Sunday
Oct042015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day, recycling edition
Oct 4, 2015 Recycling Religious rituals don’t need any practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But many recyclers want more than just the freedom to practice their religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory for everyone else, too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t sort properly.
John Tierney revisits his legendary 1996 article about the insanity of most forms of recycling and concludes, that 20 years on, he remains completely correct.
I don't think he is mistaken.
Reader Comments (57)
For those who would like to dig more deeply into recycling, I highly recommend digging your way through a book, Rubbish, the Archaeology of Garbage by Rathje and Murphy, ISBN 978-0-8165-2143-2. They are a pair of archaeology professors who upon reading some of the more outrageous claims that we were drowning under of torrent of the garbage cause de jour decided to take an archaeological romp through their nearby municipal garbage dump (aka "tip"). They also explored a bit the economics of recycling. All and all very readable and highly recommended.
Pcar, thanks for that. I did actually manage to sneak out late and discover that's how Sainsbury's now enforce it: simply removing bags and making you ask like a smoker if you would like to buy a plastic bag.
The whole thing strikes me as pitifully ineffectual, given the small scale, and still another irritating infringement on liberties. But largely harmless in the grand scheme of things. Maybe not good timing for rabid greens now planning their air-miles for Paris. Anyway, those who can afford to not give a toss, will still do so if they please. So the poor seem to come, err, last again in the schemes of environmentalists.
I've seen a figure quoted at WIKI-thang, saying that greater than ~70% of UK carrier bags were already domestically 'recycled' by second usages, most significantly as bin liners (though I don't see dog faeces being picked up with rose petals yet). Many will now simply use bags marginally more frugally, and buy cheap bags like bin-liners in bulk, as Philip Bratby and others indicated.
I also don't yet trust the figures about reported reductions in bulk usage in Scotland/Wales: the Environment Agency report indicates that it only concerns registered consumers/producers. The only people with an interest in registering seem to be the big-name companies that are being being legally required to visibly cut the supply of bags by the plastic-bag tax. (Interesting aside: perhaps the brand recognition/loss of advertising will be differentially affected: Sainsbury's orange bags seem more visible when fresh, but when I've sometimes been viewing bags in semi-degraded states, Waitrose has stood out like a sore thumb. What is the point of any supermarket supplying more expensive and durable bags for multiple use, as Waitrose does, if their relatively wealthy customers still throw them away more often than is considered optimal?
Much of this just seems like good news for Poundland and the other ''99 pence stores', (unless they are being beaten with the same stick for being a large retailer, in which case it seems like a great way for a competitor to undermine their business model. Is that too cynical?).
Maybe, but cullet is a requisite for glass production as it forms the basic pool of molten glass that allows the raw ingredients to assimilate thoroughly.
Dadgervais already provided some of the other 'recycled glass' information.
Yes, glass is not viable for inexpensive long distance shipping. Much like cinder blocks, bricks and many other products, if the local industry can't use it effectively, don't legislatively force them.
Legislated regulations forcing specific forms of recycling require tax payer subsidies. Otherwise, people shouldn't be shocked when the recycler collects the recycled goods and proceeds to dump the majority in the land fills.
I do recycle. A smooth domestic life is important to me, so recycling is a small price.
Like many other bad news revelations, it does me no good to mention that 'X' was at the dump and watched the local recycling truck get weighed and trundle into the land fill. With the plummeting raw material prices (natural gas), recycling plastics is expensive when there are no buyers for trash plastic.
I do grumble though when I regularly overfill the sixty gallon recycling bin yet only muster up one small thirteen gallon trash bag of actual waste.
I do long for the days when items were what one paid for. Nowadays, a significant portion of each item's cost is packaging that is tossed without personal benefit.
And the bureaucratic insanity is off the scale.
Perfect example:
On a side street, where I typically park my car here in Carlisle, outside someone's house on the pavement are 2 large black plastic refuse sacks. Bin liners loaded with rubbish. Tied up neatly and tidily, not making any mess.
They have both been attached with a laminated A5 size notice in glorious green & blue writing, resplendent with Carlisle City Council graphics, informing anyone and everyone that The Council will not remove rubbish unless it is in a "Gull Proof Sack"
Yes, Carlisle has a few seagulls screeching, squawking and generally doing what seagulls do. Not a big deal by any real measure.
Anyway, the notice is alluding to the fact that the householder's rubbish is not in one of the officially supplied black woven plastic 'sacks'
But surely, is not leaving the garbage in a non-gull-proof sack as The Council have done, not just inviting in the seagulls?
The householder, as I'll be witness, put the rubbish out on the appointed collection day and it would only have been open to gull attack for just a few hours. Now its going to sit there till god knows while the householder calls the council's bluff.
What is wrong with this world these days?
How many heads won't roll over this debacle?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11913963/Stinking-10000-tonne-pile-of-rubbish-in-Great-Heck-Yorkshire-investigated-by-Environment-Agency.html
Surely there should be a legal obligation for the rubbish firm [I use that term advisedly] to remove something as hazardous and disgusting as that pile of recycling appears to be.
In a few years time wind turbines will be subject to the same excuses- "Oh, sorry, we can't afford to do anything about it., yes we know it's about to fall over, but we've gone out of business, so you'll have to pay for it yourself.....".......,
@michael hart Oct 6, 2015 at 3:35 AM
Agreed, gesture politics to make politicians feel good and silence the metro/liberal/left/gaurdianistas for a few months until they find their next environment/health/sex ban this cause.
Agree, the poor won't like it. The metro/liberal/left/gaurdianistas have the knitted yogurt bags already. The politicians don't care as they will still use them and claim expenses - so you, the poor and me pay twice.
I can believe that, I re-used them as bin liners and waste wrappers as did all my extended family, friends and work colleagues. Interestingly, the most vociferous msm campaigner for the charge was the Daily Mail. However, every article promoting/lobbying for this was met with the vast majority (~90%) of comments from readers saying we don't want this, we re-use them. There must be a green loony in a very high position in Associated Newspapers Ltd/DMG Media if they repeatedly anger their customers.
Compulsory 5p charge applies to any business employing 250 or more (fte) employees.
How wonderful it would be if Tesco broke out of the consensus and issued a statement: "We put giving our customers low prices first, from today we will no longer donate the compulsory charge to (money grabbing) charities. Instead we will use it to lower the prices of our Everyday Value products to help the poorest in the UK. Examples:...."
Fortunately for people in the UK plastic bags are only necessary for dog poo but sadly many poor folk in Namibia are reduced to using them for their own waste. ( Well according to a Wikipedia article anyway ) Strange that governments can't get organized to at least build latrines emptied weekly by slurry tanker. The slurry could be composted for use in agriculture or put through an anaerobic digester plant first to generate methane / electricity. This could improve quality of life in the townships and downstream too. At very least a toilet could be built on a first story above a hose cart with plastic barrels or designed tanker for removal to the desert. I expect finance is one of the main stumbling blocks. Bill Gates is looking into solutions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia
"Compared to the efforts made to improve access to safe water, Namibia is lagging behind in the provision of adequate sanitation. This includes 298 schools that have no toilet facilities. Over 50% of child deaths are related to lack of water, sanitation, or hygiene; 23% are due to diarrhea alone. The UN has identified a "sanitation crisis" in the country.
Apart from residences for upper and middle class households, sanitation is insufficient in most residential areas. Private flush toilets are too expensive for virtually all residents in townships due to their water consumption and installation cost. As a result, access to improved sanitation has not increased much since independence: In Namibia's rural areas 13% of the population had more than basic sanitation, up from 8% in 1990. Many of Namibia's inhabitants have to resort to "flying toilets", plastic bags to defecate which after use are flung into the bush. The use of open areas close to residential land to urinate and defecate is very common and has been identified as a major health hazard."