Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 401 posts

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#61

Post by srtjstjsj »

Ensorceled wrote: post #33
masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to focus on the second R, reuse. That means you need to end both single-use containers and selling stuff in containers entirely . There’s only do much of one type of reusable container you even can have a use for, and that’s assuming you do even have a use for them in the first place: I don’t make jam at home, I buy it, I don’t have a use for a new jam jar a month, and every jam-making friend has more jars…

Why couldn't jam manufacturers just use returnable bottles? The beer companies in Ontario do, soda bottles are returnable and reusable in many places.

They could, but no one wants to pay extra effort and energy cost when it's easier to make new glass from dirt.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#62

Post by ekianjo »

alexanderthe- wrote: post #35

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see a good reason why government can't introduce legislation to enforce standardized packaging across product "classes" to streamline reuse and recycling - for example, all soda bottles of size x, must come in shape y, made out of polymer z. The obvious financial impact would be companies having to potentially retool their factories to facilitate that, but there can also be sensible tax r…

> made out of polymer z.

Wow, sounds like you really want to encourage innovation in materials. The variety of polymers we have serve multiple uses and different functions because of their numerous unique properties (and costs).

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#63

Post by cnity »

yourapostasy wrote: post #40
masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to focus on the second R, reuse. That means you need to end both single-use containers and selling stuff in containers entirely . There’s only do much of one type of reusable container you even can have a use for, and that’s assuming you do even have a use for them in the first place: I don’t make jam at home, I buy it, I don’t have a use for a new jam jar a month, and every jam-making friend has more jars…

> That means you need to end...selling stuff in containers entirely. If we energy-cost-accounted for all externalities, then I wonder how returning the containers to the factory to automatically sanitize and re-use compares to recycling. Land filling is not an option: say you're in a closed loop environment like on a generation ship trip to Proxima Centauri b, and the concept of a land fill as we know it is obscenely…

What's most interesting to me about this comment is the use of an example of a closed loop environment, despite the fact that _we're already in a closed loop environment_. We just pretend otherwise with landfill and the convenience of throwing things into a bin.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#64

Post by adrianN »

Ensorceled wrote: post #52
adrianN wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, in that order. A lot of things don't need so much packaging in the first place.

Reduce is a consumer focused, it's a failing strategy. Reducing to 1% of what we currently throw away would still destroy the planet. Making reuse the centre point forces reduce to also happen, if your product has to ship in reusable containers, they are going to be smaller anyway. Products that don't need containers will stop using them again.

Reducing to 1% would destroy the planet a hundred times slower, which is not bad. I agree that the correct strategy is not encouraging consumers to choose products with less packaging, but instead we need to strongly incentivize producers to reduce packaging. Appropriate laws need to be written and the costs of packaging completely internalized via taxes.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#65

Post by kilroy123 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

Most countries around the world do this by default.

For example, those big jugs of water that get delivered. In most places they are clean and reused. Where I'm living right now, in Turkey, those big bottles are made out of glass and it just gets replaced with a previously used glass jug.

Same with the beer, all the bottles are collected, cleaned, and reused.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#66

Post by ArkVark »

alexanderthe- wrote: post #35

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see a good reason why government can't introduce legislation to enforce standardized packaging across product "classes" to streamline reuse and recycling - for example, all soda bottles of size x, must come in shape y, made out of polymer z. The obvious financial impact would be companies having to potentially retool their factories to facilitate that, but there can also be sensible tax r…

Because without fancy, bespoke packaging people will be less inclined to buy copious amounts of junk food.

We need to fundamentally rethink our entire food system. For example, having every individual buy, transport, cook and dispose of their own food is a huge inefficiency, particularly now with smaller and individual households.

We need to encourage more neighborhood kitchens, with food prepared cheaply and healthily, that people can eat multiple times a day at. For starters remove the tax loophole where if you buy your own raw ingredients and cook something yourself, you pay no or reduced VAT, whereas if you buy the same ingredients at a restaurant you pay full VAT.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#67

Post by andrepd »

dmos62 wrote: post #28
Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

Those are really good points. A good approach to incentivize everyone to do the right thing is to make it the least expensive option. That either requires some lucky tech breakthrough (super unlikely) or a strong government. A recyclability tax, where the producer pays a tax that corresponds to how much it will cost to recycle their product. Maybe collect data of how much of their product is actually recycled. That w…

Your "chips model" works perfectly well for thousands of products. Want detergent? Bring a bottle to a machine that fills it up rather than taking home a brand new plastic bottle every time. Ditto for fruits and vegetables. Biscuits. Candy. Anything that doesn't need a plastic bag for health and safety reasons.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#68

Post by paulryanrogers »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #61
Ensorceled wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't jam manufacturers just use returnable bottles? The beer companies in Ontario do, soda bottles are returnable and reusable in many places.

They could, but no one wants to pay extra effort and energy cost when it's easier to make new glass from dirt.

No one wants to breath polluted air or drink polluted after, yet here we are. Rich producers just keep moving further away from the problems they create. Or they maintain their ignorance through a delicately balanced series of mental gymnastics.

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#69

Post by srtjstjsj »

kbos87 wrote: post #4

If you want to have your eyes opened about just how little of the material you probably think you are recycling actually gets recycled, watch the recent Frontline episode called “Plastic Wars”. The sad truth is that while recycling is worthwhile, it’s also a woefully insufficient solution that has been held up by the petroleum industry as a cure all to prevent a backlash against plastic. Even products that are labele…

And many cities subsidize waste by charging money for trash hauling but not for putting trash in the recycling bin.

Seattle even introduced a punitive fine for NOT contaminating the recycling stream!

Re: Pringles tube tries to wake from 'recycling nightmare'

#70

Post by pkphilip »

Ensorceled wrote: post #16

We need to focus on the second R, reuse. I have mason jars that my grandmother and then my mother used for pickling. The only waste is the rubber ring which needs to be replaced occasionally and THAT could be recycled. Many of these bottles have been used for 80+ years now. I have a few Ball jars which my GREAT grandmother used 100+ years ago. Beer bottles in Canada are reused dozens of times and are recyclable (brow…

One of the key issues with using bottles is the cost, weight and the fact that there is a lot of breakage. The weight alone increases the cost of the supply chain by several times.

One key invention which could really help here is flexible glass packaging. Interestingly, one of the lost technologies from the Roman era is flexible glass:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass

Corning does have flexible glass, but used primarily for interiors and not for packaging: https://www.corning.com/in/en/innovation/corning-emerging-in...

Post reply on HN