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

241–250 of 297 posts

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

#241

Post by joecool1029 »

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?

It's infuriating to me that people like you keep perpetuating this myth. Pizza boxes, even contaminated with some oil and cheese are recyclable (just take any leftover pizza/crusts out). I have family in the recycling industry, here's research on the matter: https://www.westrock.com/greasecheesestudy

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

#243

Post by 09bjb »

stronglikedan wrote: post #150
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…

> I hope they don’t get rid of the symbol entirely! It’s useful to know what resin a product is made of. They should use a different, non-similar symbol for this, since the current batch of recycle symbols have all become synonymous (to the layman) with "put it in the recycle bin".

Would it surprise you to hear that the plastics industry came up with that symbol in order to make it confusing to the layperson to differentiate between recyclables and single-use plastics?

"Source" (not a primary source): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJnJ8mK3Q3g <-- which has some links to further reading/viewing and a few sources.

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

#244

Post by skybrian »

IshKebab wrote: post #235
skybrian wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should follow the local rules on recycling. Only the company picking up the recycling knows what they can really handle. Unfortunately this information isn’t always as easy as it should be to look up. It should be a simple web search away.

> Only the company picking up the recycling knows what they can really handle. Yes unfortunately they never tell you. Sure they'll tell you the easy stuff like cardboard, paper, cans etc. But there's a near infinite variety of stuff that you might be able to recycle. What about a metal coathanger? What about a plastic-coated metal coathanger? Etc. We have to put paper and cardboard in different containers. What about…

If they don't explicitly say they can take it, assume it's not recyclable.

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

#245

Post by asoneth »

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.

The charitable interpretation is that their original intent of using the well-known recycling symbol around the resin code was to provide consumers with information to help them recycle more effectively.

However the fact that recycling programs (at least in my state) advise consumers to ignore the number and focus on the shape of the plastic means that (at least in my state) these symbols are not serving their intended purpose.

For example, many forms of polyethylene terephthalate are not recyclable even if the product is labeled with a RIC1/PETE symbol. In fact, the only time the RIC number is helpful to me is when confirming that a product is most definitely not recyclable. Of course, in those cases the use of the three-arrow recycling symbol to indicate a product's non-recycleability seems liable to confuse consumers.

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

#247

Post by [deleted] »

JeremyNT wrote: post #223
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…

In a world where fossil fuels are still a thing, how does burying it stack up against just burning it as fuel? I get that it's sequestered if it's in a landfill, but it seems like it might be more efficient to burn the carbon already extracted and turned into plastic than it would be to dig up new stuff and burn that (i.e. you get to leave more of the already-sequestered oil-carbon in the ground rather than digging i…

[deleted]

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

#248

Post by ZeroGravitas »

JeremyNT wrote: post #223
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…

In a world where fossil fuels are still a thing, how does burying it stack up against just burning it as fuel? I get that it's sequestered if it's in a landfill, but it seems like it might be more efficient to burn the carbon already extracted and turned into plastic than it would be to dig up new stuff and burn that (i.e. you get to leave more of the already-sequestered oil-carbon in the ground rather than digging i…

The scientific consensus is that recycling > burning with energy recovery > well managed landfill > badly managed landfill > open burning. Nations not under the control of fossil fuel groups have been putting this into action for decades.

Landfill seems to be the contrarian's choice but this appears to some anti-regulation propaganda after effect.

Headlines like "Thing you do to save the planet actually hurts the planet" is like catnip for some people, and they dont ask any awkward questions about who is claiming this and why.

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

#249

Post by nybble41 »

arwineap wrote: post #226

It seems like a much simpler solution to have the state impose a tax on products that use plastics which CA recycling programs cannot process

No need for an actual tax, just make the recycled plastics available on the market at cost. If recycling is actually useful, and the state isn't doing something stupid like subsidizing the production of non-recyclable plastics or penalizing the recyclable ones, then the "tax" will be the difference between the (presumed lower) price of recycled plastic and the price of new plastic.

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

#250

Post by arwineap »

nybble41 wrote: post #249
arwineap wrote: post #226

It seems like a much simpler solution to have the state impose a tax on products that use plastics which CA recycling programs cannot process

No need for an actual tax, just make the recycled plastics available on the market at cost. If recycling is actually useful, and the state isn't doing something stupid like subsidizing the production of non-recyclable plastics or penalizing the recyclable ones, then the "tax" will be the difference between the (presumed lower) price of recycled plastic and the price of new plastic.

That only works if we can make the recycled plastic cheaper than the regular plastic

I don't think the recycling bits remove costs, I think they add costs

Post reply on HN