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

261–270 of 293 posts

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

#261

Post by zebracanevra »

grecy wrote: post #239
andrewstuart wrote: post #2

The packaging industry is going to fight tooth and nail so it can continue to spew out single use plastics for every single sales transaction that occurs. There's big money involved. Imagine the costs to the packaging industry if it was no longer allowed to create infinite garbage. I do find it strange that there seems to be zero noticeable social pressure on bottled drink companies to stop using single use plastic b…

> zero noticeable social pressure on bottled drink companies to stop using single use plastic bottles Plastic water bottles - of any size - have been illegal in NSW, a state of Australia for many years. It has been fantastic. Governments need to grow a spine and stop taking so much corporate money as bribes, and actually get to work making our world better.

Some small towns like Bundanoon [1] have banned water bottles, but in no way have water bottles been banned across NSW.

There has been a push from leading supermarkets Coles and Woolworths to ban single use plastic bags, with great success. But that's a private matter, not from the government. Other states have banned them, but not NSW. [2]

[1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bundanoon-in-wo...

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-03/supermarket-ban-sees-...

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

#262

Post by akvadrako »

anonymous5133 wrote: post #210
andrewstuart wrote: post #2

The packaging industry is going to fight tooth and nail so it can continue to spew out single use plastics for every single sales transaction that occurs. There's big money involved. Imagine the costs to the packaging industry if it was no longer allowed to create infinite garbage. I do find it strange that there seems to be zero noticeable social pressure on bottled drink companies to stop using single use plastic b…

I think there will eventually be a public outcry since now based on the research, it appears that plastic has made a full loop into the human food chain. Plastic fibers are being found in human sewage...which basically means we have plastic in our diets. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-...

Most people could use more fiber in their diet.

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

#263

Post by birger »

icelancer wrote: post #229
HenryBemis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently have 'converted' to minimalism, after having watched a few documentaries (Minimalism, True Cost, etc.) it made perfect sense to me that since using MORE and recycling MORE is not the solution (especially when 'recycling' it not actual recycling) and now I feel and I do better for me, and the planet's future. I also came across this nice video: The History of Stuff [1] that describes ncely the current produ…

The three "Rs" were always about the first one: Reduce. People got caught up in the wave of recycling with the idea that somehow we could actually recycle all these materials with anything approaching reasonable effectiveness. Outside of aluminum, it's basically worthless - and in the cases of recycling paper, it has led to Superfund sites and terrible pollution. Rainforests are regrowing [0] as at least America has…

First step is Refuse. Refuse to buy anything that has unnecessary packaging. Otherwise Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

I started bringing my own containers when shopping for groceries. Reduce my trash to 4-5 kilo per week.

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

#264

Post by massysett »

opportune wrote: post #49

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…

In this context no, burning is not reusing. The point of reduce-reuse-recycle is to reuse in its original form. For example: reuse a yogurt cup as leftovers storage, or a shoebox as a storage box.

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

#265

Post by xorfish »

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…

Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria

All these countries throw less than 5% of their trash into landfills.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-g...

Germany throws 0% of their waste into landfills.

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

#266

Post by jrib »

icelancer wrote: post #232
jandrese wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you are correct here. We were shoving "recycling" in otherwise empty shipping containers and sending them to China where they get dumped on the ground and the poorest of the poor pick through them for the few things that are actually recyclable. I saw at least one person say back in the 2000s that single stream recycling was basically a lie, but it was worth it to get people into the recycling mindset. This…

Recycling is basically fake outside of aluminum (and other metals, and very specific plastics - but those are effectively impossible to sort properly by consumers [0]). [0]: Remember all those codes on the bottom of bottles in the 1990s?

What about glass? I always assumed that was pretty recycling friendly

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

#267

Post by dredmorbius »

ish wrote: post #62
dredmorbius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order of priority: 1. Reduce. 2. Reuse. 3. Recycle.

I hope you don't mind if I add to your list -- I like the 5 R's: 1. Refuse 2. Reduce 3. Reuse 4. Repurpose 5. Recycle Arguably Refuse and Repurpose are derivative, but I still like calling them out.

I like your first addition, though really your 1 & 4 roll into the traditional "reduce" and "reuse", respectively.

I'd like to see far more internalisation of full sourcing, energy, and sink costs, as that's ultimately the most effective way to shift usage patterns, though this seems unlikely.

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

#268

Post by ragebol »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #244

The problem is not waste but the fact that is not a problem for consumers or manufacturers. A lot of product packaging only makes sense because you don't have to worry about disposing in a responsible way. Milk used to come in glass bottles, which the milkman would take back for reuse. Not anymore. There's no more milkman and the factory uses cheap to produce one time use packaging. Disposal cost is not their problem…

Something like https://zenrobotics.com?

Sorting action in https://youtu.be/X_1sOPqM_VA

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

#269

Post by blablablabla991 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #246
blablablabla991 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if multi use packaging would work just as well other single use packaging, wouldn't the packaging industry make the same profits?

Many types of wasteful packaging work better for them , when they don't have to pay a lot of the costs. That doesn't mean they're the better overall choice.

Why would THEY have to pay the costs, and not their customers? Presumably, if the costs for packaging would go up, packaging industry would also rice the prices to make up for it?

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

#270

Post by seanalltogether »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #72
opportune wrote: post #49

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…

High temperature burning is a bit better environmentally than people just burning garbage at home. The extremely high temp is the key. There is a demand for aluminum and metal, many people make a bit of a living collecting these for money. The problem with glass is that it has food residue on it. This causes leaching in the landfills. Farmers need COMPOST! Soil around the world is nearly depleted. We need an efficien…

When I first moved to the UK I was frustrated about the fact that I had to separate my food waste from my general garbage, or my glass from my general recycling. I can see now why it's a better system because the potential to reuse these materials is higher when they are separated at the source.

Not to mention the fact that cities have landfill/recycling centers you can drive to and get rid of anything and everything for free.

Post reply on HN