Slashdot Mirror
Swedes Say Recycling Wastes Time And Money
Rob Parkhill writes "The London Daily Telegraph is reporting that a group of Swedish environmentalists are claiming that recycling is a waste of time and money, and most houshold waste should be burned instead."
Don't buy crap like this.
This type "research" is frequently sponsored by corporations with an interest in attempting to sway public opinion by footing the bill for "scientific studies."
Instead, call them out on it.
PS: we've seen this stuff before
Don't be a sucker.
I don't think paper is a good example to back up your concerns... paper is usually very easily recycled. Paper mills have always recycled lots of waste, for years. Paper is among the most recycled products there are, really. But I agree that recycling everything is pointless. For example, plastic containers, like the milk jugs you get from corner stores, or 2 Litre pop bottles. These things are essentially big bottles of air and recycling trucks burn so much gas hauling them around that it's actually harmful to the environment. Besides, residential waste is so miniscule compared to industrial waste, it's almost pointless to spend time dealing with it. If more time were spend dealing with industrial waste, the world would be a much better place.
Paper plates are made from a renewable resource (trees), which sounds good, but energy would be continually used to harvest the raw material and manufacture the plates. Plus throwing them away results in energy being used to transport the waste to the landfill, and then waste takes up space in the landfill. At the time I didn't consider incineration, but that undoubtably has costs, too.
Plastic plates are made a non-renewable resource (oil), which does not sound good, but it's (almost) a one time usage since the plates would be used many times. However, it takes energy to clean them (water has to be heated, automatic dishwashers use electricity, etc) and the soap may not be completely biodegradable. Plus in some areas the availability of water is an issue.
After about a day I gave up, because I had no idea where to start looking for information about the energy used for the different steps in each process. Plus I had no way to assign any type of cost/value to renewable versus nonrenewable resources, etc. I was overwhelmed by the magnitude of what initially seemed like a simple problem.
I bring this up because almost all decisions about things that impact the environment require making choices, and in most cases all of the available options have some amount of environmental cost. The problem is that there are no good sources for information that would help us make true comparisons. Instead, we are left with comparisons that are influenced by politics or ignorance (or both). As we consider new proposal about how to deal with environmental issues, we must never forget that nearly every alternative will cost something.
Aluminum is hideoulsy energy intensive to purify, but once its refined, its dirt cheap to remelt. ALuminum recycling is one of the few things i believe in.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
None of these people are environmentalists. One is an Ex-Government mouthpiece, a former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy (former is the key word here), present occupation sounds like Waste-Management Lobbist and a bunch of waste collection companies. And their argument is purely money oriented. Waste-Collection companies find that it's unprofitable to recycle. This isn't about what's really good for the environment.
What would be best? Using less! But people won't do that. They like the convienence. They don't want to have to remember to bring a Nalgene bottle with them everywhere they go. They want to say 'Ah, I'm thirsty, and only poor people drink out of drinking fountians, and there isn't one around here anyway, so I'll plunk another dollar down for a bottle which I'll promptly throw away.
The truth of this is, recycling in the long run probably isn't cheaper, but it is better for the environment. By recycling, we keep our finite resources circulating rather than throwing things away.
So, boohoo if the waste management companies don't want to recycle. If the government is forcing these programs on waste-management, voters should support subsidies to waste-management to ensure that recycling continues.
So while it's about profit, sometimes you have to pay more to do the right thing.
The gluttony of resources at rock-bottom prices is just unrealistic. Nobody wants to pay the true price now. They just want discounted convienence by making future generations pay the price. The headline on this story is misleading.
http://www.remix.net/
She's bought into the whole "save the earth" campaign hook line and sinker, and consequently always uses the super-water-saver-short-duration setting on the dishwasher. Nevermind the fact that we live in Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes, and right next to the Mississippi river. I guess that would be all fine, if the dishes actually got clean on the super-water-saver-short-duration setting, but they don't, and I have to run them a second time on a normal setting.
I guess I've come to the conclusion that most so called "environmentalists" are really about "feel good" solutions, and not ones that actually work. They don't really care about solving the real problem, just alleviating their own guilt.
AccountKiller
Background:
The Swedish' electricity saving programs has worked quite well during the last 20 years, but the use is still rising (people get computers, etc.) So any lowering of production capacity has to be replaced with fossile fuel.
The environment can't afford Swedish' environmentalists. They are ... words fail me.
(The decision of coal/nuclear was done by social democrats and environmental political parties. The report is about a report written by experts...)
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
If they can keep it as clean as a decent fossil fuel power station, why not?
Better to import your oil and wood as finished goods and burn them for energy once you're totally done with them, than to burn the oil directly.
All that talk about it being a step backwards from recycling just seems emotional not rational.
"Sends out a negative message". Tsk.