Recycling vs Garbage
 

Assuming recycling is possible, is it more costly to the environment to throw waste in the garbage, or to recycle it? Does the answer depend on what kind of recyclable waste it is?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Most liberal political opionions are garbage IMO and they keep getting recycled. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

On a more serious note, the thing is that there simply isn't a demand for a lot of recycled items or the cost of recycling them is more than producing newer items. The bottle law debates in various states are examples of this.

And regarding demand for recycled items, some things such as newsprint have a more limited demand because the fibers breakdown after so much recycling and they need a certain percentage of new pulp to insure the quality of the newsprint. Of course they also use such recycled paper products in insulation. But with newsprint there is an oversupply of material for the demand. I assume it is the same with many other items.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming recycling is possible, is it more costly to the environment to throw waste in the garbage, or to recycle it? Does the answer depend on what kind of recyclable waste it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. Obviously taking a few bundles of a low value item such as newsprint several miles to a recycling facility does a lot more for the recycler's psych than the environment.

Anyway, one of the best books on garbage may be Rubbish!: ]The Archaeology of Garbage excerpted in Atlantic Monthly several years ago.

~ Rick

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

My city has implemented a pretty successful recycling program. Every houshold is provided with three refuse containers that are collected weekly. One for garbage, which goes to the landfill, one for yard waste, which is composted and used by the city and given away to citizens who want to haul it, and one for recyclable materials. Paper, cardboard, aluminum, steel, and plastic all go together in the main bin, and there is a separate tray for glass that nests into the top of the bin.

As you might imagine, this costs a bit tax-wise, but we are told that the recycling program is cost-effective, in that the expense is recovered by reducing use of the landfill and selling the recyclables.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Personal recycling (and by that I mean throwing your bottles/paper/plastics in seperate containers) is a waste of time and money and has a negligable benefit (and in a lot of cases a detrimental effect) to the environment. But it makes you feel better, right?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
My city has implemented a pretty successful recycling program. Every houshold is provided with three refuse containers that are collected weekly. One for garbage, which goes to the landfill, one for yard waste, which is composted and used by the city and given away to citizens who want to haul it, and one for recyclable materials. Paper, cardboard, aluminum, steel, and plastic all go together in the main bin, and there is a separate tray for glass that nests into the top of the bin.

As you might imagine, this costs a bit tax-wise, but we are told that the recycling program is cost-effective, in that the expense is recovered by reducing use of the landfill and selling the recyclables.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were *really* cost effective, there would be companies lining up to pay you directly for your recyclables. In reality, you have to spend tax dollars on top of your normal garbage collection to get somone to recycle your stuff.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Aluminum is cost effective. That's why homeless people go look for aluminum and get PAID for it. The rest is always subsidized. Throw it in the f'in landfill. There is plenty of land to use for landfills.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Yes, but does this point out that recycling is a waste of time and resources, or does it point out that our economy treats raw materials in a rather strange way?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but does this point out that recycling is a waste of time and resources, or does it point out that our economy treats raw materials in a rather strange way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chosing to use materials that cost less to process into a useful form is "treating them in a strange way"?

I'm shopping for a car. I find a dealer that has two cars of the exact make, model, and color I want. He's asking the same price for both of them, but one has a dent in the side and is missing a wheel. If I buy the one with no dent and all four wheels, am I "treating the cars in a strange way"?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Cars aint exactly a raw material

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

So what? If you can pick between two forms of something you need, one in condition A and one in condition B, and the cost of condition A material + cost to prepare it for use is greater than cost of condition B material + cost to prepare it for use, which one are you going to buy?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

Anyone interested in this issue needs to watch the Penn & Teller Bullsh-t! episode on recycling. They utterly debunk all of the rationales given for recycling, explain how the modern recycling cult came to power, and show exactly why people fall for it so willingly. With the exception of aluminum cans, there is absolutely no argument for the recycling of household goods (industrial recycling of steel and other refined metals, for example from wrecked automobiles, does pay, and they do not address it) that is not fallacious.

Household recycling is wasteful and bad for the environment (except for aluminum cans; always have to except the cans).

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=179

"Eight Great Myths of Recycling" from PERC.org

It's a quick read, and quite enlightening.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
So what? If you can pick between two forms of something you need, one in condition A and one in condition B, and the cost of condition A material + cost to prepare it for use is greater than cost of condition B material + cost to prepare it for use, which one are you going to buy?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

But i'm no expert on recycling, maybe in many cases it's not possible to fulfill my requirements of being beneficiary for the environment. I do have the feeling there are cases where it is, though.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be implying that some people get together and set pricing such that some things become feasable and others infeasable by decree. That seems "somewhat out of whack with reality."

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's just that your understanding of recycling is out of whack with the real world. Not that I'm trying to insult you; almost everyone's understanding of recycling is out of whack with the real world. There has been an extremely effective propaganda campaign going on for almost two decades now to promote the recycling cult.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming recycling is possible, is it more costly to the environment to throw waste in the garbage, or to recycle it? Does the answer depend on what kind of recyclable waste it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it depends. It depends not only on the type of waste, but also on the methods for disposal.

Example:
Aluminum is the perfect thing to recylce. Takes no more engery to recycle, and no loss in product quality, than to mine it.

However, plastic degrades as you recycle it. And, it takes more energy to recycle than to make fresh from petroleum. Particularly while petroleum is relatively inexpensive. Someday this will change.

But, there are different ways to dispose of things, too. The current landfill method does not allow things to biodegrade, thus, it uses space/land that cannot be reused. And it also tends to pollute such space/land/air/water.

Composting is more efficient. The trouble is regulating what goes into the compost pile since people tend to throw away hazardous materials (batteries, diapers, oil) that polute and destroy composts.

Edit:
Consider this hypothetical. Would you rather have 1000 pounds of plastic crunched up and burried in a hole or turned into a park bench? Is the park bench recycling or creative waste disposal?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

This may be true. Where can one find that Penn&Teller thingy you where talking about?

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

No I don't. This has nothing to do with pricing within the current system of economics, you have to dig deeper than that, something I don't have time or enough knowledge to do at present time.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

It has everything to do with pricing. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The *fact* that recycling is not economically feasable IS the real world.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
The *fact* that recycling is not economically feasable IS the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. And that can be because of two things, either we correcly value raw materials and it's still infeasible. Or we do not value raw materials correctly, which leads to it being infeasible. Which it is I'm not certain, but I'm leaning towards that there are cases of both.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

What's the "correct" value? By this, I don't mean for you to give me a dollar figure for a particular material. I mean, how would you define "correct".

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

That of course is the problem, and I don't have an answer. It's probably not possible to know the "correct" value without knowing how much of the particular material there is out there, and that is something we don't for just about everything. And even if we know the amount there is, you still can't put a dollar value on it, the pricing would be done by the market. But the market would do a better job if we knew how much there is.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

So you don't know "correct" pricing, but you're comfortable saying the "current" price is "out of whack with the real world"?

Is market pricing, based on the information availble, is "out of whack with the real world"? Or, since you seem to be saying that market pricing *would* be correct, but isn't for some "unknown" reason, are you suggesting that there are forces that distort market pricing? Of course, I would agree with that idea - and those forces are goverments and their regulations.

Re: Recycling vs Garbage
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be true. Where can one find that Penn&Teller thingy you where talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's available on their Season 2, Disc 2 DVD of their Showtime show Bullsh-t!. You can probably rent it from Netflix if you don't want to purchase the box set.