SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Betteridge-Says:-Reduce,-Reuse,-and-THEN-Recycle dept.
For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China—tons and tons of it, sent over on ships to be made into goods such as shoes and bags and new plastic products. But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables, including mixed paper—magazines, office paper, junk mail—and most plastics. Waste-management companies across the country are telling towns, cities, and counties that there is no longer a market for their recycling. These municipalities have two choices: pay much higher rates to get rid of recycling, or throw it all away.
Most are choosing the latter. "We are doing our best to be environmentally responsible, but we can't afford it," said Judie Milner, the city manager of Franklin, New Hampshire. Since 2010, Franklin has offered curbside recycling and encouraged residents to put paper, metal, and plastic in their green bins. When the program launched, Franklin could break even on recycling by selling it for $6 a ton. Now, Milner told me, the transfer station is charging the town $125 a ton to recycle, or $68 a ton to incinerate. One-fifth of Franklin's residents live below the poverty line, and the city government didn't want to ask them to pay more to recycle, so all those carefully sorted bottles and cans are being burned. Milner hates knowing that Franklin is releasing toxins into the environment, but there's not much she can do. "Plastic is just not one of the things we have a market for," she said.
The same thing is happening across the country. Broadway, Virginia, had a recycling program for 22 years, but recently suspended it after Waste Management told the town that prices would increase by 63 percent, and then stopped offering recycling pickup as a service. "It almost feels illegal, to throw plastic bottles away," the town manager, Kyle O'Brien, told me.
Without a market for mixed paper, bales of the stuff started to pile up in Blaine County, Idaho; the county eventually stopped collecting it and took the 35 bales it had hoped to recycle to a landfill. The town of Fort Edward, New York, suspended its recycling program in July and admitted it had actually been taking recycling to an incinerator for months. Determined to hold out until the market turns around, the nonprofit Keep Northern Illinois Beautiful has collected 400,000 tons of plastic. But for now, it is piling the bales behind the facility where it collects plastic.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 10 2019, @08:52PM (13 children)
There are options to try to recapture some value from mixed plastic waste
.
but the economic viability is problematic.
.
I guess you could always drip the burning stuff on your green army men from above.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:27PM (12 children)
Another option is return to making and consuming stuff like western europe did in the 60-70s. I swear, people weren't dying for lack of hygiene, and we produced a quarter of the waste we do now which is probably still inferior than burgerlanders'. Of course I refer to the household, not industries, that at the time were polluting like there were no tomorrow.
Also, 50% VAT tax on non modular appliances (unrepairable, underdocumented, non standard ones). So we will see if all that mewmew about needing to integrate everything is true or there are some middle grounds.
The system WANTS pollution, because pollution creates dependence and dependence is control. Strange that the environmentalists still don't get it and keep mewmewing about the CO2 emissions, like you could tell China to play by the rules, LOL.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:43PM (9 children)
We've been seeing bits and pieces of improvement over the years but cost always wins and cheap plastics are really hard to beat if you ignore externalities. This is why we still have that damnable clamshell packaging.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:21PM (8 children)
Please elaborate on the externalities you blithely mention.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:38PM (7 children)
The major externality is, of course the cost of disposal of all that plastic.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Monday March 11 2019, @12:13AM (2 children)
Well, disposing of it acceptably :-P
.
.
But yeah - I mean it's not nuclear waste, but just tossing it back into the environment does have ramifications from the great pacific garbage patch to dead birds and wildlife to air pollution (from burning) to groundwater contamination.
.
Costs for these are not borne by the product but are externalized to the rest of society. Since the true costs are not reflected in the product, the market doesn't work to resolve the issue.
.
This is one of the areas where, if government and society was of sound mind, it would be appropriate to make adjustments so that products reflected their true costs.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday March 11 2019, @12:26AM (1 child)
Yes. My local city council has had to have this discussion, as China will not take our rubbish any more either, which I can understand.
Of course it turns out they were never recycling it in the first place, but at least we all got to feel better by sorting the glass and plastic.
If the disposal cost of the plastic packing were to be included in the price of the product, the packaging would disappear really quickly. Also sushi bars would all shut down. ;-)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @05:08PM
Yeah, I was thinking to suggest that as the solution actually. Would anyone even NOTICE? Costs an extra $57 per TON to recycle vs incineration. The mass of an empty 16oz water bottle is around 13 grams -- that's according to some random post on answers.com, but it sounds reasonable. So assuming not all bottles are that small, and assuming that answer might not be entirely accurate, I'll go with 100 grams. That gives slightly "OVER NINE THOUSAND!" (sorry) of these overestimated bottles per ton, which based on $57/ton works out to about half a cent. So, round up to a one cent disposal tax to all products with disposable packaging and we should be good here.
Could make the tax per gram/pound of product produced, but that would just further encourage switching from glass to plastic, which isn't necessarily the right way to go...maybe make certain compostable packaging exempt to encourage some innovation in that sector, and also potentially exempt anything that still has a positive recycling value. Although if we're not just talking curbside recycling items you would potentially need SOME scaling for size -- five or ten cents for that package from Amazon.com with a freakin' pound of styrofoam.
Many states in the US already have a five cent deposit paid on all bottles, which many people never bother to collect, so switch that to a non-refundable one cent disposal tax and it's a win for everyone (except, perhaps, for the homeless guy picking up bottles off the street...) Although I guess they must currently use all of those uncollected deposits for something too...either way, people don't flip out about an extra five cents per bottle, so one cent shouldn't be an issue.
Paper products are probably the hardest to deal with, as they would seem to be fairly cheap for their mass...but those would also seem to be least concerning if they're just going to the landfill. Hell, I've seen newspapers thrown in the street break down in days. But screw it, I'd approve of applying the tax to paper products anyway just to slightly discourage needless printing.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Monday March 11 2019, @03:47PM (3 children)
The cost of a well-managed landfill is very low. If the price is much higher than the cost where you live, then there are other, more stupid and emotive externalities at play.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:19AM (2 children)
Which is perfectly acceptable. Be weird and sad if our ancestors wind up mining our old landfills for plastic someday. Presumably this won't be required assuming dramatically increased availability of energy.
I'm still gonna actively avoid clamshell packaging when reasonably convenient to do so.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:01AM
What's supposed to be weird and sad about that? I think it would be weird and sad, if humanity didn't mine old landfills when they had the technology to do so.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Tuesday March 12 2019, @10:07PM
"The stone age did not end because we ran out of stones." -- Sheik Ahmed Yamani
The hydrocarbon age will not end because we ran out of hydrocarbons.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:47PM (1 child)
We can. The problem with post-consumer plastics is that it's cheaper to import stuff from China. The pollution, lack of workers rights, social credit system, muslims in gulags... sanction the shit out of them!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @12:55AM
We had Free Trade and Open Borders. We tried that one, it was a disaster. You elected me to take back our Country. And we're going to have FAIR TRADE. Not Free Trade. We have Fair Trade Cofee, Fair Trade Palm Oil -- why not Fair Trade TV, Fair Trade Cell Phone, Fair Trade Ammo? Sometimes referred to as Ammunition. When China sends us their Ammunition, they're not sending the best -- Peoples Libreation Army. I did Tarriff and it's been working great. The China economy is growing A LOT less, believe me. We'll do "sanction" if we have to. We won't have to. Because I'm working on a very big, and very fair Trade Deal. With my friend President for Life Xi. Great guy, he is a highly respected and powerful representative of his people. And I would be too. If Fake News MSM & Obstructionist Dems would let it happen!!!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by acid andy on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:00PM (66 children)
So they care about the environment but only so long as that makes a profit, rather than incurring a cost. Really, the government should be subsidizing this and fund that by charging the manufacturers for using plastics. Maybe subsidize the companies for using more environmentally friendly alternatives as well so that there's carrot as well as stick.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:15PM (7 children)
Environmental awareness in a capitalistic system. What do you expect?
The companies may be subsidized, but they will use that money to improve their bottom-line. The "Books" will, of course, be clean(ed) to the best of environmental well being money can buy. I'm sure that no carrots will grow in that soil around those corporations anymore. At least such carrots would be hazardous for your health.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:16PM (6 children)
A new system, if the old one can't improve.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:25PM (2 children)
But that would cost money! It would also require us mortals to change our ways and give up some of the so called conveniences we've become so addicted to!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
Such as plastic wrap on everything? Bigger roads and more cars and trucks running 24/7 to get plastic crap to us faster and then the next day take almost all of the plastic away to put in the ocean. Life's peachy in late capitalist society.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @01:29AM
We don't love Christo, do we? Central Park, they did those horrible "yellow" gates. Made of plastic. And those could have lasted a thousand years. Fortunately they took them out -- what an eyesore! Miami, the islands of Miami -- that was the original Miami vice. And Christo was going to damage, very badly, our magnificent Arkansas River. He was going to put a big plastic tent over that river. But, he canceled that one. When he found out who the "President" of the United States is. President Donald J. Trump. He "never believed" I could become the President. He canceled it because of me. And I should get an award for environmental for that one. Because it was going to be so horrible for our fabulous Bighorn Sheep. And for the drivers on U.S. 50. Can you imagine, you're getting driven down the highway. And you come to the river. What used to be the Arkansas River. And the drivers, they're used to seeing that river, they're not used to seeing 42 miles of silver plastic wrap. Also known as Silvery. Looks exactly like silver, it's not silver, it's plastic. That's something they have now. You're trying to get from Meeting A to Meeting B, you can't. Because all the drivers stop and stare. And possibly crash. I say possibly. Likely, incredibly likely.
And the Bighorn Sheep, I never forget the sheep. And I think sheep are what made our Country great. And can make it Great Again. You're a sheep. You need a drink very badly. So you go to the river, where the river used to be. You don't see the river. You see Silvery. Looks like silver, maybe looks like water, right? Depending on the light and other things. And youre little sheep brain would never think, "oh, they covered the river in Plastic." So you jump in. And you're totally dry -- you landed on the plastic. You try to swim, you can't swim, you're bouncing everywhere. You just jumped on the world's biggest trampoline. Tramp, tramp, tramp -- very hard to get off that one. Because it's too big, it's 42 miles. And maybe you get off, you'll never be the same. Because you lost your mind. The P.T.S.D., so many of our proud veterans have that one. Sheep can get it too. Sheep can get it. But they won't get it. Because you (E.C.) elected me. MAGA!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:04AM (2 children)
"IF". We already have the greatest improvement in the human condition in history due to that "old system" and we already figured out a number of ways to greatly improve that old system. It's amazing how people can completely ignore the past century.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:37PM (1 child)
If you're talking environmentally, awareness has improved massively and some practices are improving slowly over the decades. The trouble is, the improvement is outpaced by the global rate of growth, not just in industry but in sheer population.
If you're talking quality of life, at least in the west, it's certainly much better for most people than it was for most of history up until the second half of the last century. For about the last twenty to thirty years though, it's been getting worse for many westerners.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @02:12AM
It's not. The global rate of growth in population has slowed greatly over the past few decades, while the improvement in the human condition has kept improving. I grant that there's plenty of environmental problems right now. But poor countries work on other things than environmental problems first. They'll address the environmental stuff when they get wealthy enough. I figure by the end of the century, a lot of present day environmental problems will become things of the past, except perhaps in some small holdouts (like North Korea today).
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:49PM (3 children)
We want recycling to be profitable, because then it gets done. We don't have an aluminum can recycling problem.
Ultimately we want colonies in orbit or throughout the solar system with next to zero waste. They could do that by changing the materials they use but recycling should also be prominent.
Down to Earth, robots could be used for sorting, and we might be able to find some new processes that can make more kinds of waste useful.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:09PM (1 child)
Yep, I meant their motivation is "wrong" in an idealized, ethical sense. I see a certain amount of hypocrisy in their statement "We are doing our best to be environmentally responsible, but we can't afford it," but their position is understandable. They could afford it if the government provided the subsidy, as I suggested. Then it becomes profitable again for Franklin.
You're right that technology is the ultimate solution for this. It's not profitable at the moment because it's too difficult to process much of the waste and in the case of plastic it often results in a lower quality recycled product that has limited uses. Another solution would be a global reduction in demand for these substances in the first place, through a smaller population, or, as you noted, migration out of orbit and chucking the stuff into the sun, a change of materials or other changes of lifestyle.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @02:42AM
High cost is a strong indication that the "environmentally responsible" position isn't so environmentally responsible. High cost is a decent proxy for resource and labor intensive IMHO.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:59PM
I agree. However, the reverse can be true. If we make not recycling expensive it will also get done. Environmental impact fees can replace a lack of profit for certain materials.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rleigh on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:06PM (1 child)
Even small costs make people think twice and change their behaviour. Look at the effect of a 5p charge on plastic bags in the UK. Plastic bag usage plummeted, because people had to pay, so reusable bags are now the norm. Why not impose that on plastic drink bottles, too? And plastic food packaging. As a separate charge on the bill, not just added to the cost of the item. Small stuff like this can have a huge effect, because it's overt and visible and you can save that money with relatively little change. So people do.
Right now, manufacturers don't have much incentive to change. At the weekend I bought four croissants from a local supermarket in my village. They came in a specially moulded plastic tray with four shaped individual containers to stop them being squashed, plus a plastic film to wrap the whole thing. What a stupid waste of single-use plastic. If I go to a local bakery they come loose in a bag, and rarely suffer from harm. A huge amount of this single-use plastic is largely pointless, but there's no cost to doing so. Impose that cost, and I think the change would be rapid. Imagine getting your weekly shopping bill with a 10p charge per item of single-use plastic. It would add up fast, and people would shop accordingly to minimise it. We already saw that for a tiny bag charge, people respond well to incentives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:46PM
Here is the thing. Why not make the manufactures pick this shit up? Why am I dealing with it?
Their packaging sucks ass. Yet I am gas-lighted into thinking this is my problem.
I am fine with doing the recycling. But this guilt trip that I should pay for other peoples mistakes pisses me off.
Hell Coca-Cola spent millions telling me the 70s with their fake indian how I am a shitlord for not picking up trash. When they had one of the best reuse programs going. They pretty much turned it off and are now one of the largest producers of plastic. Then trying to make me feel guilty about it.
We should not be talking about charging for 1 single use. We should be talking about reusable cartons with a deposit. Just like we used to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:47PM (46 children)
Nope, this is where environmentalists either put up or shut up. If you're not willing to foot the bill yourself, you don't actually care about the environment. Exactly the same as the cities who are burning it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:04PM (7 children)
You're not wrong, for certain values of "care". I'd wager the quotes in TFS are more about public relations than any deep-rooted environmentalism. A lot of people are quite apathetic. You could introduce charges and policies to reduce waste and pollution and they might be quite happy with them, even though they wouldn't take the initiative themselves. What's guaranteed to fuck the environment is solely leaving it up to the individual, at least unless you can find ways to incentivize their changes in behavior, or change the whole culture they grow up in.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @12:12AM (6 children)
Seems to me if the people wanting recycling to happen ain't willing to foot the bill, they should just admit it's not that high a priority to them. If it's that important, pony up. If it's not then why are they willing to forcibly take other people's hard earned money over it?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Monday March 11 2019, @12:29AM (5 children)
I'm generally willing to pay a reasonable amount extra for something that isn't made of plastic, or to go without in some cases. But I'm in favor of industry doing its bit too and offering more environmentally friendly choices in the market at reasonable prices rather than making them a niche luxury selling point with a huge mark-up. If they won't do that on their own, then I'm in favor of regulation to prod them into action.
If you implement a charge on plastic packaging, then people won't be forced to pay it. They can just avoid buying that item instead, if they want to. If you force people to pay for recycling their waste then they should be given the option to stop producing that waste--then they wouldn't have to pay.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @02:47AM (4 children)
The proper course would be to create the demand for the alternatives you desire and make that demand known to someone who'd like your money, not legally mandate them. One is treating your fellow citizens like equals and the other is treating them like you own them.
The second bit seems like you get that but the first bit shows the opposite. I guess it's something you haven't entirely settled your mind on yet.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @07:07AM
But, I do! At least I have the options on their livers, if they are poor enough. Or their young daughters and I am on Faux News [deadline.com]. Wealth has its privileges, like owning people. You ought to know that, given your ancestry [wikipedia.org], Buzzard!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Monday March 11 2019, @12:43PM (2 children)
Oh, but I have.
I'm not saying alternatives to plastic should be mandatory, just that the plastic versions should have a cost associated with them that reflects their potential for causing environmental damage. Increasing demand for alternatives through education and a cultural shift is good too, but demand will always be a function of price so that must be addressed also.
We don't sell products with radium in anymore to the general public and we're better off because of it. Construction materials change as knowledge of their effects improves. That doesn't impinge on your freedom as an individual very much at all, because better alternatives will come along and quality of life as a whole will improve. If you're determined you want to fill your home with only the manliest of manly toxic chemicals, I'm sure you can pick up a load of outmoded items second hand. And in the case of plastics, no-one's banning them anytime soon, we're just talking about them becoming a bit more expensive and / or the alternatives becoming a bit cheaper. It's a bit of a stretch to say that's treating someone like you own them.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:08AM (1 child)
Even recycling causes considerable environmental damage, particularly through the waste of human time and effort. The sauce works for the gander as well as the goose. I think if recycling had additional cost to reflect the damage it does to the environment, it would not fare well for most materials as compared to just throwing stuff away in a landfill.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:51PM
That's why massive reforestation combined with the use of timber would be best.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by darkfeline on Monday March 11 2019, @12:30AM (37 children)
The thing is, the people who don't pay also benefit from the improved environment. So the best strategy is to make the other person pay for it so you don't have to pay but also benefit. This is the prisoners' dilemma and the tragedy of the commons. If it was up to individuals, then the environment goes to shit. So this has to be implemented by the government or other social contractual entity.
I see now that I'm responding to TMB so I don't expect a serious reply, but for any readers interested in reality I hope this is informative.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @02:53AM (36 children)
Those who don't care if the environment goes to shit don't care. If you force them to pay you're forcing them to pay for something they do not want. Now if you think that's a morally correct thing to do to a person, tell me, how do you enjoy buying Trump's lunch every day? How do you enjoy paying for foreign wars? How are you going to enjoy paying for a southern border wall?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 11 2019, @05:58AM (2 children)
This is the anti-vax argument in an environmental context, do you realize that?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday March 11 2019, @09:13PM (1 child)
Not really. It's more like the anti-Obamacare argument. The anti-Vaxxers' argument is a (bad) judgment call on medical safety. They believe (wrongly I'd agree) that the vaccine in their child's body is more dangerous to their health than any disease exposure they might or might not face. It's not financial. It was never about being forced to pay for something they philosophically oppose or don't care about. If vaccines were free, anti-vaxxers would still resist administering them. The anti-Obamacare contingent are opposed to paying large sums for something they do not want.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:35AM
I'm opposed to paying large sums to drop incendiary weapons and drone gunfire on the wrong group of brown people. What's your point?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday March 11 2019, @02:41PM (30 children)
>If you force them to pay you're forcing them to pay for something they do not want.
And if I force you to pay for breaking my windows and shitting in my front yard, I'm forcing you to pay for something you'd rather do for free. And you're damned right I'm going to do everything I can to force you to pay, because it's *my* house and yard you're vandalizing.
Same thing with pollution - maybe you don't care, but it's *our* world you're polluting, and you're damned right I'm going to try to force you to pay for the damage you're doing to something I have a stake in.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @02:59PM (29 children)
Two problems here.
First, you seem to be under the assumption that you know where I'd stand if folks wanting to recycle had to pay for it themselves. You're wrong.
Second, your analogy is shit. We're talking about people shitting in their own yard and breaking their own windows. You don't own the entire planet, you just think you do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday March 11 2019, @03:43PM (1 child)
Pretty sure it's illegal in a lot of the USA to poop in your own yard. Sanitation / hygiene and all that.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @06:01PM
Surprisingly, in the majority of the US it's standard operating procedure. Well, under your own yard, really, in the form of a septic tank. There is far more land unserved by public sewage systems than served by them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @05:21PM (26 children)
It's not about owning the entire world; in case you didn't notice, things like water and air FUCKING MOVE. You fill your own property with shit, you can't pretend the smell isn't going to come onto my property next door, and if you leave it there long enough it's going to seep into the groundwater and pretty soon I've gotta buy a better filter for my well to keep your shit out of my drinking water. If you wanna build a giant impenetrable bubble, you can pollute inside that bubble as much as you want. But if you wanna live outside with the rest of us, you have to learn to clean up after yourself -- or pay someone else to do it for you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @06:03PM (25 children)
Ah, so you feel justified in forcing others to do what you think they should against their will? Thanks. It's handy when the bad guy outs themselves so clearly.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @06:28PM (7 children)
No, I explained exactly how you can live in a way that I would not be justified making you pay for a single damn thing -- go build your bubble. Until then, you can pay for your own externalities instead of forcing other people to pay for you against their will.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:40AM (5 children)
I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. They're the ones demanding something be done their way and that I pay for it to be so. Be it from the top down or the bottom up, that, my friend, is some grade-a oppressive bullshit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 12 2019, @11:26AM (4 children)
No, you are demanding it be done your way, on MY property. Keep you shit on your own land and we don't have a problem -- build your bubble and there's no issue -- but when it starts to waft or seep into mine, then you're forcing me to handle it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:33PM (3 children)
Your logic is not like our Earth logic. Nobody has said "let's all dump our shit on uzra9814's lawn" and you don't own any portion of a landfill that I'm aware of.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:21PM (2 children)
My logic is still better than your reading comprehension. Just because you aren't dumping it on my property doesn't mean it isn't getting there anyway. As I said, water and air FUCKING MOVE. You pollute the air or the water on your property, that pollution is going to end up on mine. Unless you live in a giant bubble. Then you can go ahead and pollute that bubble as much as you want. Until then, if your pollution moves through my property, you should pay for it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @01:46PM (1 child)
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking recycling vs. throwing away here. Unless they're dumping what would otherwise be recycled on your property, it's never going to end up there barring some extremely odd circumstances.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:11PM
First of all, go read the shit you posted which I was replying to and stop moving the goalposts. Here, I'll help you out with a quote:
But OK, fuck it, I'll take the new goalposts too: if you're incinerating the trash, the pollution from that will tend to cover a fairly wide area. Not exactly impossible for people to already live inside that area. If the volume of trash increases, you might need to build new incinerators, polluting new areas. If the trash is ending up in the ocean, getting eaten by fish, it's gonna fuck with everyone who eats fish or who goes fishing. And yeah, if you wanna dump in the public landfill, you still gotta pay to use that land -- enough so that the landfill can be properly managed so that it isn't leeching chemicals into the nearby water supply or producing harmful gasses that blow into town. You can't just dump shit wherever you want, however you want, and say fuck you to everyone affected by it.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday March 16 2019, @10:16PM
Sloppy Steve Bannon was in charge of a bubble. When he was C.E.O. of Biosphere 2. Closest he ever came to succeeding at something. And that one failed horribly!!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @09:02PM (10 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @03:41AM (2 children)
Externalities is just another word used to rationalize treating your fellow humans in ways that are fundamentally wrong.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:56AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:34PM
Works for me. I prefer dead to enslaved.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @05:03AM (6 children)
Are those EXTERNALITIES real or imaginary? There's no good reason to acknowledge the latter. One doesn't need to put hands over ears, close eyes, and chant to do that.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 13 2019, @08:16PM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 13 2019, @10:46PM (4 children)
The only externality you ever mentioned [soylentnews.org] was the oceanic plastics pollution. Africa and Asia apparently are responsible by themselves for more than [soylentnews.org] an order of magnitude more such pollution than the rest of the world combined. At that point, you're not speaking merely of "worse" places, but rather the entire problem.
Once again, it's remarkable just how little support there is for the assertion that landfill disposal of plastics is environmentally harmful. Meanwhile we ignore the considerable environmental harm from recycling, particularly the waste of human effort and time (plus the fact that so much of it isn't actually recycling in the first place, but phony, costly theater to placate environmentally minded voters. Who knows how much of the plastic released by Asia and Africa came from recycling programs in the developed world?). I see you wrote [soylentnews.org] on that:
In other words, like so many other things thoughtlessly done by governments, generic recycling is a huge money sink that wouldn't make sense at all, if a private business were to consider doing it. And only by imposing large fees [soylentnews.org] on usage can one get compliance.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:11AM (3 children)
The list currently contains: everything.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:19PM (2 children)
Uh huh. "We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume."
Such cutting wit! A threat to mashed potatoes everywhere!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 15 2019, @12:36PM (1 child)
You appear unable to understand why 5 in the top 30 most profitable companies in the world have fabs (one of which is *nothing* but a fab), yet there are no mom'n'pop fabs.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 15 2019, @05:13PM
Fabs != recycling. And 30 most profitable companies != mom'n'pop anything. You're compare Buicks and Cuban cigars.
Further, I imagine that there's a fair number of impressive logistics systems among those 30 most profitable companies. Recycling a waste stream is not that big a deal for a large business. Just because it's not worth it at any scale doesn't mean it can't be done.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:38AM (5 children)
So let's say Canada decides to start polluting massively, and somehow all that pollution went south instead of eastward as you'd expect from the jetstream, i.e., into the US. Would you be okay with suffering as an "externality" of Canadian industry? They don't wish to pay what it costs to make sure their pollution doesn't reach you after all...
You're an idolator, do you know that? Your idol is made of words rather than wood, but it's a false God all the same, and you bow down and worship it and have sold your soul to it. "Liberty" does not mean "doing whatever the fuck I want," and it's the hallmark of a very childish mindset to say it does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:56AM (4 children)
You know, it very much does as a first principle. There are plenty of feedbacks and influences at higher levels but that is precisely what liberty as a base concept means.
As for your Canada analogy, it's a strawman. You do not own the entire planet, so unless someone is dumping their garbage in your yard, you have no justification in forcing others to your will. Convince them, by all means. Using force in our situation will never be morally correct though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @07:42AM (2 children)
At what point does the damage done to you, as an "externality," become so severe that you start using force to stop it from happening to you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:35PM (1 child)
You genuinely don't even get why it's a strawman, do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 12 2019, @05:44PM
That isn't a strawman because it's your argument taken to its logical conclusion. You do not believe other entities should be forced to act in ways they do not wish to. Generally, corporate entities do not wish to take responsibility, fiscally or otherwise, for their "externalities." Therefore, taken to its logical conclusion, you should have no problem with becoming a casualty of pollution, environmental degradation, etc., as a result of a company's "externalities."
Not only is this *not* a strawman, it shows very clearly what I've been referring to as the "moral priority inversion bug" in your thinking. In the name of "liberty," you are saying to allow the 800-pound gorilla in the room with far larger fists to swing them well into and through millions of peoples' faces, because not to allow it to would be morally wrong, somehow.
That and your blithering idiocy regarding liberty being at bottom "doing whatever the fuck we want" shows how completely bankrupt you are about this. Again: the fewest rules up front does not mean the most liberty in the end. How many times do I need to say this until you get it? The law of unintended consequences is a bitch and you are willingly bending over and spreading for it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Tuesday March 12 2019, @02:55PM
By that logic, neither do you, so what justification do you have for polluting and damaging it?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @02:55PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @02:59PM
Nope, see just above.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @01:05PM (4 children)
So what? Your intentions aren't absolutely pure in everything you do either. That's why I care about outcome than motive.
What would be the point. Even with pure landfill disposal of plastics, the developed world isn't the source of the global plastic waste problem. This economic thrashing you advocate isn't going to fix any important problems.
A real big problem here is that people haven't shown that developed world usage of plastics are environmentally unfriendly. It's merely assumed. Plastic doesn't magically teleport from your garbage can to the middle of the ocean. Transport is the big problem and the developed world would solve that problem by locking stuff in landfills - where it won't go anywhere.
Going back to the relative environmental impacts of disposal and recycling, we see that there were large hidden environmental consequences to recycling which weren't present with landfill disposal. But the worst, is simply that recycling wastes resources, both physical and human time. Somehow it was better to ship a very low value resource to China (which has a huge problem of dumping plastics and such into the environment!) and waste the energy and human effort that goes into that, rather than just move it to a landfill where it can be extracted at a future time when recycled plastics are actually valuable.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 11 2019, @02:59PM (1 child)
>A real big problem here is that people haven't shown that developed world usage of plastics are environmentally unfriendly. It's merely assumed. Plastic doesn't magically teleport from your garbage can to the middle of the ocean. Transport is the big problem and the developed world would solve that problem by locking stuff in landfills - where it won't go anywhere.
You're right, it doesn't "magically" get transported to the middle of the ocean. But take a good hard look around and you'll see a whole lot of plastic trash that *isn't* in trash cans. And the combination of wind and gravity will keep that trash mostly moving downhill until it hits water, at which point it floats downstream, into the ocean, where currents eventually carry it into one of those giant floating garbage patches. Or do you think the plastic magically disappears at some point along the way?
If we could keep plastic in trash cans and landfills, it might not be a big problem - but we obviously haven't been able to do that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @03:51PM
Not really. Sure, I see some trash.
Except when that doesn't happen, of course. And we're missing the elephant in the room, namely that virtually all [soylentnews.org] plastic waste in ocean comes from the developing world.
8 of those rivers were in Asia, 2 in Africa.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday March 11 2019, @05:25PM (1 child)
Well...until the landfill floods [sciencedaily.com]...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @11:51PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:01PM (2 children)
Have the governor find where Senior Trump's properties are and reclaim the adjoining land for dump disposal. You can fully expect a paper and plastic tariff sorting all the above problems under a month.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @12:59AM (1 child)
Franklin's residents get manufacturing jobs that need the recycled plastic. This means fewer container ships crossing the Pacific, which means we burn less fuel. Container ships don't go to China with trash or empty; they just don't go. Franklin's residents can make their own toxic plastic toys or whatever. Franklin's residents can even work for Senior Trump, making MAGA hats and bikinis.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @02:12AM
The hats have been a winner -- a true classic. And I think the bikini will be too. I love the way Ivanka looks in a bikini. I told her, don't enter for Miss Universe. Or you'll win. And that will be too many "questions."
We love bikini, don't we? And we can do KAG -- Keep America Great. With the K on one nipple. The G on the other (left). And the A in the middle. The forgotten middle is forgotten no more -- I never forget the middle.
By the way, do you have your "2019" St. Paddy's hat? It's back! It's not back, this one has "2019" on the side. Something we never did before. And will never do again -- it's known as a Collector Item. And a beautiful little "U.S.A." Flag on the other side.🇺🇸 Order by Tuesday for delivery by St. Patrick's Day!! donaldjtrump.com/products/st-paddys-maga-hat-2019 [donaldjtrump.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:33PM (6 children)
I'm mostly libertarian, but this is exactly where regulations are appropriate. "If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it."
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:37PM
Tax Trump!
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:17PM (4 children)
Why do you want less? Just to feel good? Does the libertarian in you feel good about making others do things because of you?
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday March 11 2019, @07:10AM (3 children)
There are lots of sin taxes. For example: smoking. Similar logic can be applied to materials. First: we as a society need to establish that the external costs of plastics (disposal, pollution during production, injuries incurred when opening awful clamshell packaging, etc). We then need to associate an appropriate tax to disincentive the usage of these materials. Since most of the motivation for reducing plastics comes from environmental concerns, taxing by weight on the fossil fuel feedstocks might work.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @01:06PM (1 child)
That's a big reason I oppose sin taxes. Peoples' definition of "sin" is ever changing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 12 2019, @12:23AM
When it comes to sin taxes, the khallow tax is the best! Poor bastard doesn't even know he is paying it! Ha!
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Monday March 11 2019, @03:32PM
Using an existing wrong to justify a new wrong is wrong.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bart9h on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:19PM (6 children)
There is a reason the three Rs are in this order: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
The first two are by far more the important, but unfortunately they go against consumerism.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by acid andy on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:24PM (1 child)
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? Oh, wait, wrong field!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @04:21AM
I didn't Moderate. "Up" or down. So interesting that the tweet from the guy that hates ALL BUSINESS got two "Up" Boofs. But the tweet from the guy that hates (envies) Microsoft got pushed down. Where are all the other Microsoft haters? And the Microsoft hating stories. It's not Soylent News without a story on the Main, or Front "page" from Canopic Jug. About how the Age of Microsoft is over. In the words of Aerosmith, dream on. By the way, Steven Tyler got more publicity on his song request than he’s gotten in ten years. Good for him!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:03PM (1 child)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caw-969W-D4 [youtube.com]
They took an 'interesting' approach to 'recycling'.
They are calling burning recycling. It is destruction.
They have a 70%+ burn rate of items that could be recycled. They are not even playing around with reduce/reuse. But at least they have no landfills! Which is slightly better I guess. Oh and they do not run them in the summer. Because 98% of the value is coming from the heat and their particular climate they are in.
This problem starts at the beginning of the stream and the end of the stream is trying like hell to keep up with billions of tons of this plastic goop. Instead we have huge bails of the stuff sitting around. Hoping someone will recycle it.
Plastic has a low recycle rate. There just are too many different types and the chemical process to fix it is a real nasty one. There is no real market for it. Paper only comes in second on that. Glass and metal recycle very easily, but we use very little of that these days.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @06:30AM
Thank you. Look what's happening in Linköping. Beautiful example of what NOT to do. Sweden is Socialist, right? One of the big Socialist countries. They're saying, "oh, we're closing our Coal Plants, we're very Environmental!" And supposedly, they're closing them because of the Carbon. It's not the Carbon. Because they turn around and they burn wood, they burn garbage, they burn many things. People don't know this, those things have Carbon too. A LOT!!! And when Sweden burns all that stuff, they're sending that Carbon into the air. Just like when they burn Coal. Except, it's worse. They're burning very dirty things, things that, there's not a lot of power in them. Not a lot of energy. And it ends up being much more Carbon than if they just used Coal and put the trash & wood in the ground. Instead of spoiling our wonderful Environment. Dumb, and Phoney!!!
You have an old building, or some old furniture. It's not in style anymore, so you get rid of it, right? And you have all this old wood to dump. That's O.K., there's a big market for Recycled Wood. Which they call reclaimed. But so much of it is just rotten. Sweden, they burn it. And they call it Recycle, that's a lie. As you said. But if they would just put it in the ground and wait -- Coal. Great for the electric, great for Steel Mills. And we make many things from it -- the soap, the shampoo, the ointment and so much more. Incredible shampoo, by the way. You put that one on, no more dandruff. And no more lice. Because of Coal. Our amazing Coal Industry is an industry that's finally coming into its own -- because of me.
And our economy is booming incredibly. Used to be, if you wanted to be a Coal Miner you had to go to college. They wanted that degree. No more. They still ask about the degree. But if you don't have it, that's O.K. They need the people. And it's that way in many companies, many industries. Digital. Tim Apple says they love to hire folks that didn't go to, or didn't finish college. Because their Company was founded by a guy (Steve) that dropped out of college. But they're having trouble finding enough good people from the non-college folks. Because the smart ones are flocking to our Coal Mines. They want to mine Beautiful Clean Coal. Something nobody thought would ever happen, it's happening BIG TIME. Because of me. MAGA!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @03:02AM (1 child)
I feel like Picard here. There are FOUR Rs. Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle.
Repair. Repair repair repair. For fuck's sake don't throw it out if it can't be reused but can be easily fixed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @06:15PM
My friend, modern products are almost 100% unrepairable even if you wanted to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:59PM (9 children)
Climate change is a thing, the science has been established. Science does not lie.
Science also tells us that there is plenty of landfill space, and it is best for the environment simply to use plastic and landfill it. The economics for recycling are sending a clear message - it is stupid.
So every time you tell a climate change denier to believe the science, look in the mirror and tell yourself that recycling is (mostly) a waste of time.
Mod me troll and flamebait, the facts remain.
http://www.mythbusters.com/common-myths-about-landfills.html [mythbusters.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by darkfeline on Monday March 11 2019, @12:37AM (8 children)
No, it's better to recycle as in reuse. I agree that melting down is a bad idea for most materials including plastics. Some metals or glasses make sense to melt down (but I do wish we can go back to actually reusing glass bottles, it's an egregious waste to cast glass bottles only for a single use).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @03:06AM
re CYCLE means to take output material, break it down, and use that to make new goods. it is a distinct idea from reuse.
(Score: 2, Informative) by MindEscapes on Monday March 11 2019, @03:00PM
Just remember that using re-usable glass contains for products like soda and milk have a heavy weight component. So you help lower plastic waste, but vastly increase CO2 generation related to hauling that weight everywhere.
Which one is the lower environmental impact?
I haven't seen the numbers posted but wanted to point out that focusing too closely on a single problem just exacerbates others. One of the main reasons everyone switched to plastic was the reduced shipping costs.
Need a break? mindescapes.net may be for you!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @03:20PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Monday March 11 2019, @03:44PM (1 child)
Where does the deposit money come from? Does the beer maker save money by paying to get the bottle back and reuse it? Or are they forced to do it by legislation and lose money on the deal?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @04:44PM
There's an EU-wide packaging tax, which is quite a gnarly stick you don't want to be beaten with. You can buy out of that tax by being part of an approved deposit+reuse/recycling scheme. That costs - in Finland it's a fully publically-accountable non-profit company - but that's way smaller than the tax (e.g. unit fees are about 1/50th what the tax would be for cans). Almost all producers use identical bottles, so you don't need to separate the majority of them, so overheads on processing returns in this centralised scheme are kept low (the producers are part owners of this centralised company - it's in their own interest to make it as efficient as possible). Prices on shelves are always quoted without the deposit, all consumers know there's an additional payment, which will be separately listed on your receipt. Shops pass the full value of the deposit to the producers. Producers pay the full value of the deposit to the returns agency. Who in turn pays the full value to the shops. Who finally pay the full amount to the customer upon return. Such velocity - wow! There's no hidden skimming going on. Return places are absolutely everywhere - all supermarkets and convenience stores, plus stand-alone units - so you can literally drop off your can within minutes of finishing it, and get your deposit back. E&OE.
It's still a stick, but it's a smaller stick than the EU one, so everyone buys into it.
Note, my data was either out of date or mis-remembered (possibly both, I haven't lived there for many years) - cans have the highest return rates - about what I quoted, not bottles, which seem to now be around 90%, PET doing better than glass.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Monday March 11 2019, @03:36PM (2 children)
"...it's an egregious waste to cast glass bottles only for a single use"
Please provide the science and economics behind this statement. Because if it were true, bottle recycling and reuse would be thriving without government intervention.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FatPhil on Monday March 11 2019, @04:48PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 12 2019, @09:50AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves