SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/21/us-plastic-recycling-landfills
A Guardian investigation reveals that cities around the [US] are no longer recycling many types of plastic dropped into recycling bins. Instead, they are being landfilled, burned or stockpiled. From Los Angeles to Florida to the Arizona desert, officials say, vast quantities of plastic are now no better than garbage.
The "market conditions" on the sign [Pearl] Pai saw referred to the situation caused by China. Once the largest buyer of US plastic waste, the country shut its doors to all but highest-quality plastics in 2017. The move sent shockwaves through the American industry as recyclers scrambled, and often failed, to find new buyers. Now the turmoil besetting a global trade network, which is normally hidden from view, is hitting home.
"All these years I have been feeling like I'm doing something responsible," said Pai, clearly dumbstruck as she walked away with a full bag. "The truth hurts."
[...] [Cobe] Skye and [Habib] Kharrat emphasized that the situation was not unique to Los Angeles. "From what we're hearing from our colleagues, what's happening in Los Angeles county is representative of what is happening all over the US and all over the state as a result of these international policies," said Skye.
The China ban revealed an uncomfortable truth about plastic recycling, Skye said: much of this plastic was never possible to recycle at all.
"[China] would just pull out the items that were actually recyclable and burn or throw away the rest," he said. "China has subsidized the recycling industry for many years in a way that distorted our views."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:38AM (7 children)
It's better to just not make it in the first place.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Thursday June 27 2019, @03:08AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday June 27 2019, @10:24PM (5 children)
Plenty of things are useful, plastics just happen to be convenient and cheap because the majority of the true costs can be externalized.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 28 2019, @04:58AM (4 children)
They happen to be convenient and cheap even when considering the true costs.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:49PM (3 children)
We've never been even remotely close to having users pay for the true cost of petroleum and plastics. Those costs have always been and still continue to be passed on to future generations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 01 2019, @02:23PM (2 children)
Unless, of course, you're wrong. Then we have been so close. That's the problem with making unfounded assertions. They can be wrong.
I'll note here that we're seeing the hypocrisy of the entire recycling movement. It was more important to appear to be recycling plastics than to actually do so. And what exactly is the "true cost" of petroleum and plastics? It's just not that much by the evidence. All these people are already paying for landfill disposal as well as litter cleanup, for example.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday July 02 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
Are you really that blind to all the negative effects of the fossil fuel industry? Try a few minutes with a search engine. We have over seventy plus years of various disasters and reports of the effects of pollution from the petroleum industry, far, far more if you include coal. That a few profit from something doesn't make it without accountable cost, although that does seem, from your various posts over the years, to be the philosophy that guides you. Everything has a cost, passing it on doesn't eliminate it, neither does burying it in landfills. Plastics are easy to manufacture and easy to use, but that is because we don't require the full costs to be paid for at the source, use or disposal. If we did, glass and wicker might still be more prevalent, or at the very least we might have created a far more sustainable plastics industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 03 2019, @01:52AM
Are you really that blind to all the positive effects of the fossil fuel industry? If we're going to start charging for negative externalities, then we need to start giving back for positive externalities.
Indeed. Which is a large part of the reason I don't think there's a large negative externality in the first place. They'd have found it by now, if there was one.
Except of course when burying it does eliminate that cost. Let us keep in mind that over those seven plus decades we figured out a lot of ways to reduce the negative externalities of fossil fuels while increasing their benefits. And when simple techniques, like burial in a landfill eliminate a cost, then there's no valid reason to consider the cost any further for such buried materials.
And my point is that the full costs aren't much greater. It's time to stop playing this dishonest game.
Or maybe not. Because there's more important things that you aren't considering.