Yeah. The reason most people don't recycle is because it's a PITA and not worth the time and effort...despite those who think it is one of the greatest crises of humanity.
Can/Bottle Redemption
- Thread starter mkadl
- Start date
Yeah. The reason most people don't recycle is because it's a PITA and not worth the time and effort...despite those who think it is one of the greatest crises of humanity.
A better question might be whether there are disproportionately more water or Gatorade bottles in ditches. Regardless of the answer, the law is broken either way.
Hi Usedcarguy,
Once again, great conversation. Not a single swear word to be found. A good example for this community. Thanks for the civil dialogue. I am running out of ways to signify my response, so I'll go with red, unbolded font. AND I will have to split your first split in half again to post it.
I will respond in bold. Due to 10k character max, I had to chop some stuff down and it's still over. Will have to respond in two posts:
In this case, I believe you have misused it. I am not trying to show others that I am a good person....
dictionary.cambridge.org
"an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media: Virtue signalling is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings."
Your opening statement is a classic textbook example of virtue signaling. You're indicating virtue by publically expressing sadness and disgust for those that do not share your viewpoint on 100% recycling.
Thank you for your viewpoint and, now that I look at it, I accept the label. It was not my intention, as I said, I don't care what people think about me. But, the communication style certainly gives off the spirit of it.
The cost of recycling is not worth the benefit.
Do you really believe this in all cases, or are you generalizing? I believe it in the areas where it is not taking place or where consumers are making a conscious effort not to participate. It is not economically feasible and can only be justified by making moral arguments such as the one you lead off with in your original reply.
So, I guess when something is inconvenient and "not worth the economic time", you should just not do it? There are many things that make living inconvenient, but you do them because they are the right thing to do. I do see what you are saying and I guess my argument is what is best for the human race is not always what is best for an individual or their pocketbook. I'm a capitalist, but I will stand behind the theory that the "market" can and does not solve everything and it should not be anyone's North star.
There are many circumstances where it works well. 69% of steel is recycled nowadays. 65% of Aluminum is as well. It appears that in both cases the cost of producing new metals is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive to recycle than to extract and the industries would take more if they could get it. Yes and no. Cars have become relatively easy to recycle because they can be fed into big machines, shredded, and have all the different materials sorted out. Lots of other things are being recycled today because of the increase in the cost of raw material extraction and the economic benefit in doing so. Batteries and circuit boards are just two of more recent examples. Note that neither salvage yards (nor anyone else) has made an economic decision to collect peoples' trash to sort out the tin, aluminum, plastic, steel, paper, etc. It is because the cost exceeds the benefit.
My local metal yard takes everything I bring them. I sort stuff out (copper, aluminum, scrap steel, etc.) and take a small amount of $ home for my trouble.) It gets it out of my house and puts it back in the system to be used by others. I would guess you are going to scream virtue signaling again, but that is what I do. They would not want all of us doing that. But, I guarantee they'd take a dumptruck of metal cans everyday if it was brought to them and pay a bit for it as well. It would take an effort by everyone to sort these things ahead of time. We'd just have to decide to do it. Once again, time is money, so I guess it is only a moral thing. I'm trumped again.
In many cities where mandatory recycling takes place, the trash is mixed and taken to the landfills anyway because it is not cost effective to recycle.
If people cared enough about what recycling means to saving the people (not the planet) we would figure out better ways of sorting and re-using the materials. It starts with individuals. They can't just say, see I didn't do anything and it didn't work, so I was right. Again, you're inserting your own moral opinion. We could certainly recycle most everything that goes into our trash. But the question is at what cost. As long as it costs more to do so than producing new, even when HONESTLY considering the environmental costs, it is a waste of resources.
1) There are things that cost more to recycle than make new. I can think of a few. Styrofoam for instance. But for a great many things. most metals included, the cost of producing from recycled goods is less than from raw materials. AND the benefits to the environment are there. They might not be as great as one might hope, but they are there. There is no way that metal recycling is not profitable. there are too many scrap yards taking whatever they can get, not just cars. The fact is if we could get the "last mile" to cooperate, it would work. But, people don't find it to be economically beneficial because they don't want to change.
2) Does life really only boil down to money?
To be continued...
Once again, great conversation. Not a single swear word to be found. A good example for this community. Thanks for the civil dialogue. I am running out of ways to signify my response, so I'll go with red, unbolded font. AND I will have to split your first split in half again to post it.
I will respond in bold. Due to 10k character max, I had to chop some stuff down and it's still over. Will have to respond in two posts:
In this case, I believe you have misused it. I am not trying to show others that I am a good person....
virtue signalling
an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by…
dictionary.cambridge.org
"an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media: Virtue signalling is the popular modern habit of indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings."
Your opening statement is a classic textbook example of virtue signaling. You're indicating virtue by publically expressing sadness and disgust for those that do not share your viewpoint on 100% recycling.
Thank you for your viewpoint and, now that I look at it, I accept the label. It was not my intention, as I said, I don't care what people think about me. But, the communication style certainly gives off the spirit of it.
The cost of recycling is not worth the benefit.
Do you really believe this in all cases, or are you generalizing? I believe it in the areas where it is not taking place or where consumers are making a conscious effort not to participate. It is not economically feasible and can only be justified by making moral arguments such as the one you lead off with in your original reply.
So, I guess when something is inconvenient and "not worth the economic time", you should just not do it? There are many things that make living inconvenient, but you do them because they are the right thing to do. I do see what you are saying and I guess my argument is what is best for the human race is not always what is best for an individual or their pocketbook. I'm a capitalist, but I will stand behind the theory that the "market" can and does not solve everything and it should not be anyone's North star.
There are many circumstances where it works well. 69% of steel is recycled nowadays. 65% of Aluminum is as well. It appears that in both cases the cost of producing new metals is SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive to recycle than to extract and the industries would take more if they could get it. Yes and no. Cars have become relatively easy to recycle because they can be fed into big machines, shredded, and have all the different materials sorted out. Lots of other things are being recycled today because of the increase in the cost of raw material extraction and the economic benefit in doing so. Batteries and circuit boards are just two of more recent examples. Note that neither salvage yards (nor anyone else) has made an economic decision to collect peoples' trash to sort out the tin, aluminum, plastic, steel, paper, etc. It is because the cost exceeds the benefit.
My local metal yard takes everything I bring them. I sort stuff out (copper, aluminum, scrap steel, etc.) and take a small amount of $ home for my trouble.) It gets it out of my house and puts it back in the system to be used by others. I would guess you are going to scream virtue signaling again, but that is what I do. They would not want all of us doing that. But, I guarantee they'd take a dumptruck of metal cans everyday if it was brought to them and pay a bit for it as well. It would take an effort by everyone to sort these things ahead of time. We'd just have to decide to do it. Once again, time is money, so I guess it is only a moral thing. I'm trumped again.
In many cities where mandatory recycling takes place, the trash is mixed and taken to the landfills anyway because it is not cost effective to recycle.
If people cared enough about what recycling means to saving the people (not the planet) we would figure out better ways of sorting and re-using the materials. It starts with individuals. They can't just say, see I didn't do anything and it didn't work, so I was right. Again, you're inserting your own moral opinion. We could certainly recycle most everything that goes into our trash. But the question is at what cost. As long as it costs more to do so than producing new, even when HONESTLY considering the environmental costs, it is a waste of resources.
1) There are things that cost more to recycle than make new. I can think of a few. Styrofoam for instance. But for a great many things. most metals included, the cost of producing from recycled goods is less than from raw materials. AND the benefits to the environment are there. They might not be as great as one might hope, but they are there. There is no way that metal recycling is not profitable. there are too many scrap yards taking whatever they can get, not just cars. The fact is if we could get the "last mile" to cooperate, it would work. But, people don't find it to be economically beneficial because they don't want to change.
2) Does life really only boil down to money?
To be continued...
Continued
To say such people don't care about the planet is a crock.
The fact is that the separation of the materials is most easily and effectively done at the point of use and disposal. how much harder is it to separate 3 or 4 bins instead of throwing it all in one container. If we could learn to separate, the economics of the whole system becomes much more feasible. What we are talking about here is a basic lack of caring by people who don't want to believe in something that could be beneficial to future generations....
Yep, a lack of caring because it's a pain in the rear with virtually zero tangible benefit. How DARE people be selfish with their own time! Your real problem is that people refuse to view the world through your lens. In addition, "most easily" isn't necessarily easy. Recyclers are constantly complaining that people aren't sorting things out correctly.
I think by definition you are proving my point. People have been trained to do many things correctly over the years. They drive on the right side of the road, stop at stop signs, pay their bills, put gas in their cars instead of dumping it on the ground, etc. The statement that it is inconvenient to throw a few things in separate containers and people could never be capable of doing it well, is just being silly. If we need to do something, we can change. But, we, it seems, are too selfish or caught up in our economically based view of the world to see that we can and should change for the betterment of world as a whole.
Most of that stuff came from the ground, and much of it is renewable.
At some point, if we keep going like we are now, we're going to have to mine our dumps for metals. why not keep them out of there in the first place? It will cost a LOT to mine all of our dumps, let alone all the deconstruction and reconstruction costs of the piles and the methane mitigation that will need to be done. I don't suspect this will be an easy or cheap task.
At some point? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the beauty of free market capitalism. It solves problems. If a material becomes scarce enough, it will become economically feasible to recycle. And we'll have landfills full of materials along with the ability to recycle that which already exists. Or even better, someone will come up with a lower cost alternative material which isn't scarce or is economically profitable to recycle.
I have already stated I don't believe the market fixes everything. Which I think we have many examples of all around us. But here is one thing it definitely does not solve. The human race's ability to completely ignore something until something ABSOLUTELY has to be done about it. We are flirting with a future where we CAN run right up to the brink and pull our collective asses out of the fire at the last second. But, we might not. The market is not good at helping humans care about what MIGHT happen. Or making us take stock in what is best for the collective. Only what is best for me RIGHT NOW. Our capitalist system needs bumper rails. Otherwise some people within it can cause it to go haywire.
If a raw materials ever becomes scarce enough to justify recycling, recycling will occur. An extreme example of this is catalytic converters...for which recycling value is to the point where people are stealing functioning ones from others.
Scarcity is a point, but not the only one here. If people recycled more cans of all types and materials, more of the supply of the metals we use would come from recycling which takes less energy and personpower, causes less pollution and disrupts the planet far less than extraction. Leaving out the benefits to the people (once again, the planet will be fine with or without us,) it is less expensive to recycle metals than making virgin materials. Its economically feasible already. There is no reason to say that stealing items that have precious metals and hocking them is the threshold we need to cross to have people sort their cans from the rest of their trash.
It isn't that simple. Less energy, yes. Less person power? Nope. The very thing that makes recycling of some items prohibitively expensive is the labor itself. Your argument requires valuing people's time and effort at zero which isn't reasonable. If your argument carried water, people would already be recycling if for no other reason than economic incentive. I would also add that your narrowing down of the subject to only metals is interesting, especially considering your moral argument in your initial reply to me that anything less than 100% recycling is sad and selfish.
1) I think you are correct here in a way. IF, you think people's time = money and money is all the matters. I don't happen to believe this. It may be economic theory, but that does not and should not be what dictates our lives completely.
2) Exactly how hard is placing a container in one bucket instead of another. It seems not that much harder to me OR economically objectionable.
I will continue on your next post a little later.
To say such people don't care about the planet is a crock.
The fact is that the separation of the materials is most easily and effectively done at the point of use and disposal. how much harder is it to separate 3 or 4 bins instead of throwing it all in one container. If we could learn to separate, the economics of the whole system becomes much more feasible. What we are talking about here is a basic lack of caring by people who don't want to believe in something that could be beneficial to future generations....
Yep, a lack of caring because it's a pain in the rear with virtually zero tangible benefit. How DARE people be selfish with their own time! Your real problem is that people refuse to view the world through your lens. In addition, "most easily" isn't necessarily easy. Recyclers are constantly complaining that people aren't sorting things out correctly.
I think by definition you are proving my point. People have been trained to do many things correctly over the years. They drive on the right side of the road, stop at stop signs, pay their bills, put gas in their cars instead of dumping it on the ground, etc. The statement that it is inconvenient to throw a few things in separate containers and people could never be capable of doing it well, is just being silly. If we need to do something, we can change. But, we, it seems, are too selfish or caught up in our economically based view of the world to see that we can and should change for the betterment of world as a whole.
Most of that stuff came from the ground, and much of it is renewable.
At some point, if we keep going like we are now, we're going to have to mine our dumps for metals. why not keep them out of there in the first place? It will cost a LOT to mine all of our dumps, let alone all the deconstruction and reconstruction costs of the piles and the methane mitigation that will need to be done. I don't suspect this will be an easy or cheap task.
At some point? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the beauty of free market capitalism. It solves problems. If a material becomes scarce enough, it will become economically feasible to recycle. And we'll have landfills full of materials along with the ability to recycle that which already exists. Or even better, someone will come up with a lower cost alternative material which isn't scarce or is economically profitable to recycle.
I have already stated I don't believe the market fixes everything. Which I think we have many examples of all around us. But here is one thing it definitely does not solve. The human race's ability to completely ignore something until something ABSOLUTELY has to be done about it. We are flirting with a future where we CAN run right up to the brink and pull our collective asses out of the fire at the last second. But, we might not. The market is not good at helping humans care about what MIGHT happen. Or making us take stock in what is best for the collective. Only what is best for me RIGHT NOW. Our capitalist system needs bumper rails. Otherwise some people within it can cause it to go haywire.
If a raw materials ever becomes scarce enough to justify recycling, recycling will occur. An extreme example of this is catalytic converters...for which recycling value is to the point where people are stealing functioning ones from others.
Scarcity is a point, but not the only one here. If people recycled more cans of all types and materials, more of the supply of the metals we use would come from recycling which takes less energy and personpower, causes less pollution and disrupts the planet far less than extraction. Leaving out the benefits to the people (once again, the planet will be fine with or without us,) it is less expensive to recycle metals than making virgin materials. Its economically feasible already. There is no reason to say that stealing items that have precious metals and hocking them is the threshold we need to cross to have people sort their cans from the rest of their trash.
It isn't that simple. Less energy, yes. Less person power? Nope. The very thing that makes recycling of some items prohibitively expensive is the labor itself. Your argument requires valuing people's time and effort at zero which isn't reasonable. If your argument carried water, people would already be recycling if for no other reason than economic incentive. I would also add that your narrowing down of the subject to only metals is interesting, especially considering your moral argument in your initial reply to me that anything less than 100% recycling is sad and selfish.
1) I think you are correct here in a way. IF, you think people's time = money and money is all the matters. I don't happen to believe this. It may be economic theory, but that does not and should not be what dictates our lives completely.
2) Exactly how hard is placing a container in one bucket instead of another. It seems not that much harder to me OR economically objectionable.
I will continue on your next post a little later.
Can the two of you in this peeing match just DM each other instead of having a contest on who can write more words? @Sigmapolis probably thinks these are diatribes.
Careful, Dostoevesky might tell you to play in traffic.
I'll take complaining about things that happened five years ago for $3.50, Alex.
The Brothers Karamazov is great.
Lol, I was actually talking about the dude who told me to go play in traffic, but it kind of works for you too.
Your writing style always reminded me more of Tolstoy, although your posts tended to be longer than his stuff.
I think Crime and Punishment is his best work.
Meh. I just bought another waste can and donate to Boys Club / Rotary / Whatever. Gets the cans outta my house and if they get a few bucks, great. I don't throw them into nature.
I'm not going to worry about pennies or nickels. I have enough problems that cost a lot more of my resources and time.
If someone has the time to walk ditches and collect cans, make a few bucks and make roadsides a little cleaner - more power to you. Thanks for helping Iowa look better than the highway dumpsites in the 70's.
I'm not going to worry about pennies or nickels. I have enough problems that cost a lot more of my resources and time.
If someone has the time to walk ditches and collect cans, make a few bucks and make roadsides a little cleaner - more power to you. Thanks for helping Iowa look better than the highway dumpsites in the 70's.
You're trying to insult me but comparing me to Tolstoy is about as high as praise gets.
They're both great.
I’m old enough to know. My suspicion is that there aren’t a bunch of non-deposit items on the roadside, meaning that the deposit has outlived its use. But for the law to make sense 20+ years later, the amount need to go up and more items need to be included. If there’s no political appetite for the changes, kill the whole thing.
There is a big difference between teasing and insulting. Well, maybe not that big.
They are great, but I prefer Camus and Celine.
I mow an 800' long section of ditch that is attached to my property and adjacent to a 4 lane highway. I pick up an average of 1/4 of a garbage bag every 5 days when I am mowing peak season. There aren't as many Fireball 100 and 300 ml plastic bottles as there are beer and soda cans, but there are surprising a lot of these specific containers, must be popular stuff.
There are definitely soda bottles and, of course, no plastic beer bottles, but the beer cans seem to outnumber the soda cans. I think that may be because people discard the beer cans as evidence more than the soda cans. Not sure. But, I'd bet I pull 2 to 3 redeemable cans and a bottle or two every 5 days of various varieties of soda and beer. (When my wife and I walk the gravel road that comes off that 4 lane, we pick up 99% beer cans there. Not a ton of other trash there. This IS evidence disposing I'm pretty sure.) Non-redeemable plastic bottles, fast food refuse of all sorts, and other food containers, especially chip sacks and empty cigarette containers are more prevalent and the biggest filler of the bag really is building material waste. It's bulky, so it takes up more room.
The 4 lane goes to the county dump, so a lot of that blows off of people's trucks and trailers when they don't cover them OR they have the flappy tarps not secured. I don't think they mean to litter, but they might be the biggest culprit on my section of road. That is negligence more than actually making the decision to litter.
I do believe though, that many of the things that I find are simply discarded directly from the user out the window of their car. For instance the cigarette containers are usually in pristine condition, just laying there a few feet off the road. It also seems that the well put back together fast food sacks with the wrappers crumpled up and put back in fully intact are another example of the kind of things that are probably thrown out the window. I find it amazing after all the years of advertising and messaging that people still think its OK to litter. Sad statement on our society.
I just can't conceive of consciously throwing anything out my car window and never have. I can't understand why anyone would or ever could. Are there good arguments FOR littering?
OK, I know this discussion has gone from redeeming bottles and cans to littering, so I will steer it back to this. Even if you don't believe in the redemption system, is there a good reason to at least throw your bottles and cans in the trash instead of out the window? OR is that incredibly inconvenient and economically disadvantageous as well?
When we sold aluminum to the scrap yard in town (before can redemption), we used to put sand in some of the cans before crushing them. I'll probably wind up in Hell for that little maneuver.
