California aims to ban recycling symbols on things that aren’t recyclable • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

asoneth wrote: post #20

swiley wrote: post #2

I hope they’re not confusing the resin symbols with the recycling symbol.

Clearly the resin identification code and the recycling symbol are causing consumer confusion due to the fact that almost everyone confuses them. The US Society of the Plastics Industry designed their resin identification code in 1988 and made it similar to the recycling symbol which had been in use since 1970, even though many of the plastics thus labeled were not generally recyclable. According to wikipedia[1] they…

By 88 there weren't many products using the recycling symbol on their labels. The resin identification symbols were the first ones to get widespread usage, and I imagine they used the arrows because they are about recycling, even if they don't mean "this product is recyclable".

The ideas about government policy on product labeling became popular a bit later than that, and the resin identification codes, together with food nutritional values were the main responsible for that.

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

#42

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

About damn time. I've always been confused by the sign - it's on pretty much all plastics, but only a fraction are actually recyclable. And like many people, I chuck it all in the recycle bin and hope some of it gets recycled and that the non-recyclables don't screw up the whole works.

It really shouldn't be this hard.

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

#43

Post by LeifCarrotson » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

swiley wrote: post #2

I hope they’re not confusing the resin symbols with the recycling symbol.

Who is "They" that you hope are not confused? Are you worried about the legislators and their expert advisors?

Certainly some experts at least are academically aware that U+2672 ♲, three clockwise arrows in a triangle, recycling symbol which indicates the product can be recycled or is accepted by curbside recycling pickup programs, is not the same as U+2676 ♶, three clockwise arrows in a triangle with a tiny number inside indicating LDPE resin, which typically means the product is not accepted for recycling.

But this is not common knowledge. I hope you're not confused into thinking that the average consumer knows the difference between the resin symbols and the recycling symbol!

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

#44

Post by ___luigi » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

Before reading this article, I thought it was trivial "recycling symbol is used for recyclable items", and "no recycling symbol means that the item is not recyclable", why do they allow them to mis-use it (or mis-use any symbol) in first place?.

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

#45

Post by tantalor » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

jedimastert wrote: post #36

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.

While we're at it, can we get rid of cloth packaging that isn't explicitly made to be reused? Like how Tom's come in a box and a cloth bag inside of that box ! It's so resource intensive; it's like the definition of virtue signalling.

What do you think virtue signaling is?

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

#46

Post by andyjohnson0 » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

s_dev wrote: post #25

In Ireland there's a recycling symbol for plastic products that can be recycled. But if you put that recycling symbol in a green circle it means something else -- "that the companies that produces the product is committed to recycling" -- whatever that means. This to me is beyond infuriating. Absolutely in favor of these sorts of measures.

> But if you put that recycling symbol in a green circle it means something else -- "that the companies that produces the product is committed to recycling" -- whatever that means.

Presumably you're referring to the Green Dot / Der Grüne Punkt [1]. Its often confused with the symbol that indicates recyclabililty. I'm never sure whether that's intentional or not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_(symbol)

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

#47

Post by overcast » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

___luigi wrote: post #44

Before reading this article, I thought it was trivial "recycling symbol is used for recyclable items", and "no recycling symbol means that the item is not recyclable", why do they allow them to mis-use it (or mis-use any symbol) in first place?.

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

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

#48

Post by OneEyedRobot » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:21 PM UTC

hatchnyc wrote: post #33

mc32 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why glass? Glass is quite recyclable but requires lots of energy to recycle. As soda bottles and milk bottles they might last 20 uses. Glass is also much heavier requiring more energy to transport.

You are not wrong, but in some countries they collect, wash, and and reuse glass (and even special kinds of plastic) bottles. According to my parents that used to be standard practice in the United States. Someone should do the math first obviously but it seems like a great idea to me. If bottling is done locally you aren’t transporting the bottles long distance, and quite significantly in my mind glass is inert so i…

>According to my parents that used to be standard practice in the United States.

You're making me feel old. I used to sort bottles as a kid.

Soft drinks are just another example of gigantism in corporate life, economy of scale uber alles. There was a time when practically every small town had one or more bottling plants, the owners were pillars of the community sponsoring softball teams and the like. Delivery trucks typically had shelving rather than bays.

Following that there was a huge spate of consolidation. Small distributors/bottlers had their franchises taken away, canning became owned by the mothership and absolutely huge. The more centralized the more of a pain it becomes to sort/return/clean bottles.

I suppose it's like the history of car dealerships as they become fewer and larger. For that matter, a significant (most?) percentage of the US used to be self-employed instead of wage slaves.

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

#49

Post by rib3ye » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #42

About damn time. I've always been confused by the sign - it's on pretty much all plastics, but only a fraction are actually recyclable. And like many people, I chuck it all in the recycle bin and hope some of it gets recycled and that the non-recyclables don't screw up the whole works. It really shouldn't be this hard.

More strangely, it’s on many styrofoam packaging products.

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

#50

Post by loonster » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #30

mc32 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why glass? Glass is quite recyclable but requires lots of energy to recycle. As soda bottles and milk bottles they might last 20 uses. Glass is also much heavier requiring more energy to transport.

In every part of Canada I've lived in there has been a well developed reuse system. In Ontario, for example, a beer bottle is used around 100 times on average. Reuse should be way better integrated into our systems. If I could bring a resuable bag back to any supermarket to get the $1 fee back, it would be so much easier to justify buying reusable bags that really last a long time. The trouble is I never remember to…

My family stores the bags in the trunk of our car. They are always available for random shopping trips. Public transportation would make reusable bags much more inconvenient for our family.