one-way container (plastic bottles, aluminum cans), they have to accept…

Re: one-way bottles, it was not always that easy. When the one-way deposit was introduced in ~2004, shops were only required to take their own SKUs back. This was absolutely horrible for consumers and producers alike, so retailers introduced the shared system voluntarily.
Post reply on HN