Slashdot Mirror


Recycling Is Dying

HughPickens.com writes: Aaron C. Davis writes in the Washington Post that recycling, once a profitable business for cities and private employers alike, has become a money-sucking enterprise. Almost every recycling facility in the country is running in the red and recyclers say that more than 2,000 municipalities are paying to dispose of their recyclables instead of the other way around. "If people feel that recycling is important — and I think they do, increasingly — then we are talking about a nationwide crisis," says David Steiner, chief executive of Waste Management, the nation's largest recycler.

The problem with recylcing is that a storm of falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a weakened economy in China have sent prices for American recyclables plummeting worldwide. Trying to encourage conservation, progressive lawmakers and environmentalists have made matters worse. By pushing to increase recycling rates with bigger and bigger bins — while demanding almost no sorting by consumers — the recycling stream has become increasingly polluted and less valuable, imperiling the economics of the whole system. "We kind of got everyone thinking that recycling was free," says Bill Moore. "It's never really been free, and in fact, it's getting more expensive."

One big problem is that China doesn't want to buy our garbage anymore. In the past China had sent so many consumer goods to the United States that all the shipping containers were coming back empty. So US companies began stuffing the return-trip containers with recycled cardboard boxes, waste paper and other scrap. China could, in turn, harvest the raw materials. Everyone won. But China has launched "Operation Green Fence" — a policy to prohibit the import of unwashed post-consumer plastics and other "contaminated" waste shipments. In China, containerboard, a common packaging product from recycled American paper, is trading at just over $400 a metric ton, down from nearly $1,000 in 2010. China also needs less recycled newsprint; the last paper mill in Shanghai closed this year. "If the materials we are exporting are so contaminated that they are being rejected by those we sell to," says Valerie Androutsopoulos, "maybe it's time to take another look at dual stream recycling."

60 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every waste disposal stream has costs. The choice is what we're willing to pay to deal with it.

    That, and most Americans are too fucking lazy to sort, or have any kind of care in avoiding contamination (or even learning what that means).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The choice is what we're willing to pay to deal with it.

      Unfortunately, what we're willing to pay isn't necessarily what we're thinking we're going to pay.

      So many hidden fees and charges, it's difficult to get a good cost-analysis.

    2. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is not that landfills are too cheap, as the title of your comment says. It's that raw natural resources are too cheap. At some point that will change as they become depleted, but for now we still exist in a time where it's cheaper to harvest or extract virgin resources than it is to recycle new, with a few notable exceptions such as aluminum. Until that changes, and it eventually will, but until it does because of the laws of supply and demand and simply economics there is not any force on earth that can make recycling work if the economics are not there.

    3. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if it makes you feel any better, this story actually prompted me to contact the director of our local recycling center to get more information on what, precisely, contamination is and what I can do to help minimize it. Our system is a pre-sort system. I'll grant that before moving to where I now live (recently), I was used to a single sort/commingled system. Having to pre-sort was a bit of a shock, as I'd never lived anywhere that required this. That alone prompted me to contact our local recycling center to get more information, which led to being introduced to the director. So, I feel comfortable contacting him to get more information about this situation and I am looking forward to his response.

    4. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a few blocks from the county dump. Across the street from the dump there's a large undeveloped foresty area.... which is covered in trash and furniture and such that people have dumped there because they don't want to pay the county dump to take their stuff. So I'd say the cost of landfills for consumers is far too high -- it needs to be free, like it is with e-waste, if we want to avoid people dumping everywhere (and not have a police state).

      A more reasonable solution would be to encourage people to get all their trash and recyclables to a central point by making it free, and then pay whatever we have to as a community via taxes to process it for recycling or disposal. We'd get a much cleaner world that way than we get by pretending we can make everybody responsible.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by kick6 · · Score: 2

      and most Americans are too fucking lazy to sort

      I beg to differ. I'd sort, but I'm not going to sort AND pay extra money. In fact, let's be honest: I'm just not going to pay extra money period. And yes...recycling costs extra where I'm at.

    6. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every waste disposal stream has costs.

      That is something we must teach kids even from kindergarten, so they will remeber it when they become autonomous consumers (if they are not already...).

      The choice is what we're willing to pay to deal with it.

      The choices are a) if we are willing to pay b) how much, if yes - since in reality for "a" the answer is always "yes" (even in the most uncivilized societies *some* "waste disposal" *must* be done), civilized societies must choose how much to pay for "waste disposal AND recycling".

      That, and most Americans are too fucking lazy to sort, or have any kind of care in avoiding contamination (or even learning what that means).

      If we Greeks can do it, Americans can do it better. I don't believe Americans are so lazy to sort: they just don't know how important is for minimizing the cost of their "waste disposal (AND recycling)" - if they are informed about the issue they will do the right thing (Americans were sensitive about recycling long before we Greeks were).

      In Greece we don't sort further than "for dump and for recycling". The major problem in Greece is that gypsies and illegal immigrants... illegaly sort further the "for recycling" bins! The recycling organizations loose the valuable stuff (e.g., aluminum cans) that gets stolen from the recycle bins from them, and they end up with only the less profitable (or unprofitable) "garbage", so it becomes problematic for them to continue operating

      That Greek lady mentioned in the /. summary, Valerie Androutsopoulos, is married to some other Greek, Angelos, that, while he is a computer programmer, own some recycling companies, both in Greece and USA. They understand the cost factors for, and how to operate the, recycling business, i hope others can do the society's education for the importance of that business (e.g., teachers - the way it is done in Greece... good values should start from family/school, as early as possible).

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    7. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      I'd sort, but I'm not going to sort AND pay extra money.

      Yep. I was pretty diligent about recycling right up till the local government decided that they needed to charge extra for recycling. When they required me to do extra work AND pay extra money for the service, I stopped using the service....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many towns do just a that. You pay a little extra tax and the town has weekly pickup as well as arranging days to pick up other things like furniture or electronics. You find it in towns that are generally clean and cared for.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    9. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      It depends on the mentality.
      In Germany, you pay the county dump to take your stuff.
      In Italy, just a few hundred kilometers away from Germany, the county dump pays you to take your stuff, because they know that nobody would use it otherwise.

    10. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Art3x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd sort, but I'm not going to sort AND pay extra money.

      Yep. I was pretty diligent about recycling right up till the local government decided that they needed to charge extra for recycling. When they required me to do extra work AND pay extra money for the service, I stopped using the service....

      Is it the government that requires you to do extra work and pay extra money, or is it just life?

      Recycling takes a certain amount of work. The government may be trying to split it with you. If they did all of the work, maybe the would have to charge even more.

      I may be wrong, and someone will certainly say something like that the government is just being greedy or wasteful. But if it were me, I would either investigate it to know for sure or just go with it.

    11. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by knightghost · · Score: 2

      A good cost analysis is never difficult. A 3 sort recycle also clears everything up - metal, plastic, paper. Glass goes in the garbage and food goes in the compost.

      If you want to take that a step further than send all paper and plastic to local plasma furnaces. Heck, they even take dried bio waste such as lawn clippings.

    12. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by rhazz · · Score: 2

      This might've been insightful if you'd removed "Americans". I'm in a canadian middle-income neighbourhood, and even here we have households who never put out a recycle bin. We have 3 programs here: rigid plastics & metal, paper & cardboard, and compost. It is paid for by taxes, and if it wasn't then many more would opt out. Even the bins are given out for free by the city. Thankfully most people realize that when our city's current dump fills up, it will cost far more to start shipping to the next available site, so diversion is a high priority.

      The only non-recycling person I've ever spoken to about it said that she doesn't bother because sorting is too complex - so in my experience the kind of people who don't recycle are mainly just stupid, or have zero sense of community. And I only spoke to her because she had left a TV sitting on her curb for a month, it boggled her mind that such things can't be thrown out in the trash anymore.

    13. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I beg to differ. I'd sort, but I'm not going to sort AND pay extra money.

      My town has a pretty decent way of handling this - I pay per bag of trash, and they take properly-sorted recyclables for free.

      I don't get a fine if I accidentally throw away a glass bottle. I don't get told off for not rinsing out my cans. I don't have any sort of "recycling gestapo" going around inspecting mandatory clear trash bags looking for any excuse to hassle me. They just call anything non-compliant "garbage", and I pay per bag.

      I therefore get to personally make the decision whether to pay more or recycle more.

    14. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by ranton · · Score: 2

      That, and most Americans are too fucking lazy to sort, or have any kind of care in avoiding contamination (or even learning what that means).

      As another post mentions (although a bit rudely), there is no reason why I need to sort my trash myself. Mixed waste recovery facilities can achieve almost 80% landfill diversion rates. One such service in South Pasadena costs under $40 per month, which is the same as standard garbage service in nearby LA.

      There is no reason why I should waste my time sorting trash. I don't waste my time vacuuming my own home or landscaping my own house either. I pay professionals to do it who will do it much better and in less time. And for lower cost since I charge my employer a much higher rate.

      The only reasons areas like Pasadena and Bevery Hills started mixed waste recovery was because no one was sorting on their own. The only way to force municipalities to start doing sorting the right way is to stop sorting yourself. Just like voting it is unlikely any one person can make a difference, but if everyone felt that way no change would ever happen.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    15. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2
      You may want to read my reply to an actual (i believe) Gypsy, and mostly what HE wrote!

      I understand that many people (especialy those less educated) may think that "since it's in a recycling bin, it's not real theft", but the economics of recycling depend on those aluminum cans staying in the recycling bin - without them there is no point of any recycling business to operate, which means no recycling for the plastics also...

      Many people here in Greece tell me that i am too hard (e.g., "you can't expect a poor Gypsy/illegal immigrant to starve himself just because you want recycling to work"), but we must at least use the right term: theft - society can not blame recycling businesses as "greedy" and demand operating, when people don't even want to acknowledge that fact.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    16. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why would you throw away glass? It's easy to recycle that.

    17. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2
      Where are you from Sir? I know many Gypsies, everyone calls himself (as self-description) "Gypsy"! I find it at least both comic and tragic to have some (left-wing) "anti-racists" trying to re-define an ethnicity in which they do NOT belong!

      Some other old Greek song about "arapines" (magic nights) - the word is about "(sand-)niggers" as a non-Greek may call them offensively, but in Greek (and the rest of the word) it was not "offensive"... until some (left-wing) "anti-racists" decided that it is now! The guy singing the song is a Greek actor, that is also a Greek politician... in a party those (left-wing) "anti-racists" belong also! The ironic fact about the "arapines" word (which you probably read as a word for the first time in your life): arapines use it to describe themselves!!!

      Again my question: Where are you from Sir?

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    18. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by znrt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's unbelievable that these costs aren't part of the public budget. I'm trying to be a responsible citizen by hauling my large or toxic waste to the proper disposal facility and you won't let me dump it until I pay some hefty fee?

      that's actually fair. if you consume/dispose more volume than me, why should i pay for recycling your stuff?

      however, i still prefer having this as a regulated public service. most big cities do, afaik.

      The next time I'm getting rid of a refrigerator, air conditioner, or other electronics, I'll just leave it in a ditch somewhere.

      try harder (to be a responsible citizen) :-)

    19. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by orzetto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The way it works here in Norway is that you pay an extra tax when you buy an eventually recyclable item. When you want to get rid of your old washing machine, you can deliver it to anyone selling washing machines ("you sell it, you take it"). Their logistic costs for handling the waste are paid by the taxes paid on new items.

      For some items you actually can get the tax back, e.g. for plastic bottles and beer cans. You bring them to the supermarket, feed them to a robot and get a receipt (one dime for small bottles, three for larger ones) and redeem it at the cashier. It's smal enough that people don't mind the extra price, but high enough that you see bums scavenging trash for bottles.

      That's the main principle you need to drive home—you make people pay when they want to buy things that they eventually will dispose of, when they have their wallet open, and make them pay nothing extra (or even pay them something) when they recycle it.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    20. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your's is a classic example of hidden external costs. It seems to you like just not recycling is the best option, but in the long run it may cost you more (your taxes have to be used to deal with what isn't recycled, the environment will be damaged, and maybe your health will eventually suffer). If you care about your kids it might cost them even more.

      That's why I'm in favour of simply taxing people more to pay for this stuff. People are generally too short sighted to see the benefit to themselves, but tend to be slightly more sympathetic when it's done on a wider scale. Even if they aren't sympathetic, it has to be done for the greater good, like a kid who doesn't want his vaccination shot because it stings for five minutes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Megane · · Score: 2

      I was perfectly happy with having a second bin to put just paper/cardboard in, and the old recycling truck also had a separate bin for paper. I even have a pile in the corner of the back yard where I dump my leaves every year (a no-maintenance compost pile) and put what little wet garbage I produce on that.

      But then the greenie-weenies (this is Austin TX, the first place that California's silly ideas appear) just had to have their single-stream recycling and goals of recycling an absurd portion of trash. So now I have a second enormous wheelie-bin (along with my enormous trash wheelie-bin) for recyclables. And to make it all more fun, now they only collect recycling every other week, and I have to look on a calendar to see if there's recycling this week.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    22. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by Megane · · Score: 2

      Soda can aluminum isn't just aluminum, its a special alloy of mostly aluminum that is optimized for the can stamping process. So it's worth more than plain aluminum. I figured out that they pay about 2-3 cents a can at recycling centers. And that's in a state that doesn't have a bottle deposit tax. On my way to work in the morning, which is near a recycling center, I often seen people walking along the street with two or three enormous five-foot tall garbage bags full of cans (presumably un-crushed or they'd be too heavy for a bag that size).

      Also, tell me that simply melting cans down isn't easier and cheaper than electrolytically ripping the aluminum atoms out of the ore with lots of heat and electricity. Seriously, aluminum atoms like to bond with shit very tightly. Before we had that, aluminum was a rare metal on par with silver, even though it's one of the most common elements in the earth's crust.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    23. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its not quite that simple.

      Glass - really easy to recycle, we have even been doing this for decades in the UK. Only thing is, you have to sort it by colour first or it cannot be recycled, except as glass that is used in non-consumer areas.

      Metal: easy to recycle, ferrous material is even easier as a big magnet can sort it. The rest is basically aluminium from drinks cans.

      Paper: can be easy, but not if its contaminated with plastic (eg windowed envelopes) or plastic (coated to make it shiny). Even then, there's a limited recycling cycle for it, but it can still be burned in the end.

      Plastic: now we get a problem. There are so many different types, (you can see them on your products by looking for the number inside the recycle triangle). Then there's problems with the colours - put black plastic in with the rest and it can only be turned into more black plastic. The prices for most plastic is so low that its often cheaper to just chuck it in the garbage.

      Ultimately sorting at source is the only option to make recycling cost effective (and even then, if one neighbour decides to stuff his rubbish in the recycling bin, none of the lorry load that collected it gets used).

      Round here, we do plastic in bags; metal, paper and glass in bins. I used to live in a place where you could put the latter 3 in a single bin as sorting that was relatively easy, but they didn't take plastic at all.

      There are ways to encourage recycling like we used to do: community groups could collect things like paper, you'd store them until a church or scout group would turn up to collect bundles of one type of material (say, papers) where they would take them to be recycled and possibly even get paid for them as the bundles would be properly sorted and thus worth a lot more, or you could just put a penny deposit on glass or metal that could be refunded on return.

      BTW, Ars had an interesting tour of a recycling centre:

      http://arstechnica.com/science...

    24. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, me too. I think part of the problem with recyling is lack of education. I honestly don't know what actually is and is not ok to put into what...

      For example I recently bought a mcdonalds meal...

      What about a macdonalds bag? Is that ok to put in the paper?
      What about Unused napkins? Used napkins?

      What about the 'cardboard' thing the bigmac was in? Is that paper or cardboard or is it just garbage?

      Can I recycle the the plastic fork? The little plastic bag the fork came in? or the straw? The plastic lid on the cup?

      What about the wax paper cup?

      Would I need to wash all these things? or does the recyling processes itself mean that a bit of salad dressing on the fork, or a bit cola on the cup is completely irrelevant?

      And what the hell am I supposed to do with a pringles can or the containers Ice Tea powder comes in? The ones with the cardboard cylinder (although maybe some sort of foil coating on it?) plus it has a metal ring at the top lid, and a metal base.

      Is the plastic lid recycleable? The ice tea has the #4 recyle symbol on it... but the pringles can doesn't have any symbol that I can see... but surely its recycleable? isn't it?

      Should I err on the side of caution, and toss anything I'm not 100% sure of in the garbage, or should i err on the side of recycling?

      I think most people, like me, simply don't know the answers to these questions and we make a lot of mistakes we'd avoid because of it.

    25. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      Glass - rarely cost effective because it requires more energy to recycle than create new. It's also great in a landfill because its inert. Quit wasting energy trying to recycle it.

      [citation needed]. I'd always understood (from watching programs where glass was recycled) that it was much less energy to melt existing glass and re-form than it was to combine new ingredients, which requires a higher temperature. Wikipedia agrees: "The processing and use of recycled glass in manufacturing conserves raw materials, reduces energy consumption, and reduces the volume of waste sent to landfill." I assume you're talking about total process energy consumption, but yeah I'd like to see evidence. (You also seem to assume that reducing the waste load on landfills isn't a benefit in and of itself.)

      I'd always understood that some plastics were recyclable as well, but generally "downgraded" - a soda bottle becoming polyester fabric, etc.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    26. Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap by carbonates · · Score: 2

      You have hit on one of the biggest problems, and one that I never understood. Municipal recycling typically makes almost zero effort to educate people about what and how to recycle. In the days when you had to take your recycling to a recycling center, and there were people there to examine your recyclables and supervise your sorting, most people got some education on what was recyclable.

      Now there is one big blue bin for everything. I have seen people throw in food containers with food still in them (this becomes garbage, not recycling), plastic bags (not recyclable at most facilities), and all sorts of plastics. I've even seen computers put in the recycling bin. Plastic spoons? They are made of styrene, which is the same plastic as expanded styrene foam (Styrofoam) and not generally recyclable (some places take it). Wax paper cups and wax containers for milk or juice are generally not recycled, but some places have started.

      People do not realize that there are a bunch of minimum wage humans manually sorting their recycling on a conveyor belt at the recycling center. They also don't realize that if they contaminate the whole load with a broken jar of syrup, the whole load just goes to the dump. Wet paper, food, misidentified plastics, all of that can make the whole load go to the dump instead of being recycled, and yet the recycling collectors make no effort to get the public to sort for them. Maybe they know the public is just too damn lazy and too ignorant to understand those numbers on plastics to actually sort stuff.

      Then to compound the problem there are folks like me who know what can be sold for money and what can't, and the valuable items are things I sell, rather than donate to the trash company to sell.

  2. Shipping trash to China is not recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    What a surprise! Shipping trash to China is *not* "recycling". If those trash were actually worth recycling, then do it within your borders.

  3. Incineration by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just burn the stuff for energy. It's better than letting it pile up and getting into our oceans.

    Reduce, Reuse...Incinerate.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Incineration by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shh dont try and make sense the eco warriors will get you. Hartford, CT is a bit of the poster child for this, they separate out what they can automaticly and burn the rest for electricity.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Incineration by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More specifically, burn paper but not the plastic.

      Paper is a renewable resource, and it doesn't make as much sense financially or environmentally to recycle it. It's also the major constituent of landfills. Fix up the supply side of the paper industry - switch from wood pulp to some other, easier to grow feedstock (switchgrass, hemp, etc...) - and close the carbon cycle by burning it. You recover the energy and reduce the volume of the remaining waste.

      Plastics are harder to justify burning, IMHO. The materials needed aren't entirely renewable and they more often contain additives that don't play nice when incinerated.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Incineration by fortfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The energy return on incineration is dubious. Most, if not all, incinerators use additional fuel (oil or natural gast) to get the thing to burn at all, and often, if not always, the energy return is so low it ends up costing more than just burning the supplemental fuel.

      This is not to say that incineration is not a useful option for waste disposal in some circumstances. But it's disingenuous to promulgate the process with promises of a net energy gain.

    4. Re:Incineration by dj245 · · Score: 2

      My municipality tried this whole incinerating thing.

      The short version: the technology wasn't up to the task, the amount of energy they got out of it was woefully inadequate, the company went out of business.

      Incineration technology just doesn't sound like where it needs to be, and it doesn't produce energy in a way that is worth actually doing.

      It may be a good idea in theory, but in practice, I don't think it works very well.

      Without having the whole story, I will say this- power plants should be designed by power plant engineers. Many of the smaller power plants out there which burn %byproduct or %unwanted_materials are not designed by people who design power plants. There are a lot of Engineering/Procurement/Construction (EPC) companies out there who think "we did a recycling facility before, we put in some gas compressors and diesel engines at that landfill on the other side of town to burn landfill gas, a steam power plant is no problem!".

      But solid fuels are a lot more tricky to combust compared to gas. They are trickier to design transport for- conveyor systems that don't have inherent blockage points are an art and a science. The ash is also a solid, but very corrosive, abrasive, and toxic, and needs special conveyors. Pollution controls are a whole 'nother science and improperly designed systems won't stay operating long without serious problems. The owner doesn't know all this, however, and doesn't have the experience to know that they should be rejecting some bidders for lack of experience. They go for the lowest reasonable bid and then when things don't work, the EPC finds every excuse under the sun on why they couldn't possibly have known better.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    5. Re:Incineration by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh please. We've been doing this in Canada for 80 years and have figured out how to make profitable treefarms with a 10 year harvesting rotation. This is even more so true since we have a serious problem with pine beetles in parts of our western forests, just like in the US. The difference is here in Canada we'll cut it down and make something out of it, in the US you're too busy worrying about xyz something, and then wondering why you have massive forest fires.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Incineration by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It all depends how you do it. Plenty of environmentalists applaud sensible refuse-burning power plants & community heating projects. If you just stick it in a field, cover it with gas, light it, and try to generate electricity from that, of course environmentalists would complain. You'd probably complain too if it was near you.

    7. Re:Incineration by dave420 · · Score: 2

      It seems you might want to do some reading, as you yourself are perpetrating a pervasive, incorrect narrative.

  4. Rubbish (pun intended) by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I RTFA the article on contamination.

    It's very disengenuous.

    For example it's all "oe noes toxic inks removed from paper during recycling are landfilled", so recycling is bad! Somehow this is different from dumping the very same toxic inks into a land fill while temporarily attached to paper.

    The same complaint is repeated through the article.

    Basically they're blaming recycling for the toxic crap that's in stuff, while ignoring the fact that landfilling toxic crap has exactly the same problems.

    And lead based spray paints? Apart from for historical reconstruction work, lead paint has been illegal here since 1992.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Rubbish (pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Toxic inks? All food packaging is made with food-safe inks, usually made from vegetable oils. Newspapers (remember them?) have been using low toxicity inks for years. Most corrugated packaging (cartons) are printed with inks similar to food inks.

  5. Screw capitalism by Squapper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we don't want to save the world because it's "not profitable", then we are truly fucked. What are we, Ferengi?

    1. Re:Screw capitalism by Squapper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might not realize it but you are hitting the nail on the head. People won't go working for recycling centers for free to make them more profitable. That's exactly why capitalism won't solve environmental problems.

    2. Re:Screw capitalism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Capitalism can solve it.

      Shove it in a landfill and let robots sort it out in 100 years.

      And no, we are not running out of landfill room. It's only a NIMBY problem.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Why can't America recycle its own paper/plastic? by ITRambo · · Score: 2

    I'm an American. We recycle in our home and business. It was my understanding that the paper/plastic stuff was being recycled here in America. Electronics were being shipped to China. The summary states that the overseas market for American recycled goods is drying up. I do not see why all of the paper/plastic that I recycle isn't recycled in the US, other than greed. Take what you can get for it locally,turn the paper into pulp and put the plastics into new goods, and stop complaining about cost. Recycling is getting more expensive like most other things. It's still better than putting it all in landfills.

  7. Can't...resist...pun... by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    One big problem is that China doesn't want to buy our garbage anymore.

    Well, we westeners are still happy to buy all sorts of garbage manufactured in China. ;)

  8. Why not go back to consumer sorting. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    Really Aluminum, glass, and steel are easy to recycle. Plastic and paper can be burned for energy or recycled. I am not a fan of "green" as I feel most are just nut balls but come on I see recycling as just the way we should throw stuff away.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Why not go back to consumer sorting. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

      I agree. It seems like the big problem is "single stream". I had never even heard of "single stream" until this article.

      It's not much of a problem. I live in Southwark which is a single stream system. The Southwark Waste Management Facility is open one weekend per year and is well worth a visit if you like building sized machines.

      They went for single stream for various reasons, an important one being that in deepest, darkest London, space for storing stuff until the dustbin lorry visits is limited so people don't do it.

      Basically, the mixed recyclables come in and get put into a giant machine to sort the waste with an effectiveness of over 95%. It first goes under a huge hooked wire brush bag splitter. It then goes over very coarse interleavced rollers which removes the large sheets of cardboard. It then goes over finer meshing things which catch and crush glass to sort that out. Then comes the big magnet for steel. Then there's a pulsed magnet rollers which uses magnetic induction to fire off the aluminium into a hopper. That leaves mixed paper and plastic. This then goes past a multispectral laser clasification system which triggers a very powerful air puffer to sort out the paper and plastic.

      The sorted waste then goes past a small army of people who manually identify and remove any further errors. This gets it up to over 99.9%.

      It's then baled up into huge bales of aluminium, steel, paper and mixed plastic (glass doesn't bale) which is then sent off to various places for further processing.

      The facility is running slightly in the red in that the sales don't cover the running costs, but not by a large margin. That's pretty good because with a relatively small outlay of cost to run it, there's a huge amount not being landfilled.

      If you live in London or are in there when it's open, go and visit.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Why not go back to consumer sorting. by coolmoose25 · · Score: 2

      I live in the Hartford CT area and we have Trash to Energy AND single stream recycling. First - Trash to Energy. The poster above was correct about it not being much of a net energy gain. They burn it in an oil fired plant. Cardboard, food waste, etc. all gets burned. The big thing isn't the energy as much as it is that we don't need a dump anymore except for the ash, which is compact and easy to dispose of. The main garbage dump in Hartford was closed years ago. So overall, a good option to lower the volume of landfilled items and that is the main benefit.

      As for single stream, we used to sort it, but now use a large single stream bin. A great improvement all around. Here's why: I toured the recycling center with my daughter's elementary school class. I watched the trucks pull in. This was in the "sort it" days. So a guy would pick up your bin, throw the cardboard with the cardboard, the plastic with the plastic (by type), the glass with the glass, etc. The truck had an opening for each. Anyway, the truck pulls into the recycling center, and the back opens, and the dumper rises, and all of it gets mixed together! I finally asked why, and they didn't have a good answer. So what was the point? It was totally inefficient in that the sorting process the guy did at every house was essentially a useless exercise. And he knew it too, so those sorts were not particularly well done. Bottom line, single stream makes far more sense - sort it at the recycling facility. Don't pay a guy to do it at the curb. Have a truck pick up a big bin automatically.

      Finally, the financial end of this... When we went to single stream, we got a garbage can (95gal) and a recycle can (95gal). We found we were producing more garbage than recycling. So I sent my brother in law, who was living with us to go purchase another garbage can. They explained to him that they would like to sell him a recycling can instead. The town made money on the recycling, and garbage cost them. So he came home empty handed. I told him to go down and buy the extra garbage can - I didn't care what it cost the TOWN... I cared about keeping the garbage out of the recycling. So I sent him back and reluctantly they sold him another garbage can.

      Roll the clock forward, and the town does what government does best. Since they made money on recycling, they announced that anyone who had more than one garbage can would be issued a new recycle bin and they would be taking the extra garbage can that I had paid for away. And recycling would only pick up every other week. And if I wanted to keep my extra garbage can, I had to pay a $150 a year subscription for it. So, they did what made economic sense for them at my expense.

      Of course, my solution to this was simple. I had the same number of cans, it's just one went from Garbage Green to Recycle Blue. So I threw my garbage in the recycle bins. Problem solved for me. And probably part of the reason recycling is more expensive now because of short sighted government workers wishing things were different and turning me into a profit center!

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
  9. Sounds like a shake down more than anything by hsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many years have these plants been running at a profit? How long have they had to improve techniques and cut costs to make this more efficient? Gas is no cheaper than it was 15 years ago (inflation adjusted) so what is the hold up? One bad year and "welp lets fold up shop!"

    Sounds like a shake down of municipalities.

  10. Meh by Alomex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    then we are talking about a nationwide crisis,

    Crisis: the most overused word of the environmental movement. Nothing is ever a snag or a bump along the way that needs to be sorted out. No siree, everything is a world ending crisis. Not enough demand for recycled cardboard? OMG. it's a crisis.

    1. Re:Meh by Passman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Everybody uses the word crisis when their concerns are being addressed. Budget Crisis. Immigration Crisis. Housing Crisis.

      You make it sound like we have a "Crisis" Crisis.

      --
      Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
  11. Some simple proposals by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, stop recycling glass, it is a boondoggle. It takes more energy than just making more glass. Throw it in the ocean, we all like beach glass. Just put it someplace where it statistically will get polished smooth before it washes up on a beach, problem solved. Outlaw any kinds of glass for containers that would present an environmental hazard due to additives.

    Second, let's get packaging under control, and just produce a whole lot less of it. And if we produce less plastic bottles, and go back to using more glass, then we won't need to do as much recycling, see point above. But packaging is just idiotic. What percentage of plastic clamshells are even stamped for recycling? That should be illegal. Everything plastic over a few grams should have to be marked for recycling by law if you want to sell it. For the want of a trivially-expensive feature, tons of plastic has to go to landfills that could reasonably be recycled. And since it's not food waste, it's not dirty.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Re:e-waste by tpwade · · Score: 2

    Are you trying to demonstrate how much of a "consumer" you are? Your Android 2.2 likely does everything it did back when you thought it was all cool and new. Now you're lusting over new stuff just because it is new stuff (HW, SW, same thing). Buy quality, fix it when it breaks, keep it forever, and above all else, learn to enjoy what you have. Stop lusting over stuff. THAT is how you stop participating.

  13. Re:e-waste by rhazz · · Score: 2

    Why do you need a newer Android? Perhaps you are part of the problem.

  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:e-waste by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "fix it when it breaks"

    Do you even have a smartphone? These things are designed to be unrepairable, or so expensive to repair you might as well replace them.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  16. Re:e-waste by znrt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why do you need a newer Android? Perhaps you are part of the problem.

    security, the old one isn't updated anymore.

    industry shoves the responsibility of having compromised devices infecting the net on to the customer, with exactly two alternatives: buy the new phone, or stop using phones altogether. clever business.

  17. Cost analysis by sjbe · · Score: 3, Informative

    A good cost analysis is never difficult.

    Speaking as a certified accountant I could not disagree more. If you think cost analysis "is never difficult" then you don't understand how to do it properly. Some trivial cost accounting problems are easy but that describes a rather small subset of the cost analysis problems out there. Let me put it this way, I get paid fairly well because cost accounting isn't something just anyone can do competently.

    1. Re:Cost analysis by sampson7 · · Score: 2

      President Obama, you really need to stop trolling people like that!

      -- Michelle

  18. Recycling is more complicated than people think by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Raw materials, when mined, are not refined

    Realistically lots of recycled materials effectively require a "refining" step. That recycled milk jug comes frequently isn't clean so it has to be processed before the materials can be utilized.

    you also have to expend more effort and energy to refine them and turn them into something useful

    You have to do the same for recycled materials. The real question is whether less effort and energy (thus less cost) is required to recycle. For some products (like aluminum) the energy to turn ore into ingots is MUCH higher than to recycle. For others (like plastic) the economic advantage of recycling isn't so clear because it's relatively cheap to make the virgin product.

    With recycling, you bypass a lot of that, so it should be cheaper and more efficient: instead of going through all these refining steps, you just take some used HDPE, grind it up and/or melt it down, and make more HDPE containers out of it.

    Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Recycled materials require that they to be sorted, contaminants have to be removed, it has to be cleaned, it has to be processed into a useable form for processing. These costs are not trivial and the waste stream is definitely not clean and well organized. Furthermore for many materials like plastics or paper the contaminants cannot always be removed or the chemical structure is altered such that they cannot be a perfect substitute for virgin materials.

    So if the economics are favoring using virgin raw materials instead of recycling existing refined materials, we're doing something really wrong.

    Or it means that it is a more difficult problem than you are presuming. It sounds like it should be easier but unless the energy inputs for the raw materials are very high (like for aluminum) for processing raw materials relative to recycled there is no particular reason to presume that recycling should be more energy or labor efficient than processing from raw materials. It sounds good on paper but that doesn't mean the economics work out nicely in the real world.

    1. Re:Recycling is more complicated than people think by Megane · · Score: 2

      That cracked.com link also points out a general problem with the general level of human stupidity. (a person is smart, people are dumb)

      So first of all, for the love of all that is good and holy (also, my work gloves), do not put things that are drenched in your bodily fluids in the recycling bin. Piss-soaked bed liners and used diapers and, holy shit, bloody tampons just end up going to the landfill via a more roundabout route. I suppose I can understand the mindset -- not knowing any better, people assume everything under the Sun can be crapped in, cleansed with fire, and then reused. I hate to say it, but that's just not how it works.

      (etc.) People also put the stupidest crap into the Goodwill donation bins. I know because they have a "salvage outlet" store here where they take the stuff the either doesn't sell or they don't want to take the time to put it on a regular store shelf, and put into enormous bins for people to go all shark feeding frenzy over. Though at least they don't go as far as stuff with bodily fluids and excrement all over it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  19. What a load of crap by cgoodric · · Score: 2

    My brother runs the recycling facility for Waste Management out of Port of Tacoma. It serves most of the northwest area. They are making money hand over fist. He says that WM is expanding it's recycling business, not shrinking it.