If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   "Some parts of the European Union have the most ludicrous enthusiasm for recycling they are planning to recycle all all domestic refuse. This is simply insane: it will take more resources to recycle everything than we gain from doing the recycling"   (forbes.com) divider line 108
    More: Obvious, profit motive, recycling  
•       •       •

3468 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2014 at 8:51 PM (3 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-05 07:27:44 PM
Subby, you said 'all' twice.
 
2014-07-05 07:32:54 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-05 08:56:12 PM
JOBS
 
2014-07-05 08:56:40 PM
The lack of facts cited by the author likely implies something
 
2014-07-05 08:57:08 PM
Perception of conservation.
 
2014-07-05 08:58:03 PM

CruJones: The lack of facts cited by the author likely implies something


If it was cheaper to recycle it, someone would pay you for it.  That's the only fact you need.
 
2014-07-05 08:58:13 PM
Quit linking to Forbes. Worst website design. Stupid quotes and popups. If I go to a certain page, I don't want the link to the next story ON TOP OF the one I am trying to read! I haven't even read it yet!
 
2014-07-05 09:07:10 PM
Compost the food and plant wastes, trap the methane and burn it. Burn the papers and cheaper plastics. Keep the ash/carbon in particulate filters, inject oxygen and burn it to nothing. recycle the metals and more reusable plastics.
 
2014-07-05 09:07:13 PM
It turns out that, if we make everything out of plutonium, then the environment thrives, and our superior Really Smart People can provide more JERBS

JERBS

JERBS
 
2014-07-05 09:08:21 PM
And someone again discovers the law of diminishing returns.
 
2014-07-05 09:09:55 PM

GORDON: CruJones: The lack of facts cited by the author likely implies something

If it was cheaper to recycle it, someone would pay you for it.  That's the only fact you need.


I once saw an interview with someone in the glass industry. Apparently it was in fact cheaper for them to recycle glass than to create new glass.
 
2014-07-05 09:12:48 PM
What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?
 
2014-07-05 09:14:54 PM

reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?


God aint making no more aluminum.
 
2014-07-05 09:15:29 PM
Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.
 
2014-07-05 09:15:53 PM
Somebody out there is doing something green. WE MUST ATTACK THEM!!!!

Under no conditions may you:
- applaud their efforts or commitment to reducing pollution
- allow any time for technology to mature - it must be better than current tech immediately or it must be abandoned!!!!
- wait to see how their efforts turn out - attack now to ensure nobody here ever tries to reduce pollution!!

That is all.
 
2014-07-05 09:18:17 PM

SurfaceTension: Subby, you said 'all' twice.


Wanted to get the point across.

/not subby.
 
2014-07-05 09:19:37 PM
I bet dollars to donuts (is that a fair bet?) that you can find Forbes articles from the 90s where they say ALL recycling is counterproductive. And most certainly, bad for the GDP.

It's hard to take a business magazine seriously on environmental issues. I wouldn't read Greenpeace literature for money-making advice.
 
2014-07-05 09:20:39 PM
"I have a feeling that the creation of biogas from landfills is in this class."

Well that's certainly comforting!

"We're also not running out of holes in the ground in which to tip our rubbish"

Also comforting and most likely true that we can just fill the whole earth with rubbish. Yalla!
 
2014-07-05 09:25:18 PM

Fluid: GORDON: CruJones: The lack of facts cited by the author likely implies something

If it was cheaper to recycle it, someone would pay you for it.  That's the only fact you need.

I once saw an interview with someone in the glass industry. Apparently it was in fact cheaper for them to recycle glass than to create new glass.


almost, and when you look narrow enough.

It takes less energy to melt a glass bottle than to melt the silica and soda-ash to make the glass for a new bottle.
but sorting clear/brown/green glass takes energy
trucking the recyclable material (from far more locations) takes energy

for some materials, it makes a lot of sense to recycle, especially in urban centers.
for other materials, it doesn't... particularly in areas where the population density can't support the needed infrastructure.
 
2014-07-05 09:25:32 PM

Farking Canuck: Somebody out there is doing something green. WE MUST ATTACK THEM!!!!


Actually, it's more about attacking the greenwashing that is actually a sham. Green behaviors are a good thing, but the issue is that a lot of people have jumped on the green band wagon without actually checking to see if their supposed green activities are actually green.

Greenwashing can and should be exposed for what it is and only helps the environmental movement when it is exposed and ends. If you want to do something good for the environment, than do something good for the environment, not something good for publicity or your own ego.
 
2014-07-05 09:26:16 PM
The only human endeavors worth doing are those which yield a financial profit. That is all. If there's no money there's no point. Certain types of recycling cannot be done profitably, therefore they are silly and wasting their time.

There, now you don't need to read the article.
 
2014-07-05 09:29:12 PM

onyxruby: Farking Canuck: Somebody out there is doing something green. WE MUST ATTACK THEM!!!!

Actually, it's more about attacking the greenwashing that is actually a sham. Green behaviors are a good thing, but the issue is that a lot of people have jumped on the green band wagon without actually checking to see if their supposed green activities are actually green.

Greenwashing can and should be exposed for what it is and only helps the environmental movement when it is exposed and ends. If you want to do something good for the environment, than do something good for the environment, not something good for publicity or your own ego.


And we're done. The scary part about greenwashing is that, because many business ventures now see it as a new area of revenue and growth, a lot of spurious claims, bolstered by the guilt associated with conspicuous consumption, have fueled a stampede by well-meaning but easily-led folks to continue the very same activities that got us here in the first place - only with different brands, names, and messages.
 
2014-07-05 09:30:34 PM

Fabric_Man: The only human endeavors worth doing are those which yield a financial profit. That is all. If there's no money there's no point. Certain types of recycling cannot be done profitably, therefore they are silly and wasting their time.

There, now you don't need to read the article.


It's getting so it's almost impossible to discern a sarcastic post from a serious post.
 
2014-07-05 09:33:13 PM
The fark is greenwashing?
 
2014-07-05 09:33:54 PM

fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.


Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.
 
2014-07-05 09:34:55 PM

onyxruby: Actually, it's more about attacking the greenwashing that is actually a sham.


Way to not address any of my points.

You can paint yourselves as heroes all you like. In the end it is still the same ... attacking anything green because of politics.
 
2014-07-05 09:36:36 PM

mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.


I'd contend it is the conservatives who ignore economics. They think that costs borne by the public and future generations don't count.
 
2014-07-05 09:38:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The fark is greenwashing?


Giving lip service the the recycling pig.
 
2014-07-05 09:39:45 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: Fluid: GORDON: CruJones: The lack of facts cited by the author likely implies something

If it was cheaper to recycle it, someone would pay you for it.  That's the only fact you need.

I once saw an interview with someone in the glass industry. Apparently it was in fact cheaper for them to recycle glass than to create new glass.

almost, and when you look narrow enough.

It takes less energy to melt a glass bottle than to melt the silica and soda-ash to make the glass for a new bottle.
but sorting clear/brown/green glass takes energy
trucking the recyclable material (from far more locations) takes energy

for some materials, it makes a lot of sense to recycle, especially in urban centers.
for other materials, it doesn't... particularly in areas where the population density can't support the needed infrastructure.


The glass/aluminum/whatever containers were trucked in. Those same trucks go back empty. Just ship the damn things back where they came from using the reverse of the shipping method that got them to the store in the first place. You know, like we used to back in the gilded age of refillable bottles.
 
2014-07-05 09:39:57 PM

RedVentrue: fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.

Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.


Aluminum is the third most abundent element on Earth.
 
2014-07-05 09:40:24 PM

SurfaceTension: Subby, you said 'all' twice.


He should be in jail for not recycling that extra "all".
 
2014-07-05 09:41:29 PM

Kope: mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.

I'd contend it is the conservatives who ignore economics. They think that costs borne by the public and future generations don't count.


Trickle down economics will work any day now if we just cut rich people's taxes HARDER.
 
2014-07-05 09:45:43 PM
Brennt Paris?
 
2014-07-05 09:46:48 PM

Benjimin_Dover: RedVentrue: fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.

Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.

Aluminum is the third most abundent element on Earth.


It's also a monstrous energy hog to isolate it from bauxite ore. Aluminum recycling is a no-brainer.
 
2014-07-05 09:48:42 PM
The thing to remember about most activist causes is that originally they almost always were a very good thing. However, activist causes always turn into Activist organizations with good paying executive jobs and lots of staff jobs. There is no incentive to put themselves out of business when the original problem has been solved.... they'd lose their jobs. So they continue to bang the drum and fight the good fight long after there is no good left in the fight For example, The March of Dimes was founded to fight Polio in about 1940. The Polio vaccine was put into public use in 1955. The March of Dimes is still around.  California had a terrible automobile pollution problem in the 1960's. First vehicles required pollution controls; a good thing. Then it was low pollution, then ultra-low emissions, now it's "Super-Ultra Low Emissions". The emissions controls have long since passed the point where the law of diminishing returns says that the expense of going farther greatly outweighs the tiny benefit to be gained.

So, yeah, the pollution fighters et al, will never be unemployed rest until pollution levels reach less than zero.
 
2014-07-05 09:49:20 PM

Benjimin_Dover: RedVentrue: fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.

Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.

Aluminum is the third most abundent element on Earth.


O, Mg, Si, Fe, Al
 
2014-07-05 09:50:22 PM
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-07-05 09:54:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: The fark is greenwashing?


Why don't you just google it?
 
2014-07-05 09:56:56 PM

Bonzo_1116: Benjimin_Dover: RedVentrue: fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.

Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.

Aluminum is the third most abundent element on Earth.

It's also a monstrous energy hog to isolate it from bauxite ore. Aluminum recycling is a no-brainer.


Yes. Yes it is, and we should be recycling it.
 
2014-07-05 09:58:35 PM
mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.

I'd contend it is the conservatives who ignore economics. They think that costs borne by the public and future generations don't count.

Trickle down economics will work any day now if we just cut rich people's taxes HARDER.



Your whining would be more credible if you could point to an economic system that has produced a more prosperous society than ours. You can't, yet you continue to INSIST that ours sucks. SHOW ME THE MONEY! Show me some other society where people have more stuff, more space, more opportunity. And, I don't give a fark about your aesthetic, i.e. "we need a kinder, nicer society, with mass transit, and organic hot dog carts..." Bullshiat.

Capitalism works. It has done more to lift mankind out of poverty than any other method. Period.
 
2014-07-05 09:59:27 PM

Lokkii: The thing to remember about most activist causes is that originally they almost always were a very good thing. However, activist causes always turn into Activist organizations with good paying executive jobs and lots of staff jobs. There is no incentive to put themselves out of business when the original problem has been solved.... they'd lose their jobs. So they continue to bang the drum and fight the good fight long after there is no good left in the fight For example, The March of Dimes was founded to fight Polio in about 1940. The Polio vaccine was put into public use in 1955. The March of Dimes is still around.  California had a terrible automobile pollution problem in the 1960's. First vehicles required pollution controls; a good thing. Then it was low pollution, then ultra-low emissions, now it's "Super-Ultra Low Emissions". The emissions controls have long since passed the point where the law of diminishing returns says that the expense of going farther greatly outweighs the tiny benefit to be gained.

So, yeah, the pollution fighters et al, will never be unemployed rest until pollution levels reach less than zero.


See: "M.A.D.D."
 
2014-07-05 10:01:13 PM

Boo_Guy: [s3.amazonaws.com image 735x747]


You've never heard of 'Single Stream Recycling', have you?
 
2014-07-05 10:06:10 PM

FormlessOne: And we're done. The scary part about greenwashing is that, because many business ventures now see it as a new area of revenue and growth, a lot of spurious claims, bolstered by the guilt associated with conspicuous consumption, have fueled a stampede by well-meaning but easily-led folks to continue the very same activities that got us here in the first place - only with different brands, names, and messages.


You mean I can't actually buy enough stuff to save the planet?

/One of my pet peeves too
 
2014-07-05 10:14:13 PM

mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.


A little less spouting off and a little more reading, you'd have learned by now that a lot of "leftist ideology" regarding recycling and reuse has turned into extremely profitable capitalism.

Turns out doing good often translates into doing well.
 
2014-07-05 10:16:29 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: Boo_Guy: [s3.amazonaws.com image 735x747]

You've never heard of 'Single Stream Recycling', have you?


Actually my town does it,  1 bin for compost,  1 for recyclables,  and 1 for garbage.

And have been doing it for a few decades now.

/lighten_up_francis.jpg
 
2014-07-05 10:17:57 PM
So, did someone play around with the IP address here, or sneak into the Forbes website? Because it *says* forbes.com but I feel like I just read an article from The Onion. I mean that, genuinely.

Is this guy for real? Do people really take him seriously?
 
2014-07-05 10:19:28 PM

fusillade762: Kope: mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.

I'd contend it is the conservatives who ignore economics. They think that costs borne by the public and future generations don't count.

Trickle down economics will work any day now if we just cut rich people's taxes HARDER.


This. Y'all just gotta have more faith in the *system.* It hasn't let us down so far has it?
 
2014-07-05 10:19:56 PM

mark12A: mark12A: Economic reality means little to leftist ideologues. All that matters is how pretty their policies are.

I'd contend it is the conservatives who ignore economics. They think that costs borne by the public and future generations don't count.

Trickle down economics will work any day now if we just cut rich people's taxes HARDER.


Your whining would be more credible if you could point to an economic system that has produced a more prosperous society than ours.


Prosperous for who? I'd much rather be poor in about 50 other countries than lower-middle class in the USA.
 
2014-07-05 10:22:50 PM

Benjimin_Dover: RedVentrue: fireclown: reaperducer: What about people who live in the desert?  They end up wasting all that water cleaning out tin cans and rinsing out bottles.  Water is a scarce commodity out there.  Meanwhile, they have thousands of miles of land to use as landfills.  What's the rationale behind making people in the desert recycle?

God aint making no more aluminum.

Of course God is making more aluminum.

He ain't makin' it here, is all.

Aluminum is the third most abundent element on Earth.


I used to know the stats on it, but IIRC, the US tosses enough aluminum (cans, foil, etc) in landfills to completely rebuild its civilian and military aviation fleets twice.

That's an enormous waste of resources.
 
2014-07-05 10:27:12 PM

brimed03: Turns out doing good often translates into doing well.


Clever turn of phrase. I may steal it.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report