Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 344 posts

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#241

Post by mikepurvis »

Liron wrote: post #30

We really shot ourselves in the foot with this whole pointless "recycling paper and plastic" thing huh? The convenience of throwing something away is a triumph of modern civilization and one of life's little pleasures, and we had to ruin it by acting like it's wrong when it's actually not. When I walk up to some wastebins holding a papery-plasticky object with a bit of food stuck to it, my heart sinks. Now I have to…

It boggles my mind that modern fast food restaurants don't have a clear board above the multi-receptacle trash area telling you which bin each single-use item they serve goes into.

I mean, maybe that's partly because it doesn't matter and in the end they're just combining it all and sending everything to landfill regardless. But still; they got the bins, how much harder can it be to put up a sign?

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#243

Post by SuoDuanDao »

nsb1 wrote: post #239

Honest question: From a climate change point of view, burying anything that contains carbon is basically the definition of sequestering that carbon. Why is it bad to bury anything that contains carbon? The obvious response, I think, would be that if we consume and bury 'stuff', then we'll just make more 'stuff', but what's wrong with that? Is it the energy required (presumably from burning fossil fuels) to produce mo…

A lot of buried carbon is digested by anaerobic bacteria, which produce Methane (also a greenhouse gas), so there's that.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#244

Post by kpU8efre7r »

Glossed over electronics. Good or bad to recycle?

Or do electronics fall under metals and are worth recycling. Or if tossed we could always mine landfills for iPhones in the future, which the article touches upon.

As an aside, this article seems to only be about minimizing energy use or cost and not about maximizing sustainability.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#245

Post by Wohlf »

nsb1 wrote: post #239

Honest question: From a climate change point of view, burying anything that contains carbon is basically the definition of sequestering that carbon. Why is it bad to bury anything that contains carbon? The obvious response, I think, would be that if we consume and bury 'stuff', then we'll just make more 'stuff', but what's wrong with that? Is it the energy required (presumably from burning fossil fuels) to produce mo…

>if we consume and bury 'stuff', then we'll just make more 'stuff'

There is also a flawed assumption here that these are connected. We will make more stuff whether or not we bury other stuff.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#246

Post by Wohlf »

kpU8efre7r wrote: post #244

Glossed over electronics. Good or bad to recycle? Or do electronics fall under metals and are worth recycling. Or if tossed we could always mine landfills for iPhones in the future, which the article touches upon. As an aside, this article seems to only be about minimizing energy use or cost and not about maximizing sustainability.

With the current model of doing things, i.e. shipping it to Asia, it's highly questionable.

>this article seems to only be about minimizing energy use or cost and not about maximizing sustainability

Because when you factor in energy use, only metal recycling has a net positive impact on the environment and sustainability.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#247

Post by air7 »

nsb1 wrote: post #239

Honest question: From a climate change point of view, burying anything that contains carbon is basically the definition of sequestering that carbon. Why is it bad to bury anything that contains carbon? The obvious response, I think, would be that if we consume and bury 'stuff', then we'll just make more 'stuff', but what's wrong with that? Is it the energy required (presumably from burning fossil fuels) to produce mo…

This is also a good argument for obesity. After all, a pound gained is a pound sequestered. [/s]

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#248

Post by NickM »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #243
nsb1 wrote: post #239

Honest question: From a climate change point of view, burying anything that contains carbon is basically the definition of sequestering that carbon. Why is it bad to bury anything that contains carbon? The obvious response, I think, would be that if we consume and bury 'stuff', then we'll just make more 'stuff', but what's wrong with that? Is it the energy required (presumably from burning fossil fuels) to produce mo…

A lot of buried carbon is digested by anaerobic bacteria, which produce Methane (also a greenhouse gas), so there's that.

True, but some landfills capture that methane and pump it back into the natural gas grid. I don't know the details of how efficient or widespread this type of capturing scheme is, but it seems to me like this is probably actually more sustainable than using natural gas from drilling and fracking.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#249

Post by chimprich »

gruez wrote: post #61
redder2 wrote: post #33

Some interesting arguments. I think the argument that he has better things to do then think of taking a bag "everythere". You do not need a bag small in hand purchases and when you really go shopping you should and can easily bring a bag when you go shopping. When it comes to regulations I would trust the US with nothing. The EU has probably way better regulations for landfills like for food and other things. While a…

>when you really go shopping you should and can easily bring a bag when you go shopping. There's a Danish study[1] that concluded that reusable bags require 50+ uses before breaking even with disposable plastic bags. And that's for one use. If you reuse the disposable bag once (to line your garbage bin, for example), the break even point is now 100+ uses. If you factor in cleaning costs for the reusable bags, I'd be…

That is a very selective interpretation of that paper.

The study found that some types of reusable bag needed many uses before being a better environmental option than thin plastic bags (e.g. cotton). Other bags, such as sturdier plastic bags designed for reuse were much better options, needing only a few uses to break even, environmentally speaking.

Anyway, 50+ (or 100+) uses - a year or two of weekly shopping - does not seem unreasonable for a cotton bag.

Re: Landfill is underrated and recycling overrated

#250

Post by duxup »

agent008t wrote: post #222
duxup wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we live in the time where companies look quarter to quarter....or are rewarded by the market by growing like Uber where profits don't even matter. Not sure we can hope for them to look into the future very far / care.

The likes of Uber are valued highly precisely because investors are looking very far into the future where these companies might become highly profitable.

I'm not convinced that is the case.

I really think there is a difference in "look at this market share" and critical thinking about how Uber can get to sustainability.

I think the whole tech company IPO is a weird otherverse that isn't as much about the future as folks think.

Post reply on HN