Is recycling just a load of BS?

[notyoueither]

Oh, and then the engineer having so much faith in his technology. It's not like anything could ever go wrong and pierce his precious barrier... oh, wait.

[notyoueither]

Bottom line, it is worth spending money on disposal of trash. The issue is how much do we want to spend, how much land do we want to devote to it, and how much do we want to waste?

Recycling comes in somewhere in that equation.

$8 billion sounds huge, until you consider that is $24 each for every person in the US.

We spend more than that on landfill and garbage fees in our taxes.

BULL****!, indeed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
I took a course in waste management in college in a can say for certain that yes, recycling is bogus... not the actual act, per se, but you as an individual going out of your way to do it is...

It isn't bogus for he city tax payer if it extends the usable life of a landfill. Recycling of greenwaste (organic plant bits) easily helps to extend the life of landfills by removing that stuff and instead giving it away for free to anyone who wants mulch (landscapers and farmers use that stuff by the truckload).

It costs big money to make a new landfill so decreasing the amount of waste going into does indeed make dollars as well as sense. (Pun intended)

[Ninot]

I never recycle.

[Dis]

I recycle my semen

*Dis's sick statement of the day*

[Cort Haus]

I wonder whether domestic recycling is becoming one of the rituals of the new eco-religion - more of a conformist moral statement than of much practical value.

Coming soon - abolition of : heating, lighting, travel by car or plane, imports, exports, economic activity of any kind, farting, breathing, living.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Dis
I recycle my semen

*Dis's first sick statement of the day*

Fixed.

[lord of the mark]

the economics of recycling is driven by a number of factors, including costs of materials, costs of handling, energy, transportation, etc. And the cost of dumping, of course. Much recycling would occur without respect to enviro or landfill concerns - scrap iron is a business that predates any green movement, and paper companies always repulped factory errors.

Today its largely driven by the high cost of landfill space, which generally is in tight supply near major population centers. Now some of that is Nimbyism, and maybe if there no Nimbyism the cost of disposal would be lower, and recycling would make less sense. But the Nimbyism is real, and THAT means that stuff that isnt recycled has to be shipped considerable distances, at significant cost. So given that, recycling makes sense.

And the economics are very dependent on specifics of the commodity, etc. I once toured a paper plant in Canada, which specialized in recycled paper. The shipped the waste paper in box cars that were coming back north from the State empty to get new paper, so the incremental transport costs were low. It improved the economics a great deal.

BTW, Mr Penn certainly beleives in recycling. Hes now popular for an NPR "This I believe" rant against theism, that recycles almost all its points.

[General Ludd]

Recycling is not what it's touted as being, but I'm certainly not going to listen to a ****ing magician on the matter.


Recycling is "BS" because it only provides more resources to fuel industries which in turn causes pollution. Recycling does not prevent the usage of natural resources, instead it only offers another pool of resources for industries to draw from and increase production even further. Pollution can only be reduced by a reduction in consumption where as recycling, as we are commonly familiar with it, only promotes further (and supposedly "guilt free") consumption.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Pollution can only be reduced by a reduction in consumption

So I should toss out my legal Honda, and go get some 1950s car that wouldnt pass a modern emissions test? Coal fired power plants should go back to high sulfur coal, and no scrubbers?

Look, I can appreciate your dislike of consumer society, but saying nonsensical things just undermines your credibility.

[Cort Haus]

I expect Ludd wants us all living in mud huts and eating bugs from the soil.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dis
considering we have written (and electronic) forms of communications. Will archaelogists be needed to study human history at the year 2006? We don't go looking through people's trash from 1954 to find out what happened back then. .

It's not hard to imagine that in the next thousands of years some totalitarian government may try to re-write history and later when it dies archeology would be useful for reconstructing the obliterated historical record.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



So I should toss out my legal Honda, and go get some 1950s car that wouldnt pass a modern emissions test? Coal fired power plants should go back to high sulfur coal, and no scrubbers?

No, you should scrap your honda and walk or ride a bike.

Why are you equating consuming less with using more polluting alternatives? That is completely nonsensical.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I expect Ludd wants us all living in mud huts and eating bugs from the soil.

I'm all for living in mud huts, but living off bugs is just silly. (and I'm vegan, after all)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not the same here.

Our landfill was filling up. The city couldn't find a new one. We got a very good recycling policy because of it, and none of it involves multiple bins. In fact, my bin says 'don't bother'.

I loved the 'dot' BTW. The size of New York City. Why anyone shouldn't be overjoyed to have that move into the county or state eludes me.

Obviously Canada has simply become too crowded and over populated to find room for all of it's garbage.