71–80 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recycling consumes energy. The better strategy is by far designing products that last longer or can be reused.
Or are compostible. All grocery packaging should either be multi use or compostible. I hate how plastics are used where they don't need to be
We really shot ourselves in the foot with this whole pointless "recycling paper and plastic" thing huh? The convenience of throwing something away is a triumph of modern civilization and one of life's little pleasures, and we had to ruin it by acting like it's wrong when it's actually not. When I walk up to some wastebins holding a papery-plasticky object with a bit of food stuck to it, my heart sinks. Now I have to…
So is recycling plastic and paper not effective? I have some anxiety issue and one of the ways that they manifest is obsessing about recycling so not having to worry about plastic and paper would be a huge improvement in my quality of life. Edit: I should clarify, I realize that the article is saying that recycling plastic and paper isn't worth it, but is that a mainstream opinion?
The article likewise cites a whole bunch of libertarian sources that unsurprisingly conclude that government interference is bad.
On the other hand, here's a document comparing recycling to landfill (and incineration to generate power and a couple of other things). It summarises all the expert research from the actual field, rather than right wing economists.
Generally the experts suggest landfill is the worst option on several scales for basically all materials:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/environmental-benefits-recycl...
People who think recycling isn't good for the environment seem to fall into the same group as those who really worry about all the birds affected by wind turbines, or the impact of lithium mining or how carbon taxes will hurt the poor i.e. baseless propaganda aimed at people who care about the environment coming from people who clearly don't give a hoot.
> Properly run landfill doesn’t hurt the environment in itself. ... and properly written software has no security vulnerabilities.
I once helped out a project which involved talking to a landfill operator. They mentioned that deer like to drink the water pooling in the landfill and theorized that it tasted "sweet." Of course, hunters then kill and eat these deer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem with landfill is that the economics are largely 'profit first, cost later'. We don't really have a good model to ensure that long term maintenance and care of a landfill site post closure is always adequately funded so there's always a risk that an owner who might well have made all his capital investment back, and more, before the landfill closed just runs out of money and walks away no matter ho…
I always thought there was a fortune to be made in buying the mining rights to old landfills. I'd expect compressed old consumer goods to be a rich "ore" for many valuable materials compared to many natural sources, and having the mining operation there would provide an endgame for the landfill that ensured it was being monitored and managed. The problem is that it assumes that mining operations are well regulated, w…
We really shot ourselves in the foot with this whole pointless "recycling paper and plastic" thing huh? The convenience of throwing something away is a triumph of modern civilization and one of life's little pleasures, and we had to ruin it by acting like it's wrong when it's actually not. When I walk up to some wastebins holding a papery-plasticky object with a bit of food stuck to it, my heart sinks. Now I have to…
> The convenience of throwing something away is a triumph of modern civilization ... I think you got it backwards. Throwing stuff away was the normal way of life before modern civilization arrived, just like defecating wherever you find convenient, hunting animals for dinner, or riding hoses on whatever side of road you like. The wonder of modern civilization gave us so much power to produce stuff that it's no longer…
three main issues: 1) yes the Earth is huge but cities really don't have easy access to landfill, and many are in fact running out of it because transporting garbage is expensive. 2) podcasts aren't convincing sources for a debate. 3) the real debate is "how do we reduce waste", not "landfill vs recycling".
To reduce waste, you'd have to make things more repairable -> But the labor costs in developed economies discourages that If you make things more repairable -> net consumption might go down -> this might lead to loss of jobs. Does my analysis make any sense?
How would it impact the internal economy? Wouldn't it just reduce imports and improve the country's trade balance?
Seriously wondering. I most probably don't know enough about all that to make any statement
And yet no one is talking about limiting population growth.
The estimated max is 11 billion because the birthrate is very low right now.
The 'problem' is that we live longer.
And yet no one is talking about limiting population growth.
And yet no one is talking about limiting population growth.