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

201–210 of 297 posts

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

#201

Post by irrational »

jacknews wrote: post #86
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…

Wait, does plastic really turn back into oil over time? How much time are we talking about here?

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

#202

Post by duckmysick »

jacknews wrote: post #86
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…

> Better just to bury it (in leak-proof pits), where it will turn back into oil eventually.

What's the time scale of turning back into oil? How long those pits are estimated to stay leak-proof?

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

#203

Post by jonahhorowitz »

nineplay wrote: post #181
billytetrud wrote: post #174

I was thinking about this yesterday when I saw a pizza box with the recyclable symbol on it. It's infuriating that intelligent people can't seem to understand that pizza boxes aren't recyclable after they've had pizza in them. What about oil soaked cardboard says "recyclable" to people?

I think the relationship between food and recycling is justifiably unclear to most people. Can you recycle cans of refried beans? Prior to today I would have thought yes, but now I see I'm supposed to rinse them. For refried beans I'm already wondering about the water wasted washing the can vs. the benefit of recycling it. I live in a drought region so I'm probably going to chuck it. Cardboard sandwich containers? Is…

Your recyclables don't need to be particularly clean when they go in the bin. Just clean enough that they won't make everything else in the bin dirty (particularly paper). During the last drought in California, San Jose asked people to stop washing their recycling since it already gets washed in one way or another as part of the recycling process.

In your can example, it's going to get smelted down and anything organic is going to burn off.

- https://ecology.wa.gov/Blog/Posts/June-2019/Recycle-Right-Ho...

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

#204

Post by [deleted] »

irrational wrote: post #201
jacknews wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, does plastic really turn back into oil over time? How much time are we talking about here?

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by someguy321 »

jdavis703 wrote: post #158
TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

15 seconds isn't worth it.

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

#206

Post by neltnerb »

irrational wrote: post #201
jacknews wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait, does plastic really turn back into oil over time? How much time are we talking about here?

Not our lifetime. I disagree with the original poster. Often times manufacturing fresh polymer, while cheaper, uses many times the carbon content of the polymer in process energy.

Just as an example I know about offhand, isoprene rubber takes five times the carbon content of the product to process from petrochemical feedstocks. That said, recycling isn't very good either, so better would be to just not use it unnecessarily in packaging.

I do think it is better to incinerate than to recycle wrong and contaminate the entire recycling stream though. To me, ruining all the other recycling on top of lying about it being recyclable in the first place is way way worse.

And no, you cannot generally recycle PLA... I'm not sure where that is coming from. I hate that PLA (often labeled as 7 even though that just means "other") confuses everything even worse when people try to just toss it into typical compost and thus ruin the compost too. Of course it would also ruin the recycling... it would literally be better to just throw it away to be incinerated or else use good old numbers 1 and 2.

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

#207

Post by sroussey »

pwg wrote: post #153
gruez wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Still done at Erewhon for various things they make themselves.

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

#208

Post by caturopath »

obblekk wrote: post #188

Wouldn't this violate free speech laws? I'm all for regulation to disclose information, but regulation to prevent people from saying something is a bit more dicey. Even trademarks to an extent feel unfair (should you really be unable to say the word Google in a TV Ad?).

There are lots of exceptions to free speech: false advertising, all manner of fraud, libel, falsely shouting fire in a theatre, incitement of violence, etc.

You can say "Google" in a TV ad without violating their trademark. You can't use the word "Google" in every way (you can't pretend to be Google so people trust you, for instance). The legal thing that causes folks to be scared of doing this in practical situations is being sued for libel, not trademark infringement.

Do you think that false nutrition facts should be printable on the same crinkly plastic packaging as a misleading recycling symbol?

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

#209

Post by duckmysick »

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.

Not just plastic, but glass too.

I'm canning a lot of vegetables and fruits. I reuse jars and lids from store-bought products like mustard or mayonnaise. The lids aren't interchangeable. In fact, there's a huge variety in the lids' shape, size, and thickness. It's especially frustrating when those custom lids lose the sealing and grip over time or they rust. Hunting an exact replacement is often impossible, so you can't reuse this specific jar anymore.

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

#210

Post by caturopath »

jacknews wrote: post #75

It's astonishing that this symbol is allowed to used on non-recyclable products in the first place.

The generous interpretation is that in these cases it's generally possible to recycle the material, and the company is noting that and may well think it would be a really good idea of someone did recycle the things, even though realistically it ain't happening.

The bar set by the bill is much higher than 'could be recycled'. It "ban[s] companies from using the arrows symbol unless they can prove the material is in fact recycled in most California communities, and is used to make new products."

Post reply on HN