Slashdot Mirror


Some Recycling Is Now Being Re-Routed To Landfills (wral.com)

"Thousands of tons of material left curbside for recycling in dozens of U.S. cities and towns -- including several in Oregon -- have gone to landfills," reports the New York Times. Slashdot reader schwit1 summarizes their report: One big reason: China has essentially shut the door to U.S. recyclables. The Times notes that about a third of recyclables gets shipped abroad, with China the biggest importer. But starting this year, China imposed strict rules on what it will accept, effectively banning most of it. That, the Times reports, has forced many recycling companies who can't find other takers to dump recyclables into landfills.
"Recyclers in Canada, Australia, Britain, Germany and other parts of Europe have also scrambled to find alternatives," reports the Times, though most major U.S. cities aren't affected, and countries like India, Vietnam and Indonesia are now importing more materials.

But at least some recycling companies are simply stockpiling material, "while looking for new processors, or hoping that China reconsiders its policy."

166 comments

  1. All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    in one place. But no, let's mine asteroids first!

    LOL.

    1. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that incidence of unusable materials (soiled food containers and other non-recyclables) lowers the value and it is no longer worth shipping.

      Let's sit back and watch US workers rush forward for garbage-picking jobs and deliver those resources.

      Yep, it is not economical to hire Americans to pick through it either. Maybe sometime in the future, after the collapse of society, the next iteration can mine those old landfills and fulfill your vision

    2. Re: All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll do it.

    3. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China wants to manufacture billions of phones, televisions, computers and other things, but stick everyone else with the waste. Fuck You. Either China takes all waste resulting from everything manufactured in China, or we tell them to fuck off and we stop allowing their goods to be sold here.

    4. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd.. there was a time when the US use to manufacture things yet they did not take the garbage back.

      WIll the US take all waste from manufacturing things "made in the USA" as well?

    5. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd.. there was a time when the US use to manufacture things yet they did not take the garbage back.

      WIll the US take all waste from manufacturing things "made in the USA" as well?

      I see nothing wrong with that. If you made it, you are responsible for all the garbage.

    6. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially the Shelby Mustang, amirite?

    7. Re: All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no. You were dumb enough to buy it, you recycle it.

    8. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to sort other people's garbage for minimum wage or do you want to be a Space Miner! ?

    9. Re:All these refined materials by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      I'm thinking one day there will be a booming mining industry at many city dumps.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, that's my point. If some sort of fully automated magical technology to extract valuable elements from random stuff is created, it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to use it on landfills than to add the non-existent technology of targeting asteroids, landing on them, somehow being able to use machinery in microgravity and deep cold, completely error-free, sending it back to Earth, and all that with years before seeing material.

      I know I'd try it on Earth first, and there's no lack of dumpsites.

    11. Re: All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Apple still had their own factories, US market Apple products used to be made mostly in the US. You are very right about the cars though.

    12. Re:All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it is not economical to hire Americans to pick through it either. Maybe sometime in the future, after the collapse of society, the next iteration can mine those old landfills and fulfill your vision

      Hire some Mexicans to do it, or build a wall and enjoy the landfills. I don't care.

    13. Re: All these refined materials by Rakarra · · Score: 0

      No no no. You were dumb enough to buy it, you recycle it.

      If you force people to be responsible for the post-life disposal of their every items, then they'll just dump them by the side of the road, because they can.

    14. Re: All these refined materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If some sort of fully automated magical technology to extract valuable elements from random stuff is created"

      I have a new blockchain quantum cloud app that does just that!

    15. Re:All these refined materials by onepoint · · Score: 2

      You might be old enough to have walked into some of the old dumps as a kid, I did and what did I discover ... auto parts, houses, pipes, batteries and every assortment of things in a home.

      What is currently being mined in old dumps is the methane. If they can start pumping in higher oxygen air into the lower layers ( which, btw is low in O and does not rot very quickly it's like the bottom of the ocean ) you'll effectively start the decomposing processes faster, and if you can get that to kick in, the organics will produce more usable gases. once it dries up, then mine away for the heavy metals.

      I bet there is a lot of gold from old computers tossed into dumps

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    16. Re:All these refined materials by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Next best option is "thermal recycling" for power generation. That way it doesn't totally go to waste, but filthier coal is preferred. Luckily for the US, the recycling quotas are dismally low compared to Europe.

    17. Re:All these refined materials by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      I bet there is a lot of gold from old computers tossed into dumps

      Yes, I remember going through the city dump when I was kid. I was a small town so there was basically no rules on what you could or couldn't dump there. One of the thing that I remember was the amount of copper there. Copper pipes and copper wire. So yeah, there is a lot of heavy metals in these old dumps.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    18. Re:All these refined materials by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      False! It all lasted forever. Quality.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  2. Just now? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jesus tits. They've been sending lots of recycling to landfills, forever.

    Paper and colored glass recycling is just a show. Getting you to sort your trash is just conditioning you to do what your told.

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

      Go live in a garbage dump you clod.

    2. Re:Just now? by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      In related news: on days when my recycling driver is sick, the garbage truck picks up the recycing.

      --
      227-3517
    3. Re:Just now? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Funny

      Stalin was a Georgian. Let's nuke Atlanta.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Just now? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Jesus tits.

      Thanks for that imagery.

      [ Condolences to Catholics, who will have to power through Confession ... ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Just now? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The last time a recycling truck came by my house, it seemed like a Grateful Dead tour bus. I'm not kidding. Really laid back dudes.

    6. Re:Just now? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a vegan.

      No he wasn't. He ate eggs and dairy.

    7. Re:Just now? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah. And Hitler was Austrian.

      G'day, mate!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Just now? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      So Hitler was a vegetarian.

      Which is proof that being vegan makes you a better person than vegetarians!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    9. Re:Just now? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      When I hear "Jesus tits" I always think of that scene.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    10. Re:Just now? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Channelling my Uncle. Way before that movie. He could cuss for an hour, without repeating himself once. When I was 6, I was in awe.

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

      Fun fact: "Vegan" is the native-American word for "bad hunter."

    12. Re: Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably also ate animal fats and other non-vegetarian things. He only didn't eat meat for medical reasons.

    13. Re:Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a fact. There is no information related to that. It was probably concocted by meat-eaters.

    14. Re:Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler also only had one testicle, which is proof for people with less than 2 testicles being evil.

    15. Re:Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to my SJW friends, testicles make you evil, we were very lucky he only had one.

    16. Re:Just now? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      According to all my SJW friends, testicles make you evil, we were very lucky he only had one.

    17. Re:Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:Just now? by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Jesus tits. They've been sending lots of recycling to landfills, forever.

      This is correct. A lot of "recycling" isn't actually made of recyclables - people throw in stuff (mostly various types of plastic) that they assume is recyclable, but actually isn't. So at the waste processing plant these things get removed and thrown in with the rest of the (non-recyclable) garbage. Other things are theoretically recyclable (and have the recycling sign on it) but very few places have the capabilitiy to recycle them, or there just isn't a market demand for these materials. It's fairly easy to obtain statistics - both of the "contamination rate" (things found in recycling bins that shouldn't be there) and the % of actual recyclables that get sold to someone for reuse instead of just landfilled or burned. There is also the "diversion rate", the % of recyclable materials that make it into the recycling bins (instead of being thrown in with the "regular" garbage and ending up in the landfill by definition).

      Paper and colored glass recycling is just a show. Getting you to sort your trash is just conditioning you to do what your told.

      Now, this is the type of sweeping general statement that just doesn't make any sense. At all. It shows that you are reading in your ideological positions into this issue instead of looking at the facts.

      Sure, there may be places where "recycling" is just a scam for show - the local government wants to appear to be tackling the garbage problem, while really not doing so. This may be the case where you live. I don't know. However I do know this is NOT the general case.

      Example: In the city where I currently live, municipally-organized recycling is very poorly organized, and, up until a few years ago, did not actually exist. Yet, the poorest of urban residents, primarily from the Roma (Gypsy) community, have for decades made a living by recycling. It is a common sight to see them wheeling carts on the street, scowering the dumpsters for recyclable material. Mostly, they collect cardboard and paper. The second most common is metal (from the dumpsters, I mean - metal recycling is of course the most lucrative recycling business but scrap metal is not found on a large scale in household dumpsters, but elsewhere) - you see people picking cans out of the trash, flattening them, and packing them. I have also seen them collect glass and PET bottles. They sell this to someone...and not to the city or some other government entity. Someone is using these raw materials. So clearly, if one is able to make (an admittedly meagre) living out of picking recyclables out of dumpsters, large-scale, organized recycling in advanced countries is not "just for show".

      On the point of sorting: actually, in many places you DON'T have to sort the different types of recyclables any more. You have to just sort the recyclables from the non-recyclables (2 bins). There are machines that can now sort the recyclables automatically. A lot cities have gone from multiple recycling bins to one. This has its problems, but generally encourages people to recycle more.

    19. Re:Just now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my town and bigger region we've only had recyclables, and non recyclables. And glass which is an old thing and correlated to alcoholism.
      Heard someone make a stink that recyclables are routinely burned at the incinerator. But well, as the story was that this allows a better burn, I don't see any wrong in it. Non recyclables have the wet, squishy content while recyclables are dry and full of paper and cardboard so an amount of recyclable garbage is kept on hand to be burn when the garbage crematorium isn't burning right. This probably avoids some pollution.

    20. Re:Just now? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They're burning gas, to maintain the temperature. Plastic is 15 kinds of nasty when it's not burned really hot.

      Glass, alcoholism...nonsense. Vodka bottles are relatively tiny, glass is associated with beer houndism. Beer is food.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Well then, it's time to open some domestic plants. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    C'mon, Trump! Didn't you promise jobs? Here's your opportunity.

  4. Nationalism vs. Globalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should take this new opportunity to reconsider foreign entanglements - there's no real reason every country can't be responsible for recycling their own waste. There's no good reason we should expect the 3rd world to handle our garbage.

    1. Re: Nationalism vs. Globalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm labor costs? If someone else wants your waste for less... why should we care (assuming they aren't laying waste to the general environment).

  5. Recycling in NZ used to work... by ClarkMills · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When recycling started big time here in NZ we had open recycling crates that were great, everyone could see what was in the bin, not so good for privacy [you drink too much wine]. Later they changed them to larger lidded wheelie bins and then the recycling content was degraded significantly as no-one could see the crap that was being put in there. No doubt China didn't appreciate the hugely lowered quality of recycling material that they were getting.

    I suspect we're not the only country that is guilty of this...

    1. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by labnet · · Score: 2

      WA is using a few transparent bins to 'raise a conversation'
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
      They should make this mandatory for recyling bins so you can see if people are contaminating it.
      Fun Fact: I heard pizza boxes are not recyclable because of all the oil from the pizza soaking into the cardboard!

      --
      46137
    2. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Fun Fact: I heard pizza boxes are not recyclable because of all the oil from the pizza soaking into the cardboard!

      As an aside: They can usually go in yard waste, if you get the option.

    3. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      well, NZ was not the problem. The problem was a combination. CHina said that they could take the items single stream. BUT, they expected things to remain at similar levels. BUT, that is not what happened. What happens is that ppl just switch to putting ALL garbage in the recycle. That includes banana peels, pizza boxes, etc. Not good.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is funny, because banana peels and pizza boxes are both things that would be fine to dump in the middle of the forest. Nature recycles them a lot better than we do.

    5. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Don't assume that change happened countrywide - I'm in Cambridge, Waikato and we still have open crates for tins, glass and plastic, and we use cardboard boxes for cardboard and paper.

      I know for a fact that this is the way it's done across the Waikato.

    6. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When recycling started big time here in NZ we had open recycling crates that were great, everyone could see what was in the bin, not so good for privacy [you drink too much wine]. Later they changed them to larger lidded wheelie bins and then the recycling content was degraded significantly as no-one could see the crap that was being put in there. No doubt China didn't appreciate the hugely lowered quality of recycling material that they were getting.

      What people have found was the old sorted recycling bins didn't work - people did participate, but only to a minor degree. Something like it was only really capturing 20% of available recyclable materials - the stuff people really knew they could recycle. The rules of what went in which bin or bag was just complex enough that unless you knew, it would go into the trash because it was just too complex.

      In fact, for a time, the plastic recycling was limited to a few numbers - and you had to know what the item plastic number was and what was supported. This turned out to be horrendously complex, that they now just say the item type - e.g., plastic water bottles, yogurt cups, etc. Enough so that other than a few items (e.g., plastic bags), almost anything plastic can go in.

      Revolutions in machine vision and learning made it possible to do "single stream" recycling, where you just put it all in a single bin and let the machines figure it out. It turns out participation and recovery rates dramatically rise when this happens, so even though the quality is lower, the amount recovered is greater.

      And really things like paper degrade very quickly, so even degraded, it can be composted - recycling of paper is far less important than capturing plastics which last far longer in the environment (years and decades) and cause all sorts of issues (pollution - when they break up into microplastics and get swallowed by animals, and the great plastic patches of the world simply accelerate this process.) So it's better to capture plastic.

      Glass? That's almost too easy to recycle, But also glass is non-economical to recycle... used glass just doesn't sell for much.

    7. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fun Fact: I heard pizza boxes are not recyclable because of all the oil from the pizza soaking into the cardboard!

      So, seeing this statement I started googling around a bit and it seems like several US newspapers have ran this story.
      When I looked up the same things in Swedish (My current place of residence.) sources I got search results directly from organizations dealing with recycling and they all say that pizza boxes should be recycled with other cardboard packaging.

      That makes me think that there are three possible scenarios:
      1) Non-recyclable pizza-boxes is an urban myth floating around in the US and the recycling centers don't have a problem with it.
      2) Swedish recycling plants uses a different method that can handle the oils just fine.
      3) US pizzas have unhealthy amounts of oil in them to the extent where they soak through the box.

      All options are fixable and preferable to not recycling pizza boxes.

    8. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nature recycles them a lot better than we do.

      No it doesn't.

      Our recycling process involves using to to generate natural gas and organic fertilizers.
      If left out in the forest the gas is just let out as a greenhouse gas and while fertilizing the forest may be a good thing it is better to use it to replace less benign fertilizers in agriculture.

    9. Re: Recycling in NZ used to work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm I pull the pizza box apart in 2 parts, recycle the top and throw away the soiled bottom.

    10. Re: Recycling in NZ used to work... by nnull · · Score: 1

      It doesn't solve anything. It will just force people to dump on the side of the road and good luck trying to figure out who did that.

      California has had some of the most ridiculous laws regarding waste, specifically about TVs and electronics. What did people do? Dump all that crap on empty land. It wasn't until they started making the dump take this stuff for free and putting up signs for it did this side dumping stop.

      But it still didn't solve the waste problem at all however. I'm sure the random dumping of trash will crop back up with China not taking our waste. Seems nobody wants to solve this over a century problem other than finding a place to dump it all on.

    11. Re:Recycling in NZ used to work... by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Fun Fact: I heard pizza boxes are not recyclable because of all the oil from the pizza soaking into the cardboard!

      Fun fact: outside of North America, we don't usually soak our pizzas in oil (and assorted fats).

      Seriously, the pizza box has a separate cardboard "tray" inside that soaks up anything that leaks (fat, sauce, wayward toppings). Since the pizza is not leaking like crazy (as with would be the case with the Pizza Pizzas and Dominos of this world), you can usually just throw away that tray, and the rest of the box is dry and can be recycled.

  6. Those evil Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    filling up our cities with our own waste! They act with impunity! Something has to be done about the chinese! // The average American

  7. Let's be clear... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...China wasn't taking it because it's some sort of a utopia of recycling.

    This story makes it sound like because of Trump, recycling isn't happening any more. Recycling (of these items that are no longer going to China) WAS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENING. It was being taken out of the sight of effete righteous dilettante Westerners who didn't want to *actually* deal with the hard choices of their 'recycling life style'...and essentially being dumped around the corner in the poor people's neighborhood.

    The US is *awash* in recycled paper and plastics. Nobody wants them. Nobody can use them. Even National Geographic, the MOST self-righteously environmental organization, prints its magazine on virgin clay-coated paper, justifying its choice to refuse recycled base by its mission to deliver stunning photography being more important than the small amount of recycled paper it might consume. (Until very recently it wasn't really even recyclable after.
    That's rationalized HOGWASH.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Let's be clear... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're almost half-right. The Economist magazine has been following this closely. China has long been one of the main destinations for plastic and - especially - paper refuse from western countries. They recycle it into new cardboard packaging for the next round of shipped goods.
      Likewise plastic waste is recycled into other plastics. They *could* do that pretty efficiently until recently as their labor costs have risen.
      A positive side-effect for them is to watch us squirm under the weight of our own waste.

    2. Re:Let's be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling (of these items that are no longer going to China) WAS NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

      I'm going to need a citation for that. Thx.

    3. Re:Let's be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness, I spent a year in China. I lived in a building which would have been at minimum middle class (no one there was poor). People would literally throw bags of trash out their window, over a fence and into the next yard where it would pile up. Something tells me the Chinese don't mind the trash as much as we do. I mean these people could have walked down the stairs and put their trash in the communal bin for pickup. That inconvenience was worse to them than just living next to a trash pile. More than one apartment did this.

    4. Re:Let's be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, bullshit. This was a test shot of economic warfare. The Chinese were deliberately measuring how long it will take western economies to react to their economic warfare. The Trumpites stumbled into common sense, that destroying steel industry is crucial to winning a war against the west. They've bet that PV, steel and aluminum are crucial for modern economies, and that those are the weak points in western economies. They're right, and they're planning to conquer the world.

    5. Re:Let's be clear... by jmccue · · Score: 1

      100 % correct except for one thing --

      Even National Geographic, the MOST self-righteously environmental organization

      National Geographic Magazine is now owned by Murdoch/Fox, about as far as from the environment as a company can get. BTW I let my subscription lapse after the third in a row issue with a large article about the Holy land. See

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    6. Re:Let's be clear... by ortholattice · · Score: 1

      Since Murdoch (Fox News owner) now owns the National Geographic magazine as well, it doesn't surprise me they give lip service to recycling, saying whatever sells the most magazines to that demographic.

    7. Re:Let's be clear... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Most apartments outside China have trash chutes in the hall. So you don't have to carry it downstairs and it lands in a dumpster, where it can be picked up by truck.

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

      China was an utopia for recycling because of cost and transport reasons. The paper product manufacturers would import paper waste on container ships from the west because the shipping rates were very cheap.

    9. Re:Let's be clear... by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      This is literally a lie packaged to sound reasonable. Most of the plastic that is being rejected is the "dirty plastic". The kind that is effectively impossible to recycle without it costing you an arm and a leg, because you need to do so much separation of crap from actually usable plastic. Which is why it's usually against the agreements to ship it for recycling.

      Which was utterly ignored by clear majority of companies shipping it to China.

      If you're shipping clean, recyclable plastic, they seem to be still taking it. At least last report I saw on EU exports stated that there are still exports of plastic for recycling going out to China and being received there. Just in much smaller numbers. Which indicates that those few that provide recyclable plastic as they were supposed to are still shipping to China.

      Everyone else however is fucked, and that's a clear majority in EU and US. They'll still take your nice clean plastics that can just be melted into reusable plastic. They just don't want Western garbage being sold as "recyclable" in their land fills any more.

    10. Re:Let's be clear... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      They don't do that in Guangzhou anymore, where in the last 4-5 years I've been seeing people getting ticketed for simply tossing their trash over the fence surrounding the bins and the like. (And no, not some tourist area--this is a very typical neighbourhood where there's little if any signage using Latin characters and I'm more often than not the only Caucasian in sight.) I can't speak for other areas, but the authorities in Guangdong really started cracking down on littering, etc. a few years ago, and you can readily see the difference, at least in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhuhai.

      (They also banned most vehicles with 2-cycle motors 3-4 years ago in the cities, and the difference in the air quality--especially in Shenzhen!--is almost unbelievable.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re: Let's be clear... by nnull · · Score: 1

      It's ok, the supply for virgin paper is low, the prices have sky rocketed. Newsprint tariffs has also blown the prices sky high. Every printer and packaging company is panicking.

    12. Re:Let's be clear... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 2

      Need to ban some dumb things, like bottled water instead of drinking tap water. The clam shell sales packaging. Some retail packaging is very wasteful.

    13. Re:Let's be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when I buy bottled water it's for the container. I reuse the bottle, by putting water in it. I love the 50cl bottles in particular, much to drink while small and light enough, unbreakable. After a few days the bottle gets less and less safe to use because it's contaminated by micro-organisms. So, an old bottle needs be thrown out unless you're using it for a non-drinking purpose.

    14. Re:Let's be clear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my country all these chutes were condemned. I think they were conduits for unwanted animal life to climb in. They were also probably used incorrectly by people throwing their unwanted stuff, up to and including newborn babies.
      When these apartment buildings were built, elongated because you can use a crane on rails, there was an economic boom, families coming in due to decolonization, and a housing shortage that still lingered from WW2. There was no unemployment and people were still educated back then i.e. beaten by their fathers when they were small etc.
      Decades later the buildings are old and creaky, mostly unwanted and poor people are living there and the lack of soundproofing makes living there undesirable as well, unless it was a good apartment building.

  8. Nanotechnology Recycling by resistant · · Score: 1

    I realize some people will label this as uber-technological overoptimism, but I've always thought that the trash problem will ultimately be solved once and for all by a self-reproducing nanobot ecology that hunts down abandoned materials such as iron, copper, glass, and so forth for ultra-clean recycling. The notoriously appalling Great Pacific garbage patch -- gone. Active and closed landfills around the world -- emptied out, thoroughly sanitized, and turned into recreation parks. Centuries of trash dumped overboard onto the ocean floor by uncaring sailors and passengers -- poof. Sure, it'll probably take centuries to hunt down every last glass shard from broken bottles, every last rusty nail hiding a few feet under the soil in former construction sites, every last potsherd buried in the muck of the Marianas Trench alongside ancient sunken ships, and so on and on, but the trillions of future nanobots are relentless and powered by unending energy from fusion reactors and sunlight from orbital collectors.

    In the meantime, I'm supportive of initiatives to burn combustible trash for energy and to seek even more efficient ways to extract as much reusable metal as possible from current trash streams. If they make economic sense, why not? Those trillions of nanobots might not arrive for decades yet, and every gram of metal saved today is a gram that needn't be freshly mined from gigantic holes in the ground.

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
    1. Re:Nanotechnology Recycling by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And once those nanobots start recycling things we're still using and don't want to recycle, we'll finally have the monkey revolution.

      Planet of the apes, here we come!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Nanotechnology Recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you have your nanobots.

      How do you:
      A) Find a generic means of separating every trash that exists?
      B) What happens to the trash once hunted down and broken into its components? These are nanobots, not nanotransporters.
      C) Deliver your "unending energy from fusion reactors and sunlight" to these tiny nanobots buried in trash?
      D) Manufactor those "trillions of nanobots" without waste?

      The 'traditional' solution is self-replication using energy and materials from the waste-separation itself (this does limit the trash that can be processed), but of course this creates:

      E) How do you prevent these nanobots from evolving to consume stuff that shouldn't be consumed - especially humans - as their own food source dries up?

      All in all, I wouldn't label OP as 'uber-technological overoptimist', but as someone who should refine his thoughts by thinking through the implications of his own solution.

    3. Re:Nanotechnology Recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pull apart the molecules.

      Nanoscale bucket brigade.

      Use the broken molecules.

      Have them make each other from waste.

      They aren't alive so wont ever evolve.

  9. Sensationalist headline as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think China was recycling anything you're insane. What typically happens is a company will take the product and either dump it, burn it or in the case of electronics possibly "recertify" and resell the damn things back into the market. Believe it or not there are companies who do nothing more then grind plastic into pelets and ship that all the way back to NA.

    We have clean burning incinerators too (in Edmonton Alberta for example), but people have a serious case of not in my backyard syndrom when it comes to their garbage. They thhink recycling is a magic mushroom in the sky that takes their garbage.

    I'm not a tree hugging lefty but even I can see the wasted resources we exert in the production of electronics just to scrap them because companies don't want to support perfectly working hardware. Nor will Governments get off their asses and REQUIRE right to repair legislation -- Hey G7.. whose going to give a shit about gender equality when you've fucked the planet?

  10. Has been hapoening here from the start. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have been separating our trash for many years now here. It all goes to the same landfill. Some in blue bags, some in green bags, it all goes in the same hole.

  11. This is why recycling is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just paying to pass the problem on to someone else.

    1. Re:This is why recycling is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Why are we discussing this then?

    2. Re:This is why recycling is bullshit by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      He's trying to pass his questioning to someone else and he found someone to recycle it for him.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  12. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Old news. My parents stopped recycling 10 YEARS ago when they saw the recycling truck emptying at the same landfill as the garbage.

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

      In which country is that?

  13. I won't cum in your mouth by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    and we are running out of landfill space.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  14. Re:Oh no! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Follow your leader, immolate yourself.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Problem with letting policy lead the market by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    The market doesn’t follow if it’s not profitable to do so, and recycling will never be profitable..
      or even be revenue neutral.

    Large segments of our western society believe recycling is important. An even larger segment - which broadly overlaps with the first, somehow - doesn’t want to actually pay for anything.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Problem with letting policy lead the market by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Recycling doesn't have to be profitable. It just need to cost less than the alternative. As landfills fill up, it will become a scarce resource, and access to it will become costly enough to justify recycling instead.

    2. Re:Problem with letting policy lead the market by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not quite true. Steel is cheaply recyclable and easy to sort. Aluminum is very easy to sort, and has the most profitability. Plastic on the other hand? Plastic it's cheaper to make more then recycle it. Most plastic in Canada is mixed with car tires at cement factories to make clink. Same in the US, especially since you guys like cement highways far more then we do up here.

      Paper? Forget it. Should be burned or dumped into pits for methane gas retrieval, and used for power. Cheaper and more environmentally friendly to plant more trees. Then breaking it down, de-inking, re-bleaching, and reprocessing it.

      Electronics? That's a hard one, especially with all the lead. Switching to tin didn't do us any favors in that one either. Simply more e-waste as electronics fail at a higher rate.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Problem with letting policy lead the market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL yes. And when I used to point that out, everyone called me a polluter, because they bought the lie that they were actually doing something good and they thought I wasn't. In reality, I was just aware of what we were both doing. It's like pot. Turns out it doesn't cause instant dementia. Who'd a thought?

    4. Re:Problem with letting policy lead the market by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Paper? Forget it. Should be burned or dumped into pits for methane gas retrieval, and used for power. Cheaper and more environmentally friendly to plant more trees. Then breaking it down, de-inking, re-bleaching, and reprocessing it.

      Where, exactly?

      Maybe in North America it's cheaper with its vast empty (of people and farms) landscapes with endless forests. In places like Europe...I don't think so. I mean, the industry lobbying body says itself that "we want every fiber back...it’s our precious raw material". Furthermore they say 88% of corrugated boxes are made from recycled material...so why would they be doing this if it were cheaper to just cut down fresh trees? Well, because it isn't cheaper to cut down fresh trees.

    5. Re:Problem with letting policy lead the market by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Take your pick. It's not hard to do, you could be importing pulp from Russia. Or you could be doing sustainable forestry like Canada but you're not. You make large tracts of new growth forest environmentally protected then, environmentalists start whining when companies go to harvest it. Of course they want all those waste products back, existing policies are counter productive to a variety of other methods.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  16. Time to burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost every locale has a story about someone following the local recycle truck to the same dump the garbage goes to. Global warming is real, but recycling for the most part is not.

            It's time for the US to start investing in high efficiency incinerators like much of Europe already does.

  17. What a great world we are leaving our kids by rojash · · Score: 0

    And of course the Republicans are part of the fucking problem.

    1. Re:What a great world we are leaving our kids by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The real problem is too many people. So anyone with more than two kids is part of the fucking problem.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:What a great world we are leaving our kids by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      So that's why the news tell us that you millenials are having less sex than pretty much anyone in modern age. You think that having sex means having a "fucking problem".

    3. Re:What a great world we are leaving our kids by rojash · · Score: 1

      Having religions in this world that makes their minions believe that having more kids is THE way to spread their religion is THE fucking problem. Wait, I forgot the point of this fucking thread. Was it about fucking at all ? And all that fucking lead to kids ? Everytime ? Really ??

  18. Good. We need to take responsibility. by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is really sad that we think of ourselves as the most advanced country in the world and yet almost nothing we do is truly sustainable. We take pride in protecting our children and yet consume resources at an alarming rate.

    We should be working toward creating systems and infrastructure that is 100% sustainable even if adopted by all of the world's population. That is simply responsible engineering.

    It is only cheaper to just landfill the materials because we aren't considering the costs our children will incur in trying to separate out the materials after decades of degradation because natural deposits in easy to remove concentrations are running out.

    We should at least estimate that cost and force companies that don't accomplish (not just provide for) 100% recycling to charge for the future costs of material leakage from the pipeline and bank the money in public funds for our children.

    1. Re:Good. We need to take responsibility. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's not the only cost to future generations that we need to think about--and hey, the future is already here.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  19. Yeah, blame China by execthis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China rejects the extremely low-grade American "recyclables" that are very poorly separated from other forms of waste.

    Blame China for large amounts being subsequently sent to landfills.

    Bullshit.

    I have personally witnessed materials placed in recycling bins at a company I worked at in the Bay Area being collected by a non-recycling, waste truck.

    Visit any business' waste dumpster in the Bay Area and you will see more recyclable materials than other types of waste.

    Recycling is mostly a lie. It's a way for politicians to score green points.

    1. Re:Yeah, blame China by bobby · · Score: 1

      I have personally witnessed materials placed in recycling bins at a company I worked at in the Bay Area being collected by a non-recycling, waste truck.

      I'm not so sure- "single-stream" recycling means the truck used doesn't matter.

      I completely agree that too many "Americans" refuse to recycle properly- I witness it all the time everywhere, and I fish recyclables out of trash cans too frequently.

      I know of small cities where recycling "didn't work" and they put it all into incineration and use the heat. I don't like that either, for many reasons. You certainly lose the value of the things forever.

    2. Re:Yeah, blame China by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think they're not really recycling like people assume they are. Some things are easily recyclable, other things are hard. Electronics are VERY hard. Getting a new phone every year is essentially the same thing as throwing your phone into a landfill every year. Even compostable items don't really go to compost.

    3. Re:Yeah, blame China by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      actually, no. Northern Europe is doing things like Electronics correctly. Basically, they are burning items to completion, gaining electricity from it, while at the same time, having concentrated elements. The concentrated elements can then be separated.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Yeah, blame China by execthis · · Score: 1

      I know that recycling in Germany is vastly different than in America. It is required to recycle and if you don't, or don't separate properly, you are fined. Stores which sell products in recyclable containers are required to accept those containers back.

      Recycling in America is appalling. Perhaps the mafia-controlled Big Waste companies which pushed for non-separated recycling have something to do with it. In my city there once were independent recyclers whom a building could opt to serve them and collect recyclables, but the mafia-run Big Waste got a monopoly from the city and the smaller, much better independent companies were forced out of business.

      And yes - if you examine the contents of a typical businesses' dumpster - all of which goes to landfill - you will find that the vast majority of the contents are recyclables.

    5. Re:Yeah, blame China by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      Some things are easily recyclable, other things are hard. Electronics are VERY hard.

      That puzzles me a bit. Compared to digging into the ground and melting various minerals, often with a low density and "polluted" by other minerals, one should think that the same process with electronics where the density is high should be easier.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    6. Re:Yeah, blame China by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Recycling in Germany isn't very different then recycling in Canada. We have electronics waste funds and all the other stuff, but you can easily find with a bit of digging the number of companies in Germany shipping e-waste right to China, Vietnam, and other poor 3rd world countries for disposal. You're laboring under the delusion that there's some difference, there isn't. It was simply fools told by idiots that it was a good idea, leading idiots and fools to make everyone feel good, and people ahead of the curve to ship the waste and "make it someone else's problem." American recycling is just out in the open, other countries are simply putting a shiny bit of polish on all that garbage.

      Its the same environmentalists that screech for recycling, that protest waste-to-energy plants, or waste separation facilities being built at all. Or environmental groups tying up the building of them for literal decades in court, or environmental regulations. In turn, those companies "deal" with the waste by sending it to 3rd party companies aka put on a ship and sent to the asshole of nowhere. This isn't any different then them telling you windmills and solar panels are REALLY GOOD for the environment, until you do the research yourself and find that the materials going into making it do far more damage to the environment then say, building a nuclear power plant.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:Yeah, blame China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is with ore, you know what it mostly consist of and is fairly easily to separate in their natural states. In Electronic, you get a large mix of random crap including various alloys, some of which may be similar to other making it much harder to separate especially when you don't even know what it consist of to begin with.

      Specialized separation is much easier then general separation especially when you don't know what your input material consist of to begin with.

    8. Re:Yeah, blame China by WorBlux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The stuff that's really valuable (metals) doesn't get consumed, and honestly it takes about as much energy to make plastic as you get out of burning it. And you don't need a huge supply chain to do it, you can dispose of waste locally and cleanly. Thow in the sewer solids while you're at it.

    9. Re:Yeah, blame China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The worse part is when they release articles about how China is having a hard time with plastic bags trash being released into the ocean. Meanwhile the whole time all the Western nations were sending all their trash and plastic bags to China.

    10. Re:Yeah, blame China by bobby · · Score: 1

      Thanks! If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

    11. Re:Yeah, blame China by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      An awful lot of the recyclables in China were simply dumped in landfills. I recall a BBC story of a few years ago where reporters found the bank statements of a man in UK, and rang him to tell him where his trash was going. The container ships were returning to China anyway and they simply made more money by importing trash and dumping it.

  20. Waste by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    The US isn't running out of room in it's landfills. You can put a modern landfill just about anywhere. The limiting factor is nobody wants a landfill in their county.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/...

    The other factor is we are throwing away less and less garbage per person, as packaging becomes more efficient. 30 years ago nearly everything you bought in a store came in it's own box, even if it was already in a tube or dispenser. Wal-mart forced companies to do away with the extra box to save money.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Waste by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Wal-mart forced companies to do away with the extra box to save money.

      You just wrote a fact about Wal-mart doing something good. I can't wait to see the replies you get!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for volunteering your neighborhood.

    3. Re:Waste by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Who needs landfills? Sweden's got along fine without them for some years now. (And we're not the only ones.)

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

      Your reference refutes your claim. Sweden has landfills.

    5. Re:Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the line under restrictions? Yes, in Sweden there are a few things that may be put in landfills:

      * sorted cinder from burnt waste at energy reclamation centers,
      * poisoned soil where pollutants are so high that it is a hazard to people and the environment, and
      * asbestos from sanitized buildings

      Essentially things that cannot be recycled any more and the safest way is to deposit them in specially designated areas so they do as little harm as possible.

      You are technically right that this is a landfill, but it is not the type of landfill we mean when talking about wasteful use of recyclable resources. The type of landfill where you deposit recyclables or type of landfill where you put all kinds of unsorted garbage are forbidden in Sweden and several other countries.

  21. everyone should go visit their local recycling.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone should go visit their local recycling facility to see what is going on (my local facility offers guided tours)... you might not see the whole truth, but that's a start. I only recycle aluminum and plastic, everything else goes in the trash... especially pape/cardboard.

  22. What do you mean some?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you honestly think that recyclables that aren't separated from the beginning actually end up in a recycling facility?

    Over 90% of recyclables end up in landfills. While a lot of people are doing their part by separating trash from recyclables, the trash companies are just dumping everything into the same landfills.

  23. NY Trash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if it includes recyclables, but NY sends a trainload of something to someplace south of DC. It really stinks up the air when I'm waiting for the commuter train.

  24. non-whites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the vast majority of people with more than two kids are not white.

    what are you going to do about it, cuck?

    1. Re: non-whites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I going to do about it? Nothing
      When shit finally hits the fan in these overpopulated countries I will not help.
      http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pakistans-water-crisis-ticking-time-bomb-24347

  25. China did the RIGHT THING by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    What is really needed is for nations to start recycling their own goods and to do a lot less manufacturing offshore and instead, move it on-shore.
    Why? Because the pollution from just 16 of China's ships is more than what the world does with vehicles. Now that is pollution,not CO2. Still, we need to stop this insanity.

    Hopefully, the west will get smart about this. Just go into old mines and put the various sorted elements for future recycling. And as to the un-wanted elements, such as mercury, lead, etc, those will likely be wanted somewhere down the road. So again, stash them in old mines.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do Tesla make ships? 1 Tesla ship per year will solve the worlds pollution problems once and for all.

    2. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree completely with the opinions expressed above, with just a slight hesitancy when considering the situation from the perspective of comparative advantage. However:

      ... the pollution from just 16 of China's ships is more than what the world does with vehicles. Now that is pollution,not CO2.

      While I could probably spend some time searching t'internet to verify this, any chance you could provide a link to the source you obtained this interesting nugget from please?

    3. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sure. This leads right to a bunch of links
      Here is one that is not sensationalist about it.
      Wiki
      Basically, CHina COULD decide to clean up the oil that they burn in those ships, but, that would mean major cost increases for exports.
      Instead, they use the cheapest, which means almost straight oil.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sensationalist nonsense from the daily fail.

      Burning bunker fuel is responsible for 13% of the world’s sulfur dioxide pollution each year, along with 15% of the world’s NOx pollution, according to the IOM (pdf).

      There are over 50, 000 such ships burning bunker fuel and in total it's only a small amount of the world total. To single out a handful and then blame China, is well just Windy being Windy. If you sank those 16 ships it wouldn't even be noticeable amongst the noise.

      The only thing this tells us is that modern cars are clean. Who didn't know that already?

      Who is the biggest importer of containers? Yep USA. So stop buying so much crap if you think container ships are a problem.

    5. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sensationalist nonsense from the daily fail.

      Burning bunker fuel is responsible for 13% of the world’s sulfur dioxide pollution each year, along with 15% of the world’s NOx pollution, according to the IOM (pdf).

      There are over 50,000 such ships burning bunker fuel and in total it's only a small amount of the world total. To single out a handful and then blame China, is well just Windy being Windy. If you sank those 16 ships it wouldn't even be noticeable amongst the noise.

      The only thing this tells us is that modern cars are clean. Who didn't know that already?

      Who is the biggest importer of containers? Yep USA. So stop buying so much crap if you think container ships are a problem.

    6. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sensationalist nonsense from the daily fail.

      Burning bunker fuel is responsible for 13% of the world’s sulfur dioxide pollution each year, along with 15% of the world’s NOx pollution, according to the IOM (pdf).

      There are over 50 thousand such ships burning bunker fuel and in total it's only a small amount of the world total. To single out a handful and then blame China, is well just Windy being Windy. If you sank those 16 ships it wouldn't even be noticeable amongst the noise.

      The only thing this tells us is that modern cars are clean. Who didn't know that already?

      Who is the biggest importer of containers? Yep USA. So stop buying so much crap if you think container ships are a problem.

    7. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links. I somehow missed that news report at the time.

      In fairness, however, I don't think most container ships are owned or run by China, per se. If memory serves there's only 2 or 3 really big organisations that run the vast majority of the container fleet - Maersk is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I do have a vague recollection that one of the co-operatives is largely SE Asian based. Not that it's important as such, your point was well made.

      It would, however, seem more appropriate, to me anyway, to point the finger of blame at those with control over the ships, rather than the countries they ship goods from, or to for that matter.

    8. Re:China did the RIGHT THING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have some good points. But there would be no shipping from anywhere, if there wasn't any demand. It's the destination that matters.

  26. Recycling is mostly waste by Subm · · Score: 1

    One of the great disasters in preserving the environment is the widespread belief that recycling is somehow close to reducing consumption and reusing.

    It depends on the case, but recycling is usually closer to outright waste than not consuming something, but most people seem to see recycling as nearly benign environmentally. Marketers know that slapping the word "recycle" on a product makes people think they're green, borderline tree-huggers. Now our world is drowning in garbage people think they are innocent of.

    The Story of Stuff starts putting things in perspective.

  27. This is actually interesting by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    China needs to send their ships back home with full loads. Up until their stopping recycling garbage, that 'garbage' accounted for something like 10-20% of all items going back to CHina. Now, they will have to put other resources/goods in those ships.

    What I find interesting is that CHina did this to punish Trump for his tariffs. BUT, I think that this actually helped the world. Yeah, at the moment, nations are scrambling, but this will force nations to have a surplus of elements that they can build with.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Where's the logic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Complete idiocy, it's cheaper to send them home empty if you can't find paying cargo.
    They did this before Trumps protectionist tariffs anyway, so can't be a response to them.

  29. Happening in my town by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Only thing is the mayor didn't tell anyone and they keep charging for recycling. Oh, and he's paying something like $50/ton to dump it in a landfill in the next state vs $10/ton to send it to a local recycling facility. Scandal!

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    1. Re:Happening in my town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What recycling facility? Based on this article it sounds like recycling companies just ship it to China ... How do we find out which recycling companies , you know, actually process the material?

  30. Re:Bears by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Any scent of food, and your garbage is torn apart and scattered the entire block. People just need more bears in their lives :)

    --
    [($)]
  31. Recycling takes a lot of effort... by thePsychologist · · Score: 1

    Placing paper and plastic in a bin is only one way to do it, and as the article shows, it's not very effective a lot of the time. If you care about the environment, there are more effective ways: buy used electronics like phones, instead of new. Buy recycled stuff, reusable bags. Don't put the vegetables at the grocery store in a little plastic bag. Then go out and enjoy the outdoors, which is the very thing that is being threatened by our unsustainable consumption.

    Don't give up just because our efforts don't always work.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
  32. Reuse, not recyle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A simpler solution is to reuse packaging rather than try to recycle it.

    This could be done fairly easily in the food retail industry as the supermarket chains are big players in that one and have a lot of influence over the supply chain. The chains get together to decide on a common design for all packaging, determined mostly be weight and other factors like being able to view the foodstuff i.e. vegetables. Once the packaging is standardised, they pass it to the supply chain. Granted, there will be an initial cost with replacement of relevant machinery as well as processes to ensure returned packaging is clean and fit to be reused again. Consumers can be incentivised by bringing back used packaging to the local supermarket in exchange for points which goes towards future shopping. The packaging is then sent back to the food producers who then reuse.

  33. DECADES old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huge quantities of "recycling" material in the US have been going straight into the same dumps and landfills as the other trash for DECADES. There were stories about this in the 1990s. When asked, politicians have long quietly admitted that recycling programs are mostly about a combination of feel-goodism, PR, and training the public. Depending on the economics of the markets at any given moment, glass and aluminum are most-frequently actually recycled. Paper is much less often actually recycled. Plastic contalners, not so much.

    If a REAL global war or economic depression were to break out, then the capability and capacity could come in mighty handy, but in ordinary circumstances the economics often just don't work out.

  34. Re:Well then, it's time to open some domestic plan by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    As if that lying sack of shit is actually going to do anything that doesn't directly benefit him.

    Seems to me, that if you and the parent poster really gave two fucks instead of Trump bashing. You'd be petitioning for waste to energy facilities. After all, Trump *reduced* regulations and adjusted the environmental regulations on things like that, so go on. It doesn't benefit him, but he's already created the environment to make it happen.

    Oh what? You don't want to do it. Gee it's almost like you're the same delusional idiots that believed recycling wasn't really shipping waste to another country or to a landfill in the first place.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  35. More Windy made up numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Windy made up numbers, show your work.

  36. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but in reality ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... all major cities in Germany simply throw all their trash back onto one pile, and burn it in the same plant.
    Because it is legal and it is cheaper for them. (Apparent cost. Of course the real damages from wasting valuables is huge. But if you are a moron and an asshole, long-term thinking and social thnking are not known concepts.)

  37. Oh My God. OP'er editordavid was born yesterday? by gordguide · · Score: 1

    This is the oldest process and biggest non-secret of the entire recycling industry.

    What do you do with product sent for recycling that you can't recycle? (Three guesses, first two don't count).

    Does the reason why you can't recycle it change what you do with it? (Three guesses, first two don't count).

    Too much product returned for recycling is just as common as non-recyclable material contaminating the recycle stream. Like, this had to be figured out on day one, a bazillion years ago (they've been recycling aluminum for almost as long as they've been smelting aluminum).

    Hey, it's not all bad news. In Canada, we import garbage paper from the US, because we can't get enough from domestic use to incorporate recycled content at the desired % (not because Canadians don't recycle paper, because we don't use as much as would be required; we'd import it even if recycling was 100% compliance).

    And then there are cost considerations. Sometimes the recycled product costs more to recycle than you can get for it as post-consumer waste. So you either sell it at a loss or send it to the landfill. This is rocket science?

  38. Re: Time to bring back "deposit" bottles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol. In Germany, nearly all bottles are deposit bottles. Be it glass, multi-use plastic or single-use plastic.

    And the glass ones are the cheapest, most popular, and rising in popularity, due to the bad taste and BpA or other shit from the plastic dissolving into your drinks.

    Everyone selling that stuff must take it back too.

    Maybe we're just not too retarded to think around more than one corner and realize what's coming back to bite us in the ass in the long term.

  39. It came from his ass like all his lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of his nuggety numbers are brown. and they aren't chocolate.

  40. Re: Time to bring back "deposit" bottles by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    I always found it stupid how "recycling" these days seems to involve smashing glass bottles, melting them down and then producing new glass bottles... Seems an extremely energy intensive process compared to just washing the bottles and refilling them.
    Deposit bottles should be cheaper than melting down or disposable bottles, it just needs infrastructure in place which again shouldnt be hard - a truck delivers the full bottles to a store, the customers return to the store to buy more products and in doing so take their empties, the truck returns to where it came from containing empty bottles instead of being totally empty.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  41. Re:Well then, it's time to open some domestic plan by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 0

    Lowest black unemployment rate since records were kept....DONE.

  42. Two wrongs can make a right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly, we need to sweep all the trash under low-lying coastal areas so that as climate change melts the ice caps, those areas will not be inundated.

  43. Cuba? by e3m4n · · Score: 1

    Cuba is pretty resource poor with little access to metals and plastics. We should start trading with them for recyclables. They could really use the materials.

  44. Admit Reality by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Recycling is really someone else buying your garbage. It make some people "feel good" with the concept that someone might be pulling something useful out of used toilet paper- but those same people likely buy the cheapest product which isn't anything recycled. Let's admit that "recycling" is bullsh!t and move on.

  45. Re: Oh no! by MalaysBowman · · Score: 1

    The OP does have a point, as I see this attitude with them a lot. Which raises the question of are they being "green" because it's the right thing to do, or are they just doing it to be 'cool'?

  46. Re: Time to bring back "deposit" bottles by nnull · · Score: 1

    A lot of places will clean and reuse glass bottles. This isn't anything new. But there is a limit to how many times that can be accomplished due to health concerns from your local health department.

  47. Mark it for future mining. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you have pre sorted recycling, dump all the metals in one place for future mining projects.
    Easier to refine than raw ore.

    Also pass laws banning single use plastic - everything is to be made from paper.
    no more forks, spoons, knives, bags, etc - eliminate the waste stream.

    Paper that can be mulched / shredded and at least cleanly burned for waste generated power plants.

  48. Re: Time to bring back "deposit" bottles by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    I'd bet that at least in the USA the biggest reason this doesn't happen is the convenience factor. On the business side plastic bottles are probably cheaper to buy than just the cost of cleaning old bottles, not to mention the cost of transport.

  49. Tariff Chinese Plastics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tariff the various categories of plastics that China exports to the US, especially since they no longer recycle the junk they export. Price of packaging and plastic parts goes way up, consumption goes down, recycling goes up since it cost more, it's a backdoor way of taxing chinese intellectual property theft, and will help to rebalance the trade deficit.