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."

19 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 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
    2. 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!
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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...

    8. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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=

  6. 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.
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. 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...
  9. 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.