Live data from Hacker News

Tracking Starbucks' 'widely recyclable' cups: none ended up at recycling

beyondplastics.org

161–162 of 162 posts

Re: Tracking Starbucks' 'widely recyclable' cups: none ended up at recycling

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it is very cheap and viable to wash/reuse bottles, but this requires special handling and isn't compatible with the single-stream systems widely used in the US. In the US we throw everything into a truck and we expect recyclers to sort and re-melt a bunch of broken shards of assorted glass.

Oh man, US is so behind the times in this respect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-deposit_legislation In the NL, such 'reverse vending machines' are in every supermarket. They take PET soda bottles, soda cans (since 2023, €0.15 deposit per can), and a few (standardized) types of glass beer bottles. The latter are often bought in crates, which (with empty bottles in them), are taken by the machine as a whole.…

Not so much behind the times as it is that we’ve regressed. Reusable glass used to be more of a thing in the US. And deposit schemes gained popularity in the 70s, which some states still have.

But the push for single-stream recycling has led many well intentioned people to believe that solution is good enough.

Re: Tracking Starbucks' 'widely recyclable' cups: none ended up at recycling

#162
post #132
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration ? At family gatherings here it's a typical argument for why there's allegedly no point separating out plastics: the recycling bin allegedly also ends up there. Nobody ever has a source for me though so take that for what it's worth, but it seems to generally be a thing

TIL incineration can involve power generation. I am familiar with the term, but had assumed incineration was basically endothermic and wasteful.

Yeah I'm surprised as well! A lot of items would burn but also so many, I'd think, wouldn't. Apparently it works out
Post reply on HN