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

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

#251

Post by JulianMorrison » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 9:28 AM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #235

JulianMorrison wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an illusion. Specifically, it was an illusion that allowed capitalism as normal to largely continue, with a bit of greenwashing here and there. Things you can actually recycle: Aluminium, iron/steel scrap, and to a lesser extent glass. Plastic was never recyclable in the sense of "circular economy indefinitely". Recycling was never an effective way to save resources, compared to its ugly stepsisters "reuse" an…

> Things you can actually recycle: Aluminium, iron/steel scrap, and to a lesser extent glass. Agree, with one caveat: Very specific plastics can be recycled as well, but it requires source sorting by consumers and industry and that's just not gonna happen.

Not into things of equal quality. You can just melt and re-cast glass, but with plastic, it's going to be something lesser, like a tile or a bag.

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

#252

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #83

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.

>>In countries with good waste management I assume they are burned if they are not recycled Those countries are so rare that it's almost not worth mentioning. Vast majority of places around the world, including most of the developed world do not have "good waste management" by this definition. Even in countries as rich as UK, Germany and France most waste goes to a landfill, not an incinerator. Sure Sweden shows a go…

Landfill has been falling steadily in the UK for a long time.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

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

#253

Post by rumcajz » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:12 AM UTC

fkistner wrote: post #99

blattimwind wrote: post #92

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…

I was looking for an intro on economics of reuse the the other day but I haven't found anything useful.

So, for example, if law allowed only for a small number of different container types (to turn them into a commodity) and then taxed production of those containers heavily, what exactly would happen?

Naively, one would expect companies to cut costs by buying second-hand containers rather than buying expensive new ones.

That would create a market for used containers. For an ordinary person it would be very much like deposit: Buy stuff with the price of container included, then sell the container to get back the money.

It would, obviously, provide a new way to cheat: Produce new containers and sell them as used ones, thus avoiding the tax. But that's just a tax avoidance trick and could be dealt with using the existing anti-tax-avoidance mechanisms.

It would be interesting to know what would be the unintended consequences of such a law.

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

#254

Post by eurg » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:39 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #251

icelancer wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things you can actually recycle: Aluminium, iron/steel scrap, and to a lesser extent glass. Agree, with one caveat: Very specific plastics can be recycled as well, but it requires source sorting by consumers and industry and that's just not gonna happen.

Not into things of equal quality. You can just melt and re-cast glass, but with plastic, it's going to be something lesser, like a tile or a bag.

Glass quality also lessens due to impurities, which is one important reason why certain glass types, like beer bottles, have a mandated deposit and collection system.

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

#255

Post by lm28469 » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 10:45 AM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #150

nostrademons wrote: post #18

It makes me wonder if we were ever really recycling, or if "recycling" was a marketing buzzword for "cheaply dumping your trash in China". I seem to remember a lot of controversy over recycling in the 80s and early 90s, with my local town government insisting it was too expensive. Suddenly everything changed in the late 90s, right around the time that globalization took off, and recycle bins took off everywhere. By t…

What if all the "progress" was just an illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants#Plot_summa... "Through advertising, the public is constantly deluded into thinking that the quality of life is improved by all the products placed on the market."

Don't forget that what we consider "progress" today is capitalism progress.

It's all about owning more and constant economical growth, it has very little to do with social or ecological progress, these might benefit from capitalism from time to tie when their goals are aligned but that's all.

Recycling is like everything else, it's done when it's economically profitable (via state/country funds, tax returns, &c.)

"At the heart of capitalism is a vast and scarcely examined assumption: you are entitled to as great a share of the world’s resources as your money can buy. You can purchase as much land, as much atmospheric space, as many minerals, as much meat and fish as you can afford, regardless of who might be deprived. If you can pay for them, you can own entire mountain ranges and fertile plains. You can burn as much fuel as you like. Every pound or dollar secures a certain right over the world’s natural wealth."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/15/capita...

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

#256

Post by kmarc » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 11:01 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #245

LaGrange wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not-recycled paper is an improvement over not-recycled plastic. The coating I don't know.

Problem is, it's not paper.

It's called [Tetra pack][1], and contains both paper, plastic and metal. Physical separation is virtually impossible (at scale), chemical separation is very environment-unfriendly.

Unfortunately in Switzerland it is dumped to trash; in Easter-Europe it is collected for separation though.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak

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

#257

Post by xorfish » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 11:19 AM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #81

nostrademons wrote: post #18

It makes me wonder if we were ever really recycling, or if "recycling" was a marketing buzzword for "cheaply dumping your trash in China". I seem to remember a lot of controversy over recycling in the 80s and early 90s, with my local town government insisting it was too expensive. Suddenly everything changed in the late 90s, right around the time that globalization took off, and recycle bins took off everywhere. By t…

It was an illusion. Specifically, it was an illusion that allowed capitalism as normal to largely continue, with a bit of greenwashing here and there. Things you can actually recycle: Aluminium, iron/steel scrap, and to a lesser extent glass. Plastic was never recyclable in the sense of "circular economy indefinitely". Recycling was never an effective way to save resources, compared to its ugly stepsisters "reuse" an…

If done properly, PET bottles can be recycled into PET bottles.

Consumers have to do their part though. But that is possible. 83% of PET-Bottles in Switzerland get recycled, this is done without any bottle depot. Recycling cost is between 1.9 and 2.3 cents per bottle.

For all other trash, the most environmental friendly way to dispose it is to burn it and use the energy.

Overall, top countries recycle more than 50% of all trash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_rates_by_country

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

#258

Post by agumonkey » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 11:31 AM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #255

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if all the "progress" was just an illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants#Plot_summa... "Through advertising, the public is constantly deluded into thinking that the quality of life is improved by all the products placed on the market."

Don't forget that what we consider "progress" today is capitalism progress. It's all about owning more and constant economical growth, it has very little to do with social or ecological progress, these might benefit from capitalism from time to tie when their goals are aligned but that's all. Recycling is like everything else, it's done when it's economically profitable (via state/country funds, tax returns, &c.) "At…

I wonder how western nations culture and ~religion even will adapt to the fact that we reached equilibrium. Meaning that we can't explore new spaces, or consume more. So we'll need to live in around a balanced zero. Over consuming will become a sort of a crime and maybe games of efficiency will appear as a sort of leisure.

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

#259

Post by agumonkey » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 11:36 AM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #150

nostrademons wrote: post #18

It makes me wonder if we were ever really recycling, or if "recycling" was a marketing buzzword for "cheaply dumping your trash in China". I seem to remember a lot of controversy over recycling in the 80s and early 90s, with my local town government insisting it was too expensive. Suddenly everything changed in the late 90s, right around the time that globalization took off, and recycle bins took off everywhere. By t…

What if all the "progress" was just an illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Merchants#Plot_summa... "Through advertising, the public is constantly deluded into thinking that the quality of life is improved by all the products placed on the market."

in case people missed it, it's on online archive (see external links category down below the link)

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

#260

Post by xorfish » Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 12:07 PM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #237

username223 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was, and still is, actual recycling. I remember taking the (sorted) recyclables to a recycling business, which paid by the pound. I remember watching the homeless guys in LA pick aluminum cans out of the blue bins early in the morning on trash day, presumably for the money. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the single-stream version were largely marketing (by weight). WM or whichever company picks out a few…

If a business or government pays you for it, then recycling is effective. If they don't, then obviously it isn't useful. I never really understood why people could not grasp this basic concept.

A much simpler concept is that you pay for the trash that you don't recycle.

Switzerland recycles 93% of all glass bottles(color sorted by consumers) and 83% of all PET bottles. Everything else has to be burned in a plant with minimal emission to recycle energy. PET recycling is financed by a fee of around 2 cents per bottle that every manufacturer has to pay.