• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Recycling: BS?

TheERK

Thinker
T
Joined
May 19, 2002
Messages
174
Sorry if this is a repeat thread, but I didn't see it...

I don't get Showtime, and haven't seen the episode, but my school newspaper ran an article to counter-attack a recent episode of BS:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r

Whaaaaat?? Can somebody please summarize exactly how they make their case?
 
My city started the tripple-barrel approach to trash about 2 years ago, if memory serves.

The trash collection used to take 1 barrel, and 1 trash truck to pick it up. With the new system, it takes 3 barrels (yard waste; solid waste; recyclables) and 3 different trucks to pick each up.

Now, what was best for 'the environment' and efficiency? I would argue it was the 1 barrel, 1 truck system of old. The current system takes 3 times longer, and takes 3 times the fuel (and generating 3 times the pollution).

And in the end, I strongly suspect they all end up in the same place. Of course, I'm willing to be shown otherwise. ;)

My conclusion: recycling is indeed Bullsh!t.

P.S. Did I mention that if you miscatagorize your trash, you get 'red tagged' and have to pay a premium on your trash colleciton? Say, I think I just figured out the real reason behind the unnecessary multiple barrels...

P.P.S. Could you please post here the article your school paper published as a rebuttal?
 
The only conclusion I get out of your post is that your community's particular system of recycling is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. But do you really believe that recycling with the mentioned 1-bin-system isn't worthwhile?
 
Recycling with one bin? Or do you mean two, one for solid waste and another for recyclables? And how many trucks are picking these up, one or two? And what's keeping the sanitation companies from sorting it themselves (oh, that's right. They want our 'free labor' to do that for them, all the while charging us more for garbage colleciton.)

It's hard to beat the one bin system of old (all garbage went into one bin, and was picked up by one truck).

Please post that article if you can. I'm willing to be shown!:)
 
I must admit, the recycling episode was the trickiest one to grasp. They (P&T) wanted to fight against the apocalyptic attitude some people have with recycling. Yes, recycling may be feasible in some ways or in the future. However, the amount of effort put into it right now is unusually high for such an iffective system. Recycling budgets are being fueled by BS.

There were a few other nitpicky items in the show. P&T made fun of the seemingly useless products that could be made with recycled plastic. Well, we still buy those products normally, don't we? In addition, not everything that could have been made was shown. I particularly like the benches that are made from recycled milk jugs.

All in all, this episode wants us to not buy in to the hype. But of course, in true P&T fashion, they go overboard. But hey, we knew their MO from the start.
 
They make several points in the episode, and as mentioned as usual they get a tad carried away. Basically they argue that the whole environmental/recycling craze was started due to a study that indicated the US was in a crisis as far as landfills went. It gave the impression we were on the verge of having no place to put our trash, and as always we were wasting away our resources. I think they pretty convincingly show that there is no real shortage of landfill space, and that the regulations required for modern landfill sites make them very safe. As for recycling, each type of resource has to be taken on its own merits. Aluminum cans make sense, aluminum is worth something, its simple to reuse and money can be made doing it. Paper and plastic don't necessarily pass that benchmark. What they argue is that at least right now paper and plastic cannot be recycled and used any cheaper, or with wasting less resources, than by making them from the raw materials. Its the inefficiency of current methods of recycling they argue against, and the massive amount of money we throw at this seemingly inefficient problem.

On the other hand there are the environmental factors. Paper comes from tree's grown specifically for making paper. So we're not killing off our forests, so throwing paper in the trash is not helping to decimate a resource. Tree's are renewable and as such you could probably throw all your paper in the trash and sleep well at night. Now in the future, if they can cost-effectively and efficiently reuse that paper, then hey, go for it, but right now we waste non-renewable resources to reuse a renewable resource, in papers case.

I think the real problem is that if recycling was cost effective and efficient, which I don't believe it is currently, then it would be a beneficial thing, why not do it right? But right now its not, and unfortunately most people don't realize this. So we're tossing millions/billions of dollars at a system that most people believe is working, and so don't call for more improvements in its process, but which in reality is not efficient, costs us much more than it saves us, and at the end of the day, its environmental effects are questionable.
 
TheERK said:
Sorry if this is a repeat thread, but I didn't see it...

I don't get Showtime, and haven't seen the episode, but my school newspaper ran an article to counter-attack a recent episode of BS:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r

Whaaaaat?? Can somebody please summarize exactly how they make their case?
Click to expand...

The gist of it is this - the agenda of the recycling activists is largely political. Whether or not recycling is actually a more efficient use of resources (to a large extent it is not) is secondary to their agenda. In fact recycling to large extent is more wasteful than making new. The one exception to this would be metal cans. Paper and plastic can both be made more cheaply and with greater conservation of resources by producing new. Recycling of those things is a waste of resources. More energy is used in recycling those things than is required to produce new.
 
I believe P&T said that glass was the 1 exception. Though it may have been aluminum.

No, I'm pretty sure it was glass.
There was 1 exception regardless
 
I love P&T and I can't get enough of this show! But it is a bit like watching a Michael Moore film... hope you agree with them, otherwise the nasty slant will drive you nuts throughout the show.

But I had a question about the trees... WHAT ABOUT THE TREES?!!! Sorry... just kidding... ;)

I know that we (this country/the industry) is doing a good job at replanting forests for our paper needs. And it's extremely important to note that the really serious loss of natural habitat and forests of trees is due to expanding populations in the third world (damn you, Albert Schweitzer and your infernal medicines!) and expanding agriculture and industry in the developing nations.

But isn't a good portion of rain forest also being lost to harvest more valuable trees for non-paper use? If not... great! I don't know... I'm asking. And if so, couldn't we turn some of our replanted paper-use forests into forests of trees which produce high quality lumber and such? Of course, then we would need to depend more on recycling paper... but still... I have these nagging questions.

None of this justifies recycling paper today... I'm not arguing for it... I'm just asking some questions.
 
Sloe_Bohemian said:

But isn't a good portion of rain forest also being lost to harvest more valuable trees for non-paper use? If not... great! I don't know... I'm asking.
Click to expand...


The rain forest tree harvest is primarily for the manufacture of exotic wood stocks for firearms.
 
I enjoy a good gun show and love visiting any Cabela's I can find... but can't say as most guns appear to have stocks as you're describing. Hell... I'm annoyed by all the plastic ones that have come into vogue. But I'd expect we could supply plenty of walnut or sawdust for most regular stocks.

I didn't realize there were that many english lords ordering high-end elephant guns.

I would have thought more along the lines of trendy furniture and/or Japanese home construction.
 
I question the "aluminum can is good to recycle" claim. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. At least here in California it is.

You see, each aluminum-can-packaged product you buy (ie, soda) the government charges you an extra 5 cents. Then, when you or whoever takes that can to the recycling plant, they get that 5 cents back. You see? They aren't paying you that money because the recycling is making them so much money that they feel they should share with you for helping them out, but because the government took 5 unnecessary cents from the original purchaser in the first place, and it is that 5 cents you are getting back (sans the interest they earned while in possession of it!). In other words, they have literally robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Recycling Aluminum Scorecard:
Original purchaser: loses 5 cents :(

Government: gets to keep the interest on redeemed cans, and gets to keep all the nickles from cans that are never recycled. :)

Recycling plant: get free labor from the schmucks who hall cans in for them (all they have to do is fork over some of the government's take on the scheme). Any money made from the recycled aluminum is all theirs (a profit they probably couldn't manage if they had to collect their own cans, IMO). :)

Can Redeemer: basically working for the government in order to act as free/subsidized labor for the recycler. They are in the plus column too, since they get the 5 cents the Original Purchaser was cheated out of originally to make this crazy scheme work in the first place. Advantage is that they can feel good about themselves (for no rational reason, though), and they get paid. Disadvantage is that they are really just pawns in a much larger scheme. :/

And just think of all the aluminum that gets thrown away in the form of aluminum foil. I'll bet you don't feel guilty when you throw foil away, like you do when you throw an aluminum can away. I think this tells us the basic truth behind aluminum recycling. No one has been conditioned to feel bad throwing foil away. But they have been conditioned to feel bad throwing cans away. But it's all aluminum!

P.S. Recycling glass is BS because glass is made from one of the most common substances on the face of the earth.
 
No deposit here in Illinois on cans or bottles, I think it's 15 cents in Michigan... why am I thinking of a Seinfeld episode here? :D
 
HBS- I think the only point on the cans was that it took less energy and effort to recycle an aluminum can than to make a new one from scratch. You are right about the government scam though in my opinion.

Archon1
 
The "Govoment Scam" has a whole different motivation behind it.

It saves taxpayers a fortune in cleanup costs along highways and anywhere individual polluters (garbage folk) would throw those cans. Talk to your elderly parents about the garbage in ditches before the deposit.

Of course I only speak of Iowa and the elderly people who talk my ear off. But I'm told it has made a difference. Of course, now we have plastic grocery bags and those little pieces of plastic that convenience store sandwiches are sealed in. Those things didn't exist at the time when laws concerning cans and those plastic rings that use to hold six-packs were enacted.

So it has nothing to do with recycling as much as making it financially advantageous to properly dispose of common consumer pollution. It's capitalism incorporated into government policy. It's about the best process around... like providing pay and benefits to people who are willing to volunteer for our nation's military... I approve of these things because they are examples of what America can do right. Eliminate the benefit to the consumer for not polluting and then raise taxes to clean up our roadsides? That's just more tax and spend thinking to my mind.
 
Sloe_Bohemian said:
The "Govoment Scam" has a whole different motivation behind it.

It saves taxpayers a fortune in cleanup costs along highways and anywhere individual polluters (garbage folk) would throw those cans. Talk to your elderly parents about the garbage in ditches before the deposit.
Click to expand...

Wow. A functioning brain on this forum. Who'd have thought it?

A long time ago, when giant lizards roamed the Earth, there was a deposit on glass bottles. Hardly anybody thought about recycling as a cultural meme then. It had exactly the same purpose. The bottles were actually reused, but that wasn't the economy. The economy was to prevent them from being littered and to give people with low incomes incentive to go and pick them up. It used to be you could get a fair chunk of change from some bottles.

The steel cans of the time weren't so much of a problem, because they would rust into nothing in a few weeks. Oxygen-degradable.

But then we get aluminum cans and plastic bottles. Hey, they're cheap! Make 'em by the ton. This didn't work out so well. Aluminum manufacturers bought up the cans because it was slightly cheaper to remelt them than to use the power to extract more aluminum, but not much. So it wasn't much of an incentive. There was almost no incentive for picking up plastic bottles.

This caused problems. During the 1980s, when there were no real recycling-for-pay programs in England, cans of Strongbow littered the London streets like so many notes about labor action.

So, people have come to their senses. Charge a significant deposit (though smaller than in the old days in terms of real money). Then people will collect them and return them. It makes perfect sense and only negatively affects people who can't be arsed to dispose of their bottles properly.

But, hey! Penn Jillette jumps up and down and shouts and gesticulates that it's all BS. And the little JREF-weenies who think he's god go all gaga.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom