While recycling is last in that mantra, it is overemphasized more than the other two. It shifts the onus of stewarding our environment to the individual rather than the corporations and militaries, which wreck our planet more than any individual can. They'd rather you not look at what they're doing to the environment, and instead look at the individual.
Moreover, companies don't want you to reduce your consumption, they want you to keep buying their products. Reuse? Nah, here are products that are obsolete, buy the new model.
xnx · 22h ago
Reducing consumption is the ultimate taboo. That message is effectively censored from all commercial media.
lm28469 · 21h ago
Anything that doesn't imply infinite growth is taboo... Which is weird because it will for sure happen, the question is whether you plan it or suffer from it
ath3nd · 20h ago
Infinite growth in nature is called cancer.
robocat · 20h ago
Infinite growth in nature is called life.
cancer is copypasta - incorrectly copied life. Ultimately self-defeating.
Both are limited by finite resources (and time is a resource).
raincom · 3h ago
Making products that are hard to repair and which don't last long are the huge culprits. Also, when it comes to clothing, it is all fast fashion. Wear a few times, then dump.
Also labor costs to repair in the developed world is another factor.
mrmuagi · 21h ago
I guess because commercial media drives on advertising dollars that ultimately are meant to drive consumerism?
I think minimalism/no buy movements are big though.
xnx · 20h ago
Yes. I don't think a broadcaster would accept a billion dollars for a 30 second "ad" during the Super Bowl with a message that said "buying this junk will not make you happy".
whycome · 22h ago
> commercial media
They pause for breaks to sell you things and the pauses are unashamedly called “commercials”
ainiriand · 22h ago
Repair! We should fight for that. I want to be able to repair not just my electronics (or pay someone to do it for me), but also my tools and machines.
xnx · 22h ago
Refuse! Stop unnecessary consumption at the source.
couchdive · 21h ago
but... but... the all new ipad pro is 2 microns thinner!
You can fit 2 of them under the bathroom door at the same time stacked, (DONT ASK)
tshaddox · 22h ago
For what it's worth, the mantra I was taught in the U.S. in the 1990s was ordered "recycle, reduce, reuse," but there was no indication that the ordering mattered. We were just taught about all three things.
ortusdux · 23h ago
It's very much like the invention of the concept of jaywalking. An organized effort to shift blame/responsibility.
It's a crime from a criminal to scam the bank. Instead of the bank being held accountable for mistaking the identity (or don't do enough due diligent), the concept shifts the blame to the account owner, saying it's their fault for having their identity "stolen", despite them was not involved in the scam process.
whycome · 22h ago
It’s insane that the argument from the bank really just comes down to “but they said they were you!”
An individual couldn’t pull that in any other transaction.
const_cast · 17h ago
Usually it's a bit more complicated than that, and a reason why it's a big problem in the US is we don't have good ways to reliably gauge identity. SSNs got pushed onto everything because it's actually the only thing everyone has. Everything else is fragmented and optional. DL? State-to-state, fragmented, optional. Passports? Very optional, and expensive. Phone numbers? Much more universal, but the telephony system is not secure by any means. Usernames? Passwords? Well, we all know those aren't perfect security measures.
whycome · 17h ago
It’s not always more complicated than that.
To add:
“They knew your mom’s maiden name!”
And now for some reason using an SMS as verification is the standard. (And often required).
const_cast · 15h ago
Right, we have various add-on solutions because the core problem is unsolvable. How do you identify every person in the US? You can't, SSN is the only way to even try to do that. But SSN is just a number. No picture, no description, no renewals, no nothing.
So then we bolt-on these solutions to try to get it to work. The issue is we have multiple costs here - we have to balance security, but we also need to make sure customers can get their money most of the time they need to.
I recently signed up for Apple Enhanced Data Security or whatever it was called. It made it very clear that if I lose my password, my data can never be recovered. Ever. No email address can help, no recovery mechanisms. It's sealed and done for good. I'm tech-savvy and I can live with this. Can Nana? For my money, no.
We do things like security questions because they're easy and people understand them, and people use them all the time to recover accounts. Same reason we do SMS - everyone has a phone. These are imperfect solutions because perfect solutions have other issues. How many people will be locked permanently out of their bank account? How will the bank deal with those lawsuits?
A good resource for anyone dealing with credit issues due to identity theft. If I recall correctly, the advice boils down to notifying the bank that the transaction was fraudulent and then notifying credit unions that the bank has been notified that the transaction is fraudulent. Of course, doing all this through proper channels. It’s still bullshit how banks sabotaged public knowledge of it but at least the law favors the consumer.
andrewla · 22h ago
> An organized effort to shift blame/responsibility
That seems like a very odd view to me. The article points out the rising tide of traffic accidents that led to these laws being passed. As automobiles became ubiquitous it was more and more dangerous for pedestrians to walk on roads. So the laws followed this. That auto companies were involved in the lobbying process is a non-factor; even if we had increased criminal liability for traffic fatalities, the fundamental problem is that law is downstream of culture, and that we would reach a breaking point where juries would simply not convict drivers, as it became more and more common wisdom to be wary of automobiles when crossing streets.
No grand conspiracy is necessary here, this is just technology changing society and laws adapting to that reality.
whycome · 22h ago
The laws could have limited vehicles in a number of ways if it treated shared access to the spaces as fundamental.
andrewla · 21h ago
Without doing further research, what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction?
I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons.
The fact of the matter is that society was changing, and that was it. Places where cars go are not compatible with places that people go and cars were getting cheaper and more common and more necessary all the time.
cassianoleal · 10h ago
I think it's the USA and Germany who have jaywalking laws. Pretty much everywhere other country in the whole world have dealt with the problem differently.
Mawr · 18h ago
> I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons.
Really? Because the humanity's track record about anything that's brand new is horrible. Lead in gasoline? Seems to help a lot with engine function, let's deploy it planet-wide before making sure it's safe. Nothing can possibly go wrong!
> what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction?
As for laws themselves, in the event of a driver hitting a pedestrian, the driver is found automatically at fault. If it turns out the pedestrian was at fault, the driver still remains liable for 50% of the damages. (Suprised? Think, which party is the source of the danger? Can the pedestrian ever harm the driver in any way? Then how can the responsibility ever not lay on the driver?)
But really, it's not laws that are needed here, but well designed infrastructure. Infrastructure that clearly communicates to everyone how to behave.
Speed limits are a great example. How exactly is putting up a sign saying "pls no speederino" supposed to affect a vehicle moving at 100mph through a residental street? Is the threat of potential consequences down the line in the unlikely scenario of getting caught supposed to do that? That'd require humans to be rational actors.
Now, if we put a bump on the road that will damage the vehicle if gone over at speeds of >50mph, then the speedster has only two choices: 1) go over it and immediately feel the consequences 2) slow down.
Some other such measures:
- raised crosswalks (The crosswalk simply continues, it's the road surface that comes up. That way it's the vehicle that intrudes on the space of the pedestrians, not the other way around. Note that this is the opposite of how it's almost always done.)
- roundabouts
- narrowing roads
- curb extensions
- chicanes
- changing the road surface to be less pleasant to drive on at speed
- adding and increasing curves in general
os2warpman · 21h ago
Jaywalking was an invented term but it was not a new concept created as part of a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.
Prior to the invention of the automobile, if a pedestrian walked onto a public street and was struck and killed by a vehicle, the pedestrian was 100% at fault unless the driver was negligent. Merely operating a vehicle in a normal manner was not negligence.
It has been understood since the construction of Pompeii at the latest, that pedestrians belong on sidewalks and vehicles in the road.
Pont Neuf, the oldest bridge in Paris was built in the 1600s with sidewalks.
All of the oldest photos from the 1800s of major cities show a separation of vehicles and pedestrians.
If you have access to a newspaper archive like I do you can run a search for jaywalking and sort by oldest result.
Most of the pushback to jaywalking laws was because they required crossing at corners, not the middle of the street.
People instinctively (wrongly) believed that crossing in the middle was safer. Statisticians know that corners are safer.
Fun fact: you were more likely to die being run over by a horse in New York City prior to the invention of the automobile than you are to be struck and killed by an automobile today.
Much MUCH more likely.
>Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difficult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern
counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the
modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there
were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.
344 is a lot. In 2024, there were 252 auto-related fatalities (drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians) in NYC.
I once saw an article that in the 1800s there were over 150 fatalities per year in San Francisco due to street cars alone so I wager the increasing value of human life in the early 1900s also contributed to jaywalking laws.
Everyone just used to accept people dying left and right due to horses and trains.
But again, it WAS NOT a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.
bryanlarsen · 21h ago
> People instinctively (wrongly) believed that crossing in the middle was safer. Statisticians know that corners are safer.
I refuse to believe this without attribution. Sure, "jaywalking" might be more dangerous than crossing at corners, but I'm highly confident that controlled zebra crossings in the middle of the street are safer.
givemeethekeys · 23h ago
Planet Money (NPR) did an excellent episode about this. Short answer, yes, recycling is a scam.
#925: A Mob Boss, A Garbage Boat and Why We Recycle
crazygringo · 23h ago
To be clear, plastic recycling is pretty much a scam.
Recycling aluminum cans is fantastic. Clear glass bottles and corrugated cardboard are also great for recycling.
diggan · 23h ago
Honest/naive question: If something like https://www.preciousplastic.com/universe/how-does-it-work was in much, much wider use, would it have any realistic impact on the problem about recycling plastic? Since it's doing it in a very different way, and seems better at actually reusing the material.
ahi · 22h ago
Calling it "precious" is just a bit too on the nose. That looks more like an art project than an actual solution. One of their shredders working 24/365 can get through <500 tons. In 2018, US generated 35.6 million tons of plastic. Industrial problems require industrial (or legislative) solutions.
lesuorac · 22h ago
The general problem is that new plastic is cheaper to produce than recycled plastic is to re-use.
So, something like preciousplastic doesn't occur wide spread because it's more expensive and therefore worse under a capitalistic model. You'd need to add a tax to new plastic to change that fact.
ploxiln · 22h ago
What gets me about public recycling communications/outreach/programs is that they always emphasize "recycle more" and never "recycle carefully". Really it should be "First, don't put junk in the recycling (do no harm). Second, if you have clean appropriate objects, put them in the recycling."
In fancy office buildings and residential buildings around NYC I've seen inappropriate junk in the recycling all the time, practically every time I put in my recycling. Plastic wraps and plastic milk cartons in the paper. Paper and food in the bottles/cans. It's always unclear about toys and household plastic objects that very likely have additives that make them not recyclable. Nobody ever emphasizes recycling correctly, but in any documentary where they look inside recycling centers you see them dealing with machines clogged with inappropriate materials, huge bales of negative-value mixed materials, etc. This is the stuff that was getting secretly shipped to Asia for dubious handling because it was too low-value for actual processing/usage in the US.
I don't blame oil companies, or manufacturers, really everyone has been in on this collective delusion: teachers, politicians, community organizers, everyone I see is all about more recycling, recycling good. While actually we've been trashing the recycling systems/processes for decades, while cheering it on. And I'm some weird nerd engineer type who cares if thing work or not.
beAbU · 12h ago
I worked in a wework building for a while, there they made a huuuuge fuss about the separated recycling bin. We had to be super careful about what we put in which bins.
My desk was near a kitchen area. Every day, without fail, the cleaner would come and empty the separate bins into one large bin when taking out the trash.
Ekaros · 12h ago
Isn't glass actually bit questionable? The energy difference between pristine material and glass isn't very big. Unlike aluminium where it is massive.
Still, it is probably good to remove it from other places.
bryanlarsen · 22h ago
post-industrial recycling of many different materials are even more fantastic than post-consumer aluminum recycling.
Dig1t · 23h ago
Glass bottle recycling is a pretty cool process, the “How It’s Made” episode on fiberglass insulation is awesome. They basically crush the bottles and make glass cotton candy out of it. It’s nearly a 100% conversion and it ends up going into creating new housing for people. Basically the best kind of recycling.
ip26 · 22h ago
Lead battery recycling is pretty incredible, with allegedly 80% of the lead in a new battery being recycled lead.
aerostable_slug · 22h ago
Lead recycling is so successful that there are no longer American primary smelters extracting the metal from ore. All lead smelting in the US is secondary, making use of recycled materials.
nofunsir · 21h ago
In my area, most of the glass recycled gets sent to the landfill as a daily layer drainage cover.
megaman821 · 22h ago
Landfilling plastic is fine. The problem is introducing disposable plastic to places without adequate waste management. If people are just going to throw their empty containers into the river, paper will quickly degrade and glass will sink to the bottom and eventually be crushed back into sand. Metals are usually valuable enough that they are collected for recycling, even in coutries without great waste management.
legulere · 22h ago
For recycling one of the hardest problems is separating plastics out from the rest. The rest is causing issues in landfills: landfill gas containing methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, leachates contaminating groundwater. If you have the plastics already sorted out recycling them makes more sense even on the short term.
It's also very easy to underestimate the costs of landfilling, because you have to keep them up basically forever. Having one person look after it for ten thousand years is higher than having ten thousand people look after it for one year, because wages rise faster than inflation.
yusina · 22h ago
The vast majority of landfills eventually leak. It's overall a terrible way to handle this waste w.r.t. environmental impact.
megaman821 · 22h ago
Removing all plastic from landfills wouldn't really change anything. Landfills are already lined to prevent leaking for decades and then there are monitoring systems for heavy metals and other harmful chemicals anyway.
legulere · 22h ago
Removing plastics from landfills would decease the sizes of landfills and thus costs to keep them up or to instead incinerate the waste. Decades aren't enough, as plastics basically don't decompose fully at all. Landfills are basically a high interest loan, to not have to pay for dealing with the trash today.
xnx · 23h ago
It's easy to be sold a scam, when you want to believe the lie. It's a shame so much time and money were wasted on the charade.
ZeroGravitas · 22h ago
No.
In places with functional government they actually implemented it at the cost of the producers.
It's not perfect but it's okay, and better than the alternatives.
In the US they pretended they were going to do it then never did anything to put it into practice.
When people realised this they didn't get angry at the corporations or the politicians they bought. They just decided that the thing that all the relevant experts recommended was a scam that they were too smart to fall for.
See recent YouTube video "Does recycling even do anything?" by Simon Clark for some more realistic takes on recycling.
WHy is your initial answer 'no' when the backend of the answer is functionally "But they got away with the recycling scam."
Seems like your initial answer would actually be 'yes?' Specifically because the "non-functional governments were unable to implement this as a cost to the producers."
Plastics producers are absolutely trying to shift the blame of these failed programs onto "personal responsibility."
ZeroGravitas · 22h ago
Because the scam wasn't recycling, it was pretending to recycle and not doing it.
Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
And as you can see by the reactions around you, no one is angry that the recycling isn't being done. They're angry at the recycling. A process that directly completes with big oil's product. That's the scam.
xracy · 20h ago
Sorry, how is recycling not the scam if they were actually just pretending to recycle and not doing it?
At scale if every (or even 90% of them) solar company were pretending to get solar energy, I would absolutely consider it a scam
Also, for the most part, my understanding of plastics recycling is that it doesn't really exist in practice. Glass Recycling, and Paper Recycling are actually able to reclaim most of the product, but plastic recycling is actually only downcycling where it can be used for a different purpose.
0manrho · 13h ago
If the point you're trying to make is "No, because some recycling is done as advertised, and therefore recycling in general isn't a scam" then agreed, but that's not what was asked. The question you responded "No" to was "Did 'Big Oil' Sell Us on a Recycling Scam".
The objectively correct answer is yes. Some entities running a recycling scam does not mean that all recycling is a scam. Doesn't even mean all plastic recycling is a scam. But all the same, a scam is being run to charge people for a service that isn't being performed as advertised, knowingly and intentionally and in a significant way.
> Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
Just because someone successfully dupes people with a scam doesn't suddenly make it not a scam, just as people acquiescing to the hypernormalization of enshittification in the real for lack of a sense of agency in the face of megacorps with megabucks and congress in their back pocket does not mean that what people are apathetic towards isn't a problem or that there aren't people justifiably upset about it.
There are second order discussion points on this topic that you're trying to dig at that are worth discussing, but it's hard to engage in those in good faith when your answer to the fundamental question "Do you think this scam that is objectively a scam, is a scam?" is "No."
t1234s · 23h ago
Isn't aluminum the only thing worth recycling due to using less energy then processing bauxite?
1970-01-01 · 23h ago
Glass and other metals such as steel, copper, etc. is still worth recycling.
t1234s · 22h ago
Overall doesn't aluminum consume the most energy when processing from ore vs copper steel. I remember watching aluminum production on How It's Made and the vast amount of coal needed to produce electricity to break the aluminum out of molten bauxite ore.
philipkglass · 22h ago
Yes, aluminum is more energy-intensive to produce, ton for ton, than copper or steel. But copper and steel still take less energy to recycle than to produce from ore so they too are worthwhile to recycle.
JohnFen · 23h ago
And paper.
chneu · 20h ago
Most paper can't be recycled because it's impregnated with too many contaminants. Unless you're recycling standard cardboard or newspaper it likely won't/can't be recycled.
bryanlarsen · 22h ago
Most paper these days is hard to recycle. Paper recycling worked much better when most paper was newsprint.
worik · 22h ago
Is glass worth it?
It is the most common mineral.
ZeroGravitas · 22h ago
It's the mining and the energy used to create glass and aluminium etc that are the key resource conserved when recycling, not the material itself.
worik · 21h ago
I get that. But the mining cost for glass is so low.
The energy difference cannot be that much different.
What worries me is transporting the glass form my place to the recycler might negate all the benefit.
ambyra · 23h ago
I feel bad for all the sorters that have to sift through trash, who know most of the stuff will just get thrown in the landfill. Some people treat the recycle bin as a second trash can.
aaronbaugher · 22h ago
I've spent 6 months building a software program and then been told we wouldn't be using it. Sometimes work is just a paycheck.
But yeah, it's nasty when you look in the big recycle dumpsters we have here and see the things people throw in there.
dfxm12 · 22h ago
Especially on trash day when dog walkers go out of their way to throw their doggie bags in recycling bins on the sidewalk rather than the trash bin next to them.
There's no real punishment for missorting recycling, but I guess it's hard to prove who did what when trash collection is the way it is.
barbazoo · 23h ago
People should look up how "waste disposal" works in their municipality and then act accordingly. Where I live, if you believe the annual report, more than 75% of material is what they call "recovered". They claim that this
> contributed to the reduction of 125.2 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) being released into the atmosphere
(presumably from decomposition?)
Genuinely asking, is that particular example a scam?
koolala · 22h ago
I think "recovered" includes burning it. I can't imagine how burning recycling is carbon positive.
jerf · 22h ago
Oh, it's quite easy. If you'll consult this slick marketing diagram I have over here, as you can plainly see, the carbon coming out of our incinerator is brightly colored and can be plainly seen to be smiling broadly. It's very positive carbon.
Whereas this carbon you see coming out of the tailpipe of this car is colored ominously darkly, is clearly wearing an angry expression, and for some reason, is substantially "spikier" carbon than the stuff coming out of our environmentally-responsible incinerator. Much more dangerous stuff. You wouldn't want to meet this carbon in a dark alley at night!
It's all quite simple, really.
NotAnOtter · 22h ago
> ‘recovery’ means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used
By the definition, 75% seems very good. I'm not sure if that definition is a legally sanctioned term or if your municipality has some screwy definition of 'recovered'. But if it really translates to "If this service didn't exist, we would 4x our production of plastic" - then that does not seem like a scam at all.
With that definition, a plausible extreme is they take 75% of waste plastic to create one single plastic cup. Meaning the production of plastic would not change if this program did not exist. If that's the case - then yes scam.
> Plastic containers were sold and shipped
to a recycler in Canada to their facilities
in British Columbia and Alberta. The
commodity is cleaned and pelletized to
become FDA-approved new raw material for
manufacturers of various plastic products
including new containers, strapping material
and fibres.
> Recovery: 78.50%
We should use less plastic! But it's not true that "it just ends up in the landfill" or "it just gets burned", at least not everywhere.
NotAnOtter · 22h ago
That's nice but it doesn't really refute my extreme counter example. Maybe all that plastic is shipped off, the recycling plant collects a bunch of state/federal grants (e.g. CRV), and the plants in BC or Alberta convert all that plastic into just a couple of products. Not making a dent in the actual production of new container.
The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
barbazoo · 22h ago
Ok, you're describing some kind of scam. I have no reason to believe yet that that's what's going on here.
> The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
I can't follow your logic. It's legal to produce plastic containers. This system here collects them and turns ~80% of it into a new product. You're saying this system shouldn't be in place because we're not changing anything about the amount of plastic we produce?
chneu · 20h ago
The goal is to remove plastics from the environment. They eventually break down. So recycling it into new products just makes it wind up in the environment later on.
Less plastic is the goal. Not reusing it.
Recycling plastic makes people use more plastic because they think it's being reused.
barbazoo · 3h ago
Leaving plastic in use reduces overall emissions, no? These things don’t just stay in the landfill they eventually decompose.
NotAnOtter · 20h ago
>Ok, you're describing some kind of scam
Yes, exactly. I'm not accusing them per se, I'm just saying the info you provided does not declare itself to not be a scam. It's like if you asked if killed someone and I replied "I don't own a gun" - it does not sufficiently answer the question
"We recover 80% of plastics" does not mean "We reduce the generation of new plastics by 80%", and the second one is the one that matters.
barbazoo · 3h ago
Have a look at the rest of the report maybe and let me know what you think.
ChoGGi · 5h ago
Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle
Arrrr
i_love_retros · 23h ago
There's no way most people will accept any change in their lifestyle that is inconvenient and potentially more expensive. And no politician is going to suggest/vote for the serious changes we need as a planet and risk not getting reelected.
I see two outcomes here. One, we destroy the planet and ourselves. Two, violent global revolution that results in a world government that enforces more sustainable living.
Unfortunately three, the overlords come and save us with their advanced tech, probably won't happen.
bruce511 · 22h ago
Hang on, politicians won't enforce sustainable living because the voters won't support it, but violent global revolution (presumably from a voting-minority?) does it?
And the "save the planet" faction (which we might think are left-leaning) overlap with the mostly non-violent faction? Whole the conservative drill-baby-drill faction overlap with the gun-loving, govt overthrowing militant types?
So your second possibility doesn't pass the smell test.
And of course we won't destroy the planet. At worst we'll make it unsuitable for human life. The planet itself will be just fine, and life will thrive after-people just like it does everywhere people have left.
Yes, I think the planet will change. And those people unable to adapt will perish. But plenty of people will survive, just perhaps not with current US lifestyles...
i_love_retros · 6h ago
what makes you think the left leaning save the planet types are non-violent? did you see what happened in russia 100 years ago? or china? or cuba? granted they weren't so much "save the planet" types, but i reckon they were a little left leaning! and it's not too much of a leap to imagine that again with environmental concerns thrown into the ideological mix
i_love_retros · 22h ago
I can't make sense of your first two paragraphs with all the question marks.
the__alchemist · 22h ago
Regrettably, I don't think 2 will happen until it's too late, and agree that 3 won't. We are coasting towards one. Any other options?
orangecat · 22h ago
Any other options?
A lot more solar/wind/nuclear and geoengineering.
barbazoo · 22h ago
Two a) in a world government adapting to a shittier and shittier life over time
i_love_retros · 22h ago
Hmm star trek or mad max. I'll take star trek
bastardoperator · 22h ago
Maybe we can get AI to recycle something... I'll see myself out...
jaoane · 19h ago
> And no politician is going to suggest/vote for the serious changes we need as a planet and risk not getting reelected.
We have solved this in the EU by having politicians in the commission that nobody has elected.
j2kun · 22h ago
What BS. People want to do good.
In the pacific northwest we have Ridwell where people go out of their way (and pay an extra monthly fee!) to separate their garbage so it has a better chance of being properly recycled/downcycled.
You'll see entire neighborhoods where everyone's got a Ridwell box on their porch.
i_love_retros · 22h ago
So why did more than half the country vote for trump?
I don't believe most people give a shit about "doing good" if it means effort or cost on their part. Its all virtue signalling.
How many people are doing things that actually make a difference but which are hard, like giving up eating meat?
queenkjuul · 45m ago
More than half of people that showed up to vote voted for trump. Not half the country.
j2kun · 21h ago
A shitty information economy captured by corporate interests and lobbying. People watch Fox News but don't want ICE to deport moms because Fox intentionally doesn't cover when Trump says he's going to deport the moms.
worik · 22h ago
> So why did more than half the country vote for trump?
A damning indictment of the alternatives
i_love_retros · 21h ago
Yes a pesky stable economy, cleaner environment, regulations to keep our food safe, no gestapo... the alternatives sure did sound terrible!
queenkjuul · 44m ago
There was a gestapo, you just didn't notice
reillyse · 22h ago
I think you have it muddied a little.
Consumers often accept less convenient options because it is the right thing to do.
Humans are a collective species and we make sacrifices for each other all the time.
Quick examples at this level plastic bag ban, electric vehicles, disabled parking etc.
The groups who are kicking and screaming to try and avoid change is capitalist corporations. They will literally do anything to prevent a hit to their bottom line (they are perfectly happy to murder people for profit) and frankly should have no decision making power.
chneu · 20h ago
You're grossly over estimating how willing people are to inconvenience themselves for anything that doesn't immediately benefit them.
Your examples don't prove anything. Infact, I'd say they do the opposite. Bag bans are always met with tons of opposition. Electric vehicles are 50 years too late. Idk what disabled parking has to do with anything, people ignore those all the time.
People will nearly always choose the easiest and most instantly gratifying option. This is usually selfish.
i_love_retros · 22h ago
I think you have it muddied.
Plastic bag ban: no one wants to pay for each plastic bag and its also not much of an inconvenience. Unlike having to take 20 glass bottles to get shampoo, milk, drain cleaner, dish soap refilled every month
Electric cars: mostly done for virtue signalling and status
Disabled parking: not sure what you mean here.
reillyse · 12h ago
Disabled parking is a communal sacrifice that we as humans respect. I see the free parking in the best spot closest to the place I’m going and I don’t take it because I am a normal human.
Sure some people are asseholes, but the vast majority are not.
i_love_retros · 6h ago
most people and probably you too (and me) don't take it because it would result in a financial penalty (fine) and social shaming possibly.
also the inconvenience of having to walk a bit further to get to the store isn't much really is it. compared to not buying that new plastic phone, new plastic tv, having to take 20 bottles to get refilled with shampoo, shower gel, milk, coffee, cooking oil, etc every month, taking your own container to the take out restaurant (and then cleaning it!!)... no one will do this unless forced to
omega___ · 22h ago
Am curious on peoples' opinion on chemical-level plastic recycling (e.g. https://www.lyondellbasell.com/en/sites/moretec/, am not sure about any other companies doing it), instead of just shredding and melting (physical recycling). To me it sounds like Star Trek-type replicator stuff.
ecshafer · 22h ago
I worked at an office that had 4 separate trash cans to split out things. So you got to stress out on if this disposable plate is in fact cardboard or paper? Or is the fact its covered in grease now makes it food waste?
The cleaning service at the end of the day took all of the cans and put them in the same bag before putting it into the dumpster. Where presumably they then filtered the trash and recycling in some capacity (I forget the name). But regardless stage 1 was quite useless. However people were still aghast if I threw the trash in whatever bucket, because recycling is good.
altairprime · 23h ago
Yes, as presented by the article, they did. OP, if you’d like to de-clickbait the headline somewhat, consider changing it to:
> “Big oil” sold us on a recycling scam
Suppafly · 23h ago
Usually when an article title ends in a ?, the answer is no, but I'm pretty sure the answer is mostly yes in this case.
throwaway314155 · 22h ago
Surprised this is news to anyone.
Simulacra · 23h ago
Most recycling just goes into the landfill. Back in 2015, Chyna start taking most of our recyclables. Then other countries followed suit. This resulted in 90% of municipal recycling programs in America shutting down. So unfortunately, even though it may feel good to recycle, that recycling is just going into the landfill.
barbazoo · 22h ago
Depends on your local situation.
andrewstuart · 23h ago
Article is dated May 2025.
The headline is a question.
I thought it had been long accepted and known for years that plastic recycling is often owned by packaging companies that want you to feel good about the infinite plastic they spew into the world.
I don’t believe in plastic recycling. I don’t put plastic in the recycle bin I put it in the garbage so it can go to the landfill.
Landfill is not a demon landfill is the best place for toxic waste.
We are obsessed with “keeping plastic out of landfill”, like disaster will ensue if we do it.
And as a result we make terrible decisions like putting plastic into roads and calling that “recycling”, so the microplastic get ground out by cars and trucks into waterways, air, ground, food, kids, schools, homes and you.
All in the name of the desperate need to keep plastics out of landfill, like it’s precious environment that needs protecting.
yusina · 22h ago
News flash, the vast majority of landfills' contents eventually also end up in air, food, kids, schools.
baggy_trough · 23h ago
Recycling plastic and much else besides is a well-known environmental fraud. The good news is that we have basically unlimited landfill space, so we don't have to worry about it.
imbusy111 · 23h ago
We have landfills that eventually catch fire from all the compostable organic material, and then poison our air. Don't forget the potential leakage into groundwater.
I don't understand, why trash incineration is not a thing in the US. How many years has the landfill fire next to Los Angeles been burning now?
garciasn · 22h ago
The US has vast expanses of empty land, making landfilling a relatively inexpensive and straightforward option for waste disposal when compared to the high up-front costs associated with building a trash incineration system, especially one that effectively mitigates the two major waste byproducts of the effort: (1) air pollution and (2) ash.
Now, the air pollution thing is easier to deal with than the ash as the resulting ash is roughly 20% of the original trash volume; however it is LOADED with heavy metals and other toxins which are not removed during the burn. This ash then ends up in not only landfills, but SPECIALIZED landfills which are equipped to handle the environmental issues associated. This obviously lowers the volume in traditional landfills, but at much higher concentration of toxic materials that raise permanent storage costs, (simplistically) doubling+ the costs (incineration cost + toxic storage cost).
---
That said, of those trash incinerators active in the US today, many (most?) are heading for the end of their operational lifespan and the high costs associated with meeting modern environmental standards to bring new ones online are generally seen as a serious negative, especially with NIMBYs driving their eradication. This leaves the only other option: trucking the trash somewhere that is just 'hidden' or 'not here'.
diggan · 23h ago
> we don't have to worry about it
I guess for a certain subset of "we", probably pretty true. They're aren't exactly a silver bullet that magically solve the problem without any drawbacks for lots of other people though.
kleiba · 23h ago
"It is cheaper to just make a new plastic product than to collect it and recycle it or reuse it," says Kristian Syberg, who studies plastic pollution at Roskilde University in Denmark. "That’s a systemic problem."
>"It is cheaper to just make a new plastic product than to collect it and recycle it or reuse it," says Kristian Syberg, who studies plastic pollution at Roskilde University in Denmark. "That’s a systemic problem."
That seems like it might be implying there is a pricing disconnect. It shouldn't cost more to recycle, especially since people provide the used plastic for basically free.
baggy_trough · 22h ago
That would depend on how much it costs to convert used plastic into a useful form, compared to the raw materials. There's no reason to expect it to be cheaper.
const_cast · 17h ago
> There's no reason to expect it to be cheaper.
There is IMO, because we don't factor the cost of disposal and it's management into just about any product. Except maybe nuclear reactors.
The reason plastic is so cheap is that you're free to make it and let it go where ever the fuck it does. The taypayer pays for cleanup in the long run, not you. You're externalizing a lot of costs.
baggy_trough · 17h ago
It can simply be placed in the landfill. I already pay garbage costs.
const_cast · 15h ago
Which isn't a one and done transaction, landfills require maintenance on the scale of decades. And, problem do occur, like leakage, which you need to manage. We're still paying for landfill management that are many, many decades old.
baggy_trough · 15h ago
Fair enough. But that sounds very manageable compared to trying to replace or eliminate our uses of plastic, or compared to inventing a cost effective way to recycle them.
const_cast · 15h ago
It does, which is why we do it, but really our dependence on plastic doesn't really come down to it's usefulness, but rather it's disposable-ness. We don't really reduce or reuse plastic consumption, even when it might make sense or might be more convenient. We use an excess of plastic with the intention it will just be thrown away - this is pretty contrary to how consumer goods were manufactured and used in the past.
It was common to return glass jugs or containers to stores so they can be reused. It was typical to buy goods in-store, which required significantly less wrapping than something like Amazon. And, in general, most goods were designed for longer-term use.
Now, some fields need that disposability, like medical supplies. But we really overdo it as a whole. There's a lot of plastic that we come in contact with on the orders of seconds, that we then immediately throw away. It's improving, though. Most people I know don't use plastic bottles anymore, they use reusable bottles they can refill.
baggy_trough · 13h ago
In other words, it's so cheap (meaning it uses so little resources) that we don't need to bother about it.
Suppafly · 22h ago
>There's no reason to expect it to be cheaper.
Sure there is, the raw materials have to be mined and transported across the country and such, it's ridiculous that it's cheaper to do that than to shred existing material and melt it back down. Even if you're downcycling from something like soda bottles to something like fence posts or plastic bricks or whatever, it should definitely be cheaper to recycle.
baggy_trough · 21h ago
That depends on the properties of the material and how much it costs to mine and transport it. Plastic is lightweight and ludicrously cheap to produce (hence why there are so many cost effective uses for it). Just the fact that it is dyed different colors may present an insurmountable cost problem for recyclers.
antisthenes · 21h ago
> especially since people provide the used plastic for basically free.
It is definitely not free. It requires another completely separate set of trucks to go around in addition to all the regular trash-collecting trucks.
Which means vehicle maintenance, crew salaries and general administration.
The reason it's not cost effective is because the negative externalities aren't built into the price of making the new items.
baggy_trough · 18h ago
> The reason it's not cost effective is because the negative externalities aren't built into the price of making the new items.
That could be true, or not. It might be the case that recycling isn't cost effective even assuming negative externalities are properly costed.
baggy_trough · 22h ago
Why is that a problem? It sounds like a solution.
kleiba · 22h ago
The problem is that if you're always producing new plastics rather than recycle existing ones, you're using up more and more resources (e.g. oil) and at the same time creating ever growing landfills.
But there is a financial incentive to do so, so that's what's happening.
baggy_trough · 20h ago
The landfills are not a problem; we have effectively unbounded space for them.
Plastics generally use less resources than any other equivalent; that is why they win the cost-effectiveness battle with other materials.
The financial incentive is because plastics are cheaper and more efficient than anything else.
andrewla · 22h ago
This article is very vague in its accusations.
What, exactly, is the scam? It looks like the article is saying that companies involved in plastic production pushed for more recycling, while knowing that current plastic recycling capacity was not up to the task. What is the scam, exactly?
It feels like the closest thing to a scam is that companies claiming to be plastic recyclers get all sorts of incentives from the government, and we as consumers are forced under threat of fine to recycle, but the plastic just ends up in landfills. I don't see the oil companies involved in this part of the equation at all.
While recycling is last in that mantra, it is overemphasized more than the other two. It shifts the onus of stewarding our environment to the individual rather than the corporations and militaries, which wreck our planet more than any individual can. They'd rather you not look at what they're doing to the environment, and instead look at the individual.
Moreover, companies don't want you to reduce your consumption, they want you to keep buying their products. Reuse? Nah, here are products that are obsolete, buy the new model.
cancer is copypasta - incorrectly copied life. Ultimately self-defeating.
Both are limited by finite resources (and time is a resource).
Also labor costs to repair in the developed world is another factor.
I think minimalism/no buy movements are big though.
They pause for breaks to sell you things and the pauses are unashamedly called “commercials”
You can fit 2 of them under the bathroom door at the same time stacked, (DONT ASK)
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
It's a crime from a criminal to scam the bank. Instead of the bank being held accountable for mistaking the identity (or don't do enough due diligent), the concept shifts the blame to the account owner, saying it's their fault for having their identity "stolen", despite them was not involved in the scam process.
An individual couldn’t pull that in any other transaction.
To add:
“They knew your mom’s maiden name!”
And now for some reason using an SMS as verification is the standard. (And often required).
So then we bolt-on these solutions to try to get it to work. The issue is we have multiple costs here - we have to balance security, but we also need to make sure customers can get their money most of the time they need to.
I recently signed up for Apple Enhanced Data Security or whatever it was called. It made it very clear that if I lose my password, my data can never be recovered. Ever. No email address can help, no recovery mechanisms. It's sealed and done for good. I'm tech-savvy and I can live with this. Can Nana? For my money, no.
We do things like security questions because they're easy and people understand them, and people use them all the time to recover accounts. Same reason we do SMS - everyone has a phone. These are imperfect solutions because perfect solutions have other issues. How many people will be locked permanently out of their bank account? How will the bank deal with those lawsuits?
A good resource for anyone dealing with credit issues due to identity theft. If I recall correctly, the advice boils down to notifying the bank that the transaction was fraudulent and then notifying credit unions that the bank has been notified that the transaction is fraudulent. Of course, doing all this through proper channels. It’s still bullshit how banks sabotaged public knowledge of it but at least the law favors the consumer.
That seems like a very odd view to me. The article points out the rising tide of traffic accidents that led to these laws being passed. As automobiles became ubiquitous it was more and more dangerous for pedestrians to walk on roads. So the laws followed this. That auto companies were involved in the lobbying process is a non-factor; even if we had increased criminal liability for traffic fatalities, the fundamental problem is that law is downstream of culture, and that we would reach a breaking point where juries would simply not convict drivers, as it became more and more common wisdom to be wary of automobiles when crossing streets.
No grand conspiracy is necessary here, this is just technology changing society and laws adapting to that reality.
I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons.
The fact of the matter is that society was changing, and that was it. Places where cars go are not compatible with places that people go and cars were getting cheaper and more common and more necessary all the time.
Really? Because the humanity's track record about anything that's brand new is horrible. Lead in gasoline? Seems to help a lot with engine function, let's deploy it planet-wide before making sure it's safe. Nothing can possibly go wrong!
> what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction?
As for laws themselves, in the event of a driver hitting a pedestrian, the driver is found automatically at fault. If it turns out the pedestrian was at fault, the driver still remains liable for 50% of the damages. (Suprised? Think, which party is the source of the danger? Can the pedestrian ever harm the driver in any way? Then how can the responsibility ever not lay on the driver?)
But really, it's not laws that are needed here, but well designed infrastructure. Infrastructure that clearly communicates to everyone how to behave.
Speed limits are a great example. How exactly is putting up a sign saying "pls no speederino" supposed to affect a vehicle moving at 100mph through a residental street? Is the threat of potential consequences down the line in the unlikely scenario of getting caught supposed to do that? That'd require humans to be rational actors.
Now, if we put a bump on the road that will damage the vehicle if gone over at speeds of >50mph, then the speedster has only two choices: 1) go over it and immediately feel the consequences 2) slow down.
Some other such measures:
- raised crosswalks (The crosswalk simply continues, it's the road surface that comes up. That way it's the vehicle that intrudes on the space of the pedestrians, not the other way around. Note that this is the opposite of how it's almost always done.)
- roundabouts
- narrowing roads
- curb extensions
- chicanes
- changing the road surface to be less pleasant to drive on at speed
- adding and increasing curves in general
Prior to the invention of the automobile, if a pedestrian walked onto a public street and was struck and killed by a vehicle, the pedestrian was 100% at fault unless the driver was negligent. Merely operating a vehicle in a normal manner was not negligence.
It has been understood since the construction of Pompeii at the latest, that pedestrians belong on sidewalks and vehicles in the road.
Pont Neuf, the oldest bridge in Paris was built in the 1600s with sidewalks.
All of the oldest photos from the 1800s of major cities show a separation of vehicles and pedestrians.
If you have access to a newspaper archive like I do you can run a search for jaywalking and sort by oldest result.
Most of the pushback to jaywalking laws was because they required crossing at corners, not the middle of the street.
People instinctively (wrongly) believed that crossing in the middle was safer. Statisticians know that corners are safer.
Fun fact: you were more likely to die being run over by a horse in New York City prior to the invention of the automobile than you are to be struck and killed by an automobile today.
Much MUCH more likely.
>Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difficult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.
https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/20...
344 is a lot. In 2024, there were 252 auto-related fatalities (drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians) in NYC.
I once saw an article that in the 1800s there were over 150 fatalities per year in San Francisco due to street cars alone so I wager the increasing value of human life in the early 1900s also contributed to jaywalking laws.
Everyone just used to accept people dying left and right due to horses and trains.
But again, it WAS NOT a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.
I refuse to believe this without attribution. Sure, "jaywalking" might be more dangerous than crossing at corners, but I'm highly confident that controlled zebra crossings in the middle of the street are safer.
#925: A Mob Boss, A Garbage Boat and Why We Recycle
Recycling aluminum cans is fantastic. Clear glass bottles and corrugated cardboard are also great for recycling.
So, something like preciousplastic doesn't occur wide spread because it's more expensive and therefore worse under a capitalistic model. You'd need to add a tax to new plastic to change that fact.
In fancy office buildings and residential buildings around NYC I've seen inappropriate junk in the recycling all the time, practically every time I put in my recycling. Plastic wraps and plastic milk cartons in the paper. Paper and food in the bottles/cans. It's always unclear about toys and household plastic objects that very likely have additives that make them not recyclable. Nobody ever emphasizes recycling correctly, but in any documentary where they look inside recycling centers you see them dealing with machines clogged with inappropriate materials, huge bales of negative-value mixed materials, etc. This is the stuff that was getting secretly shipped to Asia for dubious handling because it was too low-value for actual processing/usage in the US.
I don't blame oil companies, or manufacturers, really everyone has been in on this collective delusion: teachers, politicians, community organizers, everyone I see is all about more recycling, recycling good. While actually we've been trashing the recycling systems/processes for decades, while cheering it on. And I'm some weird nerd engineer type who cares if thing work or not.
My desk was near a kitchen area. Every day, without fail, the cleaner would come and empty the separate bins into one large bin when taking out the trash.
Still, it is probably good to remove it from other places.
It's also very easy to underestimate the costs of landfilling, because you have to keep them up basically forever. Having one person look after it for ten thousand years is higher than having ten thousand people look after it for one year, because wages rise faster than inflation.
In places with functional government they actually implemented it at the cost of the producers.
"Extended producer responsibility"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...
It's not perfect but it's okay, and better than the alternatives.
In the US they pretended they were going to do it then never did anything to put it into practice.
When people realised this they didn't get angry at the corporations or the politicians they bought. They just decided that the thing that all the relevant experts recommended was a scam that they were too smart to fall for.
See recent YouTube video "Does recycling even do anything?" by Simon Clark for some more realistic takes on recycling.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iOtrvBdRx8I
Seems like your initial answer would actually be 'yes?' Specifically because the "non-functional governments were unable to implement this as a cost to the producers."
Plastics producers are absolutely trying to shift the blame of these failed programs onto "personal responsibility."
Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
And as you can see by the reactions around you, no one is angry that the recycling isn't being done. They're angry at the recycling. A process that directly completes with big oil's product. That's the scam.
At scale if every (or even 90% of them) solar company were pretending to get solar energy, I would absolutely consider it a scam
Also, for the most part, my understanding of plastics recycling is that it doesn't really exist in practice. Glass Recycling, and Paper Recycling are actually able to reclaim most of the product, but plastic recycling is actually only downcycling where it can be used for a different purpose.
The objectively correct answer is yes. Some entities running a recycling scam does not mean that all recycling is a scam. Doesn't even mean all plastic recycling is a scam. But all the same, a scam is being run to charge people for a service that isn't being performed as advertised, knowingly and intentionally and in a significant way.
> Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
Just because someone successfully dupes people with a scam doesn't suddenly make it not a scam, just as people acquiescing to the hypernormalization of enshittification in the real for lack of a sense of agency in the face of megacorps with megabucks and congress in their back pocket does not mean that what people are apathetic towards isn't a problem or that there aren't people justifiably upset about it.
There are second order discussion points on this topic that you're trying to dig at that are worth discussing, but it's hard to engage in those in good faith when your answer to the fundamental question "Do you think this scam that is objectively a scam, is a scam?" is "No."
It is the most common mineral.
The energy difference cannot be that much different.
What worries me is transporting the glass form my place to the recycler might negate all the benefit.
But yeah, it's nasty when you look in the big recycle dumpsters we have here and see the things people throw in there.
There's no real punishment for missorting recycling, but I guess it's hard to prove who did what when trash collection is the way it is.
> contributed to the reduction of 125.2 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) being released into the atmosphere
(presumably from decomposition?)
Genuinely asking, is that particular example a scam?
Whereas this carbon you see coming out of the tailpipe of this car is colored ominously darkly, is clearly wearing an angry expression, and for some reason, is substantially "spikier" carbon than the stuff coming out of our environmentally-responsible incinerator. Much more dangerous stuff. You wouldn't want to meet this carbon in a dark alley at night!
It's all quite simple, really.
By the definition, 75% seems very good. I'm not sure if that definition is a legally sanctioned term or if your municipality has some screwy definition of 'recovered'. But if it really translates to "If this service didn't exist, we would 4x our production of plastic" - then that does not seem like a scam at all.
With that definition, a plausible extreme is they take 75% of waste plastic to create one single plastic cup. Meaning the production of plastic would not change if this program did not exist. If that's the case - then yes scam.
TL;DR not enough info
> Plastic
> Plastic containers were sold and shipped to a recycler in Canada to their facilities in British Columbia and Alberta. The commodity is cleaned and pelletized to become FDA-approved new raw material for manufacturers of various plastic products including new containers, strapping material and fibres.
> Recovery: 78.50%
We should use less plastic! But it's not true that "it just ends up in the landfill" or "it just gets burned", at least not everywhere.
The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
> The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
I can't follow your logic. It's legal to produce plastic containers. This system here collects them and turns ~80% of it into a new product. You're saying this system shouldn't be in place because we're not changing anything about the amount of plastic we produce?
Less plastic is the goal. Not reusing it.
Recycling plastic makes people use more plastic because they think it's being reused.
Yes, exactly. I'm not accusing them per se, I'm just saying the info you provided does not declare itself to not be a scam. It's like if you asked if killed someone and I replied "I don't own a gun" - it does not sufficiently answer the question
"We recover 80% of plastics" does not mean "We reduce the generation of new plastics by 80%", and the second one is the one that matters.
Arrrr
I see two outcomes here. One, we destroy the planet and ourselves. Two, violent global revolution that results in a world government that enforces more sustainable living.
Unfortunately three, the overlords come and save us with their advanced tech, probably won't happen.
And the "save the planet" faction (which we might think are left-leaning) overlap with the mostly non-violent faction? Whole the conservative drill-baby-drill faction overlap with the gun-loving, govt overthrowing militant types?
So your second possibility doesn't pass the smell test.
And of course we won't destroy the planet. At worst we'll make it unsuitable for human life. The planet itself will be just fine, and life will thrive after-people just like it does everywhere people have left.
Yes, I think the planet will change. And those people unable to adapt will perish. But plenty of people will survive, just perhaps not with current US lifestyles...
A lot more solar/wind/nuclear and geoengineering.
We have solved this in the EU by having politicians in the commission that nobody has elected.
In the pacific northwest we have Ridwell where people go out of their way (and pay an extra monthly fee!) to separate their garbage so it has a better chance of being properly recycled/downcycled.
You'll see entire neighborhoods where everyone's got a Ridwell box on their porch.
I don't believe most people give a shit about "doing good" if it means effort or cost on their part. Its all virtue signalling.
How many people are doing things that actually make a difference but which are hard, like giving up eating meat?
A damning indictment of the alternatives
Consumers often accept less convenient options because it is the right thing to do. Humans are a collective species and we make sacrifices for each other all the time. Quick examples at this level plastic bag ban, electric vehicles, disabled parking etc.
The groups who are kicking and screaming to try and avoid change is capitalist corporations. They will literally do anything to prevent a hit to their bottom line (they are perfectly happy to murder people for profit) and frankly should have no decision making power.
Your examples don't prove anything. Infact, I'd say they do the opposite. Bag bans are always met with tons of opposition. Electric vehicles are 50 years too late. Idk what disabled parking has to do with anything, people ignore those all the time.
People will nearly always choose the easiest and most instantly gratifying option. This is usually selfish.
Plastic bag ban: no one wants to pay for each plastic bag and its also not much of an inconvenience. Unlike having to take 20 glass bottles to get shampoo, milk, drain cleaner, dish soap refilled every month
Electric cars: mostly done for virtue signalling and status
Disabled parking: not sure what you mean here.
Sure some people are asseholes, but the vast majority are not.
also the inconvenience of having to walk a bit further to get to the store isn't much really is it. compared to not buying that new plastic phone, new plastic tv, having to take 20 bottles to get refilled with shampoo, shower gel, milk, coffee, cooking oil, etc every month, taking your own container to the take out restaurant (and then cleaning it!!)... no one will do this unless forced to
The cleaning service at the end of the day took all of the cans and put them in the same bag before putting it into the dumpster. Where presumably they then filtered the trash and recycling in some capacity (I forget the name). But regardless stage 1 was quite useless. However people were still aghast if I threw the trash in whatever bucket, because recycling is good.
> “Big oil” sold us on a recycling scam
The headline is a question.
I thought it had been long accepted and known for years that plastic recycling is often owned by packaging companies that want you to feel good about the infinite plastic they spew into the world.
I don’t believe in plastic recycling. I don’t put plastic in the recycle bin I put it in the garbage so it can go to the landfill.
Landfill is not a demon landfill is the best place for toxic waste.
We are obsessed with “keeping plastic out of landfill”, like disaster will ensue if we do it.
And as a result we make terrible decisions like putting plastic into roads and calling that “recycling”, so the microplastic get ground out by cars and trucks into waterways, air, ground, food, kids, schools, homes and you.
All in the name of the desperate need to keep plastics out of landfill, like it’s precious environment that needs protecting.
I don't understand, why trash incineration is not a thing in the US. How many years has the landfill fire next to Los Angeles been burning now?
Now, the air pollution thing is easier to deal with than the ash as the resulting ash is roughly 20% of the original trash volume; however it is LOADED with heavy metals and other toxins which are not removed during the burn. This ash then ends up in not only landfills, but SPECIALIZED landfills which are equipped to handle the environmental issues associated. This obviously lowers the volume in traditional landfills, but at much higher concentration of toxic materials that raise permanent storage costs, (simplistically) doubling+ the costs (incineration cost + toxic storage cost).
---
That said, of those trash incinerators active in the US today, many (most?) are heading for the end of their operational lifespan and the high costs associated with meeting modern environmental standards to bring new ones online are generally seen as a serious negative, especially with NIMBYs driving their eradication. This leaves the only other option: trucking the trash somewhere that is just 'hidden' or 'not here'.
I guess for a certain subset of "we", probably pretty true. They're aren't exactly a silver bullet that magically solve the problem without any drawbacks for lots of other people though.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-its-so-hard-t...
That seems like it might be implying there is a pricing disconnect. It shouldn't cost more to recycle, especially since people provide the used plastic for basically free.
There is IMO, because we don't factor the cost of disposal and it's management into just about any product. Except maybe nuclear reactors.
The reason plastic is so cheap is that you're free to make it and let it go where ever the fuck it does. The taypayer pays for cleanup in the long run, not you. You're externalizing a lot of costs.
It was common to return glass jugs or containers to stores so they can be reused. It was typical to buy goods in-store, which required significantly less wrapping than something like Amazon. And, in general, most goods were designed for longer-term use.
Now, some fields need that disposability, like medical supplies. But we really overdo it as a whole. There's a lot of plastic that we come in contact with on the orders of seconds, that we then immediately throw away. It's improving, though. Most people I know don't use plastic bottles anymore, they use reusable bottles they can refill.
Sure there is, the raw materials have to be mined and transported across the country and such, it's ridiculous that it's cheaper to do that than to shred existing material and melt it back down. Even if you're downcycling from something like soda bottles to something like fence posts or plastic bricks or whatever, it should definitely be cheaper to recycle.
It is definitely not free. It requires another completely separate set of trucks to go around in addition to all the regular trash-collecting trucks.
Which means vehicle maintenance, crew salaries and general administration.
The reason it's not cost effective is because the negative externalities aren't built into the price of making the new items.
That could be true, or not. It might be the case that recycling isn't cost effective even assuming negative externalities are properly costed.
But there is a financial incentive to do so, so that's what's happening.
Plastics generally use less resources than any other equivalent; that is why they win the cost-effectiveness battle with other materials.
The financial incentive is because plastics are cheaper and more efficient than anything else.
What, exactly, is the scam? It looks like the article is saying that companies involved in plastic production pushed for more recycling, while knowing that current plastic recycling capacity was not up to the task. What is the scam, exactly?
It feels like the closest thing to a scam is that companies claiming to be plastic recyclers get all sorts of incentives from the government, and we as consumers are forced under threat of fine to recycle, but the plastic just ends up in landfills. I don't see the oil companies involved in this part of the equation at all.