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

281–290 of 297 posts

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

#281

Post by ryan_lane »

duckmysick wrote: post #209
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.

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 ca…

If you're pickling things and are storing them long-term, you absolutely should not re-use jars and lids from store-bought products. Canning lids are not re-usable, and you're risking your life by doing so. Use products intended for home canning, and use a new lid every single time!

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

#282

Post by Robotbeat »

neltnerb wrote: post #279
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pla…

Landfill as an imagined route to sequestration is easily seen through with the right thought experiment. If you incinerate the trash instead of burying it, carbon does indeed get released. If you burned enough coal/naturalgas/oil to produce the same amount of energy produced by incinerating, you would release a comparable amount of carbon. Burying it doesn't sequester anything, if you assume it gets burnt to produce…

The fly in the ointment of this idea that it’s better to just burn it for energy is that 40% of US electricity is already carbonfree, ie not coal, oil, or gas, plus burning trash tends to be less efficient than high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants.

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

#284

Post by while1fork »

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…

Don't have single-use anything. Wash cups and plates like they did for eons before disposable crap.

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

#285

Post by neltnerb »

Robotbeat wrote: post #282
neltnerb wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Landfill as an imagined route to sequestration is easily seen through with the right thought experiment. If you incinerate the trash instead of burying it, carbon does indeed get released. If you burned enough coal/naturalgas/oil to produce the same amount of energy produced by incinerating, you would release a comparable amount of carbon. Burying it doesn't sequester anything, if you assume it gets burnt to produce…

The fly in the ointment of this idea that it’s better to just burn it for energy is that 40% of US electricity is already carbonfree, ie not coal, oil, or gas, plus burning trash tends to be less efficient than high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants.

I do sure wish it was further along, and agree that it makes more sense to sequester it or convert to syngas for converting it back to useful products with more free energy.

It seems like a lot is simple once most electricity has a low marginal cost (environmentally, of course they'd usually negotiate feed-in tariffs or other guaranteed long term pricing that accounts for the capital costs of construction).

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

#286

Post by while1fork »

Steltek wrote: post #21

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.

Alternatives are worthless because that's how to reach 0% adoption. Plastic packaging for food and single-use plastics should be banned outright. All sold containers should be standardized and reused just like they were decades ago.

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

#287

Post by jacknews »

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…

As I understand, I may be wrong, burning it releases the carbon to the atmosphere, but also releases some noxious chemicals unless burned at high temperatures, which often requires energy input. And any ash that's left can be problematic too.

Also I believe landfills will be future mines.

I wonder if it's possible though to turn garbage to charcoal, to sequester the carbon in a more stable form, and at the same time burn the 'wood-gas' for energy. Like bio-char, garbage-char.

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

#288

Post by globular-toast »

smallerfish wrote: post #31
GordonS wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Meal tray probably is going to landfill. Otoh plastic water bottles may end up as "carpet, clothing, plastic packaging." https://www.livescience.com/how-much-plastic-recycling.html

Yeah, which is not a cycle. It's a linear path with the landfill at the end. I doubt there's even many examples with more than two hops before the landfill. That's why I call it "reprocessing", not recycling. According to that article, only 8.4% of plastic can be reprocessed. So that's 91.4.% with one hop to the landfill, 8.4% with two hops. It's not recycling by any stretch but they've been allowed to hijack the word.

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

#289

Post by blitzar »

rvense wrote: post #229
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…

Denmark used to have a system for reusing glass beer bottles. There was one standardized size that all the breweries used, and they were reused. At some point in the last decade or so, the system was changed so now the glass gets recycled instead. The bottles are thinner now (lighter to transport, less material used) and allegedly it works out to less impact, based on some model. (Though I've also heard it was mainly…

I remember back in the day the milkman would drop the milk off in glass bottles, then take the empties away.

Simpler times.

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

#290

Post by overcast »

echopurity wrote: post #59
overcast wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because companies probably found through research, that adding a recycle symbol, increases revenue by some percentage.

The whole movement to recycle plastic was an industry scam to knowingly profit from destroying the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dk3NOEgX7o

While true, that has nothing to do with what I stated. I was referring to consumers being more apt to purchase something that shows recyclable. Subconsciously or not.
Post reply on HN