I would much rather incentivize non-plastic alternative packaging. Consumers should have better options for metal cans, glass bottles, etc for mainstream goods, as those materials are far more effective targets for recycling. But they're no where near competitive with plastic because the production cost doesn't account for the total lifecycle.
California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
21–30 of 297 posts
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#22Some JS stops me reading the article after the first paragraph or so. But it seems to about using that specific "three arrows" symbol. One annoying thing I've noticed in the UK is some products having a symbol that looks a lot like the recycling symbol but upon closer inspection is not the same symbol. It turns it can be processed in a specific plant of which only one exists in the entire country. I doubt many get se…
> It can be reprocessed, but never recycled
Huh, I didn't know that. TBH, I was pretty sure most of it was just going to landfill somewhere in Asia, with only a small portion really being recycled. What does "reprocessed" mean though? Taking the example of a prepackaged meal tray, what might happen to it?
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#23I would much rather incentivize non-plastic alternative packaging. Consumers should have better options for metal cans, glass bottles, etc for mainstream goods, as those materials are far more effective targets for recycling. But they're no where near competitive with plastic because the production cost doesn't account for the total lifecycle.
Why glass? Glass is quite recyclable but requires lots of energy to recycle. As soda bottles and milk bottles they might last 20 uses. Glass is also much heavier requiring more energy to transport.
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#24Some JS stops me reading the article after the first paragraph or so. But it seems to about using that specific "three arrows" symbol. One annoying thing I've noticed in the UK is some products having a symbol that looks a lot like the recycling symbol but upon closer inspection is not the same symbol. It turns it can be processed in a specific plant of which only one exists in the entire country. I doubt many get se…
Also here in the UK - I noticed that annoyingly more and more items openly advertise, on the front of the packaging " NOW RECYCLABLE!" with an asterix next to it, and upon reading the small print it says it's recyclable, but only if brought into this special collection point, which they only have in like 5 sainsburys across the country. So if you just throw it in your recycling bin it goes to the landfill. I don't un…
A similar thing is ongoing with the term "compostable" for some plastics -- often it only means through special municipal composting facilities. If you threw it in your backyard compost heap, it would not deteriorate quickly.
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#25In Ireland there's a recycling symbol for plastic products that can be recycled.
But if you put that recycling symbol in a green circle it means something else -- "that the companies that produces the product is committed to recycling" -- whatever that means.
This to me is beyond infuriating. Absolutely in favor of these sorts of measures.
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#26I hope they’re not confusing the resin symbols with the recycling symbol.
Clearly the resin identification code and the recycling symbol are causing consumer confusion due to the fact that almost everyone confuses them. The US Society of the Plastics Industry designed their resin identification code in 1988 and made it similar to the recycling symbol which had been in use since 1970, even though many of the plastics thus labeled were not generally recyclable. According to wikipedia[1] they…
Why were they allowed to change their symbol to resemble the recycling symbol?
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#27This is a case where the proposal is actually worse than the headline, I think. From a non-paywall source: https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/08/california-recycling... > Despite the best intentions of Californians who diligently try to recycle yogurt cups, berry containers and other packaging, it turns out that at least 85% of single-use plastics in the state do not actually get recycled. Instead, they wind up in…
Most communities in the Bay Area at least have separate recycling and trash pickup bins. This isn’t to increase recycling it’s so the sorting is better and more efficient.
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#28I would much rather incentivize non-plastic alternative packaging. Consumers should have better options for metal cans, glass bottles, etc for mainstream goods, as those materials are far more effective targets for recycling. But they're no where near competitive with plastic because the production cost doesn't account for the total lifecycle.
I think this is the goal of Maine’s new recycling law (briefly mentioned in the article) where manufacturers are responsible for the cost of recycling. Although I’m not sure Maine’s law really allocates the full social cost of plastics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/maine-bec...
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#29I would much rather incentivize non-plastic alternative packaging. Consumers should have better options for metal cans, glass bottles, etc for mainstream goods, as those materials are far more effective targets for recycling. But they're no where near competitive with plastic because the production cost doesn't account for the total lifecycle.
Correctly labeling materials could be a firm foundation from which to base incentive programs.
Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable
#30I would much rather incentivize non-plastic alternative packaging. Consumers should have better options for metal cans, glass bottles, etc for mainstream goods, as those materials are far more effective targets for recycling. But they're no where near competitive with plastic because the production cost doesn't account for the total lifecycle.
Why glass? Glass is quite recyclable but requires lots of energy to recycle. As soda bottles and milk bottles they might last 20 uses. Glass is also much heavier requiring more energy to transport.
In every part of Canada I've lived in there has been a well developed reuse system. In Ontario, for example, a beer bottle is used around 100 times on average. Reuse should be way better integrated into our systems. If I could bring a resuable bag back to any supermarket to get the $1 fee back, it would be so much easier to justify buying reusable bags that really last a long time. The trouble is I never remember to bring it with me in the morning before work and I grocery shop on my way back home.