What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
390 Comments
- FakeHipster, on 05/12/2009, -7/+265This is pretty impressive. The rest of the US needs to get on this, and make some money doing so.
- FuzzplugJones, on 05/12/2009, -25/+230That's because 72% of the ingredients in a tossed salad are biodegradable.
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -2/+194This can be misinterpreted pretty easily - this is 72% of all recyclable trash, not 72% of ALL trash.
- Wawin, on 05/12/2009, -8/+139I had no idea San Francisco had such an inmense recycling rate, congratulations to everyone in san francisco that helped out.
- pe5t1lence, on 05/12/2009, -2/+112The article doesn't really illuminate one way or the other. It IS 72% of recyclable material not 72% of all trash right? Any other articles on this?
- pook187, on 05/12/2009, -12/+107Tree-hugging, hippie, smelly liber... oh that's actually pretty cool.
- Myztry, on 05/12/2009, -5/+67Our family runs a purely plastic recycling business in Australia turning over AU$6 million per annum.
We get no subsidies, and we're making money... - idighealth, on 05/12/2009, -6/+61I have seen lots of companies and municipalities capitalizing off of recycling. Hopefully it will take off soon on San Francisco's example..
- yuanzhoulu, on 05/12/2009, -2/+43Zürich, Switzerland's rate is 89%, just so you know...
- strad2, on 05/12/2009, -5/+36You have to use more chemicals to bleach virgin timber pulp to make it into paper, than to recycle existing paper. The paper industry is actually one of the largest water polluters in the country, and the EPA has determined that recycling paper creates less water and air pollution than refining from timber.
Second, not all uses of recycled paper require such heavy chemical treatment (think cat litter).
Third, remember that recycling is relatively new, and that the efficiency of recycling processes is not constant and improves every year. And there are natural means of treating some types of paper that exist even today. - DOCNM, on 05/12/2009, -3/+30Yes. Mike is simply wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling#Cost-benefi ... - bpwrinn, on 05/12/2009, -1/+28because that would cost more.
- DOCNM, on 05/12/2009, -2/+28I'm impressed by the level of ignorance here. Paper recycling is much more efficient in terms of chemicals, water and energy used than making paper out of new pulp. As for the quality of the paper is adequate to most usages (mostly office usage)
- SOhp101, on 05/12/2009, -3/+28MIsleading title. It's 72% of all recyclable materials, not all trash. but the subtitle clears that up.
- L0NER, on 05/12/2009, -9/+34does recycling really save energy?
- Leviathan433, on 05/12/2009, -5/+30I think that you are defining "cost" to narrowly and short shortsightedly. The loss is short termed when viewed to the total cost that is saved by conserving and reducing resource use and waste.
What will be the cost later if more recycling programs like this are not put into place? - SkippyDoorknob, on 05/12/2009, -2/+26There haven't been rolling blackout since the Enron debacle a few years ago.
- VigRoco, on 05/12/2009, -0/+24The headline is a bit deceiving. Its currently at 72% of recyclable materials, not 72% of all trash that is generated.
- DesertFlyer, on 05/12/2009, -11/+35Gavin Newsom is the real deal, I met him recently on a flight. He flies coach. He is not into himself at all. I know I'll be voting for him for governor in the next election.
- Ragzouken, on 05/12/2009, -0/+23Is that some U.S meme that foreigners won't get?
- redux2redux, on 05/12/2009, -8/+29This is great, but I wish they would stop recycling Pelosi...
- faskill, on 05/12/2009, -0/+20If you aren't getting it then you just aren't asking right
- MaxxusFlamus, on 05/12/2009, -6/+26At least their pretentious nature is due to the fact they tend to lead the way in efforts such as this.
As opposed to being irrationally pretentious and drag others down (Texas) - Colecoman1982, on 05/12/2009, -0/+17The reason it isn't left to businesses is that it's not profitable. The things that are profitable to recycle are already being recycled (old oil, lead, metal, plastic, paper, animal fat from butchers, etc.). The rest of the things either aren't profitable or the profits are so minimal as to not make it worth it. The returns, for the city/town, are that they don't have to build new landfills which are extremely hard to find locations for and get permits.
- Shiftgood, on 05/12/2009, -4/+21you sound defensive.
- seltaeb4, on 05/12/2009, -2/+19The only reason we ever had any blackouts is because Enron gamed the system and screwed California ratepayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars, and did so with Bush and Cheney's blessing.
- Myztry, on 05/12/2009, -1/+17@sv650turing - We get absolutely no subsidies. Zilch/zero/naught/nothing/none.
Now, the low down is that the bulk our material is industrial waste. We also use post consumer waste but it is the lesser part. Your assumption is that we are collecting post consumer. We used to, but we sold that business when the multi-nationals moved in to focus on building markets that actually use the material.
Okay. You could say that (smaller) part of our material is subsidised, and it is indirectly. But do you write-down the American food industry because America subsidises corn production?
Recycled plastics don't compete with virgin plastics. That would be silly. Instead it acts primarily as timber and concrete replacements.
Plastic lasts longer than wood - doesn't split - doesn't splinter - doesn't warp - doesn't rot - can be formed - doesn't stain - can be integrally coloured, and doesn't need to be grown.
Plastic is much lighter than concrete (manual handling) - isn't abrasive - is reusable - can be worked (cut/nailed/etc) - doesn't crack - can be made flexible - doesn't use soda ash (or the like)
They are certainly advantages. And it's not feasible to make similar items it virigin plastic unless you make them hollow due to expense. - sockpuppets, on 05/12/2009, -0/+15Yes.
- Myztry, on 05/12/2009, -1/+16@sv650 - "Also we're going to run out of energy before we run out of raw materials for plastic."
How is that so? The raw material for plastics, and the raw material for fuel (our main transportable energy source) are the one and the same... Even coal is hydrocarbon based so linked to the same source.
Preserving the hydrocarbons is more important than I think people realise. At least until we move to nuclear power, and need to start preserving Uranium...
Our world is finite... - meese, on 05/12/2009, -2/+16From a liberal perspective, Newsom is actually terrible. He just says the right things to keep up appearances and then runs to his corporate donors for cash.
Plus he's way too scandal prone to effectively get things done.
Just ask most San Francisco residents - Newsom sucks. - ehalasey, on 05/12/2009, -1/+15Move to SF and take a look at what he's abandoned. Your tune will change right quick.
He's not the one doing the work. It's the city council that's getting ***** done. He's just glad to take the credit. - zeroskin, on 05/12/2009, -0/+14If you have to ask, then you can't afford it.
- DOCNM, on 05/12/2009, -0/+14Because is generally more efficient not to mix stuff that you'll have to separate later.
- morgino, on 05/12/2009, -5/+19I live in San Diego and our recyclying program actually costs out city 40 million a year. I like the fact that we do recycle over 50% of all garbage but it may just be a feel good thing, the more I learn about it the more I realize that it actually uses up a ton of energy to do so and may not be that beneficial
- inactive, on 05/12/2009, -0/+14You are correct sir.
- strad2, on 05/12/2009, -1/+14While generally I can appreciate this show, you do have to expand on your sources a bit to get a fuller picture. E.g. in this episode, they tell you that recycling paper is bad because it uses harsh chemicals - but they don't tell you that creating paper from virgin pulp uses much more of these chemicals. Or that the EPA has determined that recycling paper uses less energy, and causes much less water and air pollution than virgin paper refinement. Instead, they frame their argument around straw-men like "not recycling paper will make us run out of trees!", etc.
- Mattwdj, on 05/12/2009, -0/+13Actually, there is only one bin, the recycling company does all the sorting for us.
- Tiak, on 05/12/2009, -0/+12When planes start to crash, the pilot typically flips a switch that will cause the entire coach section to explode and fold out to serve as a parachute for those in first class. I thought everybody knew that.
- kirbflex, on 05/12/2009, -0/+12c'mon man, hes not that bad... get your facts straight... he didnt bone his wife's best friend... he boned his best friend/coworker's wife.
- DOCNM, on 05/12/2009, -0/+12then click on every item and you'll get the more data. You can also check here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHG ...
- sv650touring, on 05/12/2009, -17/+29most recycling, particularly plastic, is done at a loss
Valuable metals like aluminum and copper are the only real way to make money recycling that doesn't just come from subsidies. - Valyn, on 05/12/2009, -1/+13Not misleading, the title is an outright lie. Then fixed by the subtitle. Still a lie though.
- foofightrs777, on 05/12/2009, -1/+13FYI it's called a curb.
- foofightrs777, on 05/12/2009, -2/+13Funny, I thought private individual effort and "volunteerism" were important parts of conservatism. Oh wait no, that was back when conservatives had ideas and principles. Nowadays the conservative mantra is just disagree with anything a "liberal" says. How foolish of me.
- Calcularius, on 05/12/2009, -4/+15So Negative! You must be a "conservative"
- DrWordSmith, on 05/12/2009, -3/+1472% by Volume or 72% by weight?
- hokie47, on 05/12/2009, -1/+12Here is my Digg armchair answer, yes. For example aluminum is very abundant, but it takes a lot of energy to separate it pure aluminum from bauxite. I am not 100% sure about paper, glass, or plastic, but I say that it will help. Not your question, but I would rather recycle plastic than waste more oil.
- Myztry, on 05/12/2009, -1/+12Not true. Post consumer cans are filled will all sorts of gunk that gets burnt off. Straws poked back into the can are a prime example.
What do you mean burn plastic? We recycled plastics and all of our purgings/cuttoffs/etc are granulated and fed back into the system. We have no wastage.
The only real caveat is PVC (clear cordial bottles) and PET (soft drink bottles) need to be seperated out. PVC burns (nastily) at temperates most plastics melt at, and PET melts at a higher temperature and crystalizes. - Koppie, on 05/12/2009, -2/+12Thank you. :-D
- pe5t1lence, on 05/12/2009, -0/+10The problem is that energy contributes only one small part of the pollution. Especially in electronics chemicals (lead, mercury) leach out into the surrounding ground water. And of course there are the plastics that take eons to biodegrade.
Thinking only in terms of energy consumption ignores the larger timescale problems of accumulation. With solar power, and hopefully nuclear, becoming larger forces in the power grid, the energy argument will eventually be reduced. But for now a balance needs to be stuck between these two converse problems. -
Show 51 - 100 of 404 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is