recycling
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- akrokdesign0
yes,
recycling is still better then creating brand new.
then, that america has a long way to go. as it's could be much better and easier to recycle. ex. i know one wholefood that has a machine which you can put your cans/bottle/glass but it only works with the products they carried which is wrong, as i have paid for CRV which i should no matter what, get back. but at the end, they rip you off. ex. we don't accept milk bottles. wtf!- of course if i don't buy it at all, its the best solution. unless they end up in landfills cause they got old and no one bought them.akrokdesign
- ..them.akrokdesign
- Amicus0
don't recycle sperm... you'll only end up with Danny Devito lookalikes.
- lowimpakt0
it's interesting that people give 2 joker magicians such leeway onissues that they probably know little about.
The reality is quite complex but the generalised results suggest that recycling is better than landfill.
WRAP is an organisation that is funded by the UK government to target and reduce waste (mainly packaging). They have have done Life Cycle Assessment studies on various options and conculuded that recycling is generally better than landfill.
"The results are clear. Across the board, most studies show that recycling offers more environmental benefits and
lower environmental impacts than other waste management options."http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads…
2 page summary
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads…
- NEWSFLASH0
switzerland has a nice system for rubbish, the only rubbish bags you are allowed to use, cost a few £'s each, and they are small.
This makes everyone crush their rubbish right down, incredibly reducing the sheer volume of waste.
Plus they have recycling points everywhere.Boring country though
- moth0
The ship's sinking anyway. Environmentalism is merely delaying the inevitable, and creating a new, lucrative industry at best.
- the is ship's sinking cause we build it with a big hole.akrokdesign
- cuke4260
fyi i found this article that sums up the p&t episode linked above
".....Some points are very simple and should have always been apparent. In almost all cases, it costs more to recycle a product than to create a new one. The single exception is aluminum cans - it's cheaper to recycle aluminum than to mine bauxite. Why should that fact have been so readily apparent? Because it is why we see people digging in garbage cans to collect aluminum cans. They can be sold for cold, hard cash. Try that with plastic milk jugs.
All other products not only cost more to recycle than to manufacture new, they are *more* polluting to the environment. Recycling, after all, *is* a manufacturing process. Bleaching paper in order to recycle it, for
example, is more polluting than creating new paper. You'll also find that you pay more for recycled paper, as you do for most any other "natural" "environmentally friendly" product. It was also mentioned that most new paper is made from trees we planted specifically to make paper. Trees are renewable. And we have more trees now than we did in the 1920's.
There is also the point that in most all cases recycling programs lose money. It's very simple to point out that if recycling saved money, we should be paid for doing it. But the fact is that community recycling programs are just another expense with no return. About eight billion dollars per year in the U.S.They also put the landfill situation into perspective. At the rate
Americans create garbage, you could handle all of it for the next 1000 years with a single landfill 35 square miles in size and 200 feet high. Seems large, but compared to the land mass of the continental U.S. it's a drop in the bucket. And this is in comparison to horror stories of the U.S. running out of landfill space. It was never true. There is more landfill space now than ever. They are also cleaner and safer than ever.
There was also a mention of methane. Called a toxic, noxious gas by the greenies interviewed, it was shown that California's largest landfill uses the methane - a clean burning fuel - to create electricity. Enough to power 160,000 homes for the next 100 years. That is a *real* benefit. "- what's up with all these long responses lately?ceiling_cat
- haha apologies, i posted something that can't be processed in 3 seconds.cuke426
- akrokdesign0
acturlly, the biggest problem might be that people are like goats. some can't just let go of their routines. also, its cool to be anti.
- joeth0
Please watch this:
- Corvo20
When you look at it in terms of big numbers you cannot but reach that conclusion: that "it seems that reducing consumption is really the only thing that's effective". I mean, if you're looking to managing a city you can't escape that sort of economical thinking, because you have to deal with it.
But when you think in a smaller scale (e.g the scale of the individual, a household or a company) you'll see that recycling, although more costly at present, generates good practices and savings, which not only ends ups in less consumption but also in re-using behaviours which eventually will mean less garbage for any city to deal with in the future.
This to say that re-using is more important than recycling.
- point taken. short term large scale it's not good, but long term it is.cuke426
- randommail0
So is the takeaway lesson?
Paper recycling = Bad
Can recycling = Good
Plastic recycling = Mostly bad, but might have a positive affect on people's consumption behavior. ie, simply drinking tap water
- randommail0
and what about recycling glass?
- pango0
*applause*
yes I do recycle but i dont think its "the" solution.
and +1 to Corvo2.