California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by mywittyname » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

q1w2 wrote: post #92

asoneth wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Resin code was designed to help with recycling to determine what can be recycled. It says so in the article you linked. It's the last column on the first chart.

In reality, it the resin code was a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by the plastics industry to prevent consumers from making an informed decision to move away from plastic packaging on the grounds of it's bad for the environment.

Similar to how the junk food industry is all about telling people to "balance what you eat and what you do", and shrinking portion sizes while also selling "shareable" packs. They are trying to avoid customer ire and/or regulations against them.

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

#152

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #131

gruez wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In Ontario, for example, a beer bottle is used around 100 times on average. fact check: no, only 15 https://www.thestar.com/life/food_wine/2013/06/28/the_averag...

Oh, ok thanks for updating my view. I clearly remember hearing it was 99% but must be either misremembering or the original source was wrong. I'd still rather have re-use via glass or recycling via aluminum than plastic.

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by pwg » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #116

horsawlarway wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further - I don't understand why we don't just have mandated bottle/jar form factors. We broke the fucking loop by claiming that people could just throw plastic containers away and "somewhere, somehow (over the rainbow!!!) people will recycle them into new goods". That story is bullshit - even for most plastics that can actually be recycled. I want legislation that lays out a set of standardized form factors that are…

>I want legislation that lays out a set of standardized form factors that are as re-usable as possible (NOT RECYCLABLE - Literally washable and reusable), and if companies use those - great! No extra taxes for you. Is that seriously the impediment to plastic container reusability, that they're not standardized? People don't reuse plastic containers because there aren't that many uses for them around the house.

I read @horsawlarway's comment as "reusable for the original use" as in how the US used to have glass soda (soft drink) bottles that were collected at stores, returned to the bottler, who would wash them out, refill them with new soda, and put them back out on store shelves or in vending machines.

The return of the empty bottles to the stores was incentivized via a ten cent per bottle "deposit" one made upon purchase, which one received back when one returned the bottle to a store that collected them. This was the mid 1970's as well, so that ten cent deposit would be about 45 cents per bottle today.

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

#154

Post by donarb » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:38 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #54

detritus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean 'The Green Dot'? This piece of shit thing? https://www.pro-e.org/the-green-dot-trademark How this has been allowed to exist for so long is beyond my ken. The logo should look ENTIRELY different as it's basically false-advertising for the vast majority of people who have no idea what it actually represents. - ed spelling

>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…

> 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.

Yea, I'm going to call bullshit on that. "100% Irish Beef" is a marketing slogan by Irish beef producers to signify that all of their beef comes from Ireland.

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

#155

Post by littleweep » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

detritus wrote: post #68

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…

Yeah, exactly. The recycling trucks here in LDN have a campaign on the side of them that has words to the effect of "if you're unsure - leave it out!" because as you say, even partial contamination screws entire bales of reclaimed material. My eternal bugbear is Pizza boxes. Used greasy pizza boxes can often be recycled in many municipalities, BUT only in the organic or food waste. Greasy card in the paper recycling…

Interesting to come across the word “bugbear” — would you mind sharing which part of the world you are posting from? I’m not sure if I’ve heard that word before.

Edit: is LDN London?

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

#156

Post by dboreham » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:40 PM UTC

robotnixon wrote: post #65

taf2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped putting a lot of plastic in the recycle bin. The main reason because it's not recyclable - you're just increasing the cost to recycle. It needs to be sorted out and as a result cost more... It feels bad but I think it is better... For example a cereal box - has the plastic inside and the paper outside... I take the plastic out into the trash and put the paper into the recycle...

Whoever is picking up your recycling will have info on what can and cannot be recycled. If you're concerned I'd reach out to them and they should be able to give you a list of recyclable items. For me they only accept plastics with a number in the symbol except numbers 3 and 6, no plastic bags, and items must be thoroughly cleaned. It's also regional, so friends of mine a few cities away have a totally different list…

It's much more confusing and stupid than that. You can't rely on the symbol and the number because the forming process used on items like bottles and clamshell packages affects whether they can be recycled or not (which in addition is a function of the local recycling processes, which vary). I found this out because our recycling center posted notices saying that only bottles with narrow necks can be recycled, and if they find more than a fraction of the "wrong" plastic in a batch, it all goes to the landfill.

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

#157

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

peapicker wrote: post #102

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…

I bought five cloth bags (strong canvas) at my food co-op in 1992. Still using them now, 28 years and many washes and many many shopping trips later. I agree that some of the lighter weight ‘cloth-like’ bags made today would not be able to stand that duty cycle.

I also use fabric bags, most of which were acquired at no-extra-cost when purchasing other things. Some are quite HD and I expect they'll last a decade or more. But, some are quite flimsy and not something I would purchase on its own.

I suspect that HD hemp bags (or some other blend of material) are the best option, but finding a definitive answer isn't easy. It appears the lighter cotton bags need to be used for two decades to account for the cost of farming the cotton - and many won't last that long before they begin to fail.

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

#158

Post by jdavis703 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:44 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

detritus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. The recycling trucks here in LDN have a campaign on the side of them that has words to the effect of "if you're unsure - leave it out!" because as you say, even partial contamination screws entire bales of reclaimed material. My eternal bugbear is Pizza boxes. Used greasy pizza boxes can often be recycled in many municipalities, BUT only in the organic or food waste. Greasy card in the paper recycling…

What you say, plus occasional reminder to wash your recycleables before throwing them into the bin, is why I consider the whole recycling scheme to be worthless distraction. Nobody in their right mind has the time and space to properly sort and clean the trash. For the rest, inefficient use of water and detergent has an environmental cost too. This stuff should be all handled by a combination of centralized work at s…

> Nobody in their right mind has the time and space to properly sort and clean the trash.

How do folks have time to clean their glasses but don’t have time to wash a milk bottle or whatever? It takes like 15 seconds…

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

#159

Post by ortusdux » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:45 PM UTC

dieortin wrote: post #105

crazygringo wrote: post #87

> 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…

Could I have a source on the waste on local rivers being local?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803

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

#160

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

jokethrowaway wrote: post #125

From my European point of view, the problem is not necessarily the almost invisible symbol but the government endorsement of recycling. Being forced to collect rubbish in some centralised way with tons of stupid rules made me think that recycling was working and that plastic was a relatively green choice (for something coming from oil). This propagated down in the economy with brands using more and more plastic in th…

> I know a family in the oil business and the new generation is investing the family empire in renewables, pocketing all the government's incentives for solar energies, while they're at it.

This is actually reassuring to hear. It's an indication that maybe, just maybe, the oil industry won't hold on to their current source of profits all the way until it's too late.