Recycling in the US (and many Western countries, for that matter) is a sham. It always was.
In reality, most of the plastic placed in recycling bins were never turned into new products.
Now China has stopped taking that waste, the myth of near infinite consumption without the guilt of waste has been exposed for the lie that it always was.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t aim for a sustainable circular economy. Of course we should.
But we’ll need much bigger changes to make it happen.
"For decades, we were sending the bulk of our recycling to China—tons and tons of it, sent over on ships… But last year, the country restricted imports of certain recyclables… Waste-management companies are telling [municipalities] 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.
"When [its kerbside recycling] program launched, Franklin [in New Hampshire] could break even on recycling by selling it for $6 a ton. Now the transfer station is charging the town $125 a ton to recycle, or $68 a ton to incinerate.
“This end of recycling comes at a time when the US is creating more waste than ever. In 2015, the most recent year for which national data are available, America generated 262.4 million tons of waste, up 4.5% from 2010 and 60% from 1985.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/china-has-stopped-accepting-our-trash/584131/
#Recycling #CircularEconomy #Politics @green #ClimateChange #Environment
@Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green
Rather than calling it guilting, perhaps take it as good advice?
Often essentially all the focus is placed on the companies who produce the stuff, then we go and buy little plastic bottles of cola.
We don’t need to drink cola.
Clearly in that case, in buying the cola, we are putting brief pleasure and convenience over the environment. Maybe while telling ourselves we have a conscience and trying to place the responsibility solely with companies that exist because people buy the product.
@siobhansarelle @ajsadauskas @green
No, we are not.
The plastic bottles that we buy Coke in are fairly recyclable, and they can be used as high quality water bottles a hundred times before they are recycled. Most of the plastic waterproof containers, as well as glass jars, tin cans, aluminum cans, and paper cartons - all that is well recyclable.
But, all those bags that you have to rip open and the films that your food is wrapped in, that is not.
@siobhansarelle @ajsadauskas @green
Those flimsy, contaminated, torn, light weight films and plastic coated boxes are nearly unrecyclable and they are contaminating our environment. And I am telling you and everyone on Mastodon that wax paper is a simple, moisture proof solution. No one needs to feel guilty for eating the food they can afford, and for decisions they did not consent to.
This is easy, there is no reason to fight it.
@Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green
We have climate crisis.
We have people buying unnecessary stuff that unnecessarily uses up resources, energy, fossil fuels, and pollutes the environment.
Clearly largely we are putting pleasure and convenience over the environment and climate crisis.
I don’t see how that could be denied.
@siobhansarelle @ajsadauskas @green
No one is denying it.
Do what you can, where you can.
Closing the loop and saying that disposable products that can not be recycled should not be produced is a good thing. Doing this good thing does not prohibit other good things from being done. In fact, it helps to confirm a precedent.
Consumers are not clamoring for unrecyclable trash. That is not where the demand is.
Don’t conflate issues unnecessarily. Pls.
@Urban_Hermit @siobhansarelle @ajsadauskas @green honestly, why drink Coke? It cleans coins FFS. There is an isle in the supermarket that only contains drinks like this in plastic bottles. Capitalism and no social conscience.
@siobhansarelle @Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green Requiring consumers to evaluate how great an environmental impact a specific purchase is going to make is an extremely ineffective way of managing how consumption as a whole effects our planet. Government and producers have to regulate how products are made and bare the costs of mitigating long term and large scale use. People should be able to have a soda without fear it’s killing the planet.
@CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green
Btw, I wasn’t necessarily advocating anything with my comment about people putting ourselves and immediate fairly brief and small perceived benefits over the environment.
I was pointing out the fact that we do, and therefore each time we do, at that point, it follows that we deprioritise the environment, using up resources, pollution md so forth.
I do it, practically everyone does it.
I can of course spend lots of time complaining about companies not being better, companies which exist and do things this way because we buy their products and consume them, which can take years, or I can do that *and* at least change my behaviour where I can. That requires accepting I am part of the problem, undoing avoidance behaviour stuff, and some sacrifice, which isn’t easy as I think we are caught in a cycle of it, but it may be necessary.
@CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green
We could fix recycling, we could reuse more. Many places have a problem with litter. Litter doesn’t necessarily get recycled. Litter is I think a good indication of the problem with culture and valuing things.
Walking near school routes, around the sides of roads etc, plenty of plastic bottles and so on, discarded. It’s not massive corporations doing that.
@siobhansarelle @CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @green Even with litter, there are structural factors that contribute it.
Other people in this thread have mentioned the container deposit schemes in Australia.
Here’s the details, but basically there’s a 10 cent tax when you purchase drinks in plastic bottles or cans. That 10 cents gets refunded to you when you return the container to a recycling centre. If someone else has dumped a can, you can return it to claim their deposit: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/recycling-and-reuse/return-and-earn
(Personally, I’d make the deposit higher, but the point is that it creates a financial incentive not to dump bottles, and to pick up any that others have discarded.)
Another solution might be for businesses to be forced to charge for the cost of recycling and recovering their packaging in the upfront cost.
If you want a more blunt policy instrument, governments could outright ban the use of some packaging materials that aren’t easily recycled or biodegradable.
Some food co-ops make customers bring their own containers and scoop the amount of the food they want to buy, rather than selling foods prepackaged. If mainstream retailers were forced to do this, it would massively cut the amount of packaging used.
So no, even littering is not just an individual choice. There are structural factors at play, and public policy choices that can make a difference.
@ajsadauskas @CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @green
I realise that perhaps this discussion started with recycling more stuff, but I don’t think that is the prime issue, for me the prime issue is reducing suffering, reducing risk or impact on the environment and of climate catastrophe, and I think that requires more than trying to do better recycling.
@ajsadauskas @CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @green
I used to do the returning bottles thing and getting a little money back, as a child.
It would likely require enough people to give a shit. The people who do, are probably the people who have a shit anyway. Or it’s not enough reward to make it work.
The point about other people picking up someone else’s litter is a good one, but why not just pay more people to pick up litter?
That doesn’t change the culture, it probably makes it worse since there’s the attitude that stuff is disposable and there will always be someone else to clean up.
I think in practice, it might reduce the problem in some places, but mostly it is unlikely it will, particularly in the most populated areas.
Also much of the problem here is with the stuff that was in the containers and then of course there is still the issue of much of the containers not being recyclable.
@ajsadauskas @CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @green
Some stuff:
I think all but 2 Australian states have the container deposit scheme.
The earliest was put in place in 1977.
3 common thermoplastic types are recyclable but the recycling of low-density polyethylene was discontinued in 2022 (plastic bags, 6 pack rings etc).
Littering is still prevalent.
Littering on beaches has been cut by 29 percent over a 6 year period.
In 2020, Australia recycled 16% of its plastic packaging,
Most of Australia’s waste goes to landfill. Probably all litter does.
China stopped imports leading to Australia not being able to recycle much or most of its recyclable waste.
Australia produces about 20 million tonnes of landfill waste each year for 600 official landfill sites and maybe 2,000 with unofficial sites.
75% of landfill waste goes to 38 sites.
60% of the average bin is organic waste.
deleted by creator
@largess @ajsadauskas @CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @green
Absolutely, I think reuse and limiting the amount of packaging are the most likely effective technical ways of dealing with the environmental issue.
@CinciMike @Urban_Hermit @ajsadauskas @green
People already do.