Recycling Debate

[2buttons]

No. it's not. That's not how recycling works. Not even close.  That's why a person recycling is running it through the dishwasher. The dishwasher. 

[arebelspy]

What if recycling does more long term environmental or social damage through the byproducts of recycling than not recycling?

what if you are burning more energy than it's worth to recycle?

Emg and I addressed this. It may be the case that it's better not to have the recycling program. That's debatable and depends on the nature of it.

Once it exists though (the recycling plant made, the trucks running the routes), it's better to use it, because the bulk of the work is done, so your incremental costs won't outweigh the gains.

Having just articulated that, and then having you say the above two things, along with the rant about washing stuff makes it seem not like you want actual answers based in data, but are just lazy.  Not meaning to offend, that's just how it comes off. If that's not the case, please correct me on your issue with it (not a "I don't feel like washing" which like I said seems lazy or "sorry but I tend to question societal norms" which is great as an initial position, not as a stubborn one--it should lead you to research, and decide for yourself, not to just decide that norm is wrong).

I'm a huge recycling skeptic, in general (you should have seen the faces of the fifth graders I taught when I mentioned I think recycling might be bad--they've never thought of that concept, they're so propagandized).  But the data is pretty clear where it's worth it (e.g. soda cans) and where it's not (e.g. paper) and where it depends. And it's clear on sunk costs.

I'd be 100% supportive of you lobbying for your town to get rid of the recycling program, while still recycling while it exists.  That's what makes the most sense--don't have it, but use it if it exists.

If you disagree, please explain why, with real reasons on why you think it's bad (not a vague "I'm just not sure it's worth it").

:)

[2buttons]

1. You don't have to say no offense to me, as I am not easily offended and if I am being lazy I should know it, which is partially true.  I am.
2. Here is the thing - regardless of sunk costs - If this statement is true - "recycling is more harmful for the environment than not recycling" then anything after it is moot. Because you are just part of the problem if you recycle and continue to be a reason for the munis to keep the trucks on the road.

This article based on a what appears to be a credible study suggests that we should only recycle 10% http://www.newsweek.com/putting-true-price-recycling-trash-386661. It also mentions that recyclable material ends up in developing countries and places like China. That seems like a pretty long haul, but I think they took that into account in their findings.

It also suggests that only aluminum and cardboard are worth recycling.

I will recycle those two, and stop from harming the environment by recycling the plastics. Done and Done.

[arebelspy]

2. Here is the thing - regardless of sunk costs - If this statement is true - "recycling is more harmful for the environment than not recycling" then anything after it is moot.

That is not true, if that statement is predicated on the costs of the transportation of the recycling which will happen anyways.

E.g.: Picking up all the plastics and recycling them is harmful to the environment.  Not counting all the picking up, if they were magically teleported with zero emissions, it would be a net positive to the environment.  The picking up will happen anyways, regardless of if you recycle your plastics or not.  Therefore it's better for you to recycle them.

That's the state of it as I understand it--it'd be much better if we didn't send all these trucks around to pick up this stuff and take it to the recycling plants.  But, since we do, it's better to utilize it, because that is a sunk cost (unless, as we said, you lobby for it to stop completely), because at that point it is better for the environment.

[Cranky]

No. it's not. That's not how recycling works. Not even close.  That's why a person recycling is running it through the dishwasher. The dishwasher.

My dishwasher uses a lot less water and energy than washing things out by hand! So, yeah - if I have a sticky peanut butter jar, I put it in the dishwasher along with the dinner dishes, and then toss the clean jar into the recycling.

[LennStar]

I suspect recycling is not economically viable on its own merit and may be a net increase in pollution and energy consumption. I'll exclude things like metal which obvious is economically viable as you can go anywhere and get paid for scrap (I have a scrap pile and take metal when it's worth a trip). Recycling the other things does reduce the landfill usage though, a real issue. I think it may make more sense for some things to sort and bury, creating future goldmines (so to speak) when recycling those materials is economically viable vs manufacturing new from raw materials. Much recycling is downstream, rather than like for like, so use is often limited. As for glass bottles and such as someone mentioned, I doubt there'll be a shortage of sand any time soon. Just one example where I suspect cost of recycling is higher than making new.

Regardless, I do recycle rather than trash what is offered to be easily recycled included in the cost of what the government already takes from me. I try to minimize volume of landfill and recyclable material I create, as I feel that has a greater environmental (and economic) benefit than worrying about recycling every last scrap.

HahaŽ, the sand comment make me laugh. Actually sand is one of the biggest future problems. Of course I am speaking of sand for buildings here, dont know about glass.
btw re-used glass bottles (not recycled but cleaned and refilled) are the most environment-friendly sort of package.

By the way there are now techical possibilites that can make the waste seperation far better then the household human so all this seperation at home would be useless if not for the old systems that get not shut down because of jobs.
One more reason why I say "jobs" should not be of any interest to any politician, it often just prevent advancement.

[Jacks flunky]

Note that environmental impact is so much more than global warming potential, which is what most of the conversation has revolved around. Basically, it is relatively easy (once you make a dozen assumptions) to say that, on average, recycling material x has a positive or negative impact on global warming potential, but the answer gets a whole lot more complex when you consider other impacts such as eutrophication, atmospheric acidification, cancer risk, smog production, resource depletion, land use, etc.

Sent on my phone. Pardon the autocorrect.

[rocketpj]

Our town doesn't have curbside recycling - which drives me nuts as the truck comes by every week to pick up my 1/4 full garbage can.

My neighbour actually owns the recycling depot, and it is a viable business.  Part of that is because all the stuff comes to him - perhaps the cost of collecting and sorting all the recycling would make it unprofitable, though I'd prefer the town subsidize him to do just that (rather than me drive 8 km round trip every couple of weeks to unload all the stuff).

Most of what we recycle is food packaging and junk mail, but it still adds up quickly - I am continually amazed at how fast our little bins full up.  The depot happens to be right next to my jiu-jitsu gym and just down from the grocery store, so at least it isn't a major single purpose trip when I take the stuff in.

As for the environmental impact/benefit, I really have no idea.  I think recycled paper adds to the overall stock of fiber, which implies it reduces demand for cutting down trees.  Ditto plastic - whatever it can be used for reduces demand for new inputs.  I think metals - with the scale and impact of mining - is a particularly important thing to recycle. 

My biggest concern is that people recycle, then think that they are taking care of the environment and nothing more needs to be done (i.e. driving a huge pickup truck to work).

[TomTX]

I'm not throwing paper in the trash, I'm using a subterranean carbon capture and storage mechanism! :D

[TomTX]

I'm not throwing paper in the trash, I'm using a subterranean carbon capture and storage mechanism! :D

Perfect... me too....

Fully integrated with existing technologies! Easily achievable on an individual basis for low cost!

I just need a $2MM research grant from the feds! Or a Kickstarter!

[supomglol]

It was revealed a few years back in my town that the city was actually taking both trash and recycling, and dropping them off at the same facility in the same pile.  Meanwhile, there continued to be 2 separate pickups for each residence (1 for trash, 1 for recycling).  Apparently their plans for efficient recycling fell through, and they had quietly decided it was more cost effective to just treat it all as trash; but they had already signed contracts for these companies to do the pickups.  There was an uproar... for about a week, then everybody forgot about it.  Every Monday, I still get visits from 2 "trash" trucks. 

I lost most hope for recycling after that. 

[Emg03063]

It's not a ton, but it takes time to wash, separate, and deal with dragging different barrels/containers down the drive way and back. Additionally, while water is cheap, I am having to rinse out bottles and cans.

All of these have a cost associated rather than just pitching it all in one barrel, and skeptical that roi is worth it both personally and in the commons.

Have you ever tried skipping the wash step?  I don't wash any of my recyclables (and don't recall ever hearing of anyone who really did before now, tbh).  The recycling bin never complains. :)

@GetItRight:  As an engineer in the glass manufacturing industry, I can tell you with confidence that although there may be no shortage of sand, to make glass of manufacturing quality, you have to sort, grade, clean and transport the raw sand, in order to get a grain size distribution which will melt uniformly and be free of stones which won't melt and will mess up your glass forming equipment, all of which takes energy, and melting sand to make glass takes a lot more energy than melting glass to make glass a different shape.  For that reason, we value recycled glass at about 2x per ton what we pay for sand (will probably go higher when someone properly regulates fracking and natural gas prices go back up).

[Metric Mouse]

1. You don't have to say no offense to me, as I am not easily offended and if I am being lazy I should know it, which is partially true.  I am.
2. Here is the thing - regardless of sunk costs - If this statement is true - "recycling is more harmful for the environment than not recycling" then anything after it is moot. Because you are just part of the problem if you recycle and continue to be a reason for the munis to keep the trucks on the road.

This article based on a what appears to be a credible study suggests that we should only recycle 10% http://www.newsweek.com/putting-true-price-recycling-trash-386661. It also mentions that recyclable material ends up in developing countries and places like China. That seems like a pretty long haul, but I think they took that into account in their findings.

It also suggests that only aluminum and cardboard are worth recycling.

I will recycle those two, and stop from harming the environment by recycling the plastics. Done and Done.

Looks like you answered your own question.  Some people just recycle out of ignorance. It's impressive someone took the time to question and do the research and come to the correct conclusion. Thank you for this thread!

[Leisured]

Like others, I have been dismayed by the opposition to recycling. Throughout history, people have recycled because goods made from virgin raw materials were expensive, until about a hundred years ago.

Others have touched on this, but the cost of transporting materials to be recycled is close to zero. In the old days, all garbage went into one bin, which went to landfill. Now some materials go to landfill, some to recycling.

As one poster has pointed out, it is makes sense to form metal from scrap metal, paper from paper and glass from glass. In supermarkets and some warehouses, there is an enormous amount of scrap cardboard from cardboard boxes, and there are machines to press scrap cardboard into bales, which will make more cardboard.

The motive for recycling is not economic, and many posters have difficulty understanding this. It is environmentally absurd to have paper, cardboard, glass and plastic go into landfill. I understand that plastic waste is used to make park benches, among other things.

[LadyStache in Baja]

I have to pay about 2 dollars to recycle per trip and I have to drive it to the recycling place.  They don't take colored glass.  There was a big push to start a recycling program here.  It makes sense because we live close to our dump and they burn the dump every few weeks and the smell of burning plastic is really toxic and horrifying.  I don't do it yet, but I should.  Also the amount of bottled water I purchase is terrible.  Sorry world. 

OTH our farm started a yard waste recycling program.  Nearly every day we get a pickup truck of yard waste which we will start making compost out of. We've already started laying leaves and sawdust down the pathways to avoid weeds.  Very exciting!

[Metric Mouse]

Like others, I have been dismayed by the opposition to recycling. Throughout history, people have recycled because goods made from virgin raw materials were expensive, until about a hundred years ago.

Others have touched on this, but the cost of transporting materials to be recycled is close to zero. In the old days, all garbage went into one bin, which went to landfill. Now some materials go to landfill, some to recycling.

As one poster has pointed out, it is makes sense to form metal from scrap metal, paper from paper and glass from glass. In supermarkets and some warehouses, there is an enormous amount of scrap cardboard from cardboard boxes, and there are machines to press scrap cardboard into bales, which will make more cardboard.

The motive for recycling is not economic, and many posters have difficulty understanding this. It is environmentally absurd to have paper, cardboard, glass and plastic go into landfill. I understand that plastic waste is used to make park benches, among other things.

+1

I somehow missed this thread.  I try to recycle everything.  There hasn't been much talk on here about compost which in our city goes to create new topsoil.  This includes all yard waste and your food waste as well.  Yes, there is an additional trip to pick it up but as someone pointed out there isn't enough landfill space everywhere.  I haven't followed it too closely but City of Vancouver was shipping our garbage to the US. 

From an economic perspective for a business with a large amount of waste it costs less to recycle compost (bin & haul is less than garbage); less to recycle paper and cardboard (sometimes if the price is right you can get paid) and marginally less to recycle plastics.

The paper and cardboard are bailed and shipped to China on container ships that are going back empty regardless.  I don't follow the argument that it is better to cut down a tree than re-use the fibre content that already exists. 

In the end I agree with the point above that Reduce and Re-use before Recycling.

It may be cheaper for a business to recycle, but as has been pointed out in this thread, it is actually worse for the environment in many cases. So pick your poison, I guess.