Need some anti-recycling bumper stickers (vanity)

June 9, 2003

[ElkGroveDan]

Here's the deal. Out in Sacramento County where I live they provide each house with three of those big plastic trash cans, a brown one for garbage, a black one for lawn clippings and a green one for recycling products.

When I first moved in they showed up with all three and I told them to take away the recycling can because I was not going to use it. Family and friends suggested that I keep it and just fill it up with regular garbage. My problem is that I refuse to place it at the end of my driveway along with all the other sheeples advertising that I don't mind participating in socialist behavior modification.

My problem now is that when I moved in there were just my wife and two daughters and I and so I got by with the trash space we had. After the third baby I went to a trash compactor for all the plastic bottles and cartons and that saved a ton of room for a while. We had another baby this year and now with 6 people in the house the volume of trash has gone up and its getting diffuclt to deal with.

My choices were to either order another brown garbage can and pay through the nose for it; (apparently this is considered bad behavior for we lab rats, and when you order another one they need to apply a severe electric shock by way of some huge monthly charge.) or to order the green can for free and just throw garbage in it.

So I finally gave in and ordered the green "recycling" trash can. To set the message straight for my neighbors and other passers bye, I want to plaster it with anti-recycling bumper stickers.

I don't think the garbage-nazis care, since no one has objected yet to the DUMP DAVIS stickers we all still have on our cans on my block.

My request to my fellow freepers is this...Where can I get some good anti-environment anti-recycling bumper stickers?

[MacDorcha]

my favorite is when i did have a recyle bin, we loaded it up. one day, we noticed that for all our efforts to keep them seperate, the garbage collectors just chuck them in the same area of the truck. we said "screw it" and saved the money now :)

[homeschool mama]

**I'm guessing you don't know that recycling paper is actually more harmfull to the enviornment then anything else. If you are going to recycle, the one thing NOT to recycle would be paper. **

How do you figure that one?

Too bad my husband is on a business trip...he'd find this discussion rather interesting.

[homeschool mama]

I'd be interested to know where you obtain your recycling 'facts'.

I'll be saving this thread for my husband to peruse next week. :o)

[homeschool mama]

Some will be astonished on this thread to learn that we have two...yes, two...recycling bins. Every two weeks the contents is picked up. I fill each of them, carefully making consideration for load factor.

My trash bin (each week) is usually 1/3 full.

You have clay dirt there too, huh? hmpfh. Thought we were the only ones.

80 pound puppy? haha. It's a lab so it'll always be a puppy. Our Katie passed on at 13 years and 85 pounds. Such a lovie.

I re-use our paper sacks at the grocery store.

Oh...and I drive a biggie SUV. :o)

[Sonny M]

How do you figure that one?

Since paper is a re-newable resource due it coming from trees. Here's the deal. Logging companies in order to continue to stay in business, constantly cut down trees, but in there place, actually plant even more trees. When recycling happens, paper stays in circulation, loggers do not cut down and plant trees. There is no need to. Also as a result, you get alot more forest fires which reduce trees further and cause a great deal of air pollution. When loggers cut down trees, either there is an agreement that along with cutting down trees and planting new ones, they also clear out brush. Even when there is no agreement, since they want to cut down those trees themselves, they clear brush anyway.

When loggers do not log, the brush stays there, and when it gets hot enought, they start fires. Loggers, out of pure self interest usually take care of this before hand. If they have no incentive to plant trees and clear brush, neither of those 2 will get done.

Hence recycling, it reduced the need for loggers to cut down trees, and if they don't cut, they don't plant, and also clear brush.

One of Bill Clintons biggest follies was making more and more US forests off limits to logging and making harder and harder to do so. Eventually before he left office, he signed an executive order. All the non logging, and all the build up of dry wood and brush started causing the fires that were all in the news last year. No one had cleared that brush in years, since loggers hadn't been allowed to go there. Traditionally, a good smart logging company will work in a heringbone style so as to limit any possible damage from uncleared brush, and in the event of a forrest fire, it limits the spread.

[Born in a Rage]

Talk about a waste....ahem, sometimes it really is better just to post a link EGDan - or we would all find ourselves trying to recycle FR bandwidth.

[homeschool mama]

Weyerhaeuser not only logs trees, it plants new ones in their place. Oh...and their recycling division is huge. Go figure. :o)

[Sonny M]

Weyerhaeuser is a very very smart company, and huge. They log, plant trees, clear brush, and do real estate and since they are strictly in the business of wood, they can recycle. They don't care so much where the resource comes from, as long as they can get it and use it, and have an ample supply.

There a perfect company, unfortunatley, they are also very rare. If Bill Clinton is his environmental wisdom had attempted to create more companies like this with incentives, recycling paper wouldn't be a problem. Instead he tried to kill of this company and others logging divisions.

Note: By the way Weyerhaeuser paper products aren't totaly recycled, there somewhere in the low 30's percent wise. They use recycling to stretch there own resources, in an economic sense, it makes sense for them, to stretch what they can.

[laredo44]

Why should I participate in a useless endeavor that is a waste of time, a waste of energy, a waste of resources, and an affront to personal freedoms this country was built on?

You shouldn't. Almost 20 years ago our town instituted re-cycling. The second time I saw the trash men take the recycle bins that I had sorted as requested and throw them in with the rest of the trash, I stopped participating.

Where I work, they have re-cycle containers for paper. They take them and dispose of them as with all the other waste -- no re-cycling. It is a sham.

[Gophack]

And if it saves a municipality a few bucks on their annual landfill costs, what's the problemo?

I would agree with you IF recycling saved us OR government money. On the contrary, we subsidize recycling! Yes, we are brainwashed into thinking that mother earth (or gaia or whatever) is dying and we have to recycle to save the planet. BUT recycling costs more than making most products new. No reputable free market businessman would touch it. Soooooo the Leftists give recyclers our money to recycle.

There is no profit, but major losses, in recycling without government subsidies. Just remember that when they start to MANDATE sorting your garbage.

[Gophack]

Therefore, I believe every Californian has a duty to recycle everything possible to get their money back from the government.

I would agree with this, except see my post above re: subsidies.

Also, recycling DOES NOTHING to help the environment. It's a BIG LIE. Everyone under 30 has been brainwashed, and some older people too.

[CounterCounterCulture]

You didn't expect such a heated discussion when you started this thread, didja? :-)

Everybody here wants to do the right thing and we have no difinitive answer on the benefits and cost-efficiency of recycling, although we are highly suspicious and cynical of environmental ideas...as we should, drawing from experience (MTBE anyone?)

[laredo44]

You are right about re-cycling paper and trees. The number of trees is directly proportional to the demand for wood and wood products. Wonder how many here will plant their heads in the ground on this.

[Gophack]

The problem with recycling is bigger than just recycling. It's the entire evironmentalist movement indoctrinating our children, conditioning them to believe that the earth is dying and she's crying out in pain because we're hurting her. They get these kids so worked up that they cry when you throw away paper.

My daughter's 3rd grade standardized test had a question, "What's the best way to save the world?" One of the answers: recycling. Really? Talk about a subjective question! (We taught our daughter that the best way to save the world is to spread the Gospel.)

There are reasonable things we can do to "Keep America Beautiful". Don't litter ... someone has to pick it up. Don't waste paper ... paper costs money. Plant trees ... because they provide oxygen and shade. But there is NOTHING reasonable about the environmentalist movement.

I have a book, it's a little old, but EVERYONE with children should read it. It's called, "Facts, not Fear" and it's put out by the Alabama Family Alliance (I got my copy from the Claremont Institute). I bought five books for my kids school because of some of the garbage they were teaching my girls. This book helps parents teach the TRUTH, not the fiction about the environment.

God called us to be stewards of the earth. But we have dominion over the earth. The earth supplies our needs and therefore we must be responsible, but we shouldn't be stupid. The Left has totally won on this issue. It's quite sad, because 90% of what they have sold you -- and your children -- is a lie. The reason? Because you'll agree to just about anything "to save the environment". And if you don't, your children will, because they are being brainwashed.

[Gophack]

BUMP post #61 .... great information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a lot of stuff, but I encourage everyone to read it.

[Gophack]

Besides, if it were put to a vote of Freepers. I think you would lose this one.

I think that's scary. It means that even good, free-thinking conservatives have been brainwashed by the Leftist propaganda.

[laredo44]

But in my wildest dreams I would never, ever boycott a simple recycling program that made sense.

So which ones make sense?

[laredo44]

Anybody with a brain would look at the other ones and consider a person posting it up crazy.

That would be one way identify who is crazy. Not particularly helpful, but certainly a way.

[ctonious]

In college, we had brown or black for trash, blue for recycling.

In another college, we had green or blue for trash, green or blue or white for recycling; the difference is the label on the trash/recycling dumpster.

In another city, recycling used to be green with a label, and any container was fine for trash when the city didn't provide trash cans. Now they provide the trash/recycling cans; green is for yard clippings, blue is for trash, and gray is for recycling.

...and...recycling as explained in Monty Python's "Meaning of Life":

HUMPHREY: All right, settle down. Settle down. [clunk] Now, before I begin the lesson, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you're not getting your hair cut, unless you've got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you've had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now,--

WYMER: Sir?

HUMPHREY: Yes, Wymer?

WYMER: My younger brother's going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I'm not having my hair cut today, sir.

PUPILS: [chuckling]

WYMER: So, do I move my clothes down, or--

HUMPHREY: I do wish you'd listen, Wymer. It's perfectly simple. If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg. You simply collect his note before lunch, after you've done your scripture prep, when you've written your letter home, before rest, move your own clothes onto the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr. Viney that you've had your chit signed.

[laredo44]

What a minor inconvenience to be so upset about.

You sound a little short sighted. They all start out as a minor inconvenience. Remember how the income tax started -- just a small percentage of the richest incomes. Now we expend more effort just gathering and submitting all the information required to file than to build all the cars and trucks we produce. That's NOT including any actual tax paid, just the effort to file.