[HN Gopher] A Shocking Amount of US "Recycling" Goes Straight to... ___________________________________________________________________ A Shocking Amount of US "Recycling" Goes Straight to the Landfill Author : ppjim Score : 64 points Date : 2022-10-24 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (futurism.com) (TXT) w3m dump (futurism.com) | kazinator wrote: | Recycling is largely a scam that was invented by the plastics | industry to overcome the objections people had against single- | use, disposable items. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | You're giving the plastics industry too much credit. The useful | idiots who uncritically bought every word and helped them ram | it down everyone's throats deserve some blame too. | standardUser wrote: | "Recycling is largely a scam" | | And then you name one material that is recycled and ignore the | rest, most of which are highly effective. It's called cherry- | picking and it's a bad look. | andrewstuart wrote: | "one material" - look I hear your point that metals can be | recycled, but it's reasonable to assume plastics is the "one | material" that is relevant when discussing recycling. | andrewstuart wrote: | This is the short and correct description of what recycling is. | | It is a distraction so the packaging industry can fill the | earth with garbage whilst we feel OK about it. | | I'm so deeply indoctrinated to believe the recycling lie that I | continue to sort my garbage despite believing it all just gets | dumped into landfill. | insane_dreamer wrote: | Just to be clear, it wasn't being recycled when we were shipping | it to China either. It was just going into their landfills | instead of our landfills. | | Recycling plastic is a non-solution to a much bigger problem: | over-consumption of plastics. | | The only way I see forward is for governments to implement | policies that discourage use of plastics by consumers and | manufacturers. Some places have done this with plastic bags, but | need to do it for plastic single-use bottles, etc. | diebeforei485 wrote: | There should be some sort of tax on plastic bottles with less | than half gallon (~ 2 liters) of liquid in them. | null_object wrote: | In 2020 only 10% of plastic was recycled in Sweden. [0] | | The rest was burnt to produce heating and electricity - which | releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases and other pollutants. | | Not just a US problem. | | [0] in Swedish: | https://www.ivl.se/press/nyheter/2020-02-21-lattlast-rapport... | ars wrote: | > which releases an enormous amount of CO2 gases and other | pollutants. | | No it does not. This is simply untrue. | | Burning plastic does not release pollutants, and the CO2 | released just replaces CO2 released from burning other fuel | (oil, natural gas, etc). | | It's a 100% win, and every country should copy them. | saddlerustle wrote: | In terms of CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse | than burning natural gas (and much much worse than any zero | carbon source). Energy is fungible, there's no reason to | encourage producing CO2 when it's possible not to. | ars wrote: | > CO2 per unit energy burning plastic is much worse than | burning natural gas | | That is simply not true. Polyethylene (the most common | plastic) is C2H4, while natural gas is a mix ranging from | CH4 to C3H8. i.e. almost identical in terms of CO2. | | Plastic is actually better in some ways since you don't | need to spend energy a second time to extract even more oil | from the ground, you can just burn what you already have. | | Plus the world does not burn exclusively natural gas, not | even close. | | > when it's possible not to. | | As should be pretty obvious the idea is you don't burn some | other oil, and instead burn plastic. When we are 100% off | of oil/coal/etc we can stop burning plastic, but right now, | today, burning plastic is the best option. | | Burning plastic is not going to magically cause extra CO2 | emissions, it would simply substitute one for another, with | total amount unchanged. | diebeforei485 wrote: | I'm not sure I understand your argument. | | It's not how many CO2 molecules per molecule of thing | being burned. It's about how many CO2 molecules per joule | of energy released. | | You'd have to look at the enthalpy (delta H) of these | combustion reactions to make a meaningful comparison, | correct? | zackees wrote: | mrinterweb wrote: | > Burning plastic does not release pollutants | | Very false | ars wrote: | You are very misinformed. An industrial incinerator for | burning plastic does not release any pollutants, only water | and CO2. | braingenious wrote: | What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer | not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? | | What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? | ars wrote: | Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 | from plastic. This actually _reduces_ the total amount of | CO2, because you don 't need to pump extra oil out of the | ground, which costs extra energy. | | > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? | | Something that doesn't belong there in _any_ amount. If | there 's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, | that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. | Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water | pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly | definition. | braingenious wrote: | > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. | | I have never heard this definition before! How do you in | particular decide which compounds shouldn't be in the | atmosphere in _any_ amount? | | It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of | "pollutant" enables the justification of burning darn | near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that | don't otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition | serve a practical purpose? | | edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan | of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in | hurricanes. | | I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of | "pollution" to serve one's pre-existing ideas or pedantic | need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely | pointless at best, though. | ars wrote: | > I have never heard this definition before! | | Let's hear your definition then. | | > How do you in particular decide which compounds | shouldn't be in the atmosphere in any amount? | | Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some | noble gasses. | | Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by | the sea), but are pollutants. | braingenious wrote: | From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals | or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or | other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a | specific purpose. | | Can you link me to where you've found that "pollutant" is | defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but | explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I've | heard this. | chrischen wrote: | CO2 is not unavoidable though. Every ounce of plastic | burned is an ounce of some other fossil fuel not burned. | braingenious wrote: | Every ounce of plastic buried is an ounce of plastic not | burned. Every ounce of plastic not made is an ounce of | plastic not burned. | | There are lots of sentences that you can start with | "Every ounce of plastic." Which one of those informs the | definition of a pollutant? | bombcar wrote: | Where does the nitrogen go? Is trash entirely made up of | H, O, C? | ars wrote: | There's very very little nitrogen in plastic. Among | commonly used plastics just nylon has it (and not very | much - 2 out of 38 atoms are nylon), and there's not a | large amount of nylon in trash. | mrinterweb wrote: | Placing blame and responsibility on consumers to not purchase | single-use plastic is not the right approach. Discouraging the | use of single-use plastics should be done at government policy | level to heavily tax the sale of single-use plastics, and | subsidize sustainable alternatives. | sublinear wrote: | I agree that this isn't the consumer's problem, but I don't | agree government policy or taxes incentivize anything but | fraud. Do we really need even more government contractors? | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | Prices may increase but imagine how much more competitive | American or European manufacturing could be if the cheapest | materials (and incidentally most environmentally harmful) were | taxed appropriately. | | There's a cycle of waste where cheap goods break but its okay | because its cheap. Instead we could be making things that last. | thrown_22 wrote: | Building products that last as long as possible is a sure | fire way to destroy your market. | | You can't both build things that can be infinitely fixable | and sell a steady stream of them. | ryandrake wrote: | Product manufacturers should have to bear the cost of disposing | the products/packaging they ship. It would be great if every | product came stamped with some manufacturer ID code or | something, and when you throw it away, the waste management | company eventually scans it all and each manufacturer got | billed based on material/weight/etc. | ars wrote: | This is supposed to be a surprise? | | It's very simple: If you have to pay to recycle things, it's a | failure. If they pay you, it works. | | China used to _buy_ plastic recycling from the US (it was never | just shipped for disposal, China actually paid for it). For a | while they actually wanted it because they could use it to make | new stuff. But it become uneconomical (too labor intensive), and | they stopped. | | Metal: You have people hunting for metal, and going through bins | for it. i.e. it's good to recycle. | | Cardboard: Same thing. | | Everything else? Don't recycle it. Burn the plastic for energy, | and bury everything else. Sweden actually buys garbage from other | countries to burn for energy. Since they are paying for the item, | this works just fine. | vegetable wrote: | Some more relevant information in this video: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXRtNwUju5g Wendover | Productions - How China broke the world's recycling | olivermarks wrote: | The Chinese used practically slave labour to sift through US | garbage before they ended the imports. 'Recycling' was a | euphemism for offshoring garbage whether plastic bottles or solar | panels, but now the Chinese have tightened their standards. | | 2017 film 'Plastic China' trailer | | https://youtu.be/jnNNnHTLjmg | gruez wrote: | >The Chinese used practically slave labour to sift through US | garbage before they ended the imports | | Are we talking about actual slavery, or run of the mill | "developing country with poor labor standards"? | rjh29 wrote: | In the UK too there's been a lot of news on this: | | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/17/uk-plast... | | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/16/uk-ewast... | | https://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/blogs/11125/africas-exp... | | Basically recycling companies pay to export the waste to poor | countries who simply dump or burn it instead of recycling it. | | For this reason I avoid plastic and stick to cardboard, glass and | aluminium. Fortunately plastic is extremely unfashionable in the | UK right now and products are increasingly switching to card or | aluminium instead. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Lots of talk about blaming recycling programs. But the OP as I | understand it, shows that people are not even bothering to put | but 5% of their plastic in the recycle bin to begin with! | res0nat0r wrote: | Frontline did a documentary about this a while back. Your plastic | fruit container may have "3" on it with the recycle symbol, which | means it can go to a facility that can recycle that grade of | plastic, but that doesn't mean your city / state has a facility | that can process that, or will spend the money to build such a | facility. | | It was a move from the plastics industry to push a feel-good | policy, but is likely not doing as much good as many of us think. | | https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/plastic-wars/ | lotsofpulp wrote: | Voters wanted a feel good policy too, so it worked for | politicians and basically everyone. Even today, no one is going | to get elected by telling constituents they need to consume | less and lower their quality of life. | nickpinkston wrote: | Friendly reminder that modern, well regulated landfills are | actually fine and there is plenty of space for them. | | Also, most of the ocean plastic comes from a small number of | rivers in the less developed world. [1] Rich countries aren't | really the problem. | | While we should try to reduce waste as much as possible. This is | far more effective at the front end of the process when they're | designed and produced, the vast amount of carbon is from direct | carbon from production and follow on carbon from the carbon | intensity of the products under use. | | [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the- | plas... | acchow wrote: | > well regulated landfills are actually fine and there is | plenty of space for them. | | On the other hand, a quick Google search turns up quotes like | "the US is on pace to run out of room in landfills within 18 | years" | | https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/us-landfills-are-fi... | | So which is it? | Baader-Meinhof wrote: | I think that is just referring to the existing landfills. We | can/do build new landfills all the time. And there is no | shortage of unused space for new landfills. | gonzo41 wrote: | It's always a willpower issue. If the US needed a fighter | bomber range it could find the land etc etc. | | Whilst the US has a lot of people. its also really big. It's | got space to solve this problem. | Tycho wrote: | That's so obviously not true. Come on. | golemotron wrote: | > a quick Google search turns up quotes like "the US is on | pace to run out of room in landfills within 18 years" | | People talk about fake news, but this sort of stuff (which is | fake news also) damages credibility immensely. | olyjohn wrote: | I was just in Thailand... where you can't drink the water. So | you buy plastic water bottles constantly. All the rivers and | waterways are just full of plastic bottles floating everywhere. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | Since you mention it, there's a surprising effort to remove | plastic from the ocean too: | https://theoceancleanup.com/updates/first-100000-kg-removed-... | It's definitely a drop in the bucket, but a nice improvement | over the we-can't-do-anything attitude previously on the | pacific garbage patch | celestialcheese wrote: | "Operation National Sword" or "Green Sword"[1] from China in 2017 | killed most recycling in North America and Europe. But no | municipalities or governments wanted to acknowledge it because | they spent decades training the population that recycling is | important and they didn't want to undo those years of hard work. | | It's only been in the last year that things are sort of coming | back, but landfilling happens for almost all plastics and paper | products, unless your muni does multi-bin sorting and not single- | stream. | | Now that petroleum is more expensive, maybe plastic recycling | will make a resurgence, but I'm not holding my breath. | | Recycling boils down to a really really really big and messy | sorting problem, and hopefully someone clever can come up with | 0-marginal effort waste bins that handle the sorting so Americans | can remain lazy and provide a pre-sorted pickup for recyclers. | | Multi-stream recycling at the source yields the lowest | contamination and best recapture rates for material. [2]. The | single-stream wave worked when china bought everything, but now | that material quality matters, the volume benefits from single- | stream are now a liability. | | 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_National_Sword 2 - | https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-era-of-easy-recycli... | opportune wrote: | Just fucking throw it away. Why do we pay extra for the privilege | of recycling something that is barely recyclable to begin with? | | Putting plastic in a landfill sequesters carbon, has less | emissions in transportation, and doesn't require paying people to | sort it (ultimately born by us chumps paying extra to recycle it | - if recycling were truly worth it, they'd be paying us to take | it away, or at least discount our garbage service for separating | out plastics). Landfills already have mitigations in place for | groundwater contamination since landfills can have much more | harmful things than micro plastics seep out of them. | | Not to mention all the micro labor involved in cleaning plastic, | and in sorting it for people who aren't lucky enough to have | single stream recycling. Maybe it makes some people feel good but | it seems like a distraction and waste of time just to make an | unviable activity slightly more viable (if plastic recycling were | actually viable this would be centralized since it's more | efficient). | | I completely support recycling for materials like aluminum and | glass that make sense to recycle, but recycling plastic has never | made sense economically, and putting it in a landfill isn't that | bad. | alistairSH wrote: | Oddly, my county (Fairfax Co, VA) stopped collecting glass, but | continues to collect plastic. IIRC, the problem was broken | glass clogging up the sorting machinery. | | Anyways, I'd prefer we taxed the crap out of single-use | packaging to properly account for the waste handling over time. | squokko wrote: | I always suspected this, because given what I know of the average | American, there's no chance that the recycling bins aren't full | of all kinds of nonrecyclable items. The only things that I | expect are reliably recycled are those which are profitable | enough to pick out of the mess. | c22 wrote: | I was working at a fast food restaurant, emptying the trash | cans several times a day, when my city decided to mandate | separate recycle and compost bins in dining areas. It tripled | the number of cans I had to empty and clean out, but they all | ended up in the same garbage dumpster. Some of my coworkers | didn't give a fuck but I couldn't in good conscience dump a bin | full of half-empty milkshakes and chewing gum into the | recycling dumpster, or a bunch of foil wrappers and plastic | bottles into the compost. | ROTMetro wrote: | Dude, it is disgusting what people put in recycling. I think | people may be trying to sabotage it the stuff they put in | there. Lots of used kitty litter. Lots of soiled clothes. Worst | thing we had come through was a human body. | mateo411 wrote: | > Worst thing we had come through was a human body. | | This should really go in the compost bin. | swagasaurus-rex wrote: | wow tell us more about this recycled human body | jrochkind1 wrote: | > In large part, that's due to the fact that China stopped | importing plastic waste back in 2018, causing a massive pile up | in western countries. | | I don't think so, I've seen reports that most plastic waste sent | to China wound up in landfills or incinerators too. So it's | actually probably a net improvement to not spend all that energy | sending it 7000 miles to China to put it in a landfill. | | It's been a fiction all along, we just paid China to make it | easier for us to pull the wool over our own eyes. Or, even more | cycnically, to get it into _their_ landfills or incinerated air | pollution instead of ours. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | Keeping it isolated to its own landfill might prove better than | mixing it if plastic eating bacteria tech continues to innovate: | https://www.livescience.com/plastic-eating-bacteria | jh00ker wrote: | This is so disheartening. I subscribed to and helped perpetuate | The Lie. Damn. | | While we're on this topic, does anyone have info regarding what | happens to the plastic bags I return to my local (CA, US) grocery | store collection bin? Are they part of a separate stream? | | I add all sorts of used plastic bags to that bin (thin produce | bags, the more heavy-duty grocery bags, Amazon padded shipping | envelopes, deflated shipping air bags, clean zip lock bags, | etc.). I also wonder if I'm gumming up the works by putting | different types of plastic bags in the bin because most bags | don't have recycle markings/numbers. | anm89 wrote: | Throw your plastics directly in the trash. This way you will be | honest with yourself about where your plastic is going and maybe | use marginally less. | | The truth is though that if you aren't growing your own food and | making your own household items, you are pretty much signed up to | create large volumes of plastic waste in a way that is mostly out | of your control. | legitster wrote: | If only! | | Western landfills are amazing technology that affordably and | safely lock away garbage. Most of the land can be reclaimed for | parks or golf courses or other public spaces. | | Recycling programs often end in plastics being sent to Asian | landfills which are little more than open dumps susceptible to | rain, flooding, and contributing to the Pacific garbage patch. | freedomben wrote: | I'd be very interested in a source to read/watch/learn more | about landfill tech if anybody knows of a good one ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-24 23:00 UTC)