|
Posted on 09/22/2010 10:15:22 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
Most of the stuff we throw out — aluminum cans are an exception — is cheaper to replace from scratch than to recycle. “Cheaper’’ is another way of saying “requires fewer resources.’’ Green evangelists believe that recycling our trash is “good for the planet’’ — that it conserves resources and is more environmentally friendly. But recycling household waste consumes resources, too.
Extra trucks are required to pick up recyclables, and extra gas to fuel those trucks, and extra drivers to operate them. Collected recyclables have to be sorted, cleaned, and stored in facilities that consume still more fuel and manpower; then they have to be transported somewhere for post-consumer processing and manufacturing. Add up all the energy, time, emissions, supplies, water, space, and mental and physical labor involved, and mandatory recycling turns out to be largely unsustainable — an environmental burden, not a boon.
“Far from saving resources,’’ Benjamin writes, “curbside recycling typically wastes resources — resources that could be used productively elsewhere in society.’’
Popular impressions to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not running out of places to dispose of garbage. Not only is US landfill capacity at an all-time high, but all of the country’s rubbish for the next 100 years could comfortably fit into a landfill measuring 10 miles square. Benjamin puts that in perspective: “Ted Turner’s Flying D ranch outside Bozeman, Mont., could handle all of America’s trash for the next century — with 50,000 acres left over for his bison.’’
Nor do modern landfills — which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency — pose a threat to human health or the environment. They must be sited far from wetlands and groundwater, thickly lined with clay and plastic, covered daily with fresh layers of soil, and equipped for drawing off the methane gas
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
And despite PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES printed on the containers, just think of how many bums would be out of the pilfering business.
So recycling threads is good!
I think paper has overloaded the system. I have heard that the big cities have warehouses full of newspapers to be recycled with no takers. My father-in-law was a chemical engineer at a paper mill and he once said that old newsprint is a useful addition to the mix but at only a certain percentage. I don’t remember what it was but it was not half.I remember being surprised that it was so low. I had been zealous for recycling and finding out things like that dampened my enthusiasm.Now when I hear local pols hustling a recycling ordinance I know that they will have to raise taxes to pay for it.
My town didn't start recycling cans/bottles until they installed water meters on most of the homes. Then came the 'rinse thoroughly' newletters - Yeah, OK....NOT
|
“Penn and Teller have a great episode on recycling, if you can get over the torrents of profanity.”
Believe it or not, the notion that “recycling is garbage” was printed in the NYTimes more than 15 years ago:
http://www.williams.edu/HistSci/curriculum/101/garbage.html
It’s the sanitized version of the arguments made more colorfully by Penn and Teller.
I do recall once, forty-odd years ago, we came across a bottled drink that contained what appeared to be a stamp someone had cut off the corner of an envelope.
My dad just put the bottle in his closet as a curiosity to show to people.
Sadly, today, most people would look at that piece of paper and say “Winning Lottery Ticket!”.
Where I live, there's always cars parked on the street, so there's really no place to put a wheeled cart for the automated truck to pick it up. So, they usually have two guys on the truck, one driving, one to jump out and move the cart to a position that the truck can grab it. Then after they empty it, they leave the cart laying in the street. This is repeated three times on pick up day...one truck for trash, one truck for recyclables, and a third truck for yard clippings.
“Now when I hear local pols hustling a recycling ordinance I know that they will have to raise taxes to pay for it.”
That’s the general progression - first it’s voluntary, then it’s mandatory, then they make you pay for it.
I would think the cost to haul them back would be pretty low, as the distributor's truck has to go back to the bottling plant anyway.
I would also think that the cost of cleaning them would be less than the cost of melting sand to make new bottles.
I’m surprised the various “thermal depolymerization” outfits aren’t going through paper and plastic bottles by the trainload, cranking out oil by the megabarrel.
To the left, recyclying is the foundation of environmental religion and economics. Anyone who questions the economics and net environmental benefits of recyclying is a heretic. To assert that the benefits of recylcing depend on the item recycled and the manner of recycling seems common sense except to the left. If the public questioned recycling, a pillar of the environmental movement would be shaken. Kids are brain washed about recycling from early childhood.
The left refuses to critically examine recycling programs. The practice of separate pickup and processing for recycling eliminate many of the benefits. Products like paper and plastics have dubious recycling net benefits as compared to alternatives. Trees are renewable resources so why should we focus on recycling. A rational look at recycling would emphasize decreasing costs change the cost-benefit ratio. The left has determined that curbside recycling is the only way to recycle. The left has determined the products to recycle.
Municipal budgets speak otherwise. Recycling costs are a substantial drag on municipal budgets. Individuals do not want to pay much higher garbage collection fees for dubious recycling benefits.
Hazardous materials are another story. They should not be discarded in landfills.
the local fill has been runnin daily, truck after truck full, everyday, all day, for 25 yrs that im aware of...
ground level height has increased a bit, but even the next 100 yrs the jets will still be taking off unimpeded...
I've been making similar comments for years. People fail to look at the big picture. I remember twenty years ago listening to a liberal geography prof. He did a study that came to the same conclusion as this Benjamin guy. And my geography prof was a lib, proponent of AGW. But at least he was honest.
I always chuckle about that one. My township has the same guidelines. These are probably the same people who gnash their teeth about water being wasted in flushing toilets.
Nope, it's about making yourself feel like a good person.
We don’t have curb side recycling. We do have weekly trash pickup available. Our recycling center accepts sorted and delabled products.
We just collect it and drop it off when we happen to be going right by it - no extra trips. I recycle everything I can, I rinse the cans and stuff so they don’t stink while it is waiting. That way, I don’t have to use the weekly trash service. We use the cash received to buy Hubby’s work boots about once a year.
This also saves me about $30.00 per month which I use to pay for the internet and some telephone services. LOL.
Here in my little California community I call the blue recycling bin the “Sopranos Bin.” That’s because the recycling business, just like Tony Soprano’s garbage business in the TV series, is a racket. The socialists who run my town happily participate because they’re in on the “take.” Not only do they enjoy ever-increasing revenues (the recycling fee goes up about every year) but it allows them to grab more and more control over their “bosses,” the taxpayers. Most of the city’s “recycling” goes right to the landfill.
They feel good about themselves because they think they're doing something good. While the government laughs all the way to the bank.
“Why are we here? Plastic...a-hole!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
