Slashdot Mirror


US States Banned From Exporting Trash To China Are Drowning In Plastic

hackingbear writes "Not only we depend on Chinese labor for the imports but we also depend on them to clean up our mess. Being green is getting a lot harder for eco-friendly states in the U.S., thanks to the country's dependency on overrun Chinese recycling facilities since the start of China's Green Fence policy this year. Recycling centers in Oregon and Washington recently stopped accepting clear plastic "clamshell" containers used for berries, plastic hospital gowns and plastic bags, while California's farmers are grappling with what to do with the 50,000 to 75,000 tons of plastic they use each year. The Green Fence initiative bans bales of plastic that haven't been cleaned or thoroughly sorted. That type of recyclable material, which costs more to recycle, often it ends up in China's landfills, which have become a source of recent unrest in the country's south. For every ton of reusable plastic, China has received many more tons of random trash, some of it toxic. That has helped build 'trash mountains' so high they sometimes bury people alive. For a country facing environmental crisis after environmental crisis, it is no longer tenable to accept US waste exports."

427 comments

  1. Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And put it all there.

    There. I fixed it.

    1. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by beefoot · · Score: 1

      Yes -- that will make your tap water smell strawberry, blueberry, etc from the plastic container. Or better yet, coke coming out of the tap water.

    2. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Dr.+Sheldon+Cooper · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else see the irony in this?

      --
      Bazinga.
    3. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm, coke. Doesn't sound that bad after all. I'm in!

    4. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      That's certainly more environmentally friendly than shipping it all the way to China so they can dump it in a hole in the ground.

    5. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope. This is all plastic. If it were iron, we could recycle it much more easily.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbest comment ever, man from 1800.

      Better.
      Build space cable to export our plastic to the sun. The sun fish may die, but so be it.

    7. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about using paper or cardboard to hold the shit in, instead of plastic in the first place? Wrap it in aluminum foil or anything other than plastic, even put them in glass containers, let the customer bring them back to re-use or pay a deposit etc.

    8. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read a proposal where all garbage collection would be financed by a levy on goods based upon their disposal cost. While there are some real challenges in properly estimating disposal costs, it would make for an interesting incentive to create goods that are easier to recycle, and which come with less packaging.

      I can see how it would also reduce incentives to innovate on the disposal end, so that would have to be taken into account. Perhaps a 50-50 split on the disposal cost.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    9. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China's where most of the plastic came from in the first place, why NOT send it back when we're done with it?

    10. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, keep digging and it all ends up in China anyway.

    11. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by wilby · · Score: 1

      If the hole is deep enough it will go all the way to China - Brilliant!!

    12. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by robot256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what they want us to do, but *after* we've done some of the leg work to actually sort the stuff. Given that so many Americans put garbage in recycling bins with utter abandon, it's really no surprise the Chinese got fed up with us.

    13. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow, I think the polluting being done by Chinese companies is going to have a greater impact on Chinese tap water than the plastics the U.S. sends. In fact, what the Chinese market as safe food might be an even bigger risk. Would you like a little melamine with your milk?

    14. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      I imagine cleaning it is the much bigger problem. I've often wondered as I tossed soda bottles in the bin just how they deal with getting the soda residue out of each bottle. And that's just soda. Imagine the REALLY nasty stuff that must come in on some of that plastic (like medical waste). I would say that we should make it a requirement that you had to rinse out recyclables before putting them in the bin, but let's face it, that would only lead to people just tossing it in the trash. Probably better to just go back to metal and glass, and pay the extra money.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    15. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on where you dig from. I always heard that one as a kid, especially when digging a deep hole in the backyard. However, if you go from NY through the center of the earth to the other side, you wind up in the Indian Ocean not far from the southwest corner of Australia.

    16. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered as I tossed soda bottles in the bin just how they deal with getting the soda residue out of each bottle.

      Shred it first.

    17. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Glass would likely be too difficult to shape, remember we're talking about those clamshell containers that many consumer electronics come in. Plastic can be easily moulded into w/e shape is needed.

      Foil might work, but would need to be extra thick to hold it's shape, and could not be seen into.

      Cardboard also a possibility, but would be easy to defeat for possible shoplifting, and more easily damaged; also cannot see into it.

      -----------

      Of course all this is moot if you're ordering online, since you'll already be able to see what stuff looks like.

    18. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by digitig · · Score: 1

      China isn't really noted for its oil reserves, so my guess is that the plastic did not come from there.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    19. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Then the heat from the reshaping process mostly takes care of the residue.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    20. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sounds just like a levy on processes based on their carbon production - the exact kind of regulation that supports public good while enabling capitalism to work with it. In other words, exactly the kind of thing that everyone seems to hate.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    21. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Gription · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My question is: In a time where everyone is screaming, "Green!!!", why is every little object packaged in a large plastic case 10 times the size of the little object?
      Not only is it an obvious waste, it is incredibly irritating to have to break out tools to extract a purchase.

      Funny experience was watching a person at an airport wrestle with a sealed package with a bluetooth headset inside. (Of course no one has anything sharp because the only good human is a helpless one) They ended up cutting their hand on the packaging before they got it open.

      !!! Wait!!! Doesn't that mean that plastic packaging should be banned from airports as it can obviously cut someone?

    22. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here in Finland we actually have a very functional PET and glass bottle recycling system. When you buy a drink, your bottle contains a "PalPa" symbol (palautuspantti - english "return pawn" as in pawn shop) with price of the bottle. You pay this price on top of the drink when you make the purchase. Then you can return the bottle into machine at the shop that will read the bar code, recognize the worth of the bottle and print you a voucher for total value of all bottles, cans etc you return. You can use the voucher in the shop for your next purchase.

      The old system which was mainly used for glass bottles was fairly complex. They had things like smell detectors used to detect if bottle was still not clean after washing cycle since you couldn't actually break the bottles - you reused the same ones. Many glass coca cola bottles sold here back then had distinct marks of wear on the outer sides where machine probably grabbed them for washing and refilling. They were apparently reused about 33 times on average before they were crushed and glass mass was reused. But the process was somewhat costly because of the smell detectors and other extra hardware needed to ensure safety of the returned bottles.

      Nowadays PET bottles just get crumpled up by the machine itself and then sent to factory for melting and being recycled. According to wikipedia http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palpa they get shredded and then reused as anything from new bottles to things like raincoats, bags and even ties.

      Same thing is done for aluminum drink cans (apparently we have about 96% recycle rate on cans because of it).

      The general idea is that you basically you pay a bit of extra for the container when you buy the product, and you get that money back by returning it into the machine at the shop. I.e. the container is pawned to your, and you get your money back when you return it for recycling. This creates strong incentives to recycle the product rather then just put it in the trash.

    23. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      It used to be that way in the U.S. too, with glass bottles. You would get 5-cents back when you returned empties to the stores. Then they were washed and reused.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    24. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by zieroh · · Score: 3, Informative

      My question is: In a time where everyone is screaming, "Green!!!", why is every little object packaged in a large plastic case 10 times the size of the little object?

      It's a theft deterrent. Keeps the dirty hippies from stealing stuff by being environmentally unfriendly and too large to stuff in their pants.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    25. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by Muad'Dave · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    26. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't say that it was "in the U.S. too" since each state has different laws around this. MA has a 5 cent deposit on soft drink cans & bottles, but not juice. MI has 10 cents. Some have none.

    27. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clam shell packaging is often used to combat shoplifting of small products. Or at least that is what I have heard.

    28. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by losfromla · · Score: 4, Funny

      It is the Chinese sending back all that useless plastic they don't know how to otherwise get rid of.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    29. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid in PA and TX the money from pop bottle returns financed all my candy and comic book purchases. At that time a bottle of pop was 10 cents, so finding 3 empty bottles meant I got a free one, and a giant SweetTart cost 10 cents (2 bottles).

      The only problem was that bees liked the empties.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    30. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by SoupGuru · · Score: 3, Informative

      The 10 cent deposit in Michigan factored into college party etiquette. If you were going to a party and brought your own beer, it was considered polite to leave your empties with the host. If the hosts were able to wake from their hangover the next day, they'd return the empties and have enough for breakfast.

      At least that what a friend tells me.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    31. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, the 5-cent return was in every state (every one I ever went to anyway). It was an economic thing back then, not forced on companies by laws and regulations. It only started to change by state later, when plastic came in and some states started putting return deposits into legislation and some didn't.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    32. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by shentino · · Score: 1

      Not raw plastic, but probably plastic byproducts. Like cheap chinese goods, plastic packaging, and so on.

    33. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by shentino · · Score: 2

      Certainly hated by the gravy train industry that wants to keep things just the way they are.

    34. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't have the oil reserves to create the plastic, they now have reserves of oil in plastic. Garbage is rich in minerals and oil.

    35. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why is every little object packaged in a large plastic case 10 times the size of the little object

      It's 100% marketing. There is a considerable amount of proof that the shinier (and often bigger) the package, the more likely the consumer to buy it. There really needs to be some new laws written around packaging goods (i.e. packaging cannot exceed x times the size of the product, unless a dangerous good, needed for storage etc.)

    36. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by digitig · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, if you're saying they just processed the plastic, the same could be said of the USA.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    37. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I remember those two episodes.

    38. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by flanders123 · · Score: 1

      In some states its 10 cents! One time my friend Newman and I borrowed one of his USPS mail trucks from work to shuttle bottles collected here in New York (5 cent return) to return them to Michigan (10 cent return) for a cool profit. Hilarity ensued.

    39. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's what they want us to do, but *after* we've done some of the leg work to actually sort the stuff. Given that so many Americans put garbage in recycling bins with utter abandon, it's really no surprise the Chinese got fed up with us.

      Not a problem in my house.

      Everything goes into the garbage can...no recycling whatsoever....

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    40. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Even if they heated it hot enough to burn the soda to ash (they don't) you would still have raw carbon ash contamination in the final product. Plastic has to be pretty much clean to be recycled because they heat it till it softens then reprocess it into something else.

    41. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      The 10 cent deposit in Michigan factored into college party etiquette. If you were going to a party and brought your own beer, it was considered polite to leave your empties with the host. If the hosts were able to wake from their hangover the next day, they'd return the empties and have enough for breakfast.

      OH wow...I didn't know they did deposits on bottles anywhere any more.

      I remember as a kid, gathering up bottles to trade for $ to get candy at the local 7-11 store, but they did away with that ages ago.

      I thought it went away all over the US...interesting that a few states apparently keep doing that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    42. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by SteffenM · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's exactly the problem that GP was illustrating.

      Thank you for proving his point. Start recycling, asshole!

    43. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Occidental Petroleum was just an hallucination. I hear it is possible to import oil and make plastic from that. It is also possible to import plastic and make items from it. China should try to catch the villain that is sneaking about and stamping "Made in China" on all those plastic items.

    44. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh. You mean like how carbon credits in Europe could be gained by planting trees. Only the legislation neglected to mention that already present trees shoul be preserved. So vast expanses of pristine rainforest equalling medium sized countries were burnt to the ground so the European corporations could get credits while planting huge monoculture palm oil plantations. Yep. Gotta love it.

    45. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also charge people per pound of trash people throw away, improve the recycling process and levy some hefty fines for putting garbage in with the recyclables

    46. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several of the more liberal areas of the US this is done. The state of Oregon is pretty good with it. The state of California nominally has this, except they left one crucial bit out of the law. While they charge the extra bit, California failed to require stores to accept containers they had sold. Hence no stores accept them and the money is impossible to retrieve.

    47. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Handy indeed. It seems the old "keep digging and you'll get to China" is only true in Argentina and Chile, but at least it's drier than almost all the other antipodes.

    48. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny!

    49. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of states in the US do something similar. Often it applies only to certain types of goods, just not types of bottles (a few years back, New York expanded their bottle deposit program to cover, i think it was, juice and a few other types of beverages). Most drink bottles and cans in the US are labelled with which states have such programs, and how much the deposit is, although (at least in NY) you can only legally return it to the state it was bought in.

    50. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I would say that we should make it a requirement that you had to rinse out recyclables before putting them in the bin, but let's face it, that would only lead to people just tossing it in the trash.

      Or you could use machines like we do here in Finland at every store alcove. You simply feed everything you have - plastic bottles, glass bottles, cans - into the machine and it sorts them and gives you a small reimbursement for your trouble. Some people actually get a side income from looking for abandoned bottles to recycle.

      Why expect people to do the right thing when it's easy to have machines do it instead?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    51. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ZoobieWa · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much your attitudes would differ if it was the United States that was burying the trash and plastic of the Chinese.

    52. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. This is all plastic. If it were iron, we could recycle it much more easily.

      Hidden in your humor is root of the real problem.

      Look at anything supposedly made out of recycled plastics and you see just totally ridiculous prices.
      Compared to wood or steel, similar sized playground equipment, picnic tables, lawn furniture, always is at least a third more expensive, (even when purchased from the same company), just by virtue of being made out of recycled material.

      Its not clear if this is predatory pricing or the actual cost of re-refinement exceeds the price of new materials. If recycled material really does cost that much more, then maybe we ought to be looking for ways to cleanly burning this material for electrical power generation, rather than make new things out of a more expensive resource.

      In the mean time, modern land fills (or mountains) of bailed plastic may as good a way of stockpiling it until the recycle technology catches up. Grinding it and dumping it in the ocean is clearly the wrong way.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    53. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Not a problem in my house.

      Everything goes into the garbage can...no recycling whatsoever....

      So... is this some weird perversion brough on by American party politics? Because for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would be proud of shitting on their own nest.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    54. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The problem is that gives an incentive for illegal dumping.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    55. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      When they spend money to promote the fact it is recycled, then you can be sure it is predatory pricing.
      Toilet paper and printer paper are the two biggest culprits there (not plastic but good examples).

    56. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be on to something. Excavate a hole to the molten core, dump unlimited amounts of plastic in Earth's incinerator. *brushes hands* Done.

    57. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      That's silly... How would you avoid the mole men if you went directly threw the center...

    58. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol. I remember it going from 5 to 10 cents just before the pladtic 2 liter came to market. The biggest benefit if those were weight and durability. Some of the early commercials actually showed knocking them off the table without breaking as a selling point.

      I bet the ac you replied to has always seen plastic softdrink bottles being availible and likely never saw mcdonalds serving it's big mac sandwiches in styrofoam boxes

    59. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you understand this or not, but trees need to be harvested and used to take the carbon out of the loop else they die and decay and go right back into it.

    60. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      People are already charged by weight. All garbage going to landfills or that are burnt for energy has a fee asociated with it either the ton or hundred weight. The bill you see asociated with it or even you rent if its included already considers that.

    61. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I too have fond memories of taking giant garbage bags of containers back and getting cash for them so I could go buy baseball cards (ie. lottery for kids).

      Today, though, I'd be afraid to do this if I were a kid, since the only people I see collecting beverage containers are the homeless folks who scrape the alley for them. Can't have a nine year old stepping on the toes of a washed up junkie looking for their next fix.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    62. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Your system in Finland is much newer than that in other places.. According to the various Wikipedia pages, the deposits started in 1996 there.

      They started in 1970 in British Columbia, and 1971 in Oregon (the progenitor of various U.S. deposit bills).

      But I hadn't realized that it started in *1799* in Dublin. (Not via a law.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation#History

    63. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Yeah!!! Screw a glass from the cabinet! I need to drink my water out of a plastic bottle!

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    64. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Since I basically use a credit card for as many payments as I can (for convenience & get the cash back -- yes in other posts I've expounded on how it's still beneficial to me, since the individual purchase price is the same whether I pay cash or credit).... Recycling my own cans/bottles usually gives me enough pocket cash for the rare times I need cash (one or two restaurants that don't take credit, or emergency cash).

    65. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Do you never buy cans or bottles of soda or booze? It's right on the can/bottle (e.g. "CA CRV ME-HI 5cents"), and on the receipt, you see the separate charge.

    66. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing TV news segments about these machines long ago -- I basically thought of them as "reverse vending machines". But you had to put EACH can in one by one. Plus, they never seemed to become common in the U.S.

      I just usually count them out at home (since it's usually faster when I return them, plus I'm sure to get the same as what I spent when I bought them, as opposed to by weight) and make a quick trip to recycle them at one of the many close recycling places, usually in a grocery store lot.

    67. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In business these costs are called "externalities" and should be rightfully included in price of goods.

      ...reduce incentives to innovate on the disposal end

      As of today the disposal is funded by municipal (tax) money, so there is no incentive to innovate. Once you start charging manufacturers the externalities they will find a way to innovate cheaper disposal of their products/packaging.

    68. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      As of today the disposal is funded by municipal (tax) money, so there is no incentive to innovate.

      How so? Most municipalities catch all sorts of hell for raising taxes or garbage fees. My municipality just went single stream with robotic trucks to try and save some money. If they didn't have to pay the salaries, they'd still have guys walking around with little carts and brushes. I think you need to keep some incentives in place on the collection side.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    69. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you understand this or not, but trees need to be harvested and used to take the carbon out of the loop else they die and decay and go right back into it.

      Uhh, that's almost completely wrong. The only harvested trees that are taken out of the loop are ones shoved into the earth's crust somewhere. Otherwise, they go right back into the system.

      Meanwhile, there are millions and millions of trees that aren't dying, but are instead growing larger, consuming more and more carbon. A study a few years back (Google for it) showed that, for many plant species, the amount (not percent, raw amount) of wood they added each year continued to grow as they aged, even if the percent of growth slowed down. And you can't forget the majesty of old growth forests - if you haven't seen an old growth tree in person, you really don't understand what old growth means.

      If entire forests can grow as large as the old growth forests that blanketed the U.S. before we cut them all down, then there's plenty of opportunity for trees to keep growing for hundreds of years and suck carbon from the air.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    70. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will attempt to play cultural oracle, mostly in the hope that someday someone else will return the favor about a culture foreign to me.

      If I had to hazard a guess, the GP is embracing the fact that there is no market incentive to recycle. It just doesn't pay to engage in all this sorting when there is no net personal/family benefit. Also, many of us have the suspicion that this "recycled" stuff placed in the recycling bin just ends up in a landfill anyway. Therefore, skipping the empty motion of "recycling" becomes akin to the catharsis of not purchasing indulgences for one's "sins"... they just embrace it, and decide to move on with life without engaging in the empty "greenwashing" guilt trip that is recycling.

      Also, as you suggested, there can be a political aspect: these actions allow one to troll the greens (who are generally the liberals). But in the end, it's really about lack of economic incentive to recycle. There's no point to recycle glass, for instance—especially compared to aluminum and copper. The valuable resources have market-based pricing for recycling that reflect their value. Such value simply does not exist for marginal resources like plastic bags, glass, most newsprint, etc.

    71. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      The US doesn't bury plastic trash.

      It gives it millions of dollars and its own TV reality show.

    72. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Recycled black polyurethane is dirt cheap here. Stuff from a lot of colours comes in, is ground up, gets carbon black added and black polyurethane comes out. That saves on sorting costs and since it's considered an industrial material predatory pricing doesn't get a chance.

    73. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yea, FOR THOSE AREAS. Despite you'll get those exact same cans with that exact same printing in Texas.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    74. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i used to live in a non-return state and drive truck to michigan.
      care to guess where i bought coke, and where i turned in the empties?
      $80 every couple of weeks for 40 minutes feeding the machine in
      the homeless end of meijer. might not sound impressive, but a
      round trip to michigan took all day and was worth only about $100
      to the driver.

    75. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No, you don't see the bottles/cans anymore become the homeless spend their days rooting through every garbage can for them.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    76. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cbope · · Score: 1

      A nice side benefit of the Finnish system, you rarely see empties thrown all over the place, out of car windows on the roadside, etc. There is actually a pretty significant "deposit" cost and this is what encourages recycling and not simply throwing it away or tossing it out the window. On cans it's 0.15 euro cents and on 1.5 liter soft drink bottles it's 0.40 euro cents. In USD that converts to roughly 0.20 cents/can and 0.50 cents/bottle. We collect all cans/bottles at home, then take them to the store and feed them into the automated machines before shopping. At the checkout, you hand over the printed ticket from the machine and the amount is credited towards your purchase. I believe you can also ask for the cash refund without buying anything, but what's really the point of that... (if you are at the store, you are probably buying groceries anyway).

      As someone else already mentioned, the recycle rate for cans/bottles, including glass, easily exceeds 95% as a result.

    77. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mirix · · Score: 1

      It may cost more to sort and recycle used plastic, as opposed to using oil as a feedstock for new plastic. I suppose it likely depends on the type of plastic for one. Obviously thermosets cannot be recycled at all (apart from using them as fill or something like this).

      The pricing is temporary though, as oil becomes more expensive that will definitely change (if it is indeed the case now, I'm not certain). It seems likely that recovery and automatic sorting systems will improve over time too, bringing the cost down.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    78. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mirix · · Score: 1

      For plastic bottles, I think they shred them, swish the particles in a hot (weak) lye solution, rinse a few times.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    79. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by mirix · · Score: 1

      This sort of exists in civilized countries. The green dot system (started in germany, early 90s). As I understand it, to sell something there you need to either collect the waste of your product yourself, or pay a licensing fee to the.. sort of garbage agency. As more packaging results in larger licence fees, this also promotes smaller packaging. (and the recovery is paid for).

      green dot

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    80. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same way with cans in the US. The problem is that the deposit is only 5c, which makes it not really worth the effort to collect your cans, transport them to the store and dump them one-by-one into the machines. The deposit should be more like 30c or perhaps even higher.

    81. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Actually it started in 1952 because during summer olympics coca cola company entered Finland and started their glass bottle recycling system.

      Many people seem to miss that this isn't a legally mandated system. You don't have to use it. But with everyone expecting it, you will face backlash from customers who will ask why you as a company aren't making a basic effort to recycle your bottles.

      Wikipedia page does mention that this scheme is in fact unique to Finland and no other country has a system like ours. Which is a bit of a shame, as it's very efficient - they claim over 90% recycling rate across all bottles and cans they work with.

    82. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      That's pretty much it.

      There is no benefit to me (or penalty) for me to recycle. I get no benefit to trade of for having to have 2-4 different trashcans taking up space in my limited spaced kitchen to sort things out, when I have the convenience of one can now for everything.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    83. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Do you never buy cans or bottles of soda or booze? It's right on the can/bottle (e.g. "CA CRV ME-HI 5cents"), and on the receipt, you see the separate charge

      I rarely sit and read my bottles...

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    84. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly how it works in Michigan as well, a few other states may do it that way too?

    85. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      That's not totally true. There are really really REALLY crappy broken down machines here and there that sometimes work taking the cans/bottles back.
      Most general aluminum recylcing places in CA assume your cans have the redemption value, and pay accordingly.
      Which also drops your value when you bring in general aluminum scrap.

    86. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Everything my parents ever told me was a lie :tears:

    87. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by nobodie · · Score: 1

      yup, when I was a kid I used to scour the construction sites after 5 and pick up empty soda bottles to return for 2 cents each (I'm a lot older than you I guess).

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    88. Re: Just dig a really deep hole by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Uhh, that's almost completely wrong. The only harvested trees that are taken out of the loop are ones shoved into the earth's crust somewhere. Otherwise, they go right back into the system.

      Wrong. Trees harvested over 100 years ago are still inside my old house that is still standing at the site it was originally built. Eventually, harvested trees might end back into the loop, but they remain out for along time with quite a few of them ending up in land fills as garbage or construction wastes.

      Meanwhile, there are millions and millions of trees that aren't dying, but are instead growing larger, consuming more and more carbon. A study a few years back (Google for it) showed that, for many plant species, the amount (not percent, raw amount) of wood they added each year continued to grow as they aged, even if the percent of growth slowed down. And you can't forget the majesty of old growth forests - if you haven't seen an old growth tree in person, you really don't understand what old growth means,

      Sure, and if the trees don't end up dieing in a forest fire like what happens in the western USA every year......

    89. Re:Just dig a really deep hole by pweidema · · Score: 1

      We have exactly this process in New York state. I didn't realize it was so uncommon.

  2. Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I heard India is having an economic crisis right now...

    1. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good point. Ship the dirty plastic to India so they can clean it and then ship it to China. Or they could just let it pile up there. Problem solved.

  3. Thank goodness... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...I've never bothered to recycle anything.

    I'm doing my part to keep from burying innocent folks in China!!

    :)

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to save American jobs!

      3

    2. Re:Thank goodness... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure that I understand the point behind recycling most plastics... as opposed to a shread/landfill approach. Isn't plastic mostly a byproduct of our oil use/processing waste? If all plastics were recycled, what happens to the waste byproducts from oil production/consumption... leaving alt-fuel aside as we still use it.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  4. They aren't drowning in plastic by chemosh6969 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone living in one of those states, they just need to be more thoroughly sorted, which you can barely make out of the poorly written and slanted article.

    1. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      That might mean paying some money so that's not going to happen.

    2. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      And it might mean printing the damned recycle numbers somewhat larger than 0.5 mm. I really don't feel like getting out my loupe just to figure out which bin to toss a piece of plastic in.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      The county I live in charges me for a mandatory recycling bin. They can sort it. They are just lucky I even bother to put stuff that 'looks' recyclable in it.

    4. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by IP_Troll · · Score: 3, Informative

      They just need to be more thoroughly sorted

      Wrong.

      Household waste plastic other than clear plastic PET is not worth recycling. The plastic lobby has pulled the wool over your eyes. Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.

    5. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it all hydrocarbons anyways? Why not just burn it in coal power plants?

    6. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suppose they're lucky that you condescend to use indoor plumbing rather than shit in the street, too.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you tell "them". It is ALL about ME ME ME ME ME ME. The boomer generation - the biggest whiners and entitled SOBs the world has ever seen.

    8. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      ...and slanted article.

      I see what you did there.

      cheers,

    9. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your laziness makes recycling cost more and be less effective. Congratulations. You have fought the good fight.

    10. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps there's an even better way of dealing with the problem...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Because coal power plants are made for coal, not plastic. I guess putting plastic in the mix would reduce their efficiency. However a burning plant made specifically for burning plastic should work. Provided you can convince the local NIMBY population.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Similar for paper.

      There are TONS of household stuff that can contaminate paper and make it unrecyclable. Basically anything with grease, oil, food, etc... So you end up being that even if you recycle your paper, most of it will have come into contact with the grease from last nights pizza and cannot be recycled.

      http://americanrecyclingca.com/2011/05/paper/contamination-in-paper-recycling/

    13. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, just do what they do here (Long Island, NY), burn it as fuel in a power plant. No need to really sort it, keeps it out of land fills, and it's kinda like recycling.

    14. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't it all hydrocarbons anyways? Why not just burn it in coal power plants?

      That's basically what the Dutch do, and they're the golden child of recycling. They found that burning plastic is more economical than recycling it. They also recycle all sorts of metals, but after incineration.

      http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/a-tour-of-amsterdam%E2%80%99s-waste-to-energy-plant/

    15. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.

      In other words, 100% true? I would walk to more places if walking meant getting a piggy back ride.

    16. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose they're lucky that you condescend to use indoor plumbing rather than shit in the street, too.

      Actually, yes. Do you know how our sewer systems came into being, and why they're public works projects?

    17. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Zeromous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are probably referring to Plasma Gasification (if it works) would be great for "recyling" hydrocarbons into nothing more than power and slag, minimizing the hydrocarbon's pollution cycle as I like to call it.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    18. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by tlambert · · Score: 1

      They just need to be more thoroughly sorted

      Wrong.

      Household waste plastic other than clear plastic PET is not worth recycling. The plastic lobby has pulled the wool over your eyes. Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.

      According to this article, it's worth recycling, although if you dye it green or other colors, it goes down in value, but is still worth it from an economic perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PET_bottle_recycling

      We should probably just go back to glass bottles for most of he stuff we ship around in PET containers; for fruit and berriers, we should go back to raw cardboard, which was typically made from recycled paper anyway.

      To address the larger issue, we should make sorting a lot easier by picking on or two classes of plastic which are easily distinguishable from one another, and only make plastic items out of those few plastics. If we could do away with paper labels, using container-printed labels instead, that'd also help.

    19. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not treat it like aluminum cans? Charge us all extra for food, then pay us to use toilets. That way people who go into "leave no trace" campsites will pay for their waste.

      It's way better to penalize doing something wrong than to mandate doing things a specific right way.

    20. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by IP_Troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is wrong also.

      A fast food restaurant cannot put their trash bags in the paper recycling bin, no, but a few pizza boxes are not going contaminate an entire batch of recycled paper, unlike plastic where dissimilar plastics will contaminate and entire batch.

      Paper recycling handles food residue without a problem. To recycle paper you throw it all in a gigantic vat, boil it, and everything breaks down. Inks, Fat, Oil and grease float to the top and are skimmed off, solids like staples and plastic are filtered out.

      Unlike plastic where there is no economical way to remove the inks used to make white/blue/green containers and if you mix PET and ABS, you get garbage.

    21. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Sweden does that as well. It works better for countries that have district-heating systems, though; incinerators are typically much more efficient at doing that than at electricity generation.

    22. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chemo is correct.

      What most people fail to understand is we recycle even food waste in Seattle, which you put in with the yard waste.

      When I moved here in the late 80s, used to be the largest bin you put out was Garbage, the next largest was bottles, and once in a while you put out paper.

      Nowadays the largest bin we put out is recycling, the next largest is compostable yard waste - which includes food waste like seafood shells, chicken bones, food soiled paper napkins/plates. A lot of forks and knives and spoons and cups you buy here are Compostable - we throw them in the yard waste.

      Most of us barely fill a very small plastic shopping bag with garbage - about the size of the thing your newspaper comes in.

      Adapt. Pollution has a cost.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    23. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.

      In other words, 100% true? I would walk to more places if walking meant getting a piggy back ride.

      Nah, you're not the person GETTING the piggyback ride, you're the person carrying someone piggyback....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Seattle we put food-soiled paper in the yard waste, along with chicken bones, pizza boxes, and seafood shells.

      It all gets turned into compost here. Which is then used to grow more food.

      Adapt. Pollution has a cost.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    25. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a solution for the money problem. If waste is a problem, put a tax on the plastic when it is used. A tax that funds sorting, cleaning & proper recycling of that material. Ok, stuff gets a little more expensive - that is the price for not drowning in plastic.

      Oh, and that tax will be optional. If you don't want to pay it - buy stuff that is not wrapped in plastic. Surely some manufacturers will offer that, if the wrapping turns expensive.

    26. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sort my own recycling and sell it myself. Usually get $30-$40/trip, mostly from aluminum.

    27. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If his local recycling was anything like the one where I live, they started the program by touting how much money it was going to save everyone.

      Then, once everything was in place, they added a fee to our monthly bill to cover the recycling costs.

      If it "saves money", why does it "cost more"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    28. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have well and septic. So I shit into my own backyard.

    29. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      If it costs at all it's not worth doing.

      I get paid for my cans, so I recycle them (but not though the forced city recycle program I pay for). So if recycling paper and plastic was worth it I wouldn't have to pay for it.

      I'm not against recycling, I'm against being forced to pay for the privilege of recycling. I'd much rather buy paper containers made from renewable trees or use bio degradable products. I'm with Penn and Teller on this one.

    30. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by LourensV · · Score: 2

      Actually, we recently started collecting plastic separately. Which means that we now collect glass (white and coloured often separate), paper, clothing, compostable waste, batteries and other small chemical waste, and plastic separately in most places, and then there is a separate recycling scheme that puts a small extra fee on PET soft drink bottles, glass beer bottles and beer crates, which you get back if you hand them back in in the shop. Supermarkets have machines that you put them into, and they're collected when the shop is resupplied. The bottles are stripped of labels, cleaned, and reused up to 50 or so times IIRC, before they're recycled.

      It's not much of a burden, you just keep a few extra bins or bags with waste around and remember to take them with you when you go get your groceries. Just about every supermarket has a bunch of recycling bins on the front court. That's not to say that there aren't lazy people who just toss everything in the garbage, but they're probably a minority.

    31. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      And it might mean printing the damned recycle numbers somewhat larger than 0.5 mm. I really don't feel like getting out my loupe just to figure out which bin to toss a piece of plastic in.

      Are there actually that many people who actually spend the time and effort and keep multiple 'bins' in their kitchens to actually sort out their trash into different categories just to recycle?

      I know one person that does this, most people I know are like me...one garbage can...everything goes it in and garbage men haul it all away twice a week.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinyl Chloride is why. (PVC is recycling code number 3). Polyethylene and Polypropene can be safely burned AFAIK.

    33. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Nethead · · Score: 1

      ..It all gets turned into compost here..

      No Will, it gets turned to compost in Marysville. Trust me, I smell it every day. Don't tell me that Seattle's shit doesn't smell!

      And why do we recycle paper? It's already sequestered carbon. Just grow more trees if you want more paper. That way you take more carbon out of the air and put more people to work. Store all the old paper in Yucca Mountain since they are never going to get the Hanford crap moved there.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    34. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      ..It all gets turned into compost here..

      No Will, it gets turned to compost in Marysville. Trust me, I smell it every day. Don't tell me that Seattle's shit doesn't smell!

      Marysville counts as here. Our state may be bigger than the Middle East, but it's still in-state.

      As to paper, as someone who grew up on a tree farm, I can tell you that recycled paper accounts for about 50 pct of all office paper in Seattle. As my stepfather who worked on a greenchain or my brothers and sisters and I who limbed trees and made shakes and shingles could tell you, there's a lot of carbon output and fuel usage in getting that tree to your doorstep.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    35. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose they're lucky that you condescend to use indoor plumbing rather than shit in the street, too.

      Atleast they sort that ...

    36. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Cordus+Mortain · · Score: 2

      Round here they fine you if you don't at least attempt to recycle, and sort your compostables into the composting bin.

    37. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hodor! Hodor! Hodor!

    38. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      The bottles are stripped of labels, cleaned, and reused up to 50 or so times IIRC, before they're recycled.

      Gotta love that new tech. When I was a kid that was commonly done in the US with milk and soda bottles (maybe others). It is the ultimate in recycling though - just use it again! It's kind of like recycling plates, bowls and flatware - an old tradition that works great.

    39. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Because coal power plants are made for coal, not plastic.

      With the caveat that coal plants vary wildly technology wise, I'll point out that plastic contains more energy per pound than gasoline. It's extremely possible to burn plastic in *most* coal plants to reduce the amount of coal needed as well as pollution(both by not sending the plastic to the dump and reducing air pollution from the coal).

      You just need a proper shredder and keep the proportions of plastic/paper/other burnables to coal within limits. The more efficient the coal plant, the higher the temperature it burns at, the better.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    40. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's already being used on a commercial scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification_commercialization

    41. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hand in you geek card please. You shouldn't need to read a number to be able to guess what type of plastic you are holding.

    42. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sweden has a problem. I'm sure they and China can make a deal. Of course the states could possibly, maybe, ship direct..

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Indeed, however in Ottawa they are currently deciding whether to continue another round of financing. Plasco so far has not delivered.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    44. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The old privatise and save 'er' profit thing comes to play. So the privatised the recycling which was going to save money. Promptly cabals formed and prices sky rocketed. As for the recycling, well, apparently they just took all that consumer sorted rubbish and chucked it all into one bin and then sent it overseas. Highly profitable pseudo recycling brought to you by the lowest most corrupt tender.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    45. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I do, and that would be exactly my bloody *point*, genius.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    46. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Round here they fine you if you don't at least attempt to recycle, and sort your compostables into the composting bin.

      Please let us know where this is so we can avoid it.

    47. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should probably just go back to glass bottles for most of he stuff we ship around in PET containers; for fruit and berriers, we should go back to raw cardboard, which was typically made from recycled paper anyway.

      Well, glass is heavier and takes up more space. So you ship less product and use more oil for transportation.

    48. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering, can you separate them by melting all of it into liquid phase and then letting it form layers (I assume each type of plastics is of slightly different specific mass then another, and that they are phobic to each other, refusing to mix or blend) using gravitation or centrifuge?

    49. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's why some places require PET containers to be clear and free of ink. They can still have a colourful label on them, but the plastic body must be reusable or recyclable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Wow..never heard of mandatory composting cans too??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    51. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by higuita · · Score: 1

      usually this have a hidden danger, the burning of plastic have to be very well controlled due the high risk of producing dioxins... and dioxins are highly toxic, even very small amounts can cause cancer and can easily enter the food chain contaminating the top of the chain (ie: humans). dioxins behave like heavy metals, they don't leve the organism and so it keeps increasing with time, causing more and more problems.

      In a lab is easy to control the burning of a plastic, but in a industrial burner, with trash as supply is hard due the size and mixing of different materials and the size of it. So for the companies it's always easy, they don't really care much about it and just want to be paid by the trash "eliminated" and the electricity they produce. the results is the release of dioxins to the atmosphere and the contamination of the surrounding area (huge areas, hundred of kilometres).
      In the end, you have to burn the contaminated food and materials on high temperatures, to try to destroy the dioxins contamination.

      So burning plastic is a good rapid solution that even produces energy... its good for everyone except for any living beings, the longer they their life span, the worst it is.

      --
      Higuita
    52. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Yes, most people are lazy idiots who can't be bothered to be responsible for the consequences of their consumerism.

      Congratulations, you're 'normal'!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    53. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Ever think a little money up front can save you millions in the future? Of course it costs less to just dump garbage in a pile. How about you just face the facts that there are consequences to just dumping garbage into piles like savages and that being a responsible citizen of earth actually requires some effort and maybe a little bit of your money to clean up your part of the destruction of the environment.

      Grow up.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    54. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Be a grown up. If you buy things that can be recycled instead of polluting the landscape then it is your responsibility to do so. If not, the world would be a better place without you, literally.

      The funny thing about USian's is that the only freedom they seem to be really interested in keeping is the freedom to be a self-centered, irresponsible asshole.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    55. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Is it hard to separate ?
      I mean, There's no benefit to me being civil to my neighbor, but I am.
      We've got three bins: trash, recyclable, and plant waste.
      It's not hard to figure out.
      When in doubt, it goes into trash.

    56. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it might mean printing the damned recycle numbers somewhat larger than 0.5 mm. I really don't feel like getting out my loupe just to figure out which bin to toss a piece of plastic in.

      How about we use RFID to mark them and have some sort of auto-sorter sort them?

    57. Re:They aren't drowning in plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has humanity ever shown that it gives a damn about the future? The most telling example I can give is that we haven't bothered to expand off this planet.

  5. The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Keep making garbage until you drown in your own shit.

    When the shit gets too high, export it to someone else and make it their problem.

    When that fails, wring hands about how the problem is un-fixable, blame the government.

    The US exporting their shit to the rest of the world is a pretty standard MO -- and if other countries stop accepting it, whine and complain about how unfair the world is, and then try to sue them under the WTO for 'unfairly restricting trade'.

    The world isn't the dumping ground for America's garbage, and if you hadn't been exporting it for decades you'd be up to your eyeballs in it.

    1. Re:The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think this is the biological way, really. The way life works with the second law of thermodynamics is by increasing the entropy somewhere else (producing waste) so that the entropy goes down locally. That's not going to change.

    2. Re:The American way ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Informative

      The answer is pretty obvious. Load up all the trash onto a rocket and launch it into space. Problems solved forever.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:The American way ... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Not a rocket, but maybe a rail gun.

      Rockets run $10,000 per pound-- with a goal of hundreds of dollars per pound by 2025.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re: The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A heavy lift rocket can launch about 50 tons into orbit. CA farmers have 50,000 tons of plastic to deal with per year. That's three rockets per day -- to handle CA farmers...

    5. Re: The American way ... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Absurd, but really, really cool.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is pretty obvious. Load up all the trash onto a rocket and launch it into space. Problems solved forever.

      And the waste products from the entire process of making and launching a 200-ton rocket to get rid of a ton of trash? You'd spend more resources getting rid of your trash then just leaving it.

      I hope whoever modded you up did so for the humor in your post and was not taking you seriously.

    7. Re:The American way ... by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Not in a few hundred thousand years when the aliens attack because they just got a shitload of our crap dumped on them.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    8. Re:The American way ... by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't see the Futurama covering why this is not a solution.

    9. Re:The American way ... by Applekid · · Score: 1

      So where do you live that you produce no garbage?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    10. Re:The American way ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      But what abou----

      FOREVER!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:The American way ... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Who pays for the rocket fuel?

      That stuff isn't cheap when you're escaping Earth's gravity well.

    12. Re:The American way ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It wasn't funny ether. I hope the metamods punish the moderator that did that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:The American way ... by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      Given the state of education and general ignorance I would expect people to mass protest that idea due to the impact it would have on the moon's ecology.

    14. Re:The American way ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      I think it worked perfectly, we just need to make sure there is a slob like me around in a thousand years to teach people how to make trash again.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    15. Re:The American way ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Oh, my. Did it put you young whippersnappers in your place?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    16. Re:The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problems solved forever.

      FOREVER!

    17. Re:The American way ... by dillee1 · · Score: 1

      Nah, real American way will be shoot it up to orbit, then deorbit and use it as kinetic bombardment on random-war-in-3rd-world-country. Just like what DoE do with all those useless U238(depleted uranium round). Who care about dark-skinned savage, right?

    18. Re: The American way ... by Ja'Achan · · Score: 1

      Think of all the optimization and inventions we'll do by making so many rockets! It's a win-win situation!

    19. Re:The American way ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who pays for the rocket fuel?

      That stuff isn't cheap when you're escaping Earth's gravity well.

      Burn waste plastics for fuel! Just add oxidizer ...

    20. Re:The American way ... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      The US has 1.2 sq miles per person. At 3 cf of trash per week it will take one million years to get to eyeball level.

      If you live in a high rise or city suburb you really can't appreciate how desolate most of the US is. There are parts of the West where we could pile all our trash for the next one hundred years and hardly anyone would be able to see the pile much less have to move.

  6. You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a capitalist society someone would take the initiative to find a use for this plastic, or at least weaponize the toxic waste. In a socialist society they just stack it up until it falls over and kills people. We should send them some copies of Wall-E so they can learn to stack garbage safely. Does anyone have a copy on DVD?

    1. Re:You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, John Galt would of built train tracks out of that toxic waste if it weren't for those corrupt unions and their stupid cancer lawsuits.

    2. Re:You go now! We all full! by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you read the summary? In this particular case the capitalist country was shipping it to a poorer country, and they were taking the initiative and finding a use for it. Now the poorer country doesn't want it anymore and the capitalist country still has no idea what to do with it. Perhaps when you said 'would' you meant 'should'?

    3. Re:You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a capitalist society someone would take the initiative to find a use for this plastic

      No, in a capitalist society, someone will try to maximize profits.

      If "ship it away and make it someone else's problem" maximizes your profits the best, that's what you do. Collectively, that's what the US seems to have done.

      In some places, the idea of recycling is considered a radical hippy idea, because people still believe they can make mountains of trash and have no problems in the long run.

      If you're not willing to see the problem, or take steps to fix it, you will eventually discover that you live in a garbage heap.

    4. Re:You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a capitalist society someone would take the initiative to find a use for this plastic

      No, in a capitalist society, someone will try to maximize profits.

      If "ship it away and make it someone else's problem" maximizes your profits the best, that's what you do. Collectively, that's what the US seems to have done.

      In some places, the idea of recycling is considered a radical hippy idea, because people still believe they can make mountains of trash and have no problems in the long run.

      If you're not willing to see the problem, or take steps to fix it, you will eventually discover that you live in a garbage heap.

      That's what China does, too.

      Do you think that China is accepting that trash out of altruism? Hell no - somebody is expecting to be able to recycle it and make money off it.

    5. Re:You go now! We all full! by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      John Galt would have used the phrase "would have" instead of "would of".

    6. Re:You go now! We all full! by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      It's nice to know that there is something that the fictional John Galt would have gotten right.

    7. Re:You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For fuck's sake, it's "would HAVE".

    8. Re:You go now! We all full! by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      John Galt is a fictional character who is ironically flawed and may very well have spoken improperly once or twice had he been a real person rather than an allegory for anti-collectivism. He would have though of himself as perfect though, so you get a pass on your pedantry.

      Unless of course you are referring to John Galt the scottish novelist and philosopher, which as you quite correctly point, would have employed proper english at all times.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    9. Re:You go now! We all full! by Zeromous · · Score: 2

      God damnit, I used WHICH INSTEAD OF WHOM, I have failed :(

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    10. Re:You go now! We all full! by shentino · · Score: 1

      They probably already pirated it anyway.

    11. Re:You go now! We all full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course you are referring to John Galt the scottish novelist and philosopher, which as you quite correctly point, would have employed proper english at all times.

      God damnit, I used WHICH INSTEAD OF WHOM, I have failed :(

      You used "which" instead of "who" – not "whom". "Who" is the subject of the second clause, not the object (of any clause); "who" is the one who "would have employed".

      Also, English starts with a capital E.

  7. But what will the container ships do? by Virtucon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They'll have to dead head back to China with empty ships!

    This story reminds me of the documentary "ShipBreakers" showing the plight of the Indian workers breaking down ships and dealing with the toxic and unsafe conditions. At one point a ship arrives that had been on a toxic list for a long time, had had it's name changed multiple times and was finally going to get scrapped in India because no other place on Earth would take it.

    CBS 60 minutes did a story on it too but it was in Bangladesh and three years later than the documentary..

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story reminds me of the documentary "ShipBreakers" showing the plight of the Indian workers breaking down ships and dealing with the toxic and unsafe conditions.

      Aren't there like a billion of them? I'm sure they can find some spare workers. Besides it wouldn't be a bad thing to cull the herd a little.

    2. Re:But what will the container ships do? by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > They'll have to dead head back to China with empty ships!

      Exports?

      I know, crazy idea.

    3. Re:But what will the container ships do? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, why didn't anyone just sink it in international waters? I don't think that would be the best thing for all concerned, that just sounds like it would be the path of least resistance for whichever corporation owned it and thus the most likely thing to happen.

    4. Re:But what will the container ships do? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      I saw that 60 Minutes report (and other similar one they did on the dump kids of Brazil). It's sad how many people in this world live in (and off of) the toxic trash dumps of wealthier people. It's hardly uncommon in the third world, sadly.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    5. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiosity, why didn't anyone just sink it in international waters?

      Plus they could collect the insurance if the sinking was an "accident".

    6. Re:But what will the container ships do? by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      There were two deaths just a week or two ago during the scrapping of the Pacific Princess (aka Love Boat), caused by toxic gases in the engine room.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/killed-love-boat-ship-pacific-princess-article-1.1424992

    7. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because there's gold in them thar ships. If you look at the CBS report 80% of the steel used in Bangladesh comes from ship dismantling. The guy who owns the yard is doing well even though he has kids working in his yards. That was shot in 2007, I wonder how many of those kids are still alive today?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I guess it wasn't true that Love won't hurt anymore.

    9. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cute, but what could we possibly make in the US that can compare to the prices you get when you don't bother with labor and environmental regulations?

    10. Re:But what will the container ships do? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Cute, but what could we possibly make in the US that can compare to the prices you get when you don't bother with labor and environmental regulations?

      Aircraft
      CPUs
      Software
      Movies
      Tourism
      Food
      Although, except for food, these don't take up much space on container ships, so many are empty on the return trip to China.
      America is the world's second biggest exporter.

    11. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of electric bilge pumps according to the linked article...

    12. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I guess basic compassion is a sin where you come from.

    13. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't imagine tourism takes up any space on container ships ... well, unless you're traveling 4th class or something.

    14. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Italian mafia a few years ago was caught intentionally sinking their (old) ships (obviously after removing personnel) carrying toxic waste from their clients in international waters. That made them money because toxic waste is expensive to dispose of, but I doubt it'd be worth the trouble just for plastic.

    15. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you are operating under the assumption that the Chinese don't tightly though informally control imports into their country.

    16. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There have been some ships I think where they did essentially that. Items of value taken off, being towed by another ship, then "oops".

      The goal is to make money. So it's simpler to just say "oops", pay a very trivial fine, then continue on with the same old business processes you've always had. It's easier to get forgiveness afterwords than to get permission in advance.

      Now if instead of the fine they stuck about 50 leaky barrels of toxic chemicals into the back yards of the CEOs and managers involved, they'd probably quickly figure out how to do things better.

    17. Re:But what will the container ships do? by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Oh get off your high horse already. Most people are compassionate. But compassion only goes so far. Not only do we have people to worry about people on multiple, progressively more distant levels that we actively care for...but now you expect us to have compassion for some unknown person, on the other side of the planet because they are somehow "forced" into hazardous living conditions/jobs.

      How about we all stop pretending like we care about indistinct individuals that we are told to "feel sorry for", and instead help those immediate people around us. Start with your family. Then your friends.

      If we all did that, individually. Then no one would have to worry about people they don't know, because they'd all mostly be just fine. And leave the guilt out of it... because any virtue obtained from doing good deeds through guilt is ultimately not virtuous.

    18. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft

      Pay careful attention to that flight safety card: Location of final assembly

      It has been a long long time since any commercial aircraft was 'made' in the USA.

      CPUs

      Fabbed in Germany, Israel or Malaysia as well as Arizona.

    19. Re:But what will the container ships do? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Aircraft

      Now that's a burning issue. Looks like when taxpayer funded spies took that stuff from Airbus they didn't get enough - as the movie says "how did you fix that icing problem?". The military side has even more problems (JSF etc). Don't expect much of an aircraft export industry for much longer unless the manufacturers can get their shit together again because that good reputation they used to have has diminished to the point where it's not enough to sell planes on trust. They've got to start delivering quality soon or nobody is going to buy.

      CPUs

      Not being shipped from the USA - that hardware is coming from a different direction.

      Software

      Increasingly India. I've got a long anecdote about Haliburton outsourcing software that way and going backwards from their stuff from 2003, but you've probably got the idea.

      Movies

      Even stories set in the USA have been filmed in Canada or Australia to cut costs for quite a few years.

      Tourism

      Line up to be groped by the TSA, then after that there's a greatly increased chance that if your name is similar to one on a list that you don't get in. Such things have hurt tourism.

      Food

      Not such a big earner since the taxpayer helps out a lot there.

      It looks like there's a lot of forces at work to try to lose that number two spot as quickly as possible. US companies are trying to sell the farm instead of the produce of the farm.

    20. Re:But what will the container ships do? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Second biggest exporter by dollar value. So for every aeroplane or gigantic dump truck that the US exports, how many containers full of $0.25 Chinese trinkets does that work out to?

      China definitely is #1 by physical volume of trinkets, I'd think.

      PS - I think Germany is #2 and, USA is #3 (this may have changed again though, #2/3 are tight).

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    21. Re:But what will the container ships do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iron ore, bauxite, coal - works for us.

  8. Incinerators by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guys, lots of other countries use incinerators for non-recyclable stuff. You get rid of it, and get electricity and heat as a bonus. Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam.

    Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Incinerators by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      NIMBY.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nimby and Dioxin

    3. Re:Incinerators by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the incinerators here suck and are a money pit. There was an article a little while ago in my local paper about one such plant if anyone care to read it.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Incinerators by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was a kid, my grandmother still burned most of her trash (and was very efficient about not producing trash), since she lived in the country and didn't have city trash pickup. She hated to deal with plastic, though, since even she wasn't crash enough to burn that and so many more things were coming in plastic containers (this was back when you could still find most stuff in glass and paper containers).

      I think we would be better off going back to more glass and paper. But that's going to mean paying more and accepting more illness and less shelf/refrigerator time for a lot of perishables.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    5. Re:Incinerators by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Guys, lots of other countries use incinerators for non-recyclable stuff. You get rid of it, and get electricity and heat as a bonus. Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam. Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      Are you kidding? The Obama clan and the hyper-antagonistic EPA would not stand for such a thing!!

      Hell, anything that even remotely isn't 100% green is not only shunned, but actively acted against these days it seems.

      Heck, a simple pipeline that would be safe and immediately garner jobs (something you'd think an administration that is starving for jobs creation stats) can get passed.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Incinerators by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam.

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      Dioxin and other ''invisible" nasties, perhaps? Those stable substances have to go somewhere. And putting them in the atmosphere, although a time honored tradition, isn't really a good idea.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I was a small child in the early 70s, we still sent glass bottles back to the store to be re-used. Yes, they actually steam-cleaned soda bottles and re-used them. Crazy, eh?

      I'm not sure what's more energy intensive though. A proper cleaning of the bottles to me implies raising them to some standard temperature long enough to kill pathogens. You also have to inspect them for damage and things that are stuck in the bottle even after the cleaning process. Huh? Well, we actually found a mass of what looked like shredded cardboard jammed into a bottle one time. People didn't try for litigation lotto as much back then; not without real honest damage anyway. We just sent it back for a refund.

      Bottle deposits actually meant something. We always got the deposit back at the store, unlike now where you have to go to some sketchy recycling center and they weezle out of paying bottle-for-bottle, trying to make you pay by the pound. One caveat though--this was a PX--a military store on a base, so it might not have been like this in many civilian stores.

    8. Re:Incinerators by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      It's not that we're allergic (although they're more often called waste-to-energy plants these days).

      It's that the public solid-waste agencencies don't have the money to build them, and the private industries that would build them as "turnkey" enterprises can't be expected to respect the public health and safety interests.

    9. Re:Incinerators by pijokela · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wow, they are doing it wrong!

      The incineration plant was 50 miles from the city that produces the garbage. The idea is to have the plant so close to the city that you can use the heat to heat houses in the winter. Also, the stuff they take in contains all kinds of stuff that doesn't really burn, the article mentions refrigrerators. Around here we recycle all kinds of stuff (and definately refridgerators) so that what is left in the dumpster burns very well.

      And finally, saying that solar is cheaper may be true in the summer, but how will you heat houses in the winter with solar? Only run the plant during nights and winter or whatever are the peak hours. Obviously this will probably make the individual kwh:s even more expensive, but peak hour power is much more valuable when other sources are not enough.

    10. Re:Incinerators by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have activist groups who are so insistent on a perfect solution, that they will fight and poo-poo any less then optimal solution to the problem.
      There was a way to make biodegradable plastic from corn. However they fought against it because it mean Bio-engineered corn. We have Nuclear Energy which has a better safety record then Fossil fuels, but they are bitching and moaning because of the radioactive waste problem. We could burn our garbage but we create carbon to add to global warming.
      We can't go back to living in a preindustrial way, we can make decisions because they focus so much on the trade offs, for every decision.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Incinerators by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      And finally, saying that solar is cheaper may be true in the summer, but how will you heat houses in the winter with solar?

      Most people around here do it by running their air conditioner in reverse, but a lot of people use gas, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Incinerators by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Huh? Many, many U.S. localities use incinerators, including waste-to-energy plants. What made you think we didn't have them here?

    13. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't we go back to preindustrial way of life, I think many people would enjoy it as there would be full employement. It very well may be in our future if we want it or not. So maybe we would be wise to embrace it and keep science/technology developing rather then watch as the world falls apart around us and we all go back to hunter/gather tribes.

    14. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, lots of other countries use incinerators for non-recyclable stuff. You get rid of it, and get electricity and heat as a bonus. Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam.

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      Here in Maryland, we know incinerators are a form of renewable energy because trash is a renewable, and never ending product.

      Unlike your claim that "Modern incinerators are so clean", we also know that "the trash incinerators emit more pollution per hour of energy than each of Maryland's four largest coal-fired power plants".

    15. Re:Incinerators by buxomspacefish · · Score: 2

      Companies that do try to use plant plastic get whined at by the consumers for the most ridiculous reasons. Because it's too noisy? Wow. http://myplasticfreelife.com/2010/10/sunchips-discontinues-compostable-bag-do-we-care/

    16. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was normal for civilians too (except for the shredded cardboard).

    17. Re:Incinerators by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I used to go across the street to a local store and get a bottled soda occasionally when I was a kid and return the bottle, but I much preferred the fountain across town two squirts of Dr. Pepper and one squirt cherry. I don't really drink soda anymore but I do miss those kind of places. Pinball machines... yes I still stop and play them occasionally when I see one.

    18. Re:Incinerators by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Depends where "here" is in the US.

      Where I live most big cities use gas radiators still (with Window unit ACs if any), outside of the city/smaller cities it's usually oil and forced air (most city houses are early 20th century, while the suburbs are post WW2).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    19. Re:Incinerators by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      In Belize (I'm sure other places too, but that's where I've personally seen it), the bottle deposits are taken seriously, and the bottles are definitely reused.

      The ridges on all the bottles are very worn from what I assume is thousands of times through the process.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    20. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing there aren't any invisible pollutants that could do any harm.

    21. Re:Incinerators by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      Companies that do try to use plant plastic get whined at by the consumers for the most ridiculous reasons. Because it's too noisy? Wow.

      http://myplasticfreelife.com/2010/10/sunchips-discontinues-compostable-bag-do-we-care/

      i loved that they made compost-able bags and i consciously bought sunchips over other chips while they had those bags so what it the made a crinkly noise. I always composted those bags to. To bad people are so stupid.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    22. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Half of the US isn't even in anyone's backyard. The Netherlands is 12 times as densely populated as the US and we have overcapacity in incinerators. Its your allergy to letting government do anything useful.

    23. Re:Incinerators by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      No, we used to return all our bottles back then too (I think it was a 5-cent refund for most of them), or at least find some use for them. Every flower vase in grandma's house started out life as a product of the Coca-Cola Company. That was back when bottles were made to be reused, and made to last. The glass was so thick you could really do some damage with one in a bar fight.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    24. Re:Incinerators by infinitelink · · Score: 0

      Because enviro-libtards scream due to prejudices about "incinerators" (no qualifications attached...any you add to clarify simply won't register) being bad for tze environmentz.

      --
      Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
    25. Re:Incinerators by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Wow, they are doing it wrong!

      The incineration plant was 50 miles from the city that produces the garbage. The idea is to have the plant so close to the city that you can use the heat to heat houses in the winter.

      We don't have steam pipes, and the losses would be pretty severe unless the plant was located in the middle of the residential area. It's far more efficient to turn the heat into electricity, and then use heat pumps in each house to use the electricity to pull residue heat from the air. (Assuming the area isn't too cold for heat pumps to be effective.)

      Once you're converting to electricity, 50 miles away is nothing, and solves the NIMBY problems.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    26. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      waste to energy is about MORE than just generating electricity.. it's also about cutting down on the amount of trash that gets buried in the ground that contains our drinking water and that our crops grow in... so yeah, sure, it could cost more to generate electricity there than at a plain power plant.. but it does more too.

    27. Re:Incinerators by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I never said it was a good method with how we do it and I agree it is pretty stupid. I don't get why people throw out refrigerators or other white goods, the recycling center will pay you good money if you can transport one to them and there are companies that will pick them up for free since they can get money for recycling them. I throw very little away, food waste gets composted, anything that can be recycled is, so most of what get tossed really is trash that can't be reused or things I want gone (the pile of rocks I have dug out of the garden) and apart from the rocks would be highly combustible.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re:Incinerators by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The Netherlands is 12 times as densely populated as the US and we have overcapacity in incinerators.

      The Netherlands also has a very different political system. American democracy is far more responsive to whining and nimbyism. Even a single American citizen can use the legal system to throw a monkey wrench into any proposed project. Americans have an ability to impede progress in ways that Europeans can only dream of.

    29. Re:Incinerators by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Most people around here do it by running their air conditioner in reverse, but a lot of people use gas, too.

      Where do you live? Heat pumps work best where winters are mild. In America, that usually means south of the Mason-Dixon line or Ohio River. So if you are in Arkansas, a heat pump is fine. If you are in Wisconsin, you need a furnace. They also work better when they use a ground loop rather than the outside air as a heat source. A ground loop costs more to install, but is almost always worth it.

    30. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd probably say the NIMBY effect. People want the lights to come on, but they don't want to think about the plant (be it biomass, nuclear, coal, natural gas, or even wind) being near them.

      As for incineration, the ironic thing is that there are RV toilets that do just this, so one doesn't need a black water tank or a cassette. The only thing that needs emptied is a sterile ash bin ever so often, and I'm sure with better combustion technology, even that would not be an issue.

      I do wonder how safe the exhaust is though. Plastic has a lot more chemicals of varying lengths than just fecal matter, so I wonder if noxious gasses would be an issue.

    31. Re:Incinerators by assertation · · Score: 1

      Maybe, Maybe Not

      http://www.sierraclubmass.org/lac/t2013/HB706_GAIA-Incinerator-Myths-vs-Facts%20H706,%20S1004.pdf

      Myth 2: Modern incinerators have pollution control
      devices such as filters and scrubbers
      that make them safe for communities.
      Fact:
      All
      incinerators pose considerable risk to the health a
      nd environment of
      neighboring communities as well as that of the gene
      ral population.
      Even the most
      technologically advanced incinerators release thous
      ands of pollutants that contaminate
      our air,
      soil and water. Many of these pollutants enter the
      food supply and concentrate up through the
      food chain. Incinerator workers and people living n
      ear incinerators are particularly at high risk of
      exposure to dioxin and other contaminants
      2
      .
      In newer incinerators, air pollution control device
      s such as air filters capture and concentrate
      some of the pollutants; but they donâ(TM)t eliminate th
      em. The captured pollutants are transferred to
      other by-products such as fly ash, bottom ash, boil
      er ash/ slag, and wastewater treatment

    32. Re:Incinerators by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Interesting, but here's one significant problem:

      As of the year 2000, although small-scale incinerators (those with a daily capacity of less than 250 tons) processed only 9% of the total waste combusted, these produced 83% of the dioxins and furans emitted by municipal waste combustion.[8]

      (from the Wikipedia article).

      Looks like you can get it to work economically on a large scale only. Might be a reasonable answer for bigger cities. There are still other things burned off that the incinerators tend to put out, like metals.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    33. Re:Incinerators by sporkbender · · Score: 1

      ...

      And finally, saying that solar is cheaper may be true in the summer, but how will you heat houses in the winter with solar? Only run the plant during nights and winter or whatever are the peak hours. Obviously this will probably make the individual kwh:s even more expensive, but peak hour power is much more valuable when other sources are not enough.

      Store the electricity in a car battery. Have a closet full of car batteries and walla, electricity during the night. You probably wouldn't even need a whole closet. Use wind during the winter until the freezing rain grinds it to a halt then burn wood in your fireplace and pray to god that you don't freeze yourself. Winters have been so mild anyway, except for a week or two blizzard. Stock up on food and wait it out.

    34. Re:Incinerators by shentino · · Score: 1

      Plus at least the ecosystem can deal with CO2 and H2O as byproducts.

    35. Re:Incinerators by shentino · · Score: 1

      Use the energy from solar in the summer to generate and stockpile fuel for the winter.

      I think NASA already was considering that for a Mars mission.

    36. Re:Incinerators by losfromla · · Score: 1

      and yet we can't get rid of GMO's, pesticides, petroleum based fertilizers, and myriad other profit lines for large corporations.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    37. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a "green" lobby that demands 100% solutions, or no solution at all. Same people who get city parks closed to everyone "to protect the wild lands"... then said park gets sold off and becomes a private golf course. What was once a park is now a nice, non-point source of water pollution, ripe for fecal chloroform bacteria growth downriver.

      The sad thing is that a lot of voters don't care. They will vote against every and all plants, and expect the lights to magically remain on no matter what they do. This happened in San Antonio when the local voters downvoted a reservoir in the 1990s, and the still chugs the Edwards Aquifer down like there is no tomorrow.

    38. Re:Incinerators by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Shhhh. If the greens learn that campfires create dioxin their heads will explode.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like you could use standard stoner technology to filter vacuum the exhaust through a series of liquid chemicals to scrub the smoke clean before releasing into the atmosphere.

    40. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not. Florida uses them.

    41. Re:Incinerators by pijokela · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to the article the 50 miles drive is one reason the plant is not competitive against cheap landfills. The garbage trucks need to drive 100 miles with each load.

      Here (Finland, Europe) we have pipes that circulate almost boiling water in city and town centers. The plants can be a mile or two away and the losses are not too bad - the pipes are underground and they have a lot of polyurethane around them for insulation. The plants do produce both elecricity and heat.

      It may be true that is Michigan it's not cold enough to make something like that worthwhile. Here we can easily have a month of -20C cold and in December days are 8 hours long, so solar just isn't not an option. During that time my house uses about 200kWh of heat a day - and it is well insulated. I am looking at ways to get as much as possible of that 200kWh from something other then electricity.

    42. Re:Incinerators by pijokela · · Score: 1

      12V * 100Ah = 1200Wh = 1,2kWh. If I have a closet full of those that's, maybe 50kWh of energy. It's not enough. A winter night is 16 hours and my house can use 150kWh of energy during that time. (And the solar panels would not work under snow.)

      But I'm not in Michigan. Maybe there it would be enough?

    43. Re:Incinerators by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You'd still need a program where you separate trash into burnables or at least harmless when burned versus potentially toxic. So you end up with the identical problem that the vast majority of consumers don't care and want to throw everything into one big heap, and then hope that someone comes along and deals with it without raising taxes.

    44. Re:Incinerators by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yup, it was pretty easy when you could just head to ANY grocery store and get your 5 cents back. No need to search out and find the smelly recycler and the hippie who runs it. The deposit meant that if you threw it out the window that someone would come and pick it up, or kids clubs would come around to the door and ask for your empties, so recycling the bottles was extremely easy.

      he new recyclers just crush the glass anyway and melt it down rather than reusing the bottles.

    45. Re:Incinerators by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Wood burning stoves in detached two car garages are not that uncommon in the US mid-west and in the 70s the were common in homes too. My grandparents had one when I was kid, the area was rural and they never paid to run it other than grandpa splitting wood. Their house was very warm, sometimes to warm even when it was below freezing out.

      My brother has a detached garage with a wood burning stove he usually only uses it when he is working on a vehicle in the winter.

    46. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys, lots of other countries use incinerators for non-recyclable stuff. You get rid of it, and get electricity and heat as a bonus. Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam.

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      We don't like nuclear stuff, because the corporations that own our legislatures can't be trusted to do the simplest things properly if there's a way to cut costs by doing it wrong, and only a nuclear incinerator would actually "get rid of it" rather than merely putting it out of sight.

      Plain old fire doesn't actually convert pollution into healthy unicorn farts.

    47. Re:Incinerators by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      OTOH it says total dioxin emissions from US incinerators has, since 1987 (when regs were first adopted) dropped from 8,905.1 grams to 83.8 grams. So even if the small plants are 83% of the current problem, that's 83% of a problem that has been reduced by about 99%. In other words the total from small plants is not quite 1% of what the problem used to be.

    48. Re:Incinerators by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Even cooler though is plasma gasification, which is cleaner than incinerators, and is starting to be used on a commercial scale.

    49. Re:Incinerators by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So they actually composted for you?

      Consumer reports found the bags completely intact after 13 weeks in a standard compost heap.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    50. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      NIMBY.

      The public, especially children, are allergic to lead, mercury, and other heavy metal by-products of incineration. Better to recycle, reuse, reduce.

    51. Re:Incinerators by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      evidently they did as there is just very putrid compost that far down in the composter

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    52. Re:Incinerators by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      California

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:Incinerators by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      There are 6.974 billion or so reasons --- we're using up 2.5 Earth's worth of renewable resources each year to support them.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    54. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michigan gets PLENTY cold enough in the winter. The problem we have around here in southeastern Michigan are the MOUNTAINS of garbage that have sprouted up consisting of Toronto, Ontario, Canada's garbage which is trucked in daily across the border. Certainly, Canada should be able to find a spot someplace in the vast north (Sudbury's giant open pit nickel mine perhaps?) to put their own garbage. There's a power plant in Flint, Michigan, that burns wood chips and horse manure, among other refuse.

    55. Re:Incinerators by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      True, garbage is harder to truck than electricity.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    56. Re:Incinerators by cbope · · Score: 1

      Here in the Nordics you can get heat pumps that work down to at least -20C, I believe some even go a few degrees C colder than that...

      Heat pumps are actually fairly popular here, as they are more energy efficient than A/C and can provide both heat and cooling. We don't need much cooling though.

      Just because they are not available in the US does not mean they are not available elsewhere...

    57. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Winters get pretty damn cold in Michigan. So cold that it only takes a couple minutes for ice to build up on my mustache.

      However our budget is so horrendously balanced that the we're going to ruin quickly:
      - Roads have enough potholes that our favorite pastime is coming up with new jokes.
      - Power line poles precariously braced instead of replaced when the wood breaks.
      - State police force has to fill in for closing local police forces.
      - Schools are closing down left and right.
      - ...and many more.

      We never recovered from all of the auto-manufacturers that abandoned factories in our state.

    58. Re:Incinerators by mirix · · Score: 1

      Wood stoves are still pretty popular around here (north, rural) as well. (as an adjunct to oil, not generally sole use these days). In the cities anything built since the war is natural gas / forced air. Some rural stuff is propane, as well.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    59. Re:Incinerators by mirix · · Score: 1

      Here (west canada, inland) winter can be very cold, -30 for several months is not impossible, but becoming less common it seems. occasional days / weeks of -40 as well.

      Central steam only seems to be used in centralized, unified things like university campuses, army installations, etc. Much less maintenance than having boilers in each building, so the steam plant can cover 20 buildings, plus a hospital and whatnot, at a university.

      General steam use seems rare. I think the city density is just too low to make it worth while. I don't see why it wouldn't work for the inner city, areas with high rise buildings and such.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    60. Re:Incinerators by GNious · · Score: 1

      Used to? We still return bottles, plastic and glass, as well as cans for beers/sodas to the stores :)

      Glass bottles are reused, some plastic bottles are reused while others are turned into a granulate and the cans are melted and reused.

      Heck, at festivals, you'll see people go around collecting the dirt-cheap plastic beer-glasses, which they take to a stand for refund.

    61. Re:Incinerators by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Funny, it's usually the pro-nuclear groups who are poo-pooing things because they are not perfect. Solar is a complete waste of time because it is incapable of providing 100% of our energy needs 24/365, for example.

      Face it, there are dickheads on both sides of the argument. There are also people with genuine opinions and insight, but trying to cast them all as reactionary activists just makes debate even harder. People like you are as much to blame for us not having certain new technologies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    62. Re:Incinerators by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      But now (in the U.S. at least) it's only in some states (not many), and only because of return fees mandated by laws. I'm talking back when this was done EVERYWHERE, and for economic reasons. Back then, before plastic came in, soda companies actually benefited from recycling. Stores would pay the return deposit when you returned empty bottles and collect the bottles, the soda deliveryman would come in and deliver soda to the stores and collect the empties (full bottles came off the truck, empties went on). Then the empties were returned to the soda companies, washed, and reused. Everybody benefited, and no laws required. But then plastic came in and the system died in most states.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    63. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't they? Just make sure the law requires them to and have government officials measure periodically (or even constantly). That works just fine in Europe and I don't see why it couldn't in the U.S.

    64. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern incinerators are so clean, they rarely even emit visible steam.

      Why is the US so allergic to incinerators?

      Dioxin and other ''invisible" nasties, perhaps? Those stable substances have to go somewhere. And putting them in the atmosphere, although a time honored tradition, isn't really a good idea.

      If rubbish (garbage) is burnt at high temperature ,say 1600 -1800 degrees Celcius NO dioxins are emitted just water vapour and CO2 (with the latter to be caught and stored underground) . It is all possible right now ,provided there is the political will. The solid slag resulting from incineration is chemically inert and can be processed to serve in road construction and even as building material . However it might not serve vested interests............so these need to be tackled first !

    65. Re:Incinerators by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Because corporates don't respond to popular low-level politics.

      The closest corporates come to grass-roots activism is astroturfing.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    66. Re:Incinerators by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, the condo I'm buying has one.
      I'd never heard of them before, and when I referred to it as "an air conditioner that can go backwards", the real estate agent got a confused look on her face.

    67. Re:Incinerators by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Around here, recycling appliances is easy.
      You just put them out on the curb on trash day.
      Every trash day, hordes of scrappers in small trucks zoom around grabbing anything large put out with the trash.
      Just saw it this morning, in fact.

    68. Re:Incinerators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh? -20c and 8 hour days? Sounds similar to Michigan to me... one thing about the U.S. though, apart from the metropolis pretty much everything is spread very far apart because they have the real estate.

      Probably because of that, trying build a plant close to something doesn't make much sense. It can be close to something, but still pretty far from everything else.

    69. Re:Incinerators by GNious · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm from Scandinavia :)

      Its by law where I'm from - almost any beverage-container can/must be returned to the store, with a law defining a fee (deposit) for the container.
      Parallel to that, we separate waste into bottles, cans, glas-stuff, plastic, paper, organic and waste...

  9. Well... we knew it was comming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to throw money at these people... http://www.plastic2oil.com/site/home

    Or use that process that burns it at very high temps. I think that's even net energy positive.

    I'd also like to see those stupid clamshell packages banned. Fucking hate those so hard... You shouldn't need a bandsaw or special knife to open crap.

  10. It's the circle of life. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 0

    China manufactures all our stuff then packages it and ships it to us. We take our stuff out of the packages and ship the waste material back to China to be recycled into packaging for the next ship load of stuff.

    1. Re:It's the circle of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like a goat pissing into its own mouth.

    2. Re:It's the circle of life. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Goats are not that dumb - people are.

    3. Re:It's the circle of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goats are not that dumb

      You have obviously never seen a goat piss in its own mouth.

    4. Re:It's the circle of life. by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Which lends credence to the idea that they don't.

    5. Re:It's the circle of life. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  11. That's irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "For every ton of reusable plastic, China has received many more tons of random trash, some of it toxic."

    That's okay, the toxic stuff was all stuff they made and sold to us anyways.

    1. Re:That's irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name a single Chinese company that ever sold you a product? I think you mean sold to you by an American company which outsourced its work to China to save money on labour costs. I'm sure the Chinese would love to cut out the middle man and sell to you directly.....

    2. Re:That's irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ so much win.

    3. Re:That's irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name a single Chinese company that ever sold you a product? I think you mean sold to you by an American company which outsourced its work to China to save money on labour costs.

      You are clearly trapped in a tech bubble. Try going to the dollar store or walmart.

    4. Re:That's irony! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Asus. Granting it's from the good China.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:That's irony! by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Quite a few actually.

      Ironicly, the worst packaging was a bubble envelope. It's the American companies specifying (or even putting stuff into) all the annoying plastic packages with 2 cardboard inserts and 4 wireties. The Chinese are happy to send you box of 100 thingamajigs using only a doublewalled box that has been recycled 12 times already. Hopefully a few companies manage to do something in between that gets the product here in one piece without encasing it in it's own little world.

    6. Re:That's irony! by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      DX.com

  12. Nor P or B. Has an S tho. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "slashdot", I don't see any N, P, or R in that.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  13. Only green when convenient. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 0, Troll

    The problem with all those greenies. They are willing to be green about everything until it becomes their turn to sacrifice then they throw their hands up get in the private jets that burn more feul in onme day then a family of four does for 10 years and say "Oh well."

    1. Re:Only green when convenient. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. The article hints at the free market answer to this problem: building more recycling centers, or doing the sorting here. But I'm sure we'll find "green" legislation in CA and other problem states that bars us from doing this; just like we can't build nuclear power plants because of NIMBY and greenies, or wind farms because they'll ruin the sight lines of the ruling elite families.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Only green when convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with all those greenies. They are willing to be green about everything until it becomes their turn to sacrifice then they throw their hands up get in the private jets that burn more feul in onme day then a family of four does for 10 years and say "Oh well."

      Unless you mean Bono, the vast majority of 'greenies' don't come anywhere near having the kind of resources you're talking about.

      But, hey, keep acting like all environmentalists are like that.

      And we'll keep assuming you're an arrogant douche.

    3. Re:Only green when convenient. by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 2

      The problem with all those greenies.... throw their hands up get in the private jets that burn more feul in onme day then a family of four...

      Do you have any evidence that people who are environmentally conscious are likely to own private jets? Anecdotes about one person is not evidence. Your dislike of people who say things you find inconvenient is painfully obvious.

      Regarding the point of this article, your country produces an awful lot of unnecessary waste - easily the most per capita. But anyone suggesting that people produce less will be smeared as a communist greenwash faggot.(All those hilarious jokes about NPR canvas totes and "Portlandia made real")

      At the moment, you find that it is better to export trash to another country across the ocean than to attempt to change your population's behaviour. Looks like you won't be doing that much longer.

      It's actually quite simple.

      -Prevent -Reduce -Recycle -Burn

    4. Re:Only green when convenient. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      The problem with all those greenies. They are willing to be green about everything until it becomes their turn to sacrifice then they throw their hands up get in the private jets that burn more feul in onme day then a family of four does for 10 years and say "Oh well."

      Ya. Who cares what TFA says when you can just rant on "greenies" who own private jets???? I know I keep thinking I need to quit flying all my milk bottles to Asia -- one bottle per trip -- and just put it in the bin, but I'm just too entitled.

      I suppose we should be glad you were even marginally on topic, you could have gone off on how the gold standard would fix everything.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    5. Re:Only green when convenient. by hurfy · · Score: 1

      What happened to "Reuse"

      Wait, are you the SOB that made the grocery bags with holes in the bottom of every one i got last trip to grocery store?!?
      I felt like someone wanted me to BUY plastic bags to put the kitty litter in :/

      Next time they ask "paper or plastic" i guess i have to inspect the choices closer. Paper is not good for wet litter but it would at least make it out of the kitchen..

    6. Re:Only green when convenient. by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      Quite right, I forgot Reuse!

  14. That's irony! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "For every ton of reusable plastic, China has received many more tons of random trash, some of it toxic."

    That's okay, the toxic stuff was all stuff they made and sold to us in the first place.

  15. Such a terrible heading by MikeDawg · · Score: 1

    After reading it over several times, it still isn't making sense in my head: "US States Banned From Exporting Trash To China Are Drowning In Plastic" "United States States Banned from Exporting Trash To China Are Drowning In Plastic" Huh?

    --

    YOU'RE WINNER !
    Another lame blog

    1. Re:Such a terrible heading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US States makes perfect sense, as does the entire heading.

  16. Single stream is part of the problem by wbr1 · · Score: 1
    Do you have single stream recycling? Many places do. It is good in some ways, in that people who never recycle, their garbage goes through a sorting facility. The downside is, you cannot effectively or safely sort all the recyclables correctly from a mountain of mixed waste.

    Much gets landfilled, other stuff is sorted poorly to where it is not easily recyclable. In my city we do not have single stream, but what we can put in the recycle bin is limited to type 1 &2 plastic, three colors of glass, and basic paper/carboard. The rest, I don't know where it goes, to thellandfill or single stream style sorting. Personally I sort it into a seperate bin and there is a local recycling center sponsored by the county that I take it to when it gits too big. Unfortunately, there is talk of shutting that free center down. Ergo, more crap in the landfill or for china.

    The best thing to do is reduse what you can. I reuse nearly everything possible, but it still leaves alot.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is that the more complicated you get, the less it gets done. We have a central recycling area for our small town. Giant bins with clear descriptions of the material in large, friendly type.

      While most people get it right (except the plastics which do get confusing), there is a significant number of idiots that don't understand the difference between plastic and glass, between steel and aluminum. Even when you have big ex-hard drive magnets for people to test the cans on.

      And then there are the plastics. At least six types, many of which look similar. Most retail products do have the number stamped on the package. Somewhere. In a font that is all of 0.5 mm tall and blurry because it's actually stamped in the plastic. I doubt anyone over 50 can actually see the stupid things without some form of magnification.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      We recently got 1-7+glass+paper+cardboard - 1-7, glass in a single bin with paper, cardboard flat and underneath the bin for pickup. It's pretty amazing how much paper we go through.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You forgot ferrous metals. Everyone takes ferrous metals even if they don't say they do. Steel and iron are probably the easiest product to recycle and all recycling facilities have ferrous metal removal as a presorting step.

    4. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Where I live in France we don't have rubbish collected from our house, instead we have 3 types of bins that are buried in the ground in a convenient place, usually within 50m or so of your house (isolated properties, businesses in commercial areas and people who are happy to pay are common exceptions). This means we cut down on the emissions of the refuse collection vehicles (for want of a better, internationally recognisable word) because they spend a lot less time idling, waiting for bins to be loaded at every other house.

      The three bins are for:

      1. All plastics and metals
      2. Cardboard/paper
      3. 'General' refuse

      Everything in bin 1 is sorted at the recycling centre and recycled where appropriate*.
      Everything in bin 2 is recycled in theory, although I wouldn't be surprised if some of it is incinerated.
      Everything in bin 3 is mostly land-fill or incinerated if possible.

      * As far as sorting goes I believe it works roughly like this:

      a. Everything is shredded and then washed. During the washing process the plastic floats and is skimmed off.
      b. The metal is sorted into ferrous/non-ferrous using magnets.
      c. Plastics are ground down into smaller particles and then sorted, granule by granule, using x-ray or infra-red sensing. Plastics that fail testing and/or aren't a recyclable resin type are incinerated.

    5. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1
      You should read this article, The truth about recycling. In particular

      ...the trend is toward co-mingled or “single stream” collection... But the switch can make people suspicious: if there is no longer any need to separate different materials, people may conclude that the waste is simply being buried or burned. In fact, the switch towards single-stream collection is being driven by new technologies that can identify and sort the various materials with little or no human intervention.

      I think you may be basing your beliefs about single stream recycling on outdated information.

    6. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my county the garbage is sorted centrally. We have the highest recycling rate in California. And I don't have to use my college degree to sort garbage, which is important to me, because I went to college specifically to avoid the garbage sorting job that most local governments outsource to their tax payers via fines and penalties for non-compliance.

    7. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by cbope · · Score: 1

      Most retail products do have the number stamped on the package. Somewhere. In a font that is all of 0.5 mm tall and blurry because it's actually stamped in the plastic. I doubt anyone over 50 can actually see the stupid things without some form of magnification.

      This is why you have regulations. Regulate the minimum size of the recycling symbols on packaging. Here in Europe, I never recall having a problem finding or reading the recycling symbol on packaging...

      Oh wait... that's right... US... regulations = bad.

    8. Re:Single stream is part of the problem by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Really, you guys have manged to make recycle numbers legible?

      I'm impressed.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  17. Huh. by koan · · Score: 1

    "it is no longer tenable to accept US waste exports."

    It's no longer tenable to live the way Americans do.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because Eurotrash don't drive cars, use plastic, or heat their homes.

    2. Re:Huh. by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's no longer tenable for Chinese to live they way they do, as slaves to the State.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Huh. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate America?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they aren't from America and are insanely jealous.

    5. Re:Huh. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      FYI: We Eurotrash use public transport. We Eurotrash recycle plastic, glass, paper, and metal. We Eurotrash burn our burnable household waste to produce electricity.

      Med vänliga hälsningar,

      Sweden

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Huh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: We Eurotrash use public transport. We Eurotrash recycle plastic, glass, paper, and metal. We Eurotrash burn our burnable household waste to produce electricity.

      FYI: So do American.

    7. Re:Huh. by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      It's all for show... conservation theater.

  18. Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one forced the Chinese to buy the trash in the first place.

    Yes, that's what was happening - the Chinese were willfully BUYING it, trying to make money by recycling it.

    So get over your childish "America is teh EVUL" and grow the fuck up.

    1. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While his comment is a bit harsh he does have a point. In other countries many practices which are still common in the US are banned. So why not ban them in the US? Simple no desire, easier to do things by filling in landsites. Take for instance plastic shopping bags. Why for crying out loud are you still using them? There is absolutely no need to do so. Or how about having a half decent recycling program? It can be done, look no further than beer cans and bottles, or even glass bottles.

      This is the irony in all of this, namely about 5 decades ago recycling programs were started (like bottles). Imagine trying to get that legislation passed now? Why there would be cries of bloody murder and life style infringement. Funny Americans back then thought it was sensible and reasonable... Kind of shows what Right Wing Nut Jobs like Fox News, and so on have created... Not giving them all of the blame, but quite a bit of it.

    2. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, some greedy Chinese person or corporation is BUYING it and wrecking their own country to the detriment of all the people who don't want to BUY American garbage.

    3. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While his comment is a bit harsh he does have a point. In other countries many practices which are still common in the US are banned. So why not ban them in the US? Simple no desire, easier to do things by filling in landsites. Take for instance plastic shopping bags. Why for crying out loud are you still using them? There is absolutely no need to do so. Or how about having a half decent recycling program? It can be done, look no further than beer cans and bottles, or even glass bottles.

      This is the irony in all of this, namely about 5 decades ago recycling programs were started (like bottles). Imagine trying to get that legislation passed now? Why there would be cries of bloody murder and life style infringement. Funny Americans back then thought it was sensible and reasonable... Kind of shows what Right Wing Nut Jobs like Fox News, and so on have created... Not giving them all of the blame, but quite a bit of it.

      What fucking planet are you living on? The World of the Clueless Unthinking AntiAmerican Twits?

      I dare you to swim in Naples harbor. Better have all kinds of shots before you do, though.

      Or you can go to the Middle East - where a trash dumpster is an invitation for anyone to dump any type of trash within, say, 10 meters or so.

    4. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But sir, it's SOCIALISM for the government to BAN plastic BAGs or EVEN CHARGE for the cleanup costs! It should just MAGICALLY be handled by the FREE MARKET! If only the EVIL GOVERNMENT would get out of the way, there would be an EFFICIENT solution!

    5. Re:Grow the fuck up by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      ill give you just one example on plastic shopping bags. I keep all mine in the pantry and they get used, either as garbage bags for small cans (bathrooms under the desk etc) they get used if i need to grab a few things to go to the beach or somewhere i dont want to bring a real bag with me. They get used to clean up the kitty litter.

      just because you or others cant find a good use for a free bag doesnt mean the rest of us cant.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm calling bullshit. That was a PITA to get passed and took hard work, which you either don't know or have forgotten. I was around then and people cried foul for years afterward. It can be done again, but it wasn't much, if any, easier then.

    7. Re:Grow the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes why not illustrate some examples that are worse. Does that make you feel better? I wrote in "other countries" and in other countries where this stuff is banned things are indeed better. But hey why actually admit a fault, instead wave the hands and show yet again your bias the other way.

    8. Re:Grow the fuck up by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      How many plastic bags do you have? And when you do use those plastic bags where do they go afterwards? Point is that just because you use them does not mean they are properly disposed. And I truly do doubt that you keep all plastic bags to your deathbed. Again I know because I run into the same issue when we were living in North America.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    9. Re:Grow the fuck up by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's what was happening - the Chinese were willfully BUYING it, trying to make money by recycling it.

      Indeed, and like many other industries, they made themselves the most profitable disposal choice to the point that US recycling options either shut down due to it not being profitable or are pathetically undersized for the load now that China has left the business(somewhat). Options to dispose of the stuff domestically will pop up, it'll just take some time.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Grow the fuck up by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      dont make assumptions. and by your logic it seems you want to outlaw all plastic. I mean you dont use plastic garbage bags right? why would you do such a thing that plastic ends up in the landfill!!!

      but yes, i do in fact find a use for all the plastic bags that I get. I also reuse ziplocks when i can and reuse plastic chinese food dishes for bowls at times....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:Grow the fuck up by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I'm still using plastic bags because they are useful. They are great when you have something cold on a warm day. They are much more convenient than paper when on the bus. You do take the bus instead of driving do you? They work great for keeping meat away from the produce. They are great for lining garbage cans (or else I'd have to buy special purpose bags). I take them back to the store to be reused and when they are damaged take them to be recycled.

      The problem isn't the plastic bags. It's the people that misuse them.

    12. Re:Grow the fuck up by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't own a dog.

      The plastic market bags are perfect for cleaning up after the pooch on walks.

      If they banned supermarket bags, I'd have to pay for exactly the same thing - with no net gain in recyclables.

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  19. Re:Nor P or B. Has an S tho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "slashdot", I don't see any N, P, or R in that.

    Apart from the fact that, counting the subject, you mentioned 'P' twice: What?

  20. Irony by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

    Oregon and Washington are so green they won't accept recyclable plastic because it's actually too hard to recycle?

    --

    Long signatures suck.
    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just lazy hippies ;)

    2. Re:Irony by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I live in Washington, Snohomish County, and I haven't heard about any changes to the recycling rules.

  21. Idiocracy by theArtificial · · Score: 3, Funny

    That has helped build 'trash mountains' so high they sometimes bury people alive

    Great, now I can't get the scene from Idiocracy out of my head that involves the garbage avalanche.

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  22. screw-sorting robot X-43 reminds you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Filabot craves plastic!

    1. Re:screw-sorting robot X-43 reminds you: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Only ABS or PLA plastic, cleaned and ground into small pieces.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:screw-sorting robot X-43 reminds you: by Applekid · · Score: 2

      Only ABS or PLA plastic, cleaned and ground into small pieces.

      Those clear and crinkly plastic berry boxes are PLA.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    3. Re:screw-sorting robot X-43 reminds you: by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Well then we need to 3D print a lot more stuff. Maybe new plastic berry boxes? Maybe it could be molded instead. I wonder why the berry box manufacturers don't do it?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:screw-sorting robot X-43 reminds you: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      sounds like we need kleenrbot & grindrbot! This is starting to sound like the movie Silent Running.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  23. Re:Well... we knew it was comming. by thereitis · · Score: 1

    A video explaining plastic to oil conversion. I noticed in the video that all the plastics were perfectly clean. Recycle bins are a lot dirtier. How much water would have to be used in this process to clean the plastics? Can the poisonous gases generated be burned off safely? Interesting tech, anyway.

  24. Madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "California's farmers are grappling with what to do with the 50,000 to 75,000 tons of plastic they use each year."

    This country has gone insane. They really can't think of an alternative solution? What were they doing before plastic? Did people just walk up to the farm and have farmers throw the food into their mouths? Jeez...

    1. Re:Madness by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      Plastic is cheap, light, and sanitary. Going back to the old ways is going to mean some sacrifices. And people really hate making those (especially the "higher cost" bit). Not to mention that there would be a huge political push-back from the petrochemical industry (and they're an INSANELY powerful lobby).

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:Madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were they doing before plastic? Did people just walk up to the farm and have farmers throw the food into their mouths? Jeez...

      Well, old wooden orange crates are collective items so I'm guessing that wood was at least part of the old way. There were certainly nails and/or glue in there. I don't know how much of the plastic involved is large crates like that not being re-used. I've seen big plastic bins loaded with grapes. I always assumed they went back to the vineyard to be re-used until they were worn out.

  25. Story mixed up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story is about China refusing to accept US plastic, not about the US refusing to send the plastic.

  26. Re:Nor Phosphorus or Boron. Has an Sulfur tho. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "slashdot", I don't see any Nitrogen , Phosphorus, or Rhodium in that.

    WTF are you rambling on about iii?! An Rhodium is Rh, you nimrod!

  27. Reasonable. by Fuzzums · · Score: 2

    Time to face the music and deal with the garbage produced, instead of making it somebody else's problem.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Reasonable. by SuperNovaLovah · · Score: 2

      Capitalism makes it someone else's opportunity.

    2. Re:Reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny they mention light clamshell containers but don't mention the tons of heavy blow molded made in China items. Its more of China's successful strategy to avoid responsibility for the huge volume of low quality plastic goods they produce

    3. Re:Reasonable. by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Time to face the music and deal with the garbage produced, instead of making it somebody else's problem.

      I think that's the whole point. Hopefully industry will realise that there is an actual and real cost to disposing of this crap, will build the very tiny unit cost into the original product, and will take back the rubbish left over and deal with it properly. I suspect that what will really happen is that they'll find another poor country to use as a dumping ground and lobby the government to shut the hell up about it, assuming they haven't already.

      Some states in Australia force a 5c recycling rebate on aluminium cans, so the shop is forced to pay the 5c when the customer returns the cans. A similar thing might work where the government monitors your purchases, and then weighs and sorts the contents of your recycling bin, and flags when they suspect you haven't been recycling all the stuff you've purchased. I'm sure we can trust the government not to misuse this information...

    4. Re:Reasonable. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      I doubt it will work. We have tax on packaging, but still you see packages that have unnecessary plastic. Companies don't care as long as the consumer doesn't care. And they don't.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  28. If you dig too deep in China... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    So, if you dig a really deep hole in China, do they say "You're going to dig all the way to the US."

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:If you dig too deep in China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Hopefully, at least the Chinese are smart enough to know that if you dig a hole it will end up in the ocean. If you want to end up in China, you need more of a tunnel than a hole

  29. Truly green will pay for it by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    The problem is that they expect the other 95% to pony up the money for the same services they feel are worthwhile. It's easy to ask for a recycling fee of $50/mo to cover manual sorting, cleaning, and processing of the stream when you make 6 figures. The backlash comes from the non-green who have then money but don't give a shit and the every-day folks for whom $50/mo requires a significant change to their budget.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  30. come on, this IS the 21st century! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is /. , why isn't there some hipster maker with a kickstartr to build a arduinio-driven robot recycling bin that can sort our plastics for us?!!! It should use a dirigible to go door-to-door soliciting refuse and dispensing bitcoins, which, at the customer's option can be donated to the EFF.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:come on, this IS the 21st century! by asylumx · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our bitcoin-toting dirigible overlords.

    2. Re:come on, this IS the 21st century! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, dirigible overlord recycles YOU!

    3. Re:come on, this IS the 21st century! by sootman · · Score: 1

      > This is /. , why isn't there some hipster maker with a kickstartr to build a
      > arduinio-driven robot recycling bin that can sort our plastics for us?!!

      This is 2013, why don't companies make the little triangle-number recycling symbol more than 8mm across? It's damn hard to read embossed plastic on the same color plastic (especially as you advance in years) and for fuck's sake, it's usually on the bottom of the container in the first place! It should be 5cm wide or 80% the width of the container.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:come on, this IS the 21st century! by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      Why don't plastic containers have a barcode or other easily machine-readable marking to indicate what type of plastic they are. Then they could be easily sorted automatically and the few unmarked plastics get shunted aside for manual sorting.

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    5. Re:come on, this IS the 21st century! by bitJan · · Score: 1

      do you mean you need a wallE ?

  31. Externalized costs by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since we have mandated that everyone recycle and most people do not pay for their trash pickup, we have externalized the cost of disposing of trash. If people had to pay for the disposal of their trash AND there was a financial incentive to reward them for separating out the stuff that it is economically feasible to recycle, this would work much better. I remember as a child, my older brothers would collect various recyclables and take them to the recycling center for spending money. I did it for a little bit, but before I really got a system like my brothers had going the government mandated recycling and the recycling center stopped offering money for recyclables.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Externalized costs by Whorhay · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most people do actually pay for their garbage removal. The cost is just usually lumped in with some other bill and isn't variable depending on how much they generate. I know my waste disposal fee is lumped in with the sewage and water. The annoying thing where I live is that we don't have curb side recycling at all. We have to sort it and then go find a municipal container that we can cram it into. So as a community our recycling is even less efficient because each individual has to drive to the silly containers.

    2. Re:Externalized costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If people have to pay variable amounts for trash disposal, they will cheat. I.e. the poor will toss their trash over someone's fence to save money. Try living in a city where even 1% do that.

      Instead, add fees/taxes when new materials are used for products/containers. That way, the money exists when the materials become trash.

    3. Re:Externalized costs by ahoffer0 · · Score: 2

      I lived in Switzerland for a few years. To dispose of your trash, you bought specially marked garbage bags at a store. The cost of the bag included the cost of waste disposal. Fill up the bag with trash, leave it out on trash day, and it was hauled it away. There was an incentive to recycle because you did not need to place your recyclables in a trash bag.

      In fact, if you put recyclables inside of your trash bag, you were mailed a fine for putting them in the wrong stream. (I never did understand how they knew who was responsible, but they did).

    4. Re:Externalized costs by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Great in theory.....

      We just added single-can recycling here. All recyclable stuff goes in one large can and the list of stuff is very extensive. Much easier to put out and to pick up than sorted bins. Everyone is now recycling much more and a good portion of the city changed to a smaller garbage can. Of course this means revenue drops and with garbage service being a private corporation........

      I bet the small can costs the same as a large did shortly.

      In WA, and i bet we doubled the amount of plastic we recycle last year with this change. Oops?

    5. Re:Externalized costs by rHBa · · Score: 1

      We have curbside municipal recycling containers at the bottom of every road (or every 150m-300m or so), in suburban areas, instead of picking rubbish up from your house.

    6. Re:Externalized costs by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Did you actually double the amount of plastic recycled? Or just the amount of plastic collected for recycling? More importantly, that did not address my point at all. You still pay to have the recyclables picked up, meaning you have no incentive to sort the plastic that is worth recycling from the plastic that is not worth recycling (or is not recyclable at all).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Externalized costs by cbope · · Score: 1

      So...? You put the containers in a convenient place. Like someplace you visit frequently, like the grocery store. Here in Finland, there are recycling stations at most medium and large grocery stores, in the parking areas. You have to buy groceries on a regular basis, so you take your recyclables with you when you go.

      There are typically bins for glass (colored and clear), cardboard, paper, metal, batteries and sometimes even problem waste or electrical items. It takes less than 30 seconds. Stop creating false excuses just because there is no curbside collection... there are many other ways to handle recycling.

    8. Re:Externalized costs by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I am sorry if I came accross as offering excuses, I was just pointing out how my community seems to be doing it wrong.

      I can see the benefit of putting the big containers in places that everyone goes already. That isn't what my community has done though. They are in relatively out of the way places such that you have to look them up or you wouldn't know they were there. They are emptied infrequently enough that I often find them completely full, at least the paper/cardboard one. They don't collect aluminum cans, only paper, cardboard, some plastics and some glass.

  32. Ignorant cunt by shiftless · · Score: 0

    I don't have a clue what Europeans do, but I do know what they do in Afghanistan. I would love to see an Afghan be teleported through time and space to the local "transfer station" here in my neck of the woods, just for an hour to sit there and watch what we do with all our "junk." If he had no opinion about America before then, he would initially feel confusion...then disbelief...then incredulity...then anger...and finally he would return home with hatred in his heart for us and everything we stand for.

    The past two weeks I have been working down there doing "community service." All day long, every single day, people come through this facility with perfectly usable items, which they then throw right into the crusher. Brand new and perfectly usable lumber, appliances, camp stoves, clothes, books, electrical wire, chairs and other furniture, big mirrors, high dollar insulation, brand new mattresses, you name it, you will see it there being thrown out.

    The first day I worked there I, full of naivete, thought I could help right these wrongs by loading up my own truck with any items I could use. The next day I got my ass ripped and told by the head bitch in charge that we are not allowed to take ANYTHING even if the person moans about the waste of throwing out perfectly good items and explicitly offers it to us. The lady told me a story about somebody who was there doing the same thing as me, except he was putting a little work into the items then turning around and selling them on Craigslist. So let me get this straight...the guy was rescuing perfectly good items from being destroyed, putting a little labor labor into them, then finding people who needed these useful items, thus making the world a better place for everyone involved? Oh the HORROR!

    This place was built with $2 million of tax payer dollars. It's one of the most inefficiently run operations I've ever seen. Give me $2 million and I will build a place across the street from it that is 10x more efficient and much less wasteful. I suggested they set up a table where people could turn in good usable items rather than crush them. 80% of their customers would appreciate that, but making such a suggestion is a waste of time cause these folks don't fucking care. Here we are in the 2nd Great Depression and they are content to further their own destruction by destroying usable resources which are needed and wanted by the multitudes of poor people struggling just to get by.

    Actions have consequences. Resources are not finite. The day is coming soon when this wicked system will come to an end. Each and every one of these cock suckers who work at this facility, who frown on me cause I tried to buck the system, these douchebags who drive their big ass souped up fancy diesel trucks (all financed of course) in an illusion of wealth, while gleefully crushing and destroying real wealth without a care in the world, will one day soon come to regret their stupidity and wastefulness. I hope each and every one of them starves to death in the gutter as they contemplate the mountains of good usable stuff they willfully destroyed in their lifetimes.

    P.S. In this Bizarro world we live in, you can toss out somebody's perfectly good microwave or blender and they won't bat an eye, but just try grabbing that one bag of glass or plastic recycles and start to toss it, and see how loudly and quickly they scream about it!

    1. Re:Ignorant cunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resources are not INfinite

      TFTFY.

    2. Re:Ignorant cunt by shiftless · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I wish slashdot would put in a damn edit button.

  33. Bury it... by jasno · · Score: 2

    It's just a bunch of polymeric hydrocarbons... bury it in the ground until you know what to do with it.

    I used to be scared of plastics, but after looking at the chemistry the only thing I worry about is plastic in the wrong place(i.e. - around a seabird or in the gyres). Sure, the polymerizing catalysts can sometimes be scary, and some plasticizers like BPA can have minor effects, but generally plastic is OK in my book.

    Hell, once I understood what plastic was it became really cool. It's like they found a way to turn crap into useful products. Hydrogen and carbon...

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:Bury it... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      It's just a bunch of polymeric hydrocarbons... bury it in the ground until you know what to do with it.

      I used to be scared of plastics, but after looking at the chemistry the only thing I worry about is plastic in the wrong place(i.e. - around a seabird or in the gyres). Sure, the polymerizing catalysts can sometimes be scary, and some plasticizers like BPA can have minor effects, but generally plastic is OK in my book.

      Hell, once I understood what plastic was it became really cool. It's like they found a way to turn crap into useful products. Hydrogen and carbon...

      Hell yes. Maybe it could be sorted first so that when future generations have figured out what to do with it they don't have to try and figure out what was buried where, but maybe they'll have solved that problem too. Much better to bury this carbon underground instead of spewing CO2 into the air, I think. I sometimes wonder about future generations mining our old garbage pits...

  34. duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the answer seems so obvious. others have posted it. incinerate. put R&D into incineration techniques; how to make it cleaner, how to capture the gases that are released and RECYCLE them.

    1. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a Garbage Refinery, if you will

    2. Re:duh by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      put R&D into incineration techniques

      I'm all in favor of additional R&D, but enough has already been done to overcome most of the objections above. You'll find it being used on an industrial scale in, amongst other places, the Netherlands: http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/a-tour-of-amsterdam%E2%80%99s-waste-to-energy-plant/

  35. And that's how all governments work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Power for the sake of power. And I do hope you noted what provides the fuel for that misuse of power...

    Remember that the next time you vote.

  36. Waste combustion not yet invented in US by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    ... at least that what the story sounds like.

  37. What about the Plastic-Eating Microbe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read about it here on /. back in 2009. Newsworthy because a 16-year-old found it.

    Here is the article.

  38. As an old song says by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    "Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard, my backyard.
    Don't put your trash in my backyard, my backyard's full!"

    More to the point, if throwing stuff away starts getting expensive, maybe that will change the economics around so that people will do less of it and stop designing stuff to be thrown away. Or if we're talking about recycling systems, how about *gasp* building recycling plants here in the US?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  39. The Ideal To Strive For by assertation · · Score: 1

    The ideal to strive for is to not make any container that will survive much longer than the product in it.

  40. This is a feature not a bug by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Basically it's called Externality Pricing, a key component of Real Capitalism, as opposed to pollution-subsidizing Mercantilism.

    Pollution has a cost.

    We already make - and use on our giant campus - compostable biodegradeable organic clamshells and food containers. We do the same for "plastic" bags.

    We even make bendable bioorganic photovoltaic cells that can wrap around buildings, cars, etc.

    Adapt. The time for complaining is over.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This is a feature not a bug by Nethead · · Score: 1

      compostable biodegradeable organic clamshells and food containers

      That you then ship north to Snohomish County to sit and rot in the sun. Then, once it stops stinking, you by it all back in plastic bags and plant your organic veggies in it. Rinse and repeat.

      How about a huge compost hill at UW main campus? Own the whole cycle!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:This is a feature not a bug by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to make jobs for you guys.

      As to the smell, I can see you don't remember the mountain of tires that used to burn up there.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  41. 10 mi x 10 mi x 225 feet = US trash for 100 years by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    This should be mandatory reading to pass high school: http://perc.org/articles/eight-great-myths-recycling-no-28

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  42. About time; Now lets focus on markets by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, USA was not just the start of recycling, but owned it. Now, because of the cheap labor of china, combined with cheap labor of illegals, we have allowed ourselves to lose out. It is time to restart home-grown recycling, but then add new demand for it. This is easier to do than it looks.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  43. Calling all entrepreneurs by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

    1. Find poverty stricken country
    2. Bribe officials
    3. Send plastic and while you are at it any other kind of waste, including Pu
    4. Profit

    Didn't think the "????" was needed.

    It's been done with Africa already.

  44. Convert for re use. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are now lots of machines that convert waste plastic into pellets/strings for use in fabricators. We just have to start expanding their use and the use of the fabricators.

  45. Biodegradable Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are being held back from acceptable solutions to this problem by big business (yet again). Cargill (among others) has a major interest in pushing corn-based plastics (PLA). The problem is that PLA does more harm to the environment than fossil-based plastics. These large, corn-biased corporations have lots of funding to influence government regulations, as well as to market their own initiatives like the BPI (biodegradable plastics institute). Not only is PLA bad for the environment, it's a poor replacement for plastic, that doesn't fit many of the uses we have for plastic.

    There are bio-based additives that you can put in plastic that make them biodegradable in the presence of microbes (landfills, water, etc). Plastics made with these additives are essentially the same as the originating plastic (PE, PP, PET, etc), and are perfect to use as a replacement for regular plastic in almost every application. As soon as there's a ground swell of support for actually fixing this problem, we'll realize that there already is a solution. It's a shame it hasn't happened already.

  46. volcanos! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Joe and the volcano seemed like a good idea, what is stopping them from trying this...run up the side of the volcano, dump the stuff in, and run back down for the next load, & repeat!, Eventually, you will be able to close off the volcano completely, no?

  47. "cargo" "cult", yeah. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    John Galt may be imaginary, but I believe John Frum will return!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:"cargo" "cult", yeah. by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Bokonon from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle. I had to look up John Frum, but he did sound familiar to me. Thank you for refreshing my memory.

      Bokonon if you are interested:
      https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBokononism&ei=IBwVUpmYOtLE2QWCzICwDQ&usg=AFQjCNE1JyC-V7bAsTC-cRr-VUk8UW3nuQ&bvm=bv.50952593,d.b2I

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  48. Shut Up And Take My Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is /. , why isn't there some hipster maker with a kickstartr to build a arduinio-driven robot recycling bin that can sort our plastics for us?!!! It should use a dirigible to go door-to-door soliciting refuse and dispensing bitcoins, which, at the customer's option can be donated to the EFF.

    I need to recycle the lens-less eye glasses as well.

  49. The fundamental problem is Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost of recycling is directly related to the energy required to break down various complex substances and construct other substances from them. So, anything can be recycled easily if we have enough cheap energy to throw at the problem. I will offer the modest suggestion that the areas of the USA where we can generate lots of solar and wind power, places that lack the infrastructure for distributing their energy production to other places, should be places where we build recycling facilities, where we would send lots of trash to be converted into raw materials. Think of the phrase "Industrial Ecology", defined as "a system in which the waste products of every industrial process become the feed-stocks of other industrial processes". In this case the first "industrial process" is the huge-scale trash-generation of society's consumers. And the "other industrial processes" in this case would be the recycling plants.

  50. Burn it for Power? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Maybe we could burn the plastic we cannot recycle in coal-fired power plants. We produce 32 million tons of plastic waste a year, but burn one billion tons of coal. If the coal feed had 3% plastic added to it the entire waste stream would be consumed while producing some electricity, and slightly reducing the CO2-to-energy output ratio.

    http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/coal.cfm

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    1. Re:Burn it for Power? by ZoobieWa · · Score: 1

      I have a better idea. We can collect plastic ourselves and burn great loads in our fireplaces for heat!

  51. Umm, recycle it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shred it up into pellets, melt it down and use it to make more plastic stuff, like spools of 3d printer material?

  52. I wanna know WHY I have to clean my plastic by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    I don't recall having ever seen any sort of video or tv presentation or read an article or seen anything that clearly explains why its important to CLEAN your plastic recyclables. Now of course you can't leave food in it; thats common sense. But suppose I get done eating a rotisserie chicken in a plastic bag that has leftover chicken-juice clinging to the inside of the bag, I wanna know why I gotta go to the trouble of cleaning all that stuff out of there because its a bother and common sense tells me that its just gonna be burned off and vaporized in a melting process somewhere alone the line. And I can't think that the leftover remains of burnt chicken juice is going to make the entire recycling plant fall apart. So please explain WHY you're rejecting my somewhat-dirty plastic please.

  53. Paper <strike> or plastic</strike> by yusing · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Semi-humorously, since WA state banned plastic bags, the stores have used that as an excuse to start charging for paper bags. Which are completely recyle-able. As though they decided to punish the voters for doing the right thing.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  54. Good god stop recycling by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Good god, stop recycling because currently we suck at it. Just bury the stuff in a hole and let robots unpack it and sort it in 100 or 200 years.

    You fools are like people in 1800 worrying about what to do with all the horse shit.

    Seriously. No, seriously.

    No, seriouysly. I even spelled it wrong for you.

    Still there fuming? Good. Read this: No, seriously.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  55. Many retailers will not stock... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    certain products if they are not in certain packages, based on some combination of physical size/shape AND value AND likelihood to be shoplifted. If you have purchased a small electronic gadget in one of those big clear plastic sharp-edged ultrasonically-welded clamshells, don't get mad at the manufacturer... the retailer probably demanded it (that happened to some products I designed). The line used was, essentially, "put it in a welded clamshell like this or we won't stock it because we'll be unable to control the shoplifting"

  56. Thermal Depolymerization = plastic into oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The technology has existed for years. Pilot plants have been shut down due to astroturf campains by dump operators and oil companies.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a depolymerization process using hydrous pyrolysis for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often biomass and plastic) into light crude oil. It mimics the natural geological processes thought to be involved in the production of fossil fuels. Under pressure and heat, long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon decompose into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons with a maximum length of around 18 carbons.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

  57. We Have homeless People Sorting Trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the "Out-Of-Sight-Out-Of-Mind-And-Poof!-We're-Green!" states of the United States (where trash, body-fat and war-materials are just about all that's home manufactured anymore), like Oregon, there are homeless people, who have lost everything in the wake of losing jobs that were exported to Southeast Asia for cheapness of labor and disregard for manufacturing produced environmental damage over there, who are out and about every day, in all weathers, most often for long hours, picking through trash looking for recyclables that have deposit-values. The deposits, paid by consumers and tossed with the deposit-valued container, are those homeless' sole sources of income. So let's put deposit premiums on all formed plastic likely to become waste, to make it become attractive to intelligent purchasers to recycle, and of value to the homeless when the can' t-be-bothered throw away. The homeless will pick up and return anything that can pay something for being returned, and so for the mere cost to you of deposit values will pick it up for you.
    If Americans want to be a "clean" and "green" nation, let the dumpm drop and pitch population put money where their mouhs are. Let the homeless become flung-trash bounty hunters.

  58. send it into the sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? We got the technology

  59. The origin of plastic by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    Didn't the plastic originate from China in the first place, oh the irony! I think the US govt. should tell the Chinese govt. if they don't accept our recycled trash, we won't accept their plastic products.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  60. If people just started sorting their trash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'd make the world of difference:

    http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/recycling/blogs/sweden-runs-out-of-garbage-forced-to-import-from-norway

  61. Pay 10 cents extra by Smiddi · · Score: 1

    Spend the extra 10 cents and use materials for packaging that don’t cause this problem (like biodegradable materials). The manufacturer needs to step up to the plate and only offer these matrials just as the consumer must step up to the plate and only buy the same.

  62. More simple than that, scales have shifted by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The "poorer" country isn't anymore due to the other country committing economic suicide, and they are both firmly capitalist, just one believes in savings and the other was hoping for infinite credit.

  63. It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time that the lazy Americans start an honoust job again and clean up their own mess instead of dumping it on the rest of the world.

  64. South Korean Garbage Disposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iam writing from South Korea

    The garbage disposal system here is very organized. At my appartment every individual has to seggregate garbage based on plastic bottles, plastic covers, glass bottles, cola cans, paper, cardboards and food waste.

    While all other items are free to dispose, food waste is charged. We have a RFID card which we use to swipe the food waste machine, the door opens and you throw the food waste in, not the plastic cover you got the contents :)

    The food garbage machine weighs the contents you put in, and closes the door. Finally at the end of month you are charged based on how much food waste you threw out.

    As an individual it feels a little cumbersome to me, but on a larger scale it makes much more sense :)

    1. Re:South Korean Garbage Disposal by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I think I'd probably grind up and flush my food waste, if that was the system.

    2. Re:South Korean Garbage Disposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around 2002, South Korean Government realized that its people are wasting more food than that is consumed in North Korea. Hence penalizing anyone who is wasting food.

  65. Re:Paper or plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense. If everyone now asks for a paper bag, then their paper bag expenses must have gone up by a huge amount. So they charge.

  66. An Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An alternative to dumping plastic waste is to convert is back to usable oil:

    http://www.flixxy.com/convert-plastic-to-oil.htm

  67. How much of it is merely returning "home"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what percentage of that plastic trash originated in China in the first place, and is merely returning "home"?

    changes the "poor China" story a bit when it's their chickens coming home to roost.

  68. regulate plastic use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulate non renewable resources so that they are only used for important products like food safety, sanitation, medicine, scientific research, engineering, etc. No more junky toys, holiday crap, trendy fashion and excessive packaging.

  69. TED talk on recycled plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_biddle.html

    "Less than 10% of plastic trash is recycled -- compared to almost 90% of metals -- because of the massively complicated problem of finding and sorting the different kinds. Frustrated by this waste, Mike Biddle has developed a cheap and incredibly energy efficient plant that can, and does, recycle any kind of plastic"

    This is an engineering problem, But Greens love to pass laws and use state power to control people, don't they?

  70. levy on goods based upon their disposal cost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Austin, TX had an offer for FREE recycling; the company would have make a profit on the material. Disposal cost $0.00 ! But of course, being a green city, we rejected the offer and went with a company that costs us ~$900,000 per year to ship it to a MRF (Material Recycling Facility) on the other side of Texas based on a contract that assumes the worst gasoline prices ever seen in this decade. Other cities in Texas actually get money out of this company for their waste, but not us!

  71. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them drown in their own refuse - then maybe they will hesitate before producing even more of it

  72. PLASTIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gosgog:

    A few months back I read in I think BBC News, online, that a young Pakistani Engr, living , if I remember rightly,in the U.S. he & a Buddy had developed a system that would consume all plastics and the end product could then be used to develop energy. So, it seems to me that somewhere in the U.S. a capital resource outfit should jump on this....then, all old used plastics could be converted into full use...Energy! & the U.S. Environment would improve and plastic garbage would not need to be shipped elsewhere.