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: 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.