As Costs Skyrocket, More U.S. Cities Stop Recycling • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by roenxi » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:16 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #141

xchaotic wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Australia where iron ore is less than 1 meter below ground?

Is that really true?

Accurate to within an order of magnitude. The Pilbara has a number of mines that are perhaps more accurately described as ditches. Source: Mining Engineer, been to the Pilbara.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel-iron_deposits#Economic... - the 'little or no need for drilling and blasting' suggests is iron on the surface, the Pilbara Banded Iron formations can be something like 300m thick or something silly - I'd be surprised if it didn't outcrop. The issue is more which parts are most economic to mine, which is a question of depth vs grade.

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

#212

Post by anonymous5133 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:16 AM UTC

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.

We have this in California and it provides a basic income for many homeless people (at least they're doing something positive by picking up the aluminum/plastic bottles).

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

#213

Post by anonymous5133 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:17 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #16

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

The old adage should be reduce & reuse. Not reduce, reuse, recycle.

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

#214

Post by aviv2 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:21 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #209

aviv wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? It's often helpful to form a full sentence if you want others to engage in a discussion with you.

Since we asked you repeatedly not to do flamewars like this, I've banned this account.

How was that a flamewar? I replied to a person who used 2 words in a discussion where there was no clear relation to the comment being replied to, and suggested they use a full sentence so that I can understand their point coherently.

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

#215

Post by tpkj » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:39 AM UTC

There is a problem with the materials the packaging industry uses. Are there any start-ups or big companies working on a solution?

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

#216

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:41 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #183

dredmorbius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many ways, China's chief export for the past two decades has been its environmental sink capacity -- that is, absorbing both pollution and extractive environmental disruption.

It hasn't just been China. Pharmaceutical manufacturing in India is an environmental disaster.

Certainly, much of the developing world is in the same boat.

What's notable is that China is actively and aggressively transitioning.

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

#217

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

thinkingkong wrote: post #59

dredmorbius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been a very long-term strategy. See Annie Leonard's "Moving from Individual Change to Societal Change": In one of the most iconic ads of the twentieth century, a Native American (actually, it was an Italian dressed up as a Native American) canoes through a river strewn with trash. He disembarks and walks along the shore as the passenger in a car driving past throws a bag of litter out the window. As the camera…

It's a little more nuanced than that. The ad was produced by soft drink companies, because the tabs were strewn all over the place. The goal of the companies banding together and creating this campaign was to put the onus on the individual to clean up garbage, and defer responsibility themselves.

That's Leonard's message, precisely.

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

#218

Post by thaumasiotes » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 5:42 AM UTC

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?

Plastic is airtight. Food packaged in paper will just rot.

And if it's wet, it will destroy the paper.

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

#219

Post by habosa » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 6:00 AM UTC

In school we were taught the 3 RS: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

Nobody ever taught me that they were in order. Reducing consumption is best. If you can't reduce, reuse. If it can't be reused, recycle it.

I think we thought recycling was enough.

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

#220

Post by LaGrange » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

berbec wrote: post #128

tyoma wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original poster specifically mentioned plastic bottles, which, I imagine, are hard to make from paper. Refillable glass allows for exactly the kind of cross contamination that makes otherwise safe products inedible.

I've started to see boxes of water. They look like milk cartons.

Those are not at all better. They're mixed materials. Much harder to "recycle," in practice even if collected, usually just burned.