I’ve read that only two forms of recycling have a net positive efficiency:
1. aluminum (principally beverage containers)
2. waste (principally plastics) that is melted/chopped and formed into such things as bus benches.
I have been trying to provide critical judgment to my daughters (8 and 11) about the environment. I will read them this article. The teachers and science material beat the recycling drum hard. The average citizen equates recycling and good. The lack of critical thinking on recycling and other environmental matters is shocking. The lack of critical thinking relates to the central purpose of environmentalism: thinking that you are doing something positive.
Our city went to recycling a few years ago and dropped off a nice new maroon bin for us to sort our glass, aluminium and paper.
Turns out it was going to cost the city MORE for the new program, while at the same time they were laying off garbage sorters as homeowners were taking care of much of their duties.
I immediately got out the power saw and cut the bin into smaller pieces and put the pieces into the neighbor’s nice new maroon bin.
Of course, greeniks don't give a sh!t about that.
I refuse to recycle. I won’t work for a recycling company without getting paid.
Not merely burned to generate electricity, but just about totally annihilated, as in plasma conversion of the trash stream:
The end products are a fuel (syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen) for powering an electric generation station, or other industrial use, and a glassy slag. One of the by-products is a huge heat generation point, which is in itself a potential power generation opportunity. And all with no residual radioactivity or storage problems with the slag, which may be recycled as aggregate for concrete or roadbuilding material, or which is actually a fairly high-quality ore for further processing to extract the various metallic elements. The process does emit carbon dioxide as an end product, but there is no conflict there - the CO2 supports the process of photosynthesis in growing plants, with the by-product being free oxygen, something that people use every every moment of their lives. Plus the carbohydrates formed, which provide enormous amounts of the very diet of these same people that are breathing up all the oxygen the plants are producing in daylight hours.
Out here on the Left Coast we have one trash barrel for trash, one for recyclables and one for gardening trash. Three trucks come and pick these up once a week. All three go to the same dump site and all three dump their stuff in one big pile.
The Republicans put anything they want in any trash can. The Democrats carefully sort theirs into the three bins in order to make themselves feel good about how they are helping Al Gore.
In California we call this progress.
I’ve often wondered especially at the times Politicians tout more controls of emissions as in increasing restrictions on Automotive, Electrical Power Generation, etc. whatever did the initial steps of the ‘50’s, ‘60’s and since truly accomplish? I notice no difference in the air quality for the Billions of dollars in fines, fee’s, and costs perpetrated upon industry in the Los Angeles area, nor here in Riverside. The air quality isn’t seemingly that much better if at all.
Seems we are upfront constantly with what we should do Politically for cleaning up our fragile environment, but never seem to receive information regarding the effectiveness of such efforts.
Old tires are finding many good and very commercially valid (economic) uses (price of products sold are greater than cost of collection, production, marketing and overhead).
I always thought glass was easy and economic to recycle (apply enough heat and it’s no longer a solid again and can be merged and divided again into new shapes in as good a quality as originally), whereas good glass must first obtain reasonably pure source material (sand). Am I wrong in thinking recycled glass is not economical?