Slashdot Mirror


There is No Guarantee That the Products You Recycle Are Actually Recycled, the UK Watchdog Warns (bbc.co.uk)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The National Audit Office (NAO) says over half of the packaging reported as recycled is actually being sent abroad to be processed. As a result, it says, the government has little idea of whether the recyclables are getting turned into new products, buried in landfill or burned. While an illusion of success has been created by the UK's system for recycling packaging, the NAO says, the reality may be quite different. Its report finds that: The government has turned a blind eye to underlying problems with the waste system. Firms may be over-stating the amount they are recycling. The Environment Agency has only carried out 40% of the recycling checks it planned to.

171 comments

  1. thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's why i don't recycle because there safer in the landfill. At least its contained and cheaper for myself.

    1. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      That's why i don't recycle because there safer in the landfill. At least its contained and cheaper for myself.

      That doesn't make any sense. So, some fraction of the plastic sent to recycling doesn't actually get recycled... but it doesn't make sense to say it's "safer" to send it directly to landfill, instead of recycling some of it and then sending what's left to landfill.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why i don't recycle because there safer in the landfill. At least its contained and cheaper for myself.

      That doesn't make any sense. So, some fraction of the plastic sent to recycling doesn't actually get recycled... but it doesn't make sense to say it's "safer" to send it directly to landfill, instead of recycling some of it and then sending what's left to landfill.

      Actually, in many cases it is safer, cheaper and better to just throw things in a landfill. In theory, recycling is a really great idea. But in actual practice, it often causes more pollution and environmental damage, not less.

      For example, the process that is used to recycle paper involves various chemicals and as a by-product, generates many tens of thousands of tons of toxic sludge that has to be disposed of -- by dumping it into a landfill. It would be far less harmful to just throw the paper away and dump it into a landfill.

      It's the same for recycling many other things as well. In many cases, the recycling process generates air, water or ground pollution that wouldn't be generated if you just throw stuff away and don't try to "recycle" it.

      Recycling is also extremely expensive and just simply not economically viable. That's why the U.S. and EU export all their trash to various third world countries. The only way that recycling can even come close to be economically viable is to do it in a situation where people are paid pennies a day and where there are little or no environmental regulations.

    3. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So normal paper is then made from Majic and doesnâ(TM)t produce harmful by products??

      You obviously have no understanding how paper is made. While using recycled paper is not 100% pollution free, neither is creating new paper. You reduce environmental impact by recycling. But with recycling you need also efficiency, as with everything.

    4. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Creating new paper doesn't require the removal of toxic ink, which is then buried in the form of sludge.

    5. Re:thats why i don't recycle by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In the States in some areas we have Single Stream Recycling.
      Where you put in all your recyclable (Paper, Some plastics normally the thick plastic, and Metal) materials into one bin. Then it goes and gets sorted out.

      Only about 1/3 of the material actually gets recycled. However the amount of material sent over to be recycled has increased 5 fold. So overall we are better with a less efficient process, because the convenience makes it easier to increase your output.

      For some reason there is a reaction if something isn't working as well as it should, we should just stop it all together. While the net benefit outweighs the cost.

      I have also heard a similar type of argument against LED traffic lights. Because in a rare weather condition snow can cover the lights, and be hard to see, while incandescent bulbs create enough heat to melt the snow.
      Because of this perhaps once a year occurance, people are using this to prevent LED lights, which use less energy, are cheaper to maintain, offer better viability, as well often will not die at once.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my birds chew on old newspapers and haven't grown additional feet -- (some types of paper recycling may be non toxic or less-toxic than others)

    7. Re:thats why i don't recycle by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I have not heard anything about the LED stop lights having trouble with snow cover. We have some new stop lights that appear to be LED they have hoods over the light to keep snow from gathering on the light. Snow could still collect under the hood on the light if it was windy enough but dust would be a larger issue in my area and incandescent bulbs wouldn't really help with that.

      I don't find it surprising that people would be against change of any kind there are groups in my area that are against solar and wind power because of birds and solar panels are ugly. You can't have a windmill that powers a coy pond but my neighbor can have a decorative windmill the same size.

    8. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creating new paper doesn't require the removal of toxic ink, which is then buried in the form of sludge.

      a) most inks are actually non-toxic and you can now make them bio-degradable. In which case the correct solution may be composting the paper.

      b) even if you put the paper directly into a landfill the ink can still leach into the environment. Since the paper spreads the ink thinly this means that more landfill is required than just for ink sludge.

      I'm not saying that paper recycling is perfect, but given the right regulations it could really make sense.

    9. Re: thats why i don't recycle by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      When LEDs were first used for stop lights, they were being covered by ice and snow in northern areas during winter under some conditions. Since that time, manufacturers have modified designs so that there are heaters that activate automatically. This guy talks about how the overall benefits of LED traffic lights far outweigh the disadvantages of them in their early deployment.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:thats why i don't recycle by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      China, who was taking most of our recyclables, has stopped. Newsprint, which was going for $100 per ton, now sells for $5 a ton on the market. Recycling has failed in the US. Your recycling is going to the landfills right now.

      However, there are people developing new plastic recycling techniques using chemicals instead of the standard mechanical methods. No word on if this chemical method will have an environmental impact or if it will be economically feasible. It is being developed to recycle the plastic that is floating in the ocean. There is a project underway to gather the plastic and recycle it using the new chemical method. The chemical method still requires sorting.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re: thats why i don't recycle by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Unless the ink removal process converts the ink into a toxic chemical. Anyone have insight on that?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:thats why i don't recycle by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      And you can heat the lens if you are really hopped up about this "problem."

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    13. Re:thats why i don't recycle by will_die · · Score: 1

      That was an issue solved a while ago. The light systems for places where it snows have been redesigned to add a heat element for melting the snow. Other places that have not purchased the newer system just send crews out to clean them off.

    14. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinking

      especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinking#Byproducts:

      The unusable material left over, mainly ink, plastics, filler and short fibers, is called sludge. The sludge is buried in a landfill, burned to create energy at the paper mill or used as a fertilizer by local farmers.

      In other words it can be nasty but it can also be completely fine. Depends on the inputs and the process used. From brief reading, flotation deinking combined with enzymatic deinking on properly regulated paper with only vegetable based inks should end up with a perfectly fine non toxic fertilizer.

    15. Re:thats why i don't recycle by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      The ones here probably have heaters to melt the snow and ice but I know that we have crews out to clean them once a year because of dust anyway. They replaced some that didn't appear to seal well the light covers where always foggy looking and it was hard to see which light was illuminated in the middle of the day and some in new areas that all appear to be LED. The new traffic lights are much brighter day and night and appear to be made up of many LEDs.

    16. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most newspaper ink is made from soy based materials. Don't think its very toxic.

    17. Re:thats why i don't recycle by dj245 · · Score: 1

      China, who was taking most of our recyclables, has stopped. Newsprint, which was going for $100 per ton, now sells for $5 a ton on the market. Recycling has failed in the US. Your recycling is going to the landfills right now.

      However, there are people developing new plastic recycling techniques using chemicals instead of the standard mechanical methods. No word on if this chemical method will have an environmental impact or if it will be economically feasible. It is being developed to recycle the plastic that is floating in the ocean. There is a project underway to gather the plastic and recycle it using the new chemical method. The chemical method still requires sorting.

      For $5/ton, burning newsprint for power starts to make a lot of sense, assuming the power plant is near to where the material is being collected. That's only around $9/MWh ($0.009) for fuel. You would definitely want a sliding grate boiler and a serious electrostatic precipitator though. Assuming the trucking costs were reasonable, this is very much economical.

      Burning tree material is mostly carbon-neutral, but I'm sure that environmentalists would be tripping all over themselves arguing whether burying (sequestering) it would be better or worse than burning it.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    18. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And in any case, recycling is a good habit to develop.

    19. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There lies the problem -- "most". It's not efficient to detect the ink on every piece of paper and sort it. You have to assume that all the paper has the worst kind of ink possible. When looking at environmental solutions, you have to weigh practical versus ideal. Most green types only look at ideal and the politicians then push ideal regulations based off popular green movements. We then end up with more expensive goods, negatively impacting the poor and broken regulations that more often than not, fail to do what was promised.

    20. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The single stream recycling is a main culprit in the collapse of the Chinese recycling market. Materials were getting contaminated and were worthless. We were getting less value by trying to do more.

      Pushing recycling so hard resulted in garbage in recycle bins. We created a culture of "if in doubt, recycle it" rather than an informed culture of only recycling things that should be. From leftist shaming of people for not recycling to municipalities putting cameras in garbage trucks to make sure you didn't throw away recyclables, to giving people smaller garbage cans and reducing pick up schedules, we've social engineered a disaster. All well meaning, but completely oblivious to reality. Why do recycle trucks have dirty diapers in them? Because people don't want a garbage can full of them for 2-4 weeks when the recycle truck comes weekly.

    21. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, several counties here in TN CHARGE you to recycle on top of what you already weekly pay for normal trash and/or charge you per pound at the dump. I'm not paying you to take my trash which you will then turn around and sell, almost always for a profit, without compensating me in some way. There was a time when *I* got paid to give people my scrap metals and plastics. Now the prices the scrap yards pay out is a pittance of their worth. It's like the 2 industries are in cahoots.

    22. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no argument. One the problem which never really occurs already has a solution (heating circuit that costs peanuts and will never be used) and two if you can't see the lights you default to stopping.

    23. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collecting waste from individual properties is expensive, and the recycling value relatively low, so it is unlikely that the county makes a profit, and it probably just lessens the cost. The output will be sold to specialist recyclers (private is good, surely?) that take the risk on turning that input into something useful, and will probably make a profit. The county will benefit from reducing the need for landfill.

      The ideal is reducing waste in the first place, e g. reducing packaging, repair, or reuse. The latter is helped by things like Freecycle, yard sales and eBay. I own things from all three sources, and got rid of things in the same way. My wife has started up cycling.

    24. Re:thats why i don't recycle by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And you can heat the lens if you are really hopped up about this "problem."

      No that's just it. The problems are easily solvable, but really that doesn't change those people arguging against it. It's not just LED traffic lights either. There are countless cases where a change produces a huge net benefit while the detractors will find one very specific very rare example where something won't work and then use that as a case against the entire project.

      We see that constantly right here on Slashdot too.

    25. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outdoors LED lamps should have resistive heaters embedded in cover glass, which turn on only when needed, on command, or temperature.

    26. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the good old Perfect Solution Fallacy. Not seen that one dredged up in a while.

    27. Re: thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you're trying to start a flamewar about systemd. Would you like help with that?

  2. Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because to economically recycle plastic, it has to be source sorted by recycling # (which reflects chemistry).

    Which means you need to have a half dozen plastic recycle bins, imputes a value of $0.01/hour to your time.

    Also colored glass and paper is almost never actually recycled.

    The bastards do this, because the sorting time looks free to them. They should be kicked square in the balls/cunt.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I still hold that we should be separating plastic from other waste and burying it. In 50 years when crude oil is more expensive, we can invest in developing processes to use the buried plastic waste as feedstock for new petrochemicals.

    2. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      What if the cost of recycling/collecting makes it cheaper to just burn it now and leave some crude in the ground?

      I'm not convinced crude will be more expensive in 50 years. It's by no means guaranteed. Economic replacements are going strong.

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

      Used engine oil should be the easiest to recycle. Dump it into the refinery input and it comes out as new clean engine oil.

      My county landfill burns it for heat.

      Better than it being poured out on the ground, I guess, but calling that "recycling" is misleading.

    4. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      ...The bastards do this, because the sorting time looks free to them.

      That's why we have robots.

      Not yet, but they're coming.

      As for now, it makes sense to recycle the stuff that it makes sense to recycle. And incorporate the cost of landfill into the calculation-- landfill isn't free by any means, either, you know.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    5. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while i support squarely kicking these people in their gender neutral genitalia, i think it should be for their not doing their job.

      Between Machine Learning and Deep Learning / Spectral Analyzers (spectrophotometric) / Machine Picker Arms -- it shouldn't be THAT hard to sort plastcics properly with a very high rate of success.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#Processes
      Most plastic reclaimers do not rely on the Resin Identification Code (RIC) now; they use automatic sort systems to identify the resin, ranging from manual sorting and picking of plastic materials to mechanized automation processes that involve shredding, sieving, separation by rates of density i.e. air, liquid, or magnetic, and complex spectrophotometric distribution technologies e.g. UV/VIS, NIR, Laser, etc.[8] Some plastic products are also separated by color before they are recycled. The plastic recyclables are then shredded. These shredded fragments then undergo processes to eliminate impurities like paper labels. This material is melted and often extruded into the form of pellets which are then used to manufacture other products.

    6. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I had a job doing recycling in LA, back when recycling was still a dirty word to most people, the newspaper would go to Japan to be recycled. As for the glass, some of it would get recycled and sometimes it would all go into the landfill. The state had to buy it, but there wasn't anyone to do anything with it. And glass recycling still is pretty minimal from what friends who work there have told me.

      This was the mid 80's and all that was recycled back then was paper, glass and metal. We didn't do plastics.

    7. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I still hold that we should be separating plastic from other waste and burying it. In 50 years when crude oil is more expensive, we can invest in developing processes to use the buried plastic waste as feedstock for new petrochemicals.

      This.

      I've always felt that recycling is a disservice to future generations.

      When humans have exhausted Earth's natural resources, they'll be able to dig up all the beer cans I've conveniently concentrated in my local landfill and refine them into new products.

    8. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you saying that's an argument for recycling theater?

      Nobody is ignoring the cost of landfill, it is just the cheapest, by far. Making people sort and wash their trash into 32 streams that all end in the landfill is just the _stupidest_ of all outcomes. Unless you're just trying to train people to do as they are told.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's been cheaper to burn paper/cardboard since the day environmentalists started screeching that paper kills trees and plastic is better. Welcome to 1979 by the way. To recycle paper you have to deink, rebleach, and break whatever it was into base fiber then re-gunkify the entire mess all over again. Even then, most places avoid it because rebonding the fibers makes for weaker paper or requires resins to stop it from degrading quickly. W2E facilities are a better option in many if not all cases. Again, thank environmentalists for their rabid bleating that said facilities are really really really really really bad. Never mind that the heavy ash can be used a clinker(for cement and drywall) or anything. Just don't let them know that we burn nearly all the tires in use for clinker and fuel for cement plant kilns or anything, or they'd go brain dead stupid.

      Which reminds me of an example of environmental stupidity from here in Ontario. Pipeline running from Sarina to Montreal, oh there was no problem with the pipeline being used currently. The problem came from them wanting to reverse the direction of flow, and reduce the operating pressure because of it's age. It was replaced with a newer pipeline about a decade ago, so having two redundant pipelines flowing in the same direction was a waste of money. The response? Endless screeching by environmentalists about how it was an environmental catastrophe and would poison all of southern ontario, not exaggerating on that one. It was pushed heavily by environmentalists as true. But razing a stand of old growth maples, oaks, and other broadleafs to put up gigantic fucking windmills? Perfectly okay. It was the hunting associations that blocked that one, because they'd been reintroducing wild turkey, pheasants and hawks to the area.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by PPH · · Score: 1

      The bastards do this, because the sorting time looks free to them.

      If your municipality makes you do the sorting. Mine has a single bin. Which got shipped to China (until recently) where they sorted it and then did whatever. Once China no longer accepted recycling, the avoided cost of recycling reappeared as a real cost per ton to bury the stuff in a dump. The multiple bin solution incurs actual costs to collect and keep separate those multiple bins. So even with your (free) efforts, it wasn't worth it to my town.

      I used to haul my garbage to the dump (transfer station actually) myself. It was much cheaper than paying for garbage pickup. They have sorted recycling bins at the transfer station and I didn't mind taking care of it myself as well. There were also glass and paper recycling bins at other locations, like supermarket parking lots. But the city became so enamored of mandatory garbage pickup (and the fees) that most people figured, "If I'm paying them for it, why should I put in any extra work?"

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Also colored glass and paper is almost never actually recycled.

      Got any numbers to back that up? A quick google search or maybe even a trip to my local glass manufacturer puts the actual number for coloured glass in the 80% range. That is 80% of glass collected through recycling ends up actually recycled.

      Likewise the paper figures are in the >70% range, and the number of paper mills that actually produce products with 0% recycled content is incredibly low these days.

    12. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Glass recycling is more about preventing broken glass bottles from littering the streets and parks. The deposit on most bottles (paid when you buy the beverage, refunded when you return the bottle at a recycler) encourages people to dispose of the bottles properly, instead of just chuck them out the car window. And even if you do chuck them out the window, some homeless person will probably clean them up for the deposit. Glass is just sand that's been melted, and is one of the more innocuous things you can put into a landfill (doesn't degrade into other nasty chemicals). So it winding up in landfills instead of being recycled isn't really a problem.

      Likewise, paper buried in landfills is sequestered carbon. The tree pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere, used energy from sunlight to break off the O2, and locked up the Carbon in the form of cellulose. We chopped the tree down and turned that cellulose into paper. Burying the paper represents putting the carbon back underground, the reverse of what we do when we dig up and burn fossil fuels. In theory the paper could eventually biodegrade (converting the C back into CO2). But core samples drilled into landfills have come up with bits of newspaper over a century old, indicating not much biodegrading goes on. So burying paper in a landfill instead of recycling it isn't a problem either. (You don't really save trees by recycling paper - it's in the logger's best interest to re-plant any tree they chop down, so they'll have another tree to chop down in 20-40 years. So in developed countries, the number of trees remains fairly constant.)

      Metals usually cost enough to refine that it's worth recycling them.

      It's the plastics that are the problem. When I asked my garbage hauling service how they sort plastics, they claimed they hired inmates at below-minimum wage to do it for them.

    13. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I"m curious, do THAT many people out there base their purchasing decisions on if a product is packed in recycled materials or not?

      I mean, is the number of people that would bother doing this statistically significant?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I pour it down the storm sewer so it can go back underground with the rest of the oil

    15. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      There are microbes which will break down plastics - we could use those.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    16. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I pour it down the storm sewer so it can go back underground with the rest of the oil

      The Kaiju thank you

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    17. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that's an argument for recycling theater?

      I'm unable to figure out how you interpret a statement saying "use robots when they are available, until then, recycle the stuff that makes sense to recycle" into "an argument for recycling theatre."

      Let me state it in clearer terms. Use robots when they are available, until then, recycle the stuff that makes sense to recycle.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    18. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      It appears we really are just going scratch each others eyes out.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    19. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Sigh. A lot of people do this. Every car repair garage in existence send oil down the drain every day--even though they catch most of it.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    20. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by will_die · · Score: 1

      Germany has that solved.
      You have a bin for paper and plastic, and depending on that state you are in that bin will also take glass.
      That trash is taken to sorting centers and it use to be that they hired the eastern Europeans to do the manual sorting now they are using the various immigrants they have been allowing in.
      Cheap labor and separated recycling.

    21. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Robots aren't magic, it will remain an economic decision.

      The problem is that the world is full of idiots. 'Recycle the stuff that makes sense to recycle' is fine, but the devil is in the details. That should have always been true, but yet here we are...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, you'll see that you are wasting your time. It's all ending in the landfill.

      Not just in England, I doubt Germany is any different. They tell you it's being sorted, but they are losing money on every truckload, so sooner or later, they come to their senses.

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

      When I moved into my current house and I arranged for trash pickup, I asked about recycling. They waned to charge an additional $10 per month and I had to separate it myself. They said it cost extra because they had to send a second truck. I told them no way. I see some of my neighbors setting out recycling and it all goes into the same truck as my trash.

      Just as I thought: it was just a way to add some extra profit.

    24. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I"m curious, do THAT many people out there base their purchasing decisions on if a product is packed in recycled materials or not?

      I mean, is the number of people that would bother doing this statistically significant?

      Not enough people, however it was exactly the ridiculous levels of packaging from supermarkets that drove me to my nearest organic box schemes. Since trying a few, I found one where the vegetables are so much better than anything else I can get that I stuck with it for the quality.

      There have been a load of stories about this and I think people in the UK are begin to be aware with this Lauren Singer person having been on TV and had stories around various places but mostly supermarkets have to change and that will be slow.

    25. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked at a big chain auto shop and all the floor drains emptied into an underground tank for storage and retrieval.

      When I was a kid, my Dad dumped all the used engine oil onto a bamboo plant in the backyard that he was trying to kill. Never worked.

    26. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he ever try a shovel?

    27. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1

      I've been saying the same thing about (name the item that can't be recycled now) for decades.

      I imagined the day when we *mine* landfills.

      Randy -- exceptthatmostlandfillswillprobablybehousingdevelopmentsbythen

    28. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Never let bamboo get started on your land. You are better off not knowing, even when it makes you look a little stupid (12:24 PM today, for example).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 2

      screeching by environmentalists ... [contrasted with] ... It was the hunting associations that blocked that one

      You know how I can tell you consume too much right-wing media? You talk about "environmentalists" as though they were evil, and hunters as though they were good, as though those were two distinct groups. Your story is about two groups of environmentalists who had a disagreement about how best to care for a certain parcel of land.

      It's a weird kind of double-think that allows for this. Been happening a lot lately.

    30. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 1

      Glass recycling is more about preventing broken glass bottles from littering the streets and parks.

      This is definitely not true in general, though I'll allow that it might be true in some locations. There was a story about a beer company (Molson?) who was considering changing the shape of its bottles into a shorter keg-style, but ultimately decided against this after calculating mow much it would cost to melt down and re-form all of the existing bottles which were currently in circulation.

      Soda is also still sold in glass bottles in many countries. Not because they haven't gotten on board with plastic bottles or cans, which are cheaper to manufacture, but because glass is more cost efficient when you consider that the bottle can be washed and reused. It comes down to culture - is soda something that you drink all the time? In which case you're likely to discard the containers wherever is most convenient. Or is soda something that you drink more occasionally in a social setting? In which case the bottles can be more easily collected.

    31. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      When you push to impose via totalitarian means a lifestyle on others, you ARE fucking evil. THAT is why environmentalists are considered evil. Its because by their actions, they are.

      This isnt a dispute over the usefulness of a good clean environment... its a dispute over liberty. Some people value it. Environmentalists dont.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    32. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 1

      You have utterly missed the point. The parent, and you, have bought into the idea that "environmentalist" means totalitarian. So much so that when the parent was talking about another group of environmentalists, he couldn't call them that. He had to call them hunters instead, because they didn't fit into this crazy notion of what environmentalism is, even though that's clearly what they are.

      I said that I could tell that he consumed too much right-wing media, because it is right-wing media which pushes this redefinition of environmentalism.

    33. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Maybe not the logger's best interest, but the land-owner who's managing his timber. You have to cut those trees anyway to grow decent sawlogs. Either sell them to the papermill or let them rot on the ground. Beats having all your trees get eaten by pine beetles.

    34. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You know how I can tell you consume too much right-wing media? You talk about "environmentalists" as though they were evil, and hunters as though they were good, as though those were two distinct groups. Your story is about two groups of environmentalists who had a disagreement about how best to care for a certain parcel of land.

      Know how you can show everyone you're an idiot? When you haven't been paying attention to the amount of emotional hyperventilating that environmental groups have been engaging in over the last 30 years, where everything, is going to cause **insert great destroyer of the world.** My story, about two groups. One being rabid anti-industrialist environmentalists who want to continue to live in a modern society, but want to shame you to no ends for it, while screeching endlessly in hashtag movements and slacktivism. And the other being a group of conservationists, that on average do more "for the environment" then a those slacktivists.

      I find it far more amusing that you think this is doublethink, instead of a more serious issue with environmental groups running amok on emotionalism in order to make you feel bad. Need some help? Why not go watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit, the particular episode with the smarmy Rainforest Action Network's hand-selected spokesgirl, or a look at greenpeace protest.

      Note how the messages are crafted, then get back to me.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    35. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You're doing a great job of showing just how out of touch you are with the current flavor of rabid environmentalism. They're about 4-5 years a head of what the political left currently is in many western countries, and to be frank people are throwing the environmentalist label over their shoulder and calling themselves other things because it's become so tainted.

      The fact that they are hunters and conservationists, and call themselves that. Should tell you something. That you start screeching "right-wing media" says far more about your political standing, and how far you're in a social bubble then anything else.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    36. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 1

      calling themselves other things because it's become so tainted.

      There, finally you've gotten to something which actually touches on what I was talking about. Who is doing the labeling? Who has declared that this group of environmentalists shall be called "environmentalists" and that group of environmentalists have to be called something else? And why are they doing this?

      Actually the why question is pretty easy, you've already answered that yourself: they do it in order to taint the word, so that people will be reluctant to call themselves environmentalists, even when that's clearly what they are. Reluctance to call themselves environmentalists implies reluctance to be called environmentalists, which means that whichever action that they might take to protect the environment will probably be weaker and less decisive than it otherwise could be, in order to avoid having people call them by that label.

      This is a divide and conquer strategy - if we all agree, as the grandparent said above, that a clean environment is good, then this poses a formidable barrier to the mining and drilling companies mentioned in the article. But if they can taint the idea of environmentalism, if they can label environmentalists as the outgroup, then people will avoid words or actions which might get them put into that group.

      It's the same thing that's been done to atheists, for example. Neil deGrasse Tyson said a while back that he's unwilling to call himself an atheist, because people focus too much on the word. Atheists are the outgroup - they're all baby-eating villains, as you know if you've ever watched the news. (By which I mean news from the right sources, of course.) Instead he calls himself "non-religious."

    37. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it cheaper to burn paper if you take into account all the external costs? In theory it's cheaper for me to dump my trash in a river than pay for the county to take it away, but someone has to pay to clean up the river.

    38. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time and time again you have been shown that your "evidence" for a particular opinion is incorrect. Whilst your points should be evaluated on their own merits it does get hard to take anything you say seriously.

    39. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not just in England, I doubt Germany is any different

      Don't apply local government issues universally especially between very different countries, and especially about something as complex as waste management. Each country does this very differently, LOCALITIES do it very differently.

      For instance right here where I am sitting right now in Germany almost nothing ends up in landfil and while we're encouraged to keep separating our streams because the back end economics can change in an instance, right now paper, plastic and general waste is being combined to feed the local central heating plants which don't have enough garbage to process. Drive 300km south and there's a world class recycling centre providing raw materials to various industries which relies heavily on separated waste streams.

      The economics can change in an instant too. A country suddenly stops importing, or a state suddenly changes the standards on contamination... It's not a waste of time doing the front end work when the back end is variable just because right now the back end isn't working.

      Also ... losing money? The only place in the western world where waste management is a profit centre is Sweden. You don't need to make money on this, it's a core utility.

    40. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An issue with multiple bins is that there will always be some extraneous material, so some level of sorting is still required. Even then, some recycling processes are poisoned by even small amounts of other material, so often it is a case of down cycling.

      Some down cycling works well, such as plastics into wearable fleeces or blankets that have a longer life span than the source products did.

      A different approach is reuse, but modern logistics trains are often long, so the transport effort of transporting large numbers of glass containers doesn't make as much sense as reusing milk bottles within the same town did. It might be workable with a high degree of standardisation of bottle, but that would require a change in branding practices.

      For packaging, I could see the logic of Amazon et al using some sort of reusable shipping pod, provided they were collected somehow, or there was a drop off point, but it would be difficult to bootstrap.

    41. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure his opinion must be more right than your actual facts.

    42. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original article about the UK where it is now incredibly rare for glass bottles to have a deposit, but where glass recycling rates are high.

    43. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given your response I'm not sure you even read the summary. It says that the ultimate fate of 50% of PACKAGING is UNKNOWN. 50% is recycled, 100% might be. Not all materials sent for recycling are packaging.

    44. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      There, finally you've gotten to something which actually touches on what I was talking about. Who is doing the labeling? Who has declared that this group of environmentalists shall be called "environmentalists" and that group of environmentalists have to be called something else? And why are they doing this?

      Well, that might be actual environmentalists that are tired of all the anti-capitalist, pro-communism crap that's been going on since the 1980's. You have been paying attention to this haven't you?

      This is a divide and conquer strategy - if we all agree, as the grandparent said above, that a clean environment is good, then this poses a formidable barrier to the mining and drilling companies mentioned in the article. But if they can taint the idea of environmentalism, if they can label environmentalists as the outgroup, then people will avoid words or actions which might get them put into that group.

      Your argument falls flat on it's face. Why? That's easy, the environmentalist groups themselves have become more extreme and pushing further. From the belief that malthusian policies are acceptable. To outright lying on GMO crops. Congratulations on driving people away from using the label.

      It's the same thing that's been done to atheists, for example. Neil deGrasse Tyson said a while back that he's unwilling to call himself an atheist, because people focus too much on the word. Atheists are the outgroup - they're all baby-eating villains, as you know if you've ever watched the news. (By which I mean news from the right sources, of course.) Instead he calls himself "non-religious."

      You mean the same atheists which engaged in a purity spiral and when people refused, it split between "atheism and atheism+" which was pretty much the equivalent of putting the six-shooter to it's head, with one bullet, pulling the trigger six times. Then telling their buddy to do it again? Gee oh why, oh me, how could that word ever have become so tainted.

      It's almost like how feminism is so tainted, by the actions of feminists.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It appears we really are just going scratch each others eyes out.

      For me, years of working in heavy industry, welding, and politics have instilled a healthy belief in safety glasses.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    46. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Time and time again you have been shown that your "evidence" for a particular opinion is incorrect. Whilst your points should be evaluated on their own merits it does get hard to take anything you say seriously.

      Which is why your comment is devoid of anything of substance, complaint, or argument against what I've said. You're probably the worst AC I've seen today, but we all have to drive to do better.

      I wish you success in moving from waste fulfillment to dogma enforcement.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    47. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Nope. The hunters are conservationist, not environmentalist.

      Conservationist believe that nature needs to be conserved so that future generations can continue to use it.

      Environmentalist believe that humans are a blight on nature, and a better world would have no humans.

    48. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      20-40 years? Buddy, friend, pal. We do that at a rate of replacement in 10 years right now, we specifically breed pines for this exact purpose because they can grow fast and all that and go out of our way to avoid hardwood or broadleaf softwoods because they're more helpful in other ways and fetch more money for other items(furniture, cookware, etc). The only cases where this doesn't happen is where the trees are diseased, or have insect problems like ash. In which case, the only solution is clearcutting, creating a cordon, imposing fines for transporting wood across the boundary. With regards to landfills, oxygen and nitrogen have the most important play in this for breaking down newspaper. Keep in mind, that newspaper a century old might not even be wood based, it could be anything from not wood pulp to a mixture of any of the following: wood pulp, cotton, corn, hemp, and a couple of other things too. All of which change "how" it breaks down over time, and the cost factor of pure pulp vs mixed.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    49. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, I'm getting enough of the "All environmentalists are the same, and I know their secret agenda." crap from the other guy. I don't need this from a second person, thank you.

    50. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 1

      So, this started with you slandering environmentalists. Throughout this conversation you have continued to stereotype them: giving anecdotal examples of the actions of a few and claiming repeatedly that because some of them did something you don't like, or because you believe that this is happening more often than it used to, that all of them are bad.

      I have so far tried to ignore this behavior of yours, because that was never the point. I did not come here to defend environmentalists from your bigotry, I came here as a defender of language. I skew very conservative when it comes to language, and I find it disheartening (but not surprising) that this same right-wing media, which claims to be conservative, would take such a anti-conservative stance on language whenever it suits their agenda.

      However, right here: "Well, that might be actual environmentalists that are tired of all the anti-capitalist, pro-communism crap that's been going on since the 1980's." you seem to finally acknowledge that environmentalists are not a homogeneous group, that they are not all the same. This is progress. Maybe some day you will take that to its logical conclusion, and recognize that the kind of stereotyping that you've been doing in this thread is an ineffective approach to describing human behavior. But, for the moment, I am going to call this "good enough."

  3. People do what you inspect (not expect) by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a result, it says, the government has little idea of whether the recyclables are getting turned into new products, buried in landfill or burned.

    If you don't know then the answer is that they are being handled in whatever manner is least expensive and/or most profitable. Most likely that is either burning or landfill with the chances increasing the lower the energy inputs required to make new. To presume otherwise is to be naive. Steel and aluminum are probably recycled because the energy required to make new is enormous versus recycling. Plastics are probably just buried or burned or dumped in the ocean.

    There is a saying that people don't do what you EXPECT, they do what you INSPECT. If you want to be sure it is being handled appropriately then you need to inspect the process to be sure. If you don't inspect then you won't get what you expect.

    1. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      Maybe burning plastic _is_ the appropriate way to handle that waste?

      Unless you can find someone to work for $0.05/hour you can't afford to 'recycle' it, though burning it is technically recycling it.

      What is the fuel value of plastic vs the energy inputs to make new? What is the fuel cost of recycling? Cost is a good proxy, not perfect, but good. The cheapest thing is almost certainly also the greenest.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was reading a management book the other day and it put it this way.. "You get more of the performance you bonus." They also warned that unless you can measure good performance, you will not get what you expect.

      They guy writing it was a sausage maker of all things and he had all sorts of issues getting exactly the right weight in each package without going under, until he put a bonus program in place for accuracy in each package's weight. All of a sudden he started getting packages of precise weight, but didn't change any procedures or equipment. His workers knew how to do the job and the bonus structure made them care enough to do it better.

      There is no profit motive for sorting garbage for recycling after you pull the obvious things out as you pointed out, so nobody cares...So.. It doesn't get done.

    3. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That really depends on the type of material. At least from the Local Authority's point of view not only is it required that we send certain materials to a re processor but is cheaper than landfill (for plastics/cans/cardboard/paper the Local Authority receives money per tonne as opposed to the cost to dispose in landfill which I think is something like £100 a tonne when you include transport). The cost to landfill is so high that the only way for it to be viable as an alternative to recycling is for someone to be committing a crime somewhere.

      There are plenty of issues where light plastics (film plastics mostly) are sent to Europe in order to create RDF (refuse derived fuel) and the recycling market is never very stable but at least in Scotland SEPA requires all waste to be weighed in and out of all waste and recycling facilities and for the destination to be reported for each transaction. This provides a method for tracking what is happening to recycling products (although I am not entirely sure what happens when it gets shipped abroad).

    4. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 2

      The cheapest thing is almost certainly also the greenest.

      It's pretty trivial to come up with counter arguments. It's cheaper for me to dump the engine oil from my car down the storm drain than it is to collect it and transport it to a proper waste oil processing center.

    5. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Maybe burning plastic _is_ the appropriate way to handle that waste?

      Landfill would be a better bet. Most packaging in recycling bins is either made from fossil-carbon sources like oil or natural gas or from trees and plants like paper and cardboard. Burying it sequesters that carbon and doesn't immediately add to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere whereas burning it does.

    6. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not perfect...do you have a point?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it costs about $1 in gas and $15 in time to stop at the car parts store on the way home to dump it responsibly. It costs $2000 in fine plus $600 in lost work if I get caught dumping it down the drain.

    8. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plastic segregation from the general waste should happen at the household. This means that the low wage people are not needed as the materials are source segregated. Usually this isn't down to the just plastic level but it is done to create a "Dry Co-Mingled" recyclate usually consisting of Plastic, Cans and cartons a separate stream for cardboard and paper can be collected also. Once this has been collected it is sent to a MRF where the cans are separated using both an eddy current magnet and a straight overband magnet. The cartons are hand removed by one or two operatives on a picking line and the rest of the unwanted waste
      (contamination) is hand sorted off also. Once the plastic stream is separated from the others it needs to be sorted into the different types of plastic so it can be turned into pellets for reuse. This is done using an optical sorter that blasts infrared light at the plastics and determines the type of plastic using refraction (I think this is how this works but I don't have an in depth knowledge of the science) and sorts the plastics. Generally this process costs less than the £90 a tonne landfill tax that we incur otherwise (although as I understand it there are some market games required to make the business create a large amount of profit).

      The simpler process that cuts out a large part of this is to have residents present recyclate in a box (or multiple as may be required) and then the local authority hand sorts the recyclate into containers on the back of a vehicle. Each stream (Plastics, Cans, Cardboard, Paper, Glass, Cartons e.t.c) can then be sold directly to the re-processor cutting out the MRF and only requiring the optical sorter to achieve the same process.

    9. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's not perfect...do you have a point?

      "Cheap" as a proxy for "environmental" only works in environments with effective regulation. E.g. it's probably cheapest to burn plastic in a furnace without any flue filtering or careful temperature control. However this is only cheaper because you ignore the externalities. Someone else loses money because their property becomes smelly. Another person has to go to hospital with cancer because you released dioxins. Yet another person has their crops flooded because you caused global warming.

      Once you take into account all of those externalities then your proxy of price for environmental can make sense.

      N.B. talking for myself AC, not the Wookie Monster.

    10. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Why not just call them into a stand-up and threaten them?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the book "Flight of the Buffalo" by James Belasco and Ralph Stayer? (Ralph Stayer was the head of Johnsonville Sausage.)

    12. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the cheapest thing was the one where you use the least-skilled labor, for low labor costs, and externalize as many other costs as possible. I seem to recall pollution being a popular method of externalizing costs.

  4. Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a known problem in the States too. NYC, in particular, sends over half of its "recyclables" to landfill anyway. But, not to worry, they still fine people for failing to sort their trash — whether it helps environment or not, whatever increases the government's power over the subjects is a good thing, is not it?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Nothing new here by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      whether it helps environment or not, whatever increases the government's power over the subjects is a good thing, is not it?

      Wrong issue. Emphasising good behaviour in the most difficult to manage part of the lifecycle should not stop just because a latter part of the lifecycle breaks down.

      What do you suggest: Government not issue fines, tell everyone right now that they don't need to recycle as much, then they fix their problem and you get to spend your tax dollars on a campaign trying to convince people who were told they don't need to recycle to start recycling again.

    2. Re:Nothing new here by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The landfills aren't indiscriminate. They build them up, and then people come in when it gets cost effective to recycle each of the still sorted materials. Note that sometimes its cost effective, and sometimes its not. And? Think of it as a recycling cache.

      Also, changing behavior is the hardest thing. You want behavior changes to persist, not oscillate.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Emphasising good behaviour in the most difficult to manage

      When fines are issued, it is no longer mere "emphasizing", but forcing.

      Nor are we talking of "good behavior", but rather of obedience. Manually separating trash, which will be mixed back together, is not "good behavior" — it is a patently stupid one. Only an authoritarian — like yourself — would insist on forcing a known stupidity for the sake of obedience...

      What do you suggest

      I suggest, the government stops pretending to be a parent, who knows better, and stops punishing people for failing to separate, what will be mixed back together anyway.

      then they fix their problem and you get to spend your tax dollars

      Oh, wow, a genuine concern for tax dollars. Very simple: when (if!) you fix the problem, then you can start issuing fines again.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article you linked to says "A review of the Department of Sanitation's 2013 Residential Waste Characterization study showed that many of the recyclables head to the landfill primarily because people are placing them in the wrong bins or throwing them in with the rest of the trash." So, NYC sends half of its recyclables to the landfill because people are mixing them in with the rest of the trash also headed to the landfill. Surprise, surprise.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you really don't care about this issue, but instead needed a moment to have an asspie fit and spew some hate. I hope you feel better, but I know you won't. Not once did you mention the obvious solution: fine the assholes not recycling. Fire some fuckers if you have to. But no, you're mainly worried about your own ass and your desire to not do your part. Like you conservatives usually tell me, If you don't fucking like it, move the hell somewhere else. No one is FORCING you to live in your happy suburb. You do your part and live by society's rules or you can GTFO. There are dozens of African and even a few Asian countries that will let you throw your shit wherever you want. Burn it, toss it in the river or off a cliff, whatever. Somalia is one of them, I hear. You guys are always going on with how awesome it is over there. It's a supposed Libertarian paradise. Go be annoying elsewhere.

    6. Re:Nothing new here by niaxilin · · Score: 1

      The article you linked? You've completely read it wrong. Or you're lying.

      I hear crap like yours from so many people. Who is disseminating this misinformation to you? And every time we investigate, it's so obviously wrong!

      TFA:

      A lot of recyclables are thrown in the wrong bins

      TLDR; The city is NOT dumping recycle bins in the trash. People are putting stuff in the wrong bins (either the trash instead of recycle, or the wrong recycle bin).

      Please stop lying to people!

    7. Re:Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 1

      Yep, Google let me down — and I didn't read it carefully enough myself, thank you.

      This other, more recent link, does confirm my point: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... nationwide. And I do remember reading something like that much earlier — about 10 years ago — but can't find it now. It is certainly not a new problem...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Nothing new here by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The article you linked? You've completely read it wrong. Or you're lying.

      I hear crap like yours from so many people. Who is disseminating this misinformation to you? And every time we investigate, it's so obviously wrong!

      TFA:

      It's still a well-known issue in the States. For example, when I lived in Michigan (Grand Rapids area) we had recycling ($4 fee per month too); found out later they collected it separately but it still was always just dumped into the landfill.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  5. Eat recycled food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good for the environment, and okay for you.

  6. Clearly, more money by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> The Environment Agency has only carried out 40% of the recycling checks it planned to.

    99% of these stories about an agency's work end with "and if they only had more money, they could finally do the job they were supposed to do". They almost always leave out the budget distractions, ridiculous IT contracts, HR training, excessive pay, unfire-able lifers, extraneous administrators and other items that could be slashed instead.

  7. This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Penn and Teller: Bullshit did an episode on recycling, and it's been off the air most almost a decade. Is this seriously being brought up as "news"?

  8. A Job For Al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Al can do it, and Al will do it, for you. Right, Al?

  9. Same thing in Seattle. by briancox2 · · Score: 2

    Seattle sends its unsorted recycling to China.

    Maybe it's time for a real ecological study on the real effects of recycling vs. simply burying everything. Our oceans deserve more than a good feeling we get by putting things in the blue bins.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    1. Re:Same thing in Seattle. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Seattle sends its unsorted recycling to China.

      Not any more. Around a month ago China announced they were done receiving unsorted recycling from the US (and other places), Although, the ecological impact of shipping it was probably nil, as China still ships more to the US than vice-versa, and empty ships use almost as much fuel as full.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Same thing in Seattle. by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Seattle sends its unsorted recycling to China.

      As a Seattle person and Amazon prime member, I'd say that 95% of my recycling is just Amazon cardboard box packaging. I see that the "transfer station" (where you take rubbish yourself) has a dedicated machine just for squishing cardboard boxes, so I assume they get recycled from there. As for whether cardboard gets recycled when I leave it in the unsorted recycling bin? or when big cardboard boxes are stacked next to the recycling bin for them to take away? I'd love to know what happens to them.

    3. Re:Same thing in Seattle. by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      And how much of those ships full of recycling had items that were blown into the ocean?

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    4. Re:Same thing in Seattle. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And how much of those ships full of recycling had items that were blown into the ocean?

      Wow, people really do latch on to the insigificant.

  10. Where I live now. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    All the trash goes in wherever in whatever bin. I have given up trying to be the good tenant because my landlord doesn't seem to give a shit. In my previous apartment I was blamed for other tenants putting the wrong stuff in the wrong bins. I wish people would make up their minds. these days I really don't give a shit about the whole recycling thing because no one else around me seems to care. I hope the coming generations enjoy living on top of smoldering landfills with plastic choked oceans encircling them. Bah.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  11. "Shipped abroad for processing" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That certainly doesn't rule out the waste is being reycled.

  12. funny contradiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How slashdot contradicts itself in just one page.

    http://i67.tinypic.com/2ignosz.jpg

    LOL

  13. Not $0.05 an hour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Thailand, cheap labour digs through the bins to take the plastics out. They can make about 300-500 baht a day, about $10-$16

    "The cheapest thing is almost certainly also the greenest"
    There's no such linkage.

  14. Contractual agreements by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Maybe burning plastic _is_ the appropriate way to handle that waste?

    Perhaps but if you are paying someone to recycle it and they burn it instead then then you aren't getting what you paid for. If I hire your company to recycle my plastic then there are clear expectations about what that means and what it should cost. If I pay you to recycle it and you burn it because that's cheaper then that is fraud, plain and simple. Whether or not that is the optimal use for the material is irrelevant to the contractual agreement. And of course there are the environmental considerations too but those are a separate matter.

    Unless you can find someone to work for $0.05/hour you can't afford to 'recycle' it, though burning it is technically recycling it.

    ??? Burning it is most definitely NOT recycling. You know darn well what recycling means.

    The cheapest thing is almost certainly also the greenest.

    If that statement were true then dumping toxic waste in nearby ponds would be the greenest thing possible. It's true that green CAN be cheap but there is a reason the Tragedy of the Commons is a problem.

    1. Re:Contractual agreements by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Recycling means reuse. Not perpetual reuse. If that was the definition, recycling would be almost non-existent. Almost nothing can be reused forever.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Burning makes sense [Re:People do what you ins...] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Maybe burning plastic _is_ the appropriate way to handle that waste?

    Landfill would be a better bet. Most packaging in recycling bins is either made from fossil-carbon sources like oil or natural gas or from trees and plants like paper and cardboard. Burying it sequesters that carbon and doesn't immediately add to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere whereas burning it does.

    Burning it and generating energy from the process would offsets an equal mass of fossil fuel, so it wouldn't add CO2 to the atmosphere. That actually makes the most sense-- you get the value out of the oil in the form of plastic, and then get the energy out of the oil when you're done with using the plastic.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  16. However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While we may not know whether the stuff in our recycling bin is being actually recycled or not. I can guarantee that the stuff in the trash bin is not.

    So, I look at it as an opportunity for it to be recycled if the system, processors, markets and everything else align in contrast to simply tossing it in to the trash bin.

  17. It's the thought... by TheZeal0t · · Score: 1

    It's the thought that counts...

  18. Re:Burning makes sense [Re:People do what you ins. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    If that were true, it would be a butt simple decision. You get a good fraction of the energy back, not 100%.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. This is what I tell my hippy friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time they chastise me for not recycling, I go on a rant about how all that shit is either shipped to china, or just burned anyway.
    Only thing that makes sense to recycle is glass and metal.

  20. Expected cost by sjbe · · Score: 1

    No, it costs about $1 in gas and $15 in time to stop at the car parts store on the way home to dump it responsibly. It costs $2000 in fine plus $600 in lost work if I get caught dumping it down the drain.

    You forgot to risk adjust your calculations to come up with an expected cost. You multiply the cost by the chances of getting caught which in all likelihood are extremely low.

    1. Re: Expected cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to price in the mental cost of knowing you're an ass for just dumping it down the drain.

  21. Welfare recepients by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    Make the people on welfare do it. Are you able to work and getting government money? Well looks like you're going be sorting recyclables.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Welfare recepients by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Make the people on welfare do it. Are you able to work and getting government money? Well looks like you're going be sorting recyclables.

      Agreed, all corporate CEOs and execs should spend half their time sorting recyclables.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Welfare recepients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully this includes farmers and oil executives

    3. Re:Welfare recepients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace farmers with Hollywood Producers and you're golden baby.

    4. Re:Welfare recepients by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Well...that was a dunk from the three point line.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Welfare recepients by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And politicians...it will keep them out of trouble.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Welfare recepients by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      And it will keep them out of trouble. The original post actually was used by a famous democrat president...you know, FDR? Funny how democrats now disparage that. I'm not sure I personally agree with CCC and other similar programs being constitutional, but at least it gave some (not all) people money for doing something productive.

    7. Re:Welfare recepients by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Meant to say "And (insert group that you personally hate), it will keep them out of trouble".

    8. Re: Welfare recepients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware that there are people who are employed, aren't you? You'd rather those people be thrown out of their jobs in favour of those on welfare, forcing those employed onto welfare, and presumably back into the same work? That seems perverse, and also corporate welfare, unless the companies pay for the workers, in which case why not just employ them in the first place?

  22. Bury it by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Clean it, then bury it. That seems to be the best for the environment.

    --
    [($)]
  23. Re:Burning makes sense [Re:People do what you ins. by Strider- · · Score: 1

    That depends on whether you're in an area that actually depends on fossil fuels for electrical power. British Columbia, Quebec, and significant chunks of Ontario do not. They're either on Hydro Electric power or on Nuclear (in the case of Ontario and Quebec).

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  24. Oceans by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Recycling is how it gets into our Oceans.

    --
    [($)]
  25. Not exactly news. by rnturn · · Score: 2

    I was working late one night and discovered that the cleaning crew was routinely emptying the blue trashcans with the recycle logos on the side into the same bin as the non-recyclable waste. This was back in the later-'90s and I can easily imagine this happening all over. Even today. [sigh]

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Not exactly news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Same as my last job. I worked nights, so I was around when the cleaning crews were working. I would always see them making their rounds with one large roller bin in which they dumped both the trash and recycle bins into. Funny thing is my employer would send out regular green working reports in which they gave progress in pounds of trash vs pounds of recycling created by the office. Not sure how they would ever come up with this info if it all went into trash, so it must have been complete BS created for management to feel proud of.

  26. It still will end up in the trash or worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter how many times paper or plastic is recycled eventually it could be made into toilet paper or a trash bag. Then the chain of recycling ends.

    1. Re:It still will end up in the trash or worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, let us send it all to Venezuela. Wiping your ass with a plastic shard is probably better than the no toilet paper situation that currently exists there.

  27. It's been a sham for decades by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always been in support of recycling even when I knew as a student all the dumpsters went into the SAME garbage truck (I saw it after school.)

    Multiple parts in the process have to ALL be addressed. If you get everybody but jerks recycling that is just the 3rd part of the process. 1st part is regulating what's made, we don't hardly do that.... 2nd part is not buying stupid cheap disposable shit we do not need in the 1st place (that won't ever happen.) + more steps...

    China had all those boats full of junk we bought and since they took over, we had nothing to ship back to them so they made $$$ taking our UNSORTED trash without any accountability when they got it back home. Now they don't want our trash, it's not more profitable than just buying the gas for the boat.

    If we want recycling to work, we have to not be so LAZY and presort again. Then we have to BAN mixed materials because nobody seriously sorts by looking at those 1-7 labels on the plastic... That isn't even the big thing-- banning stupid things like straws is finally being done. Things like BOTTLES should have remained glass (clean and reuse) like they always were-- it's entirely corporate conspiracy to slander consumers for not recycling their forced TRASH because they want to save pennies on containers (because their competition is cheaper... hence the NEED to regulate a level playing field. just like regulations stop your business from assassinating your competition.)

    Government WORKS only if YOU collectively inspect/regulate it same with corporations and the assholes that make up 1/3 of society. We get what we deserve.

    1. Re:It's been a sham for decades by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Troll

      Idiot. It's theater. You want to make theater required by law.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:It's been a sham for decades by swb · · Score: 2

      I'm all in for packaging regulations that eliminate hard/dubious recycling. There's way too much packaging and way too much stupid choices that create more packaging -- like shiny plastic surfaces that come with a square yard of cling wrap on top to keep them shiny.

      Presort is a lost cause beyond 2, maybe 3 categories total. I can't help but think it's just transferring the cost savings from manufacturers to consumers. They get to save fractions of a cent on packaging, consumers pay the cost of sorting a zillion different materials.

    3. Re:It's been a sham for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem should be rerouted to its source, let everyone bear consequences of their choices. It should be a law that manufacturers of packaged consumable goods are responsible (under heavy penalties) of collecting back and managing of the packages. Manufacturers of non-consumables (e.g. appliances), should be responsible of disposal of their products after their working life is done. The distributors and sellers of the goods should be responsible for collecting and distributing "the remains" back to their creators. Each buyer should either sign a bonding contract that the remains will be cleaned and returned to seller, or billed a hefty bail until the remains are returned.

      Then the situation would be different and regulation would force producers to think creatively about packaging, to make it reusable, easily recyclable by themselves, or perhaps make it a consumable (well, say decomposable) too. Then those requirements would be incorporated into product design, because that would be their problem, not someone else's (externalities), as it is now. And whatever they do with returned packaging would be centralized, and therefore much more easily regulated.

  28. Re:Burning makes sense [Re:People do what you ins. by nojayuk · · Score: 1

    Burning fossil-carbon-derived plastic adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Burying it in landfills unburnt means it doesn't add CO2 to the atmosphere. Saying that it's likely that the plastic will decompose slowly underground but it will take decades or centuries to form methane and eventually CO2 and escape into the atmosphere which is a good thing in the medium term. We're still heading for 450ppm CO2 and beyond in a couple of decades time.

    We have trillions of tonnes of fossil carbon we can dig up and burn in the form of coal and lignite which can't easily be turned into plastic, assuming we want to continue committing slow suicide by fossil carbon combustion. Burning fossil-carbon plastic as well just speeds things up.

  29. reuse repurpose recycle by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    The 3 R’s. There is a reason recycle is third in reuse, repurpose, recycle. Just disposing of so much is stupid, when much if it can be used still, abet for other things than originally intended.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:reuse repurpose recycle by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      reuse and repurpose mean the same thing

      I think you meant "reduce, reuse, recycle". But you are right, it is in that order for a reason.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  30. Reduce and Reuse by owlaf · · Score: 1

    Recycling is more the last option, reducing and reusing as much as possible instead of recycling it much better.

  31. For some things, recycling makes sense by MpVpRb · · Score: 1

    Aluminum, lead-acid batteries, steel and a few others

    For most disposable products, recycling is a political tactic to make environmentally conscientious people believe that disposable products are environmentally friendly

  32. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A few years ago I worked for a company that wanted to be seen as environmentally friendly, and someone there had the idea that we should begin recycling paper. Good idea? Yeah.

    Two problems.
    1. No one ever bothered to talk to the 3rd party cleaning service we used to let them know that these new bins were recycling bins.
    2. Our city didn't offer recycling services for businesses. So even if #1 had been taken care of, there's still nothing we could do with this recycling.

    So at the end of the day, we spent money on new recycling bins and spent time on sorting things out into recycling bins, only for the contents to be thrown in the same trash bags nightly.

  33. REDUCE REUSE recycle by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    First, take all the packaging - and leave it at the store. Make them deal with it and bear the cost. Then it shows up as bad corporate behavior on the annual reports.

    Second, reduce usage. If a tiny battery comes in ten pounds of packaging, don't buy that. Or leave it on the sales desk.

    Third, reuse. I just brought in ten ramen in a bread bag. I'll probably use that bread bag three to five times. This cuts my waste to 1/3 throught 1/5 what most people do, plus I didn't need a bag. This also can be used as a garbage bag, by the way. The reason I brought in ten ramen was I bought a cardboard case of 24, and you can reuse that box or recycle it.

    Fourth, recycle. But if you have a need for soup, reuse your cottage cheese container to store it or other sauces.

    There, cut the waste stream by 90 percent. Stop whining, grandpa!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  34. Example for Plastics by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    All CD/DVDs are poly-carbonate - it's industry. But the law could say you have to PICK a standard and stay with it. So say all food containers must be PP #5? no mixed caps made from #2 or #4. All PVS must be white and all ABS must be black... kind of already happens in plumbing pipe. exceptions for classes of products... Think of it like HID class drivers. Sure some will bitch that they can't make their product different by confusing the situation-- well, tough, you can't make your bike out of radioactive materials so it glows either.

    Tax the exceptions to cover the burden those things impose; that creates incentives to innovate around the taxes.... nothing seems to motivate capitalists more than avoiding taxes... we should capitalize upon that!

    Obviously, globalization is a huge huge problem and tariffs need to be done... stronger than in the past and the WTO and our treaties do all seem to totally suck... Trump is right on that; but we need intelligent new ones and he appears unable to beat the bad ones we have already.

  35. CO2 and recycling plastic by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Burning it and generating energy from the process would offsets an equal mass of fossil fuel, so it wouldn't add CO2 to the atmosphere.

    You have the logic of this wrong though I understand what you are trying to say. This isn't offsetting fossil fuel consumption. It is just using a delayed form of burning from oil previously pumped. We are adding roughly the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere if we burn X amount of oil or if we burn previously pumped oil that has been turned into plastic. Either way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases by roughly the same amount. As long as the plastic remains plastic it's effectively prevented from turning into CO2 roughly akin to if it had been left in the ground. (there are other problems but that's a separate issue)

    That actually makes the most sense-- you get the value out of the oil in the form of plastic, and then get the energy out of the oil when you're done with using the plastic.

    At the cost of pumping a bunch of carbon and other stuff into the atmosphere. Plus you have to expend additional energy to turn the oil into plastic though this is something of a sunk cost if you were going to do that anyway. If you can recycle the plastic directly into another plastic then you are sort of practicing a form of carbon sequestration, albeit something of a messy and energy intensive one. Burning plastic is not as efficient as burning "pure" oil and derived fuels.

  36. Who TF thought there was any guarantee? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    Stupid naive leftists.

  37. Monitor Where It Goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the author declare that the fate of exported recyclables is mysterious?
    Affordable chips with GPS and texting (and perhaps satellite) technology can be inserted into any item and tracked for weeks or months.
    Any serious reporter would track items and their final disposition.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20878/investigators-used-gps-to-track-us-toxic-electronic-waste-exports/

  38. Burning is not recycling by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Recycling means reuse. Not perpetual reuse.

    Burning is not reuse so your point remains invalid.

    1. Re:Burning is not recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recycling means reuse. Not perpetual reuse.

      Burning is not reuse so your point remains invalid.

      While it doesn't suit your leftist tastes, it most certainly IS reuse. If I build a shipping pallet and use it to ship something, and the recipient burns it in a bonfire, he is reusing it for something other than its original intended purpose. If I burn plastic for heat in an incinerator and produce electricity, it is reuse.

    2. Re: Burning is not recycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reuse means using again for its intended purpose. Even recycling isn't reuse. You can't just redefine English to suit your agenda. Doing that is a good way to get yourself run over on a zebra crossing.

  39. you poo poo head! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    You can't efficiently solve a multiple step problem involving multiple parties (not all who are willing to participate) all at the same exact time... trying to do that makes it nearly impossible to do.

    You give the kids a habit of recycling even though the school trashes everything. Later, as adults, they are used to the whole process so they are not lazy bitching litter bugs resisting change/progress and having to lift a finger. I could figure that out as a teen? how old are you?

    Furthermore, upset adults who spent their lives as part of the theater SHOULD want to make it REAL rather than give up something that was supposed to work and would work if somebody in government wasn't corrupt.

    I vote. I know they are crooks, I aim for lesser crooks - I do not stop and do nothing; and I sure as hell go for somebody trying to fix the system in a significant way.... a lot of gullible people did that in 2016 (not all of them, some are racists or xenophobes or tribal or crooks.)

    1. Re:you poo poo head! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It is indoctrination. You just think that's a good thing. Think for yourself, for once in your life.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  40. Contrapositve by dpanofsky785 · · Score: 1

    There is, however, a guarantee that products not recycled aren't

  41. Economic Difference by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

    If there's no economic advantage to recycling over dumping, maybe recycling isn't worth it. Ideally you'd be able to tell that recycling is actually happening because it'd be cheaper than dumping. Of course I'm ignoring the environmental impact. If that's the only benefit of recycling, I fear we're doing something wrong.

  42. ha! by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Everything can be called indoctrination; did you grow up on a deserted island all by yourself? If not, then you were indoctrinated. It's all a matter of WHAT is to be indoctrinated not whether or not it is going to happen. My tribe good... better tribe than you tribe...

    Does everybody question and think about everything on their own? Hell no! I wish. Most the planet is religious; oh yes, religion is fundamentally indoctrination. Is it bad? sometimes. Is it good? Well, i don't want to argue with everybody I meet to convince them it's a bad idea to kill me and take my stuff... Surely, you'd want some indoctrination and LAWS that align with that. Some laws go too far some not far enough; where you get upset is when it doesn't align with your values. Oh, BTW, where did you get your values? (hint: topic is indoctrination.)

    Stupid people need simple directions to follow with simple reasons. God said so ;-)

    Seriously, even us smarter educated people have plenty of stupid moments; to be stupid sometimes IS to be human...arguably it IS the normal human state; after all, cognitive psychology keeps proving that point further.

    1. Re:ha! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Trash is like dirt. Some of it is 'ore', some of it isn't.

      Just be ready for the kids to be pissed when they learn there is no Santa, or recycling of anything but aluminum cans.

      I'm all for it. The younger they become cynics the better for the world. The sooner they learn about adult theater, the better.

      It will be a great day, every year when that first kid opens the dumpster to throw something in. Finds all the recycled paper, plastic, crayons, TP, snotrags and bandaids that they've all so carefully collected and sorted. Another set of eyes open, another lifelong conservate.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:ha! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      I'm extremely cynical (everybody says so) and I'm probably what you'd call liberal; not that those labels mean much anymore as they've become brands with identities. I'm in almost no way near the American Democratic Party either.

      Getting rid of civilization (government and taxes) does not make a society more civil. Making it work better does; which sometimes may require a reboot. Every democracy DIES and my theory is the better they do the shorter their lifespan is. This was known back in the day; hell, they ended the constitutional convention after Franklin basically said it's all going to fail in the end anyway. The argument and planning by others was an attempt to civilize political revolutions because they too saw the realities of how humans can't do anything well for that long. Checks and Balances is a cynical concept to begin with...

      I'll keep saying this to get it into the thick headed: Taxes are the price of civilization.

      learn the truth: politicalcompass.org

    3. Re:ha! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Ever heard of coercive control, it's a fine example of recycling. You get people to do it by creating shame by not having people do it. The other end of it would be say parking fines.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:ha! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm skeptical of you cynicism. Your sig is a link to an idealistic, moronic, pure propaganda news program. Not an opposite reflection of Fox, an opposite reflection of Infowars.

      Taxes are the price of civilization? So more taxes more civilization? I'd like to introduce you to a concept called nuance, but you'd just dismiss it.

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

      I was raised catholic, which is all about controlling people. lots of guilt. Shame is actually one of the strongest emotions, I've heard it argued that it's stronger than any or on par with FEAR. It will beat love too, just like fear does. proving that is a huge problem because the burden of proof is quite high and nobody will let you do the experiments; even primate studies get into trouble doing such topics. (oh there are some devilish ones worth reading...)

      Dispel the indoctrination that you are not an animal like the other primates. we're just apes with big brains and the animal kingdom's record for distance jogging (ever wonder why we use 2 legs, sweat, no hair?)

  43. Re: Burning makes sense [Re:People do what you ins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Burning plastics isn't that efficient as you need to add on the energy required to run scrubbers to remove various toxic gasses from the output. It's not that easy to get a clean burn either, without significant preparation of the plastic, which also requires energy. Where it ultimately sits in overall life cycle efficiency compared to coal or gas I couldn't say for sure, and it will vary from location to location, method of collection, burning, etc.

    The EROEI might not be positive, but the right way to look at it is relative to the energy costs of landfill and new items, burning and new items, recycling, reduction, or reuse, and how likely these are to happen.

  44. lol by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I'm skeptical of your cynicism! believe in god still? heaven? democracy? heil trumpf? scientists? have all the time in the world and brains to do everything yourself? think you picked yourself up by your own bootstraps? think others can? think others are equal to you therefore shouldn't get anything you didn't get?

    Propaganda is about emotions. Thinking only in support of those emotions. Sometimes it can be hard to see the nuance between thinking bringing out emotions and emotions driving rationalization.

    I've not checked out Democracy Now in years. They were the best thing in the USA for a decade; don't know about now. Infowars, I followed in the early days before it existed because I have a conspiracy friend who was a huge fan but it was to me largely entertainment as it evolved into a big greedy ego fest that it is now... it's clearly for profit, unlike democracy now.

    Cynicism itself can be a paranoid delusion itself... A real cynic has to be capable of being cynical about cynicism itself sometimes... don't just bite on every conspiracy story. You may not be, but there are people who actually are selfless people and a shitload of people lying to themselves and others. Plenty of selfish takers too; if not the majority... which is why capitalism kind of works (but not in it's extremes one has to be cynical about all religions, especially economic ones because economics are the real gods.)

    I know there are no perfect solutions in life; but it doesn't mean that I just give up. Hell, if you ever do AI work you'll start to grasp this stuff. Everything is a non-linear approximation of some fuzzy goal where it's hard to define optimal success with certainty let along wondering the maze in the dark for the way out... we're all rats in the maze... or AI approximating equations beyond comprehension. Your thesis is probably along the lines of defeatism but with a religious belief that anarchy will yield produce as good results as continual attempts at "a more perfect union." I think perhaps you should explore anarchist thought... so should I... I've never read far in that direction because it's so absurd. Nature is all about complex systems (physics included) limiting chaos. Yes, we are attempting to play god, or nature in a way. we do that sort of thing all the time.

  45. simple steps to more sustatainable future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're probably better off recycling at home by reducing the packaging you use, and re-using things that can be re-used.
    Do you really need a brand-new virgin plastic bag every time you make a purchase in a store? No.
    Do you really need a new plastic cup every time you want a drink of coffee? no.
    Do you have to buy a plastic bottle with water in in every time you're away from the house for a few hours? no.
    When you have finished with a thing, does it have to be binned? You could at least ask neighbours and friends if they want it, and charity stores will take anything they think they can sell. - Or if it has some worth, use websites like freecycle and ebay to pass stuff on.

    By all means sort your packaging waste - but you can do a lot before it even gets to the bin. - Simple.