Recycling - Chew on this for the bye week

[Bob In PA]

Greenpeace admits what has been known/acknowledged quietly for years... recycling plastic is a fool's errand.

My position is: do what we can anyway. Politicians try to make this a political issue, but it isn't IMO.

Without anyone telling me I must be, I've always been a conservationist. Making a mess because we're too lazy or stupid to clean up after ourselves is not an option for me.

Bob

https://www.city-journal.org/greenpeace-admits-recycling-doesnt-work

[DaveBrown74]

The reality is that much of what we do as a society with environmental protection in mind that is completely well-intentioned is often either mostly ineffective or aids one problem while worsening another. There are certainly plenty of things the average person as well as large companies and institutions to improve things, but there are also a lot of half-truths and falsehoods out there unfortunately.

[Jolly Blue Giant]

That is a heck of an article to people like myself who diligently recycle every bit of trash into bins for glass, plastic, metal, etc. It's like a slap across the face 

I had read that the only plastic that really gets recycled are those objects that are made via "blow molding" (i.e., plastic milk jugs, etc). However, since the plastic is made from HDPE (high density polyethylene), the recycled chips/flakes lose much of their durability so even that plastic has limited use

A conundrum! 

[Bob In PA]

I too diligently recycle.   I don't feel betrayed or taken advantage of because it's the right thing to do.

The amount of time spent is small so, I figure, what the heck.

I know some of the effort is partially wasted. In a way, it's like rearranging deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Bob, I applaud your points and topic, but I do have some issues with the article linked that discusses the issue.  Recently I did some research on truth and honesty.  One of the interesting things I stumbled upon is the difference between truth and honesty, as lawyers see it.  As a lawyer, they are ethically bound to be honest.  Honest means not saying anything that one knows to be untrue.  What lawyers are not required to be is truthful.  In this context, truthfulness is about making all the relevant information brought to light and considered.  In terms of the function and role of lawyers in the justice system, these definitions and positions do make sense.  The idea is that two opposing lawyers will honestly present all the opposing points and information so in theory, the truth will be reached.

Now the problem, at least as I see it, is when an article uses the same set of ethics.  There is no opposing point of view in an article so the truth is never reached.    I think this article that Bob posted, can be an excellent example of what I am speaking of.

First, here is the point as expressed in the article.

This has been obvious for decades to anyone who crunched the numbers, but the fantasy of recycling plastic proved irresistible to generations of environmentalists and politicians. They preached it to children, mandated it for adults, and bludgeoned municipalities and virtue-signaling corporations into wasting vast sums—probably hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide—on an enterprise that has been harmful to the environment as well as to humanity.

Now Greenpeace has seen the light, or at least a glimmer of rationality. The group has issued a report accompanied by a press release headlined, "Plastic Recycling Is A Dead-End Street—Year After Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases." The group's overall policy remains delusional—the report proposes a far more harmful alternative to recycling—but it's nonetheless encouraging to see environmentalists put aside their obsessions long enough to contemplate reality.

Then there is the point actually made by Green Peace

A recent Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) report projects that global plastic
use and waste will nearly triple by 2060 with a meager
increase in plastic recycling, resulting in a doubling of
global plastic pollution.2
 The United States Department
of Energy (U.S. DOE) estimated that the volume of plastic
waste in the U.S. rose to 44 million metric tons in 2019,3
which is about 295 lbs per person.4
The plastics and products industries have been
promoting plastic recycling as the solution to plastic waste
since the early 1990s.5
 Some 30 years later, the vast majority
of U.S. plastic waste is still not recyclable. The U.S. plastic
recycling rate was estimated to have declined to about
5–6% in 2021, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014 and 8.7%
in 2018, when the U.S. exported millions of tons of plastic
waste to China and counted it as recycled even though
much of it was burned or dumped.6

.....

GREENPEACE IS CALLING
ON COMPANIES TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING
STEPS:

• Urgently move to reuse systems and
packaging-free approaches. Set targets to
have at least 50% reusable packaging by 2030.
Note: Sectors for which a switch to reuse is
comparatively easy – such as soft drinks, mineral
water, alcoholic beverages, and coffee chains –
should set more ambitious targets.
• Commit to collaborating with others to
standardize reusable packaging and build shared
reuse systems and infrastructure.
• Phase out all single-use plastics (packaging and
products),
143 not just "virgin" or "new" plastic.
• Be transparent. Annually release verified data about
your company's single-use packaging footprint, including
single-use packaging reduction rates and reusable
packaging uptake. Disclose where plastic used
originates and report on the full lifetime climate footprint
of packaging production, use, and disposal.
• Advocate for political action to drive industry-wide
transformation. Promote an ambitious global plastics
treaty that addresses the entire life cycle of plastic
products and emphasizes reduction. Support regional
and national legislation that promotes the slow circular
economy and extended producer responsibility, bans
single-use plastics, and fast-tracks reuse, refill, and
packaging-free systems.

If you would like to drill down (or like to hear things directly from the horse's mouth), here are a couple of good resources.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste-increases/

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/GPUS_FinalReport_2022.pdf

Now clearly, Green Peace is not advocating as the article posted by Bob suggests of "oh well, recycling isn't working, so all we have to do is just throw the stuff out".    The fact that the first article didn't touch on is the environmental impact of waste plastics.  Here are some of the problems

Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies. Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.
Plastic debris, laced with chemicals and often ingested by marine animals, can injure or poison wildlife.
Floating plastic waste, which can survive for thousands of years in water, serves as mini transportation devices for invasive species, disrupting habitats.
Plastic buried deep in landfills can leach harmful chemicals that spread into groundwater.
Around 4 percent of world oil production is used as a feedstock to make plastics, and a similar amount is consumed as energy in the process.

You can drill down on this issue here

https://www.ehn.org/plastic-environmental-impact-2501923191.html#:~:text=Plastic%20debris%2C%20laced%20with%20chemicals,for%20invasive%20species%2C%20disrupting%20habitats.


So in full fairness to Bob, while the article he posted is honest rather than truthful, Bob did clearly advocate for protecting the environment (which I personally applaud him for)

It seems pretty obvious that the goal should be to find ways to reduce as much plastic waste as possible.  The question is how much inconvenience we are willing to tolerate for that goal.  I mean, things like reducing the amount of plastic in packaging and the like are no-brainers, but eventually, you get to a point where you have to consider passing the convenience that is brought about by plastic's disposability

[Ed Vette]

It's a long article and I didn't finish reading it as it became redundant. China was taking the plastics from us up until a couple of years ago. Since then there has been no place to ship it so even though municipalities like mine require separation of glass and plastic, I know it all gets dumped in landfill anyway. I do believe they separate the glass.

Before the advent of bottled water, we exclusively bottled in glass and returned  the bottles for a nickel apiece. Today's society wouldn't have the patience for that but glass is still easier to recycle and melt down.

In Europe they use biodegradable resources such as bamboo and hemp for containers. That's the way to go in my opinion and the expense will come down considerably if the changeover became ubiquitous.

Just as oil will someday run dry and thus one of the reasons for renewable energy, the same will eventually hold true for the plastics market. It's not sustainable down the road.

[Bob In PA]

Bob, I applaud your points and topic, but I do have some issues with the article linked that discusses the issue. 

Rich: I don't have time for what skim-reading appears to be a well-thought-out post (and probably correct). 

I'll get to it tonight.

I'm sure it's "too long" to be 100 percent correct.  LOL

Bob

[Bob In PA]

It's a long article and I didn't finish reading it as it became redundant. China was taking the plastics from us up until a couple of years ago. Since then there has been no place to ship it so even though municipalities like mine require separation of glass and plastic, I know it all gets dumped in landfill anyway. I do believe they separate the glass.

Before the advent of bottled water, we exclusively bottled in glass and returned  the bottles for a nickel apiece. Today's society wouldn't have the patience for that but glass is still easier to recycle and melt down.

In Europe they use biodegradable resources such as bamboo and hemp for containers. That's the way to go in my opinion and the expense will come down considerably if the changeover became ubiquitous.

Just as oil will someday run dry and thus one of the reasons for renewable energy, the same will eventually hold true for the plastics market. It's not sustainable down the road.

Ed: I had the same thought and approach. Bob

[LennG]

 The entire recycling system is a farce. Here, in NY, no more plastic bags, but just about everything we buy in the store has some form of plastic in it, around it, or packaged in it. Why bother.

[Ed Vette]

Ed: I had the same thought and approach. Bob

I'm not surprised.

[Ed Vette]

The entire recycling system is a farce. Here, in NY, no more plastic bags, but just about everything we buy in the store has some form of plastic in it, around it, or packaged in it. Why bother.

Here in NJ they banned paper and plastic bags at the supermarkets and large stores. So what I refer to as the Effin 5%, took the plastic hand baskets to their cars and stole them. Why because they are entitled. That's why.  Now we need to hand carry or walk around with a huge cart and more blocked aisles.

[Bill Brown]

Here in Oxford, Maine we recycle cardboard, plastic milk jugs #2 plastic, cans and mixed paper(cereal boxes etc)  We used to recycle glass but that stopped awhile ago. We do recycle bottles like soda beer etc. Bottles are worth 5 cents. We do pretty well for a small town.

Bill

[Bob In PA]

Bob, I applaud your points and topic, but I do have some issues with the article linked that discusses the issue. 

Rich: Restating my point from a bit different perspective... it's just common sense not to be a slob and lazy.

It's also a very simple calculation... if somebody can make something out of my garbage, have at it. Recycling is not necessarily "free" because nothing is truly free. Somewhere, in one tax or another, we're paying (partly) for someone to haul away our "recyclables" separately from our other trash.  That's worth it, I think

As for the difference between honesty and truth I think that difference is the same for everyone.

Honesty - is adherence to the truth. Some people may be negligent or devious in delivering information, whether deliberately or through negligence, resulting in statements that are not quite true... or completely false.

Truth - is information that is factual or aligns precisely with reality. When you think about it, almost any non-mathematical statement contains an assumption, opinion or widely-held-belief which is not provable.  I believe math is true.  1+1=2 of course depends on our concept of counting.  1 has a meaning, as does 2. The meaning of 2 is by definition a pair of ones.  So 1+1 does equal 2.

Getting finally (sorry to anyone reading this) to Rich's point, first, ignore the headline. As we know, headlines are attention-grabbers in most circumstances (as opposed to scientific and other professional studies which are like Joe Friday said in "Dragnet".... just the facts. 

Next, I don't believe the people reporting ABOUT the views of Greenpeace had an agenda, but Rich correctly goes to the source. Inasmuch as we have access to the source, why settle for the Internet version of The Telephone Game?  Dissecting Greenpeace's actual views, IMO, they don't align perfectly with the interpretation given to them by the publication reporting what Greenpeace said. Whether it was intentional, non-intentional, negligent or sneaky doesn't really matter.  What DOES matter to me, personally, is that Greenpeace is confronting reality and trying to make the best of what some might call a "hopeless cause."

Bob

[LennG]

For the past number of years, my wife recycled everything, from glass jars to plastic spoons and forks. She even washed them before putting them in the recycling bin. She did it all. About 6 months ago we get a notice basically telling us they only wanted certain items. We decided, why bother anymore. For all the effort we did, it meant nothing a don't want them anymore. Now we only separate newspapers and glass.

[weeze]

 There is a material, a "high density poly" something or other where they take plastic and make it into this one inch smooth panels. Used to buy them, granted 25 years ago now, in 5x10 ft sheets. They cost about 500 bucks and weighed several hundred pounds, You cut it just like it was plywood and you could make anything you wanted out of the stuff. It was almost impossible to burn, hard as hell to carve into and if you made bathroom partitions out of it the bums couldn't wreck it like they do metal panels.
 Most common use is they do make it into 1x6 and 2x4s and the like , you've seen it as a substitute for wood for decks, or steps and the like. Dont know what it cost to make but that stuff was superior to wood in every way except price. Main point is its pretty much indestructible unless you melted it down by the same process thats used to make it in the first place.
 Dont know why we never made a point of building with that stuff. Of course the fact that we still; produce as much plastic as we do makes about as much sense as the French do.