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

California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 297 posts

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#81

Post by detritus »

subandi wrote: post #69
s_dev wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You mean 'The Green Dot'? Yup -- another business trick is in McDonalds -- the company that supplies the beef in Ireland is called "100% Irish Beef" and thus they put that on the packaging even if the beef doesn't come from Ireland. I've seen this don't with the equivalent of "100% recyclable" as the name of the company to pass the product off as environmental. However the main problem is still consumer knowledge of…

that's not true: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-100-beef/

I can't respond to your response to my response (!). but clearly I misread parent's post. d'oh.

As you were!

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#82

Post by recursive »

swiley wrote: post #2

I hope they’re not confusing the resin symbols with the recycling symbol.

As a regular guy who sometimes decides to put things in the recycling or the trash, I absolutely am confusing them. I had no idea, until reading this comment, that those are separate things. Now I don't understand anything.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#83

Post by stevesearer »

malexw wrote: post #62
rib3ye wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More strangely, it’s on many styrofoam packaging products.

Styrofoam actually is recyclable, though you'd have to check with your local municipality to see if it's accepted. For example, it's listed as a "blue bin" item in Toronto: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/recycling-organics-...

It is recyclable here in Santa Barbara, but you have to take it to the recycling center yourself.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#84

Post by anamexis »

q1w2 wrote: post #78
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Presumably you're referring to the Green Dot / Der Grüne Punkt [1]. Its often confused with the symbol that indicates recyclabililty. I'm never sure whether that's intentional or not. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_(symbol)

> Its often confused with the symbol that indicates recyclabililty. Are people actually getting confused by this? It looks very very different from the recycling symbol. It's a different shape both inside and out, a different color, has a different number of arrows, and the arrows abut. It doesn't look anything the same to me.

I've definitely always assumed it means "recyclable."

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#86

Post by jacknews »

Robotbeat wrote: post #60

I hope they don’t get rid of the symbol entirely! It’s useful to know what resin a product is made of. Things like PLA (which is kinda sorta compostable) are not often recycled, but they can be. If you don’t know what resin the plastic is, then it’s even harder. Keep the resin symbol. Remove the arrows on it. We get better with recycling stuff over time, so eventually more resins could be recycled. But. Part of me wo…

Yes, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to bury most plastic waste.

Most plastic comes from oil, which means 'biodegradable' plastic is essentially the same as burning the oil. Actual recycling can work in some cases, but even after all the expense and energy of recycling, the recycled product is usually much lower grade plastic, so it's not sustainable. Better just to bury it (in leak-proof pits), where it will turn back into oil eventually.

The real problem with plastic waste is COLLECTING it, making sure it doesn't wash into the oceans, etc.

At least the recycle logo might help with that, even a fake one.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#87

Post by crazygringo »

> For years, the United States also shipped much of its plastic waste overseas, choking local rivers and streams. A global convention now bans most trade in plastic waste

Most of this article is fine, but I can't believe this specific misinformation continues to be printed.

Exported plastic waste virtually entirely goes into landfills overseas, or is incinerated.

Whereas the waste choking local rivers and streams e.g. in Asia is virtually entirely local waste -- people littering, etc.

I'm 100% on the side of the environment -- which is why I want us to make policy based on actual fact, so efforts go towards what actually matters.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#88

Post by farmerstan »

s_dev wrote: post #25

In 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.

I’ve been putting everything with a recycling symbol in the recycling waste. I find it reprehensible that it’s not recyclable.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#89

Post by Robotbeat »

DFHippie wrote: post #66
Robotbeat wrote: post #60

I hope they don’t get rid of the symbol entirely! It’s useful to know what resin a product is made of. Things like PLA (which is kinda sorta compostable) are not often recycled, but they can be. If you don’t know what resin the plastic is, then it’s even harder. Keep the resin symbol. Remove the arrows on it. We get better with recycling stuff over time, so eventually more resins could be recycled. But. Part of me wo…

> If the cost were the same and the processing energy the same, wouldn’t it be better for the climate to bury that plastic (sequestering the carbon) instead of recycling it? Even if it pollutes more to make virgin material than to recycle it -- and I think that's your problem -- if the non-recycled material goes into a landfill instead of the ocean or biosphere, there's a small consolation in that the carbon in the p…

I don’t think it’s a small effect. There are something like 300 million tons of plastic waste per year, which is about 1 Gigatonne of CO2, or about 3% of global emissions… more than global aviation!

If we cut down all sources of emissions to zero, that would mean humanity using non-fossil plastic (like PLA or electrolytic syngas derived regular plastics) would be carbon negative.

The cost of PLA is about $2/kg, or equivalent to about $600/tonneCO2. About how much Climeworks currently costs for direct air CO2 capture.

Re: California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable

#90

Post by [deleted] »

twoodfin wrote: post #67
alistairSH wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we must incentivize packaging that's better for the environment. The problem is who gets to define "better". Cloth bags were once thought to be better than plastic for grocery use, but that might not be the case - the cloth has a larger environmental cost to produce (cotton is water-intensive) and has to be used a lot more than one might expect before it surpasses the basic plastic bag. And if the plasti…

Letting the price mechanism work (externalities accounted for) is a great way to do this.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN