Recycling

JOEBIALEK

Newbie
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.
 
We use more of the Earth's resources to recycle it than we actually gain, so what's the point? Only thing worth recycling is aluminum cans. Apparently there's a lot of money in that. Recycling = double edged sword.
 
We use more of the Earth's resources to recycle it than we actually gain, so what's the point? Only thing worth recycling is aluminum cans. Apparently there's a lot of money in that. Recycling = double edged sword.

Are you out of your mind? Recycling uses up fractions of the energy, water, and other resources than making something from scratch. Yes, there are something's that are not economical to recycle but to flat out label all recycling as bad makes me puzzled as to who brainwashed you. Do you honestly sit there in front of your computer day in and day out reading the craziest right wing bullshit you can find on the internet?

Recycling aluminium saves 95% of the energy cost of processing new aluminium[2] because the melting temperature is reduced from 900 °C to 600 °C. It is by far the most efficient material to recycle. Recycling plastic saves 70% of the energy used in creating new plastic, and paper recycling saves 40% of the energy required to make a new product.[2]

The resources being processed are purer, less energy is needed to process them and less energy is needed to transport from the place of extraction (e.g. bauxite/aluminium ore mines in Brazil or coniferous forests in Scandinavia).

This reduces the environmental, social, and usually the economic costs of manufacturing.

From the wikipedia link the OP provided.
 
Recycling is a good thing, but some of the bureaucracy and administration surrounding it can be a nightmare.

Economic rewards for participating could be a good idea, and would help reflect the cost saved in the process.
 
Didn't I already say that?

No, what you said was all recycling is bad with the exception of aluminum cans. Many more things have aluminum in them than cans, steel and iron is great for recycling, plastic is great, and recycled paper saves about 40% of energy. So when you look at that fact most of what is around you can be recycled efficiently, its not just aluminum cans.

The thing that puzzles me in this case is not that you are totally wrong, but that you would actually attack recycling, you are nuts man.
 
Watching Penn and Teller as 100% fact, and basing whole opinions on an entertainment show is nuts.
 
Well, they give some quite convincing arguments. Besides, I don't view it as 100% fact. It's just that people who tell me to recycle are annoying.

By the way: Penn & Teller were right about one thing - If you're against it, people will look at you less favorably.
 
the main problem with recycling is that nobody wants to invest in it. because it has not a steady flow of resources like a mine is for virgin resources.

thus hindering development of better methods and so forth.

the trash is just to sparse an poorly collected to be used efficiently and continuously.
 
Back
Top