Slashdot Mirror
Smart Trash Carts Tell If You Haven't Been Recycling
Starting next year Cleveland residents face paying a $100 fine if they don't recycle, and the city's new high-tech trash cans will keep track if they don't. The new cans are embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes which keep track of how often residents take them to the curb. If the chip shows you haven't brought your recycle can out in a while, a lucky trash supervisor will go through your can looking for recyclables. From the article: "Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine, according to Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens. Recyclables include glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, paper and cardboard."
March 2011: The first $100 fine is issued after 7 aluminum drink cans are found in her trash. Mrs Megan Bradley pleads she did not realize her 8 yo son put them in. The fine stands.
August 2011: Trash inspectors become dedicated teams trained in the special volatility of domestic incidents, and liaise the results of the inspection results.
October 2011: First worker injury as argument erupts over the fact the little recycle triangle with the 6 in the middle is not on the list of recyclables.
January 2012: Police depts are assigned dedicated SRRU teams (Special Refuse Response Unit).
August 2012: Controversy, when a neighbor films a family dragged onto the lawn, and sat on their knees with bags on their heads. The 15 yo son gets lippy, and is strangled by an SRRU officer with 6 pack plastic rings "to show the boy the importance" of recycling.
Jan 2013: The RRA(Refuse Recycling Act) is introduced and falls under the Dept Homeland Security.
Mar 2013: First "Re-education Camp" built. SRRU get new uniforms. The shirts are a trendy brown color.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
I'm not saying that recycling shouldn't be done, but you have to admit there is a lot of lying and complete bullshit here. If the people who wrote this site were honest rather then trying to make up any excuse possible then it would make everyone look more credible.
I noticed you used the word "deniers", might not want to do that next time when the information you got is lying 20% of the time.
Let's look at this link..
So in this answer they completely avoid the question being raised. They state not recycling means paying for disposal, ok but you also have to pay to recycle it.
Conveniently forgetting that the garbage truck picks up the recyclables to begin with, at least it does in the context of the article.
There is no landfill crisis as the GPs P&T video shows.
This is complete bullshit, just because an area is used for landfill doesn't mean it becomes an arid wasteland that it useless for the next 100 years. You can still use it, build on it, just like any other land.
If it were popular the article wouldn't be about people being fined for not doing it.
That article is poorly researched and poorly written. Example: The article claims that recycling saves "natural resources" like "trees, oil, [and] minerals".
It doesn't save trees because all paper products in the US come from trees harvested from tree farms where the trees are specifically planted so they can be harvested. Reduce the need for new paper and we reduce the number of trees that are be planted. (There are more trees in the US now than there were before the industrial revolution).
It doesn't save oil because plastic is made from oil AFTER it has been processed for fuel/lubricants/etc... In other words, if we stopped all plastic manufacturing today, we would have an enormous amount of unused crude oil.
It does save minerals, which is why minerals recycling is (and has always been) a very profitable venture.
Second, the article claims that recycling would reduce energy consumption. Well, long story short, it doesn't except for minerals recycling. Because paper and plastic have already been processed, they have to go through a somewhat complex de-processing in order to be used in making new paper/plastic products. It is not a simple process of grind it up, melt it down, make new stuff. There are lots of chemicals that are used at each stage for various purposes and unless those chemicals are purged, it makes the new product inferior.
Lastly, the article claims that it would reduce the environmental impact by reducing the need for "clear-cutting [and] oil drilling". Again, this is false for reasons already discussed. We don't "clear-cut" as most people think of the term. Clear cutting is used on tree farms (where the trees were planted for that very purpose). In addition, clear-cutting has been shown to actually be a benefit to the environment, since it reduces the likelihood of forest fires (nature's form of clear-cutting) and it gives the ground time to recuperate the minerals and nutrients that trees consume. (Yes, believe it or not, trees consume resources and those resource need to be replenished from time to time.) As for reducing the need for "oil drilling", as I mentioned plastic is made from the left-over crude, so the only thing that is really going to reduce the need for oil-drilling is not needing it for fuel any longer.
I am eager for pro-recyclers to give good reasons for recycling, but other than metal recycling, I haven't seen one compelling reason to do it.
"We collect and SELL over a THOUSAND tonnes of paper products every month. Things might be different in your area but here our multi-million company is quiet profitable from it."
If companies like yours just somehow gave customers just a FEW DOLLARS a month to recycle then I promise you recycling would increase 10x fold.
Instead the stupid environmental movement makes us pay to recycle. What? Yes, we have to pay to make you more money. What's next, do we have to pay to give blood so the Red Cross can sell the blood?
I will never recycle as long as I have to pay to recycle.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
You've missed the point entirely. The quoted myth is arguing that most or all trash gets sorted anyway. This is not remotely true. The Cleveland authorities look through some people's trash to see whether it contains recyclable materials, not to actually perform the separation for them.
Look at it another way. The 'study' cites that sorting trash for recyclables is prohibitive, so it's almost never done. Yet the city is putting the burden on all it's residents to do just that, threatening them with fines if they don't comply.
Would it still be economical if they had to, say, pay the residents minimum wage + 50%(for benefits expense), for the time they spend sorting and preparing? Probably not.
Realistically, I think that when somebody manages to come up with a dependable trash sorting system(possibly involving advanced robots capable of spotting, grabbing, and sorting, glass bottles from plastic from metal), stands to make a LOT of money.
Another non sequitur. If 40% of the population is doing something, I'd say it's pretty popular, wouldn't you? But that's not even a majority.
I won't deny that it isn't popular, but the GP was looking on it in the context that 'recycling is a burden on families', which, depending on a number of variables, it might be. Extra space for more garbage cans, more bags(often expensive ones marked for recycling), having to rinse various containers that would otherwise be tossed directly, etc...
Basically, just because it's popular doesn't mean that it isn't a burden on others.
I don't read AC A human right
Trash can bombs. You watch, some pinhead reactionary is going to put a bomb in one for a (soon to be scattered) inspector. I don't condone it, but you just KNOW it's coming.
Here's your tax payment.....
(deleted)
I was going to put something else here, but somewhere along the line people forgot the lesson of Eastern Europe. (Change comes from revolution.) So instead I censored myself before the mods could do it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall