41–50 of 77 posts
"Most recycled materials should be cheaper than virgin commodities" Surprisingly this just isn't true. It takes a lot of work and chemicals to clean inks and glues out of paper for recycling. Penn & Teller looked into this in an episode of Bullshit! a while back - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rExEVZlQia4 Aluminum and clear glass are very efficient to recycle, plastics and colored glass depend on commodity prices,…
This is the money quote: Coca-Cola committed to using at least 25% recycled plastic in its containers by 2015, but revised this downwards owing to scarce supply and high costs. There is no financial incentive to use recycled goods. They cost more than 'fresh' goods, they require additional processing, they add risk from material contamination (not biologic, structural and chemical). There are a dozen different reason…
"Most recycled materials should be cheaper than virgin commodities" Surprisingly this just isn't true. It takes a lot of work and chemicals to clean inks and glues out of paper for recycling. Penn & Teller looked into this in an episode of Bullshit! a while back - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rExEVZlQia4 Aluminum and clear glass are very efficient to recycle, plastics and colored glass depend on commodity prices,…
That episode of Bullshit kinda missed the point, IIRC. Energy consumption is an important thing to pay attention to, but the point of recycling is about not taking more stuff out of the ground .
The cost of recyclables is so closely correlated to variable costs (like energy prices) that efforts to mandate or close loop recycling always fail over a long enough timeframe.
Also I suspect Walmart has no idea the extent to which recyclables are used in their products since about 70% of Walmart's products are produced in China, and China consumes the majority of US (and European) recyclables.
Want to increase recycling rates? Ban the use of alternative fuels and watch recyclable recovery rates skyrocket. This is an instance where the free market knows better than policy makers.
This is the money quote: Coca-Cola committed to using at least 25% recycled plastic in its containers by 2015, but revised this downwards owing to scarce supply and high costs. There is no financial incentive to use recycled goods. They cost more than 'fresh' goods, they require additional processing, they add risk from material contamination (not biologic, structural and chemical). There are a dozen different reason…
Are you suggesting forced labor camps even for mental patients and other disadvantaged groups in society?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would believe it. If the problem really is a supply/demand imbalance, the market should correct it. But nobody will pay me for my used plastic bottles.
Perhaps someone better versed in economics can help me here: isn't this the type of thing where a tax might be useful- for example, a tax on products that use 'new' plastic/glass as opposed to recycled? basically, convert the 'cost' of garbage everywhere into an actual cost?
America is way behind from living overseas for 3 years. I have to pay extra to recycle, which I do not think is correct. Should be more like some areas in Germany where you pay for the amount of trash you have(weight), the more you throw away the more you pay -> encourages recycling! I also work for a brewery and it is sad that none will re-use bottles in the united states, all beer goes into brand new bottles :(
1. Reduce
I visited friends outside LA last year and was downright dumbfounded by the size of the two trash cans at their house. Both were 50% bigger than the one I get here in Canada for curbside trash. Talk about consumption.
2. Reuse
Living in Latin America it was awesome to see the deposit on a bottle was more than the liquid in the bottle. It was unheard of to throw out or recycle bottles.
3. Recycle
Bottom of the list!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps someone better versed in economics can help me here: isn't this the type of thing where a tax might be useful- for example, a tax on products that use 'new' plastic/glass as opposed to recycled? basically, convert the 'cost' of garbage everywhere into an actual cost?
Why do you go for the route of punishment (taxes) and not try positive reinforcement instead like incentives and or tax breaks?
"Most recycled materials should be cheaper than virgin commodities" Surprisingly this just isn't true. It takes a lot of work and chemicals to clean inks and glues out of paper for recycling. Penn & Teller looked into this in an episode of Bullshit! a while back - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rExEVZlQia4 Aluminum and clear glass are very efficient to recycle, plastics and colored glass depend on commodity prices,…
That episode of Bullshit kinda missed the point, IIRC. Energy consumption is an important thing to pay attention to, but the point of recycling is about not taking more stuff out of the ground .
...the only difference is that when the original tree rotted, it didn't leach chemicals into the soil from the inks, bleaches and other chemicals used in the production of the magazine.
So contaminants aside, composting paper instead of recycling it is actually better for the environment - assuming renewable tree harvesting practices are followed.
Of course, you can't actually put the contaminants aside nor assume that renewable harvesting practices are being used, so even this argument is flawed. At some point, the only way to affect the environment positively is to stop buying as many of the paper products as you can reasonably avoid buying.