Live data from Hacker News

Just Bury Your Trash

worksinprogress.news

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#151
post #77

"Instead of paying more to recycle, we could spend that money far more effectively on other environmental mitigation measures like carbon capture." Yeah, let's stop doing the fairly well established recycling programs that have knock on benefits like reducing pollution, and instead start scaling an entirely unproven and expensive mitigation program. These are some prominent Effect Altruism guys so I know "cause prior…

Almost all EA takes I’ve read strike me as basic contrarianism

And their plans all just happen to further empower some already-wealthy people today with the promise of paying it back in the future.

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#152
The best trash management solution is: don't create trash. Buy in bulk and from low packaging sources. Compost organic matter, recycle paper/cardboard/metal/glass, and you end up with a tiny amount of genuine trash. Use reusable rags and wash them in cold water (you don't need heat to remove dirt and grease, just good soap). Don't use single use products. Result: waste is minimal and way less harmful.

The world used to work just fine before single-use plastics. We started using them because it increased profits.

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#153
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is really true, why does Gillette advertise their high-end, multi-blade razors as multi-use? For their top product, they say "up to 20 comfortable shaves".

Sure, as you can also reuse single use razors. But the main benefit of single use is reducing the chances of skin inflammation after using the razor. If using single-use razors, I'd recommend replacing just the blades, not the razor.

You can't replace the blades on a single use razor any more than you can replace the bristles on a toothbrush

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy requirements for growing cotton being largely the sun, and a resource which makes up most of the universe (yes, I know water is several steps from hydrogen). ((And the tangentials like the fertilizers, dieslel etc.)) Compared to the energy requirements of petroleum based products: Incredible density and pressure acting on sufficient organic matter(thousands of times greater than growing cotton), on milleni…

I think the main point is that this post is not a good faith attempt to convince people otherwise. It's a shoddly researched opinion piece that has little to no merit as it ignores the complexities of producing either item.

True, I have fallen for the classic blunder:

(1) assuming a HN submission and the discussion around it is in good faith/informed on the topic

(2) Arguing about said topic and not the merits of the submission/discussion

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#156
post #7

I don't remember energy use being the problem with plastic bags? It was plastic bags being absolutely everywhere in the environment. Streets, parks, trees. Wrapped around anything sticking out of the ground. On your face on a windy day. Pollution is the problem with plastic. Probably health, too, now that microplastics are being recognized as an issue.

My state did away with bags a few years ago, and you now never see bags blowing around or stuck on trees. It also seems everyone stopped complaining about it once we got over the hump of "remember to bring your bags". So we are just left with a small group of old timers, who would probably bring back metal (pull) tab cans if they could, complaining about it. Ironically its the same group of people who blocked windmil…

I've had a vague thought that I wish grocery stores would kind of standardize their bags (you have to use theirs) and just put a passive RFID in them and make them more expensive, but make them nicer, with maybe specific bags for specific use cases (sturdy for fruits, lining for things that need to stay cold). So it would just be a cost that you pay as part of getting a bag ($3) and you get it fully refunded in when you bring it back.

It would mean you don't have to remember to carry the bag all day (which is fine if you drive, but a pain if you use public transit and have to carry bags everywhere). Just "check one out" if you don't have one, bring them back and they will be reused (and you credited) for returning them (or just reuse them yourself, if you want).

This may partially be driven by my mother, who has like 7 different types of bags that she takes to the local HEB. It is always a little song and dance with the bagger about which things go in which of her bags. These are true first world problems, but it just makes me consider alternatives.

Also, minor, but if the bags were actually "valuable", then it would encourage the homeless who find discarded bags to collect them and return them themselves, which helps with the "visible garbage" problem.

These are idiot thoughts of mine, but I do sometimes wonder about alternatives.

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#157
post #8

I don’t understand how plastic bags for “100 years at current rates” is an argument FOR its longevity/being fine?

Yes… I don't think the author is thinking on a long enough time horizon. I'm curious what happens to these landfill sites in 100, 1000 and 10k years. Do they inevitably break down and leak into the water table? Do they eventually stop off-gassing and become inert? Do they become fossilized layers of sediment on a long enough horizon? If we maintain our current waste levels, how much land is required by the year 3000?

These landfills will eventually breakdown and leak, dumping microplastics and dangerous chemicals into the groundwater which in turn will poison the people drinking from wells, and will float up during heavy rains to poison the plants.

thousands of years becomes a long time, it makes more economic sense to burn it for energy, rather than performing a thousand years of inspections and repairs for every landfill

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#158

Penn & Teller have a Bullshit! episode about this (Season 2, Episode 5). Well, it's technically about recycling, but it makes the claim that landfills are not a bad thing, and much better than the current recycling situation, in most cases. That episode has always stuck with me, and I've always wondered how valid their argument is.

I remember watching that as a young teen with a libertarian bent. As an old man who no longer identifies as libertarian that episode for some reason has stuck with me as the arguments were pretty compelling. I agree and would like to know if the calculations have changed today or if their argument is still valid.

Their argument was NEVER valid, Penn and Teller never addressed how long this trash actually takes to break down (Estimates are as high as 10,000) years. This means for 10,000 years you would need to inspect the landfill every year, and repair it when the landfill breaks.

In actuality what will happen is that all these buried landfills will break, all the bad stuff will leak out and enter the ground water. The groundwater becomes polluted, the plants start dying. And you end up with dead dirt that nothing will grow in.

The people advocating for landfills now, are not going to be around 500 years from now to see the results of their selfish thinking.

The primary issue is that we took elements naturally found in nature and used them to create manmade synthetic material, that nature has no tools to deal with. And these manmade synthetic material will eventually break down small enough to the point where quantum forces take over (nanoscale sized particles) and enter the groundwater. And plants and animals will drink in these manmade synthetic materials the size of nanometers, and the body has nothing that can breakdown or deal with these manmade synthetic materials. Putting a piece of shit into icecream and mixing it is easy. Unmixing a icecream mixed with shit to remove the shit is scientifically impossible.

For billions of years, high-density elements (lead, cadmium, mercury, rare earth elements, arsenic) were locked away in solid mineral ores, buried under hundreds of feet of rock. Surface biology only ever encountered them as faint, background trace elements.

We mined gigatons of these ores, refined them to near-100% purity, combined them with synthetic chemicals, and packed them into hyper-dense landfill cells right above or near freshwater aquifers.

Landfills are fundamentally a temporal transfer mechanism. They take the immediate waste generated by modern high-consumption lifestyles—cheap electronics, disposable packaging, synthetic textiles, convenience goods—and bury it out of sight, converting a present-day logistical crisis into a slow-motion geological problem for future generations.

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your state has eliminated metal tab cans? Huh. What do you drink 12oz of pop out of?

I think they mean the 1970s-style "pull-tabs" that disconnected from the can. These were frequently discarded as litter, instead of put in a proper bin. I can remember seeing a lot of them in road gutters as a kid. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_can#Opening_mechanisms

For those not familiar, these are the ones which were in common use in the 1970s and 1980s:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/12/4f/79124fb24fd0cc6ac4cf...

Re: Just Bury Your Trash

#160
post #16

Not every place has space for landfills... which is why we often ship trash over to low-income countries.

Can you give a specific example of a rich country that is "ship[ping] trash over to low-income countries" in 2026? It must be a tiny minority at this point.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN