digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The global **Truth** about recylcling : The Economist

economist.com — Wonderful analysis of the Pros and Cons of recycling and where to go from here..

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • prophet3point0, on 11/14/2007, -23/+12“waste is really a design flaw.”

    Aint it the truth. Sustainable product design for the win. RIAA for the lose.
  • FrankButcher, on 11/14/2007, -5/+20Good to know recycling does actually make a difference, even though more needs to be done.
    • brad3378, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Would it make sense to implant RFID tags into recyclable materials to aid sorting machines?
      • brskeen, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1If RFID tags became common enough, the cost would drop to practically nothing. In those circumstances, yeah it would.
  • dynastypartners, on 11/14/2007, -4/+23The economist always does a fair in-depth analysis. Recycling is really a reaction from waste we produce in the first place, realistically it is a great win until we can figure out 0 waste production systems.
    • Antwan718, on 11/15/2007, -0/+31A simple item does not need 12 layers of plastic on it for packaging, if all the package designs were to be eyed over, then it would be very simple to eliminate A LOT of waste.
      • hiikeeba, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1If you ran for president, I would vote for you. Our office purchased software, and each CD came in a plastic case wrapped in a phone book sized box that went straight into the trash.
        • mightydavefish, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Your standards for choosing the leader of the free world are shockingly low.
    • Markpdotcom, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Exactly! How about multipacks, rather than having one outer layer and individual inner layers and sometimes a cardboard/plastic tray with its own layer of wrapping, make single packs in tare off form. Hurray, I'm a genius, where is my million dollars?
    • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2A corporation is a machine. It generates profit. As consumer waste is not currently a factor in whether or not profit is made, it will not be factored in to packaging design. Only when reduction in consumer waste equates to a reduction in some aspect of product cost or growth in business revenue it will not be adjusted to suit environmental needs.

      The system is what it is. Wishing for puppies and pretty flowers won't change the system, which is focused on profit. Packaging as you see it is a heavily optimized part of the system. It looks the way it does because that achieves minimum cost. the machine needs to be restructured or the system costs changed if you want to see anything different.

      Now, force 'end of life' management to be factored into product cost, and it becomes an item to be minimized. Place proper 'costs' on things sitting in landfills for 10 million years, and maybe you'll get a reduction in plastics usage. Otherwise, plastics will remain the cheapest option, and 'society' will just have to deal with it.
      • teadrinker, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2"As consumer waste is not currently a factor in whether or not profit is made,"
        Well, packaging does cost money.

        "Now, force 'end of life' management to be factored into product cost,"
        How about we simply charge for 'end of life' management. People would get the point a lot faster if they were getting charged $10 per pound of garbage. And guess what, all you have to do is eliminate the government subsidies on landfills and recycling, and perhaps charge for landfill land use, and consumers will get the true cost.
  • sites, on 11/14/2007, -0/+22I better get my Mr. Fusion by 2015.
    • brskeen, on 11/16/2007, -0/+0Loved the "Back to the Future" reference!
  • briguymaine, on 11/15/2007, -7/+29I have a wife and two little girls and we put out one garbage bag a week (mostly plastic bags and styrofoam that my town doesn't recycle and I can't really reuse). My neighbors have no kids and put out 2 - 3 trash barrels a week, blows my mind how much crap they throw out.
    • MatthewDuke, on 11/15/2007, -7/+17Looks like we found the neighborhood busy-body. I'm glad I don't live next to you.
    • moisie, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Exactly. I always amazes me when I go shopping, I see people filling their trolleys with bags of stuff. Each bag has 2 or 3 things in it and they tie them up. You know when they get home they're just going to rip them open and throw them away. I have half a dozen bags which I take with me, and use for months and months on end then when they wear out I recycle them. It costs me nothing, not even extra time, yet as well as saving resources I'm not throwing away a load of crap that sits on my property all week waiting to be collected.
  • gwhardyiv, on 11/14/2007, -8/+13"..when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around..."
    Please translate.
    • madroneDorf, on 11/14/2007, -4/+0When a city introduces a recyclying program that places recycles receptacles along the road, the sight of all those recyling trucks running about

      /

      Recycling programs make recycling trucks that you see
      • diggduggjoe, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1I wish the Economist would have discussed all the fuel moving the recyclables around. I know that is one of the hot button issues. I figure that, at least, recycling must occur close to the source, but that is impossible for paper and glass. They need to be reworked at a plant somewhere, usually far away.
        • Phrag, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Well the waste has to be moved regardless of whether you are recycling it or not. If they eliminate the recycling, you would just end up with more trash trucks driving around. There is at least some net benefit to having to move all the waste around when we recycle.
          • diggduggjoe, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1My point it that the waste does not go to the local dump, instead it goes to some regional recycler.
    • glacius99, on 11/14/2007, -11/+8It's called a dictionary, please use it.. The article is obviously written by a Brit, but it's not hard to understand..

      kerbside - curbside (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kerbside)
      programme - program (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/programme)
      lorry - truck (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lorries)
      trundle - trundle (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trundling)
      • rtbenson, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8I think he was being sarcastic...
        • pieinthesky, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1Maybe, but it wasn't funny - it was narrow minded.
        • way2muchsense, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2glacius99 did not need to be sarcastic. Britain and the United States are, after all, two nations separated by a common language. Nevertheless, his translations are accurate.
      • WesleyRiot, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2im glad someone understands proper english.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 11/14/2007, -9/+13Translation: Stop representing America so poorly and figure it the ***** out, *****.
    • gwhardyiv, on 11/15/2007, -3/+12(/SARCASM, *****)
      • dinostabOMG, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3still dumb and annoying
      • avihappy, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Sorry, it's just that Digg members' sarcasm detectors have been far too overloaded. We need to be explicitly told that it is sarcasm.
    • stevedclarke, on 11/14/2007, -5/+1It's called English.
  • Tyrghast, on 11/14/2007, -9/+3spell check much?
  • Lanefair, on 11/14/2007, -12/+5Me and my girlfriend recycle as best we can, but I can just imagine all those families who don't do a f***king thing. Like that family down the road where the mother uses the F word in front of her 3 year old girl all the time. I bet she doesn't clean her yoghurt pots. Stupid people breed more. How you get the majority to do something that takes effort and doesn't pay is the biggest challenge of them all.
  • SEANWOOKIE, on 11/14/2007, -16/+1Digg this down please, sorry
  • Trax91, on 11/14/2007, -9/+1TLDR
    • Treoinmypocket, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2LOL - Arrogance and Ignorance in four simple letters.
  • bentman78, on 11/15/2007, -10/+24http://digg.com/videos/educational/Penn_Teller_Bul ...
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/14/2007, -5/+12I was going to say "cue Penn and Teller fanboys" but it looks like you guys are too quick. Their show is really meh when it comes to arguing a point; they spend most of the show setting up easy targets for themselves to knock down, and make douchebags of themselves doing it.
  • CosmicBratt, on 11/14/2007, -4/+8I wonder if this article will really make a difference? Will this actually make someone who hasn't been recycling start? We know the excuses they come up with: time consuming, too much to handle, won't make a difference ("I'll recycle once China starts..") ***** reasons. It's so easy to deflect responsibility from yourself. Everyone should just own up to their actions!

    This may sound treehugger of me, but I will recycle even when I'm away. Recently I was out of town for three weeks, and had no access to recycling. Instead I just made a "recycling bag" that I filled up and brought home with me. It was amazing to see how things add up. My heart breaks just thinking of all those plastic water bottles being dumped into the ground.
    • Wiini, on 11/14/2007, -7/+4Most of the people obsessed with recycling that I know, can't run their own lives very well. I mean sure, they think they can... but they're a mess. I'd rather them focus on their life than tree-hugging.
      • CosmicBratt, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Hmm...I guess I'm not obsessed enough, lol. I run my life very well, actually. Saving the world is just my side job. :P
    • moisie, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4It's not even about being obsessed with recycling. There are so many simple things that take no more effort than throwing things away and some people are just too lazy to even think about it. A simple thing I mentioned in another comment is reusing your plastic bags (if you have to even use them). (In the UK at least) most shops give your rewards for reusing them, keeping a bag in your car costs you nothing, not throwing it away each week costs you nothing, putting it in the recylcing bin at the store as you walk in/out costs you nothing. Not putting your bananas in an individual bag costs you nothing, in fact it saves you the time of throwing away the bag.
      • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Some stores have started a 'penny/nickel per bag' policy. Bring your own, no charge. Of course they also sell the pretty canvas reusable bags with their name plastered on it, sometimes insulated for grocery items. IKEA comes to mind. Can't think of any others off the top of my head.
  • ColonelJessup, on 11/14/2007, -8/+4Economist is a great website. I never really knew how much effort went into recycling. I once save up mine, and my friends beer and pop cans for three months, I thought I was going to get 100 bucks. I got 14. I stopped recycling after that.
    • FranTaylor, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Maybe you should learn some math.
    • blueskydiver76, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3you obviously didn't drink enough beer
  • WayneBop, on 11/15/2007, -1/+13Even better than recycling: Throwing away less ***** in the first place.

    How about measures designed to discourage overconsumption.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1Taxes?
    • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Why do you hate America?

      (over-consumerism drives our economy. how dare you suggest we change our way of life! no one will make us change our way of life!)
  • rotundo, on 11/14/2007, -1/+7Good analysis. I always try to remember the three R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... in that order. But less packaging and less disposable stuff. Reuse as much as you can. Recycle whatever recycles. Trash the rest.

    You can make a huge reduction in the amount of stuff you send to the landfill/incinerator.
    • thefirelane, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2The thing people forget about less packaging: More products break during transport, which is often much more wasteful. Often people just look at products sitting happily on the shelf, and don't realize the hell they have to endure before getting there.

      It is a trade off.
    • CosmicBratt, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2You forgot: and compost. ;) Gotta love that my city has a mandatory "green bin" program.
    • stoanhart, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1No kidding. The article mentions over 500kg per person per year of garbage. I'm pretty sure they mean direct garbage, like what you throw away into the bin; they don't mean indirect garbage, like you ate at a restaurant and they threw away some food wrappers.

      My question is, how the HELL do you manage to make that much garbage?! Our household of 3 people throws away about one small garbage bag per week. If that bag weight 5kg, that's 260 kg per year for 3 people! I would say I produce at most 100kg per year, which I still consider too much.
  • FranTaylor, on 11/14/2007, -2/+8I don't understand the people who have their leaves, brush, etc. hauled away. They are quite literally throwing away their land. They should put it back in the soil and then they will have better soil and won't have to dump so much fertilizer on it.
    • halobender, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Good old mulching mower will do a lot to fertilize the lawn.
    • tubalcane, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Some anal retentive communities don't allow compost piles. I specifically bought a house that had a small wooded area in the back where I can throw some yard waste. Except for branches most of it goes back into the garden the next spring.
  • dawhitie, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1Is it just me or was most of this article a no brainer?
  • nicejai, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2FTA: "Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves."

    Recycling isn't about energy, it's about resources. Specifically, to make the most out of every tree that we cut down, every hunk of metal we dig out of the ground.
    • sensoukami, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3energy is a resource too silly....
      • ElectroBot, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2But, energy can be a renewable resource (sun, wind, etc.).

        So far we haven't found a way to "create" matter (from energy or other matter) so we have to recycle it.
        • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1have we found a way to create energy, then? that's great news! I may as well quit school and go home now.
  • moisie, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8It's not hard at all to recycle. Any newspapers/paper we build up during the week usually goes on the kitchen table until we decide it can be thrown away - instead we put it in a different box. We always rinse our bottles, tins etc in grey watter from washing up so that they're not overly sticky or full of waste food and therefore don't smell or attract pests - rather than throwing them in the bin we put them in a different box in our garage. We have always tried to throw away as little as possible just because we don't want bags of rubbish building up on our property. We have containers for everything that isn't collected for recylcling and every so often fill up the car, make a short trip to the dump and make use of the recycling facilities there: foil, cartons, bulbs, batteries, etc, it's simple. We buy low energy bulbs where appropriate, use rechargable batteries, have solar chargers and turn things off. Once you get into the habit it's no longer hard.
  • frostbyt, on 11/14/2007, -8/+3All the processing used to recycle is causing Global Warming. Stop Global Warming by not recycling!
  • Rustymetal, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1recycling is so ez-mode. My condo-complex has a big dumpster and then 2 recycling ones. I have 3 trash cans in my house and throw away my stuff in the respective cans. Then I take out the trash as normal.
  • bawheid, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6Does recycling Economist articles from June count as recycling?
  • domc, on 11/14/2007, -7/+2I don't recycle not one bit.
    • mrosetti, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3Then read the article and change your wicked ways, it never too late to start...
    • brentinkc, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5Quit being a selfish ass
  • ZenOfJazz, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3A few interesting - semi-related - thoughts...
    First, landfills are not inherently evil. There will come a time when "new resources" will cost more than digging "pre-used" resources out of the landfill. That will still be recycling, and hopefully, will come after we've made even larger strides in the technologies of recycling.
    Second, Why does every blasted thing have to come in some kinda nifty plastic packaging? What's wrong with the good old recyclable cardboard packaging? If you hate to see the plastic bottles going into a landfill, hate all that plastic packaging, as well.
    And thirdly, throwing away bottles, jugs, and the like, especially plastic ones. Do you crush them down and squeeze the air out of them, before you throw them away, or are you one of the people who throws away perfectly good air?
    • way2muchsense, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2According to TFA, paper can be recycled up to six times. That's it. Plastic, if done right, can be recycled indefinitely. I would be in favor of legislation limiting the number of types of plastic packaging to a few of the most common types to make recycling more efficient.
      • Otto, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Most plastics cannot be recycled at all. The ones that can are generally fairly substandard plastic materials that don't suit the needs of most packaging. Cardboard, on the other hand, is a perfectly renewable resource, is strong, can be recycled many times, and when it's not recyclable anymore, can be turned into fertilizer. As long as it's used correctly, that is.
      • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2even when recycled, though, anything used for food needs a fresh layer of plastic on the food side because they can't guarantee the contaminant levels in the recycled plastics. Until depolymerization becomes a feasible recycling method, there is still no great plastic recycling option.
    • Myakka, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3I have heard that reclaiming valuable resources from landfills is already happening in Canada.
    • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1the packaging industry is a highly optimized beast. It's all about cost. I ranted on that above. Waste handling is not a cost factor for manufacturers, and their total profit does better with the nifty plastic packaging (cheap, less returns, better sales with 'visible' product). Until the business's cost/benefit picture changes, they have no reason to change, and shouldn't. (note, positive public image can have a net effect on profits, but in the end, it is all about profits.)
  • adwarereport, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4We recycle toilet paper and flush only one in four times!
  • way2muchsense, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7By far, the largest component of our recycling output is packaging, the largest part of which is unnecessary. Among the types that really grind my gears:

    Mail order, which has the potential to save lots and lots of fossil fuel, but negates this by sending me a small item in a gigantic box filled with styrofoam nuggets. I have a policy of leaving downgraded feedback when this happens.
    "Clamshell" packaging. Why am I required to have a pair of strong scissors and a boxcutter knife to get through these to get to the little gadget I bought from Wal-Mart (are you green hypocrites from Bentonville, Arkansas listening?). After this, I am left with a mass of mixed materials that require separation before throwing in the recycle bins (yes, bins plural). Again, excessive and unnecessary.
    I gotta break, so that's it for now.
    • tubalcane, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I hate all the extra packaging! I bought an SD memory card. The packaging was 8x10", 1" thick, and weighed more than the card. For retail keep the cards in a locked cabinet to prevent theft but for mail order why include all that packing?
      • NJank, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1costs more to have separate packaging lines. The freedom to redirect product from a retail to a mail-order warehouse leads to overall dollar savings. If what you want doesn't line up to profit in the business world, it doesn't happen. So it is, and so it should be. Either re-tool the machine, or change the operating constraints if you want a different output.
  • RaggTopp, on 11/14/2007, -7/+5This has been covered before......by people that cite fact to backup their standpoint.

    Most recycling costs more energy and money than it saves, thus it's not really good for the environment....I don't even need to get into the byproducts from some types of recycling that produce toxic waste that has to be disposed of.

    All those "save a tree" people are ***** morons.....like paper companies don't plant trees to replace the ones they cut down....jesus you're ***** stupid.

    If you're going to bring up the "landfills R teh bad" angle go check your facts and get back to us. We have so much landfill space it's not even funny, with our current population growth we have landfill space for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
    • akatsuki, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4Yeah, and those replanted trees are really equalizing the carbon burden. And support a diverse ecosystem.

      Environmentalism is about putting things back the way you found them. Selfish people like you just like to ***** up the world for everyone else.

      You could, for example, read the article which has more backing than your BS.
    • addikt, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1there is no need to use trees to make paper!!!

      there is other sources that we can use that is alot better for the enviroment than paper, but its about PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT!

      not about the enviroment for the big corps.

      now they are even geneticly engineering trees which is a huge ***** mistake, they dont know what they are doing to the global ecosystem when they start messing with the genetics of trees

      google, "torrent a silent forest"

      watch this documentry!!
    • illegalcortex, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4"Studies that look at the entire life cycle of a particular material can shed light on this question in a particular case, but WRAP decided to take a broader look. It asked the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste to conduct a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment."

      It's funny that you fire a shot at "people that cite fact to backup their standpoint." As if there's something wrong with that. But when faced with an incredible amount of, by your own admission, facts, you just stick by your "standpoint," which is utterly lacking in facts.
  • addikt, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4what a coincidence, last night i thought of the perfect simile for recycling.

    recycling is like putting a bandage on a bullet wound, its better than nothing but you still need to get the bullet out or you will die.

    the bullet being the non biodegradable products that we use daily.

    its like the story of the plastic spoon: (see pic)
    http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1848026xy ...

    its like those bloody so called enviromentalist that tell you to recycle and rant about global warming and how we are destroying a planet, while they are drinking out of a plastic coke bottle.

    ***** bunch of ignorant hypocrits, or maybe just misinformed do-gooders

    either way, the root of the problem is the corporations:
    Advanta
    Bayer AG
    DuPont
    Monsanto
    Syngenta

    see url : http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=192

    unless these corporations are exposed for what they are

    nothing will change

    recycling industry is just that, an industry. not a solution.
  • AllnightChemist, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1When it hits the front page the second time, you know there must be something to the article.
    http://digg.com/world_news/The_Truth_About_Recycli ...
  • Webbster, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2Even Britain, a tiny island recycles more than the whole of the USA.
    Shame on you septics, shame.
    • brentinkc, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Actually, the article said that Britain recycled less (percentage of waste) than the US.
      We're not the world's backwater when it comes to recycling. Religious philosophy, yes, but not recycling.
    • Iconoclast25, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Re-RTFA, drone. The US recycles a higher percentage and a vastly greater gross amount. But the international pissants will seek any venue, true or not, to dump on the US, won't they?
  • grav3k33p3r, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2This submission has been recycled from 80 days ago: http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.c ... Buried for dupy!
  • meshman, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1"Even so, when a city introduces a kerbside recycling programme, the sight of all those recycling lorries trundling around can raise doubts about whether the collection and transportation of waste materials requires more energy than it saves"

    ??? Recycling isn't supposed to be about saving money, it's about saving the environment. In my area 300,000 tons of waste was diverted from landfills we don't have last year. So the logical thing to do is question the program because it's not saving money?

    Holy miss the point entirely.
    • addikt, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0no the point is that we shouldnt be using material that needs to be recycled
  • nobleexperiment, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0Why Recycle? Upcycle from the recycled garbage to make your own things... like raincoats or bike messenger bags. There you go.
  • JimJD, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2All this trash make baby Gore cry...
  • Iconoclast25, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Dugg for the description of the sorting technology. Absolutely amazing how they can create a magnetic field affecting a non-ferrous metal.
  • nkthen, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1No matter what is the 'truth', let's just keep on recycling!
    http://www.recyclinggarbage.net
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.