Skip to content
 
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.

(Inc)   Q: Is recycling a waste of time? A: Yes   (inc.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Recycling, Loyola Marymount University, Waste management, basic level, fewer emissions, Dr. Trevor Zink, lack of fashion sense, personal level  
•       •       •

8386 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2019 at 11:58 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-02-23 10:02:00 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-23 10:11:17 AM  
If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing
 
2019-02-23 10:18:42 AM  
Reminds me of the time I asked a surgeon why we were doing a dangerous, expensive and complex surgery on a patient with little chance of seeing any benefit from the surgery.
The answer was, "It is the only thing we know how to do and we must do something".
 
2019-02-23 10:22:15 AM  
Related:

Plastic China - Trailer
Youtube YMAhhmgxN-E

Free on Kanopy, if your library has access.
 
2019-02-23 10:22:33 AM  

Virtually_Human: If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing


Have you not seen what's out there?
For that matter, have you not seen what's in here???
 
2019-02-23 10:30:01 AM  
1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

It's not by accident or a coincidence that that slogan is in that specific order.

It's the intentional order of effectiveness towards curbing excess waste.
 
2019-02-23 10:39:13 AM  

elvisaintdead: Virtually_Human: If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing

Have you not seen what's out there?
For that matter, have you not seen what's in here???


Yes, I have.
 
2019-02-23 10:46:08 AM  
recycling is expensive and it will go in the landfill and we'll just produce new items anyway, so just throw it out because landfills are free?

"servicizing products" - using uber is better than recycling?

this has to be the dumbest thing i've read in a while
 
2019-02-23 10:52:23 AM  
We could do a lot of things. We could encourage people to consume less, but that would hurt capitalist Jesus' feelings. We could tax wasteful practices, but that would impinge on our freedom to destroy ourselves. We could hold companies accountable for their products effect on waste streams, but we can't piss off those job creators.

Yessir, we could do a lot of things.
 
2019-02-23 11:04:48 AM  
"We've tried doing things, and isn't about time we tried nothing again?"
 
2019-02-23 11:24:01 AM  
Just because large corporations and shiathole countries do the most polluting doesn't mean we have to be assholes too.
 
2019-02-23 11:30:36 AM  
How about we simplify and go back to just using glass, metal and cardboard. Why can't things that are in plastic bottles and jars just go into glass or metal? Being old I remember when most everything was in cans like those big cans of fruit juice and such. Things like peanut butter and jelly, ketchup and salad dressing came in glass jars or bottles and Milk came in either glass or cardboard.

Go back to paper grocery bags and get rid of blister packs and go back to cardboard boxes. Everyone hates those farking things anyway and a lot of times, they're not recyclable. Then problem with plastics is that there are so many different types and some are recyclable and some aren't. Like I said in another recycling thread, you have to be a goddam material scientist to know what you can and can't recycle.

Or how about improving recycling technology? We can send rockets to Mars but can't recycle a pizza box because it has a spot of grease on it or a blister pack because it has a little glue or paper stuck to it?
It's farking stupid.
 
2019-02-23 12:03:03 PM  
I have to pay the city for my garbage, but they take my recycle for free.  They give a giant can for recycle.  There are three sizes for garbage cans I can pay for.

I recycle because then I can pay for the smallest can and stuff as much as possible into the recycle bin, thereby not needing to pay for a larger can.
 
2019-02-23 12:04:26 PM  
God aint making any more aluminum.
 
2019-02-23 12:04:27 PM  

calbert: 1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

It's not by accident or a coincidence that that slogan is in that specific order.

It's the intentional order of effectiveness towards curbing excess waste.


i decided to go on a no buy this year for non essential items,it's been almost two months and i'm amazed and ashamed at how much less stuff is in the recycling bin.
 
2019-02-23 12:05:05 PM  
Dr. Zink?

Sounds like a villain from Captain Planet
 
2019-02-23 12:06:07 PM  
It depends on what t is, really.
Some things are more water/chemical/energy use to recycle than make new.
Tree farming for paper is real and it is less resource intensive to turn out plain white paper that way than from recycling.
Aluminum however takes less resource to recycle than make new.


And then the other consideration is, is it better/worse for our needed environment for survival to recycle or make a thing new.
But some turd lickers would try to talk about  profitability, and until the whole, we need to survive here thing is worked out, those profit concerns can go up your nana's ass.
 
2019-02-23 12:07:19 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-23 12:08:54 PM  

snocone: Reminds me of the time I asked a surgeon why we were doing a dangerous, expensive and complex surgery on a patient with little chance of seeing any benefit from the surgery.
The answer was, "It is the only thing we know how to do and we must do something".


Sounds like the reasoning behind my getting sleep apnea treatment, when my problem is chronic insomnia.  The insomnia is drug-resistant and CBT doesn't work, so ...
 
2019-02-23 12:09:45 PM  
Recycling isn't a magic bullet that will save humanity?!  Did anyone think this?
 
2019-02-23 12:10:05 PM  

TheHighlandHowler: Related:

[YouTube video: Plastic China - Trailer]
Free on Kanopy, if your library has access.


Jeebus, thats frightening.
 
2019-02-23 12:10:20 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-23 12:10:20 PM  

natazha: snocone: Reminds me of the time I asked a surgeon why we were doing a dangerous, expensive and complex surgery on a patient with little chance of seeing any benefit from the surgery.
The answer was, "It is the only thing we know how to do and we must do something".

Sounds like the reasoning behind my getting sleep apnea treatment, when my problem is chronic insomnia.  The insomnia is drug-resistant and CBT doesn't work, so ...


Cbt?
Thatsmyfetish.jpg
 
2019-02-23 12:10:38 PM  

DayBreakBoys: Dr. Zink?

Sounds like a villain from Captain Planet


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-02-23 12:12:52 PM  
Yeah, those three arrows in the little triangle are for "reduce, reuse, recycle", and the former are more effective than than the latter... that's not exactly new news, but i guess reiterating it for all the mooks is quite worthwhile.
 
2019-02-23 12:12:59 PM  
And I spent so much time (not really) separating glass, aluminum, plastic and paper...still do it though
Knew someone who volunteered at the collection center and filled me in on the basic sham going on, but that was way back
 
2019-02-23 12:13:40 PM  
I love the solution the author comes up with. 'Just use less stuff.'

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
2019-02-23 12:16:31 PM  
I worked in the plastic space for over 5 years at plastic bottle manufacturer.

It's cheaper and less resource intense than it is to recycle. Virgin resin was ungodly cheap compared to the pcr resin. (Pcr = post consumer recycled).

One saving Grace was the big beverage players in the space required we used at least 10% pcr material in the bottles. They know how bad it is.

The Co. I worked for owned some recycling plants, so since the Bev companies made us use pcr, we were able to charge a higher bottle price at the end since it was in the contracts. This keeping it economically viable to just use virgin material.

However, when the price of oil shiats the bed, recyclers eat it since no one wants to pay the higher price. So those plants tend to fail. Since we owned some as a producer and could charge a higher price, our plants did ok during a low cost of oil climate, but just a normal recycler that didn't use pcr in their corporate tree and had to sell on the open market, they get farked when oil tanks.

IDK where I'm going with this. Honestly touring those factories made me see what the space is like, and it ain't pretty.

Reuse everything.
Don't buy new.
Recycle when you can.
Buy less shiat.
 
2019-02-23 12:17:00 PM  

abhorrent1: How about we simplify and go back to just using glass, metal and cardboard. Why can't things that are in plastic bottles and jars just go into glass or metal? Being old I remember when most everything was in cans like those big cans of fruit juice and such. Things like peanut butter and jelly, ketchup and salad dressing came in glass jars or bottles and Milk came in either glass or cardboard.

Go back to paper grocery bags and get rid of blister packs and go back to cardboard boxes. Everyone hates those farking things anyway and a lot of times, they're not recyclable. Then problem with plastics is that there are so many different types and some are recyclable and some aren't. Like I said in another recycling thread, you have to be a goddam material scientist to know what you can and can't recycle.

Or how about improving recycling technology? We can send rockets to Mars but can't recycle a pizza box because it has a spot of grease on it or a blister pack because it has a little glue or paper stuck to it?
It's farking stupid.


It isn't so much that we can't do it (in most cases) but that it is so expensive to do it.  We are not willing to pay those costs now so our descendants (if any) will get to pay a price of some sort in the future.  There are also costs in terms of energy use to do some types of recycling so we end up saving material resources in one area while using them up in another.

ncsb:   A large local tree service company tried to set up a greenwaste recycling operation a few years back.   They were trying to do everything right but the NIMBYs with ranchettes in the area refused to believe it could be done without creating a huge odor problem and had the resources to create a legal challenge that would have made the project too costly.   (Similar types are fighting the growth of a landfill that existed well before they built nearby.)
 
2019-02-23 12:17:07 PM  
What I read is since we can't, or at least don't, recycle something in perpetuity and it eventually ends up in the trash anyways and we haven't replaced everything with 100% recycled material recycling is dumb.
 
2019-02-23 12:19:13 PM  
I see value in recycling glass, metal, and plastic. Less resources in recycling glass than digging it up and frees up sand for stuff like concrete. There is a sand shortage in areas for construction and rampant sand theft in some countries. Metal recycling means less mines and processing of the ore which is good. Plastic recycling means a bit less oil used which is good as well. Plus the benefits of not just shoving stuff in a hole in the ground. Local dump around here had its closure rescheduled by a few decades because of recycling. Only recycling that I could be convinced might be worthless is paper, its often too dirty to recycle in a household setting and it biodegrades, its why businesses often have a white paper only recycling because its easier to recycle if its pretty clean to start off.
 
2019-02-23 12:19:41 PM  
Deep down I know my cardboard box is going to a good place
img.fark.netView Full Size
*Celine Dion my heart will go on*
 
2019-02-23 12:21:11 PM  

wax_on: I love the solution the author comes up with. 'Just use less stuff.'

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


His subtext:
"Just rent everything"
 
2019-02-23 12:21:11 PM  

ThomasPaineTrain: We could do a lot of things. We could encourage people to consume less, but that would hurt capitalist Jesus' feelings. We could tax wasteful practices, but that would impinge on our freedom to destroy ourselves. We could hold companies accountable for their products effect on waste streams, but we can't piss off those job creators.

Yessir, we could do a lot of things.


We could learn to share. But it seems that everything about culture these days..including the green movement..is about anything but that.
 
2019-02-23 12:21:32 PM  
FTA:

As he describes it, the problem is that even though most of us assume that it is environmental to recycle, when you subject it to rigorous analysis and data - like Dr. Zink and a few other progressive researchers have done in the waste management field - that story of environmental benefit starts to fall apart.

Something sounds f*cky.

And if we think there is cost savings associated with recycling versus landfills, it turns out that putting materials in modern landfills is essentially costless.

That is 100% bullsh*t.

Between all the different types of land use, landfills are unquestionably the worst from a cost-benefit perspective. Burying garbage underground stifles development because no one wants to live on a landfill and because there is no residential, commercial, or industrial development a landfill generates no property tax revenue, in other words, landfills cannot pay for themselves in the way that other growth can.

A simple method of getting revenue from landfills is to charge tipping fees on what people bring in, but tipping fees likely cannot offset all the costs of a landfill and significant growth in tipping fees only results from expanding landfill space and burying more garbage. A key thing to remember is that when you bury garbage underground, nothing happens to it. It just sits there. It doesn't break down because there's no airflow. I have seen 30 year old newspapers dug out of landfills that look like they were buried yesterday.

Environmentally, landfills can create all sorts of problems. Landfills need proper venting as well as measures to protect against leachate,which is essentially garbage juice that leaks into the water table contaminating it.

When the author says "modern landfills" I assume he means a landfill that would have these measures and technologies in place, and they obviously aren't free. You also need staff to work the facility all year round, because the flow of garbage won't stop, especially if you tell people to just throw all their recyclables in the trash because that's all now going to come to the landfill.


So no, it isn't costless at all you f*cking moron. The best way to manage landfills is to reduce your need for them at all.
 
2019-02-23 12:22:14 PM  
That article really stretched to get to the buzzword of the day, servicizing, as how to reduce consumption. Most folk think of the much more proven method of 'don't buy cheap, throwaway shiat'. (Yes, I'm male, fark fast fashion.)

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."


― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
 
2019-02-23 12:23:41 PM  

Virtually_Human: If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing


The energy inputs to make a stainless steel sealable 20 oz. mug versus those to recycle a single-use 500 ml. bottle of goddamned tap water want to have a word.

In many cases, in other words, no.
 
2019-02-23 12:24:09 PM  

calbert: 1. Reduce
2. Reuse
3. Recycle

It's not by accident or a coincidence that that slogan is in that specific order.

It's the intentional order of effectiveness towards curbing excess waste.


Yep. I reuse damn bear everything I can, from computers and shell casings to clothes to paper towels to those horrifically wasteful plastic boxes they give you at Chick fil a to hold your pita wrap in even if you are dining in. I wait until things are truly broken before upgrading, and our current phone replacement cycle  is about five years.
 
2019-02-23 12:25:00 PM  

wax_on: I love the solution the author comes up with. 'Just use less stuff.'

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


It makes some sense. If you have a sink, water comes out of it, get glass and fill it up. Why are you buying two cases of bottled water every week? A lot of it is just tap water anyway.

I reuse or repurpose all kinds of stuff. Not necessarily but because it's cheaper.
 
2019-02-23 12:26:37 PM  

Ravage: I have to pay the city for my garbage, but they take my recycle for free.  They give a giant can for recycle.  There are three sizes for garbage cans I can pay for.

I recycle because then I can pay for the smallest can and stuff as much as possible into the recycle bin, thereby not needing to pay for a larger can.


Wish they did that here. In my city they use an MRF. I doubt even 20% of recyclable stuff gets picked out.
 
2019-02-23 12:27:52 PM  

snocone: Reminds me of the time I asked a surgeon why we were doing a dangerous, expensive and complex surgery on a patient with little chance of seeing any benefit from the surgery.
The answer was, "It is the only thing we know how to do and we must do something".


Especially in medicine, it's worth it to have the practice - the practical experience - on a patient.

If that patient is " hopeless", it at least provides the opportunity develop skills and reactions for the future surgeries where there will be a chance of success.

Regarding recycling, I have done it my whole life, and will continue, but I know that once that bin leaves my property, it's most likely just going to fill in a big hole in the ground somewhere.  Sigh.
 
2019-02-23 12:28:12 PM  

abhorrent1: wax_on: I love the solution the author comes up with. 'Just use less stuff.'

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It makes some sense. If you have a sink, water comes out of it, get glass and fill it up. Why are you buying two cases of bottled water every week? A lot of it is just tap water anyway.

I reuse or repurpose all kinds of stuff. Not necessarily for environmental reasons but because it's cheaper.


Ugh. fixed my accidentally
 
2019-02-23 12:28:25 PM  
it turns out that putting materials in modern landfills is essentially costless.

free market capitalism folks.  Don't pay for anything and then proclaim efficiency and profit.

asshole article writer and researcher are assholes.
 
2019-02-23 12:29:07 PM  
That's not what the article says. The article says that there are better options for businesses than recycling that should be leveraged when available, which has been the message alongside recycling for decades. Recycling isn't some magic cure-all for waste management, it's just a better option than throwing things in a dump and never using them again. That doesn't mean it's always the best option.

Subby is an idiot.
 
2019-02-23 12:29:59 PM  
To add to my post above, as a side note. If you want it to be more viable etc. root for higher oil prices. That will make virgin resin more expensive over pcr resin and thus you'll see shift towards pcr. It'll also cause a shift in transportation as more beverage producers will start to blow their own bottles in house, to reduce costs from transporting fully blown bottles.

/At least for plastic
//Interesting industry
///Dirty, but interesting
 
2019-02-23 12:31:22 PM  

Virtually_Human: If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing


Not if there is no market for the recycled material.
 
2019-02-23 12:31:37 PM  

Virtually_Human: If done right by everyone, recycling is a very good thing


Translation "In la la land, everything works as it should".
 
2019-02-23 12:32:20 PM  
My city used to give us 4 bins.
1 x large for general trash.
3 x small for recycling. 1 each for glass/metal, plastic, paper/cardboard.

People would screw it up, and they had to do a big sort.
So they ditched the 3 small, and reduced it to two bins.
1 for general trash, 1 for recycle stuff.

They do the sort anyway.
http://newportnewsva.swagit.com/play/​0​2262016-1595

/my recycle bin is always far more full than the trash bin
//mostly beer bottles and crushed cans
 
2019-02-23 12:32:50 PM  
ThomasPaineTrain: We could encourage people to consume less, but that would hurt capitalist Jesus' feelings

Most people don't want to consume less. People say they do, but they don't.

Recycling is perfect for consumers. Not only does it mean they keep consuming, it also becomes their virtuous environmental action. "I recycle" rather than "I walk to the store" or "I carshare".
 
2019-02-23 12:33:19 PM  
"The real environmental value can be achieved through simply reducing our consumption."

Then the good witches broke into song and handed out winning lottery tickets.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report