Recycling is mostly a scam. Most recycled trash is just dumped on third world countries.
post
The cost to dispose or recycle should be paid by the companies that produce the product. Products would waste less material and recycling would be profitable for recycling companies doing a public service.
Yes, companies will want to make customers eat that cost. I don't know if there is a legislative solution for that or what.
People are like "but the plastic bottle is free and easy", and I'm like that's because all those costs are paid for later, by everyone. It's really frustrating but common short sightedness.
No one should be allowed to product something without a plan for disposing of it safely and without environmental cost. I'm willing to suffer the inconvenience of carrying a reusable bag if it means less environmental destruction.
IIRC, that's actually how it was set up to begin with, way back when we used glass bottles for Coke. Big companies manipulated us consumers into thinking we were being lazy for not taking care of recycling ourselves and that's how we got to this mess today.
If the companies try and make the consumer eat the cost, then the companies who sell their products in cardboard packaging instead of plastic will be able to sell it for cheaper and potentially steal business from the others. There are plenty of products sold in plastic which do not need to be.
You can literally just put a tax on new plastic bottles vs recycled plastic bottles and the issue solves itself, the issue with recycling is that it's not economically viable.
Update: AG Ken Paxton sues Texas resident for exposing lack of actual recycling at a Houston Center.
I fully support throwing AirTags, and really all Apple products, directly in the trash.
The iSheep are down voting you. 😆
Too in love with their gadgets to take a joke.
I’m actually not too sure about that. I am currently using an older iPhone (and I really dislike Apple, it’s just that the stupid device just does not stop working) and from an environmental perspective, throwing that away would surely be worse than continuing to use it, right?
This was already discovered some years back. The estimate of recyclables not being recycled was way beyond high. I can't remember the number so I'm not quoting it.
Demand corporations reconfigure their packaging operations instead of letting them gaslight into thinking we're the problem.
This is the answer. The best way to deal with the plastic problem is to stop producing it. The three R's are in the order they are for a reason. Recycling is the last thing to try.
One of the big issues with recycling plastics is that plastic has a very specific chemical makeup that gives it the properties it requires, and one major way to mess up that composition is heat. So, even if you can perfectly sort plastics into their respective types, simply heating them up to re-cast into pellets or something else can affect their properties to a state that they're not usable anymore. Add on top the fact that you will not be able to perfectly sort plastics by composition so you will always end up with a significant amount of impurity makes recycling very difficult.
Plastic companies created the 'recycling' efforts to get the public to believe their use of plastics wasn't as bad as it is. In reality, it is horrible for the environment.
I read the article, this is different from the other airtag exposes done on other recycling agencies: the plastic is still sitting on their property with a promise to be recycled later. They may break that promise at some point, but they haven’t yet, so the jury is still out IMO. Unlike other experiments like this where they find the airtags end up in a trash landfill or an incinerator.
Yeah, usually these companies just end up storing it all in a warehouse or a field until they go bankrupt, then the people behind that company start another company doing the same. And yeah, they promise they're working on technology to do the actual future recycling, but it never pans out.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
^https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf^
I don't see any of those things reducing microplastics in the environment nor plastic being dumped in the rivers and ocean. The motivation behind recycling has very little to do with climate change.
Could just stop running one cruise ship for like 15 minutes.
And, we could enforce existing EPA regulations in a meaningful way upon industrial production.
Am I wrong I thinking that the CO2 emission from plastics is missing the point a bit. The issue in my mind is that the plastics remain in nature for a very long time with unknown health risks to us and the ecosystem.
When comparing a plastic bag vs a paper bag for shopping I hear the argument that making the paper bag has a lot more co2 emissions tied to it. But if I throw it in the bin it will be mulch before the end of the month.
The recycle bin? You mean the other landfill bin, right?
when I first moved into my current neighborhood we had a single truck collecting both bins but you could still get a fine for not sorting your 2nd landfill bin
Venture capital strikes again.
Vulture Capital*
Plastic has multiple type that each require a different process for recycling.
Having a bunch of plastic all mixed up together needs people to manually separate them.
It's a joke.
top 50 comments