Users who Dugg This
Eric Smith
980 Followers
Eric Smith
980 Followers
Russ Palmer
6829 Followers
Russ Palmer
6829 Followers
racheljtmAug 17, 2010
Thanks, now I dont feel so bad about all those water bottles.
xwhyAug 17, 2010
I feel bad about trashing water bottles. NY put a 5-cent deposit on them. So either I collect and return them, or I trash them and go hoarse screaming at that old lady, "Get out of my garbage!!"
biofriendlyblogAug 17, 2010
Might as well make some money back on them ;)
jjuanml22Aug 18, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 18, 2010
@jjuanml22 - You should really invest in a metal water bottle.
y0tsuyaAug 18, 2010
jjuanml22,
I just re-fill a good-quality plastic bottle over and over with tap water. Been doing that for years. I don't spend a dime beyond replacing worn-out bottles.
gamewizardAug 18, 2010
@jjuanml22
$70??? Let's do the math here... My local place accepts 24 bottles max per day. So at 5 cents a pop that's $1.20/day. So that's an average of $36/month.
So you're telling me you recycle an average of about 45 bottles per day? You're either some freak of nature, or a bottle collector. What can I say, don't quit your day job.
quantumcipherAug 18, 2010
You should know bottled water is a waste of money. Not to mention the ecological implications of its prevalence in today's society.
Fact: Most bottled water is just filtered tap water.
Fact: You can buy a water filter and filter it yourself for a fraction of a fraction of the cost of bottled water.
Fact: Filtering your own water eliminates the need to manufacture and dispose of plastic bottles entirely.
cfuseAug 18, 2010
Buying lunch is a waste of money too, and I do that all the time. Convenience isn't monetarily worthless, I don't know why people act like it is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaronteaAug 18, 2010
A fraction of a fraction is still just a fraction.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
Or you can buy reverse osmosis filtered water by the gallon. The water is better tasting because it doesn't sit on the shelf and taste like the bottle it's stored in. I use polycarbonate bottles which release less BPA. It's far cheaper at (usually) under 50 cents a gallon than single use bottled water. It's greener because far less carbon is used in it's transport.
I usually refill a conventional plastic water bottle and use it for about 3-6 months before getting rid of it. I don't worry about losing it because it's basically just trash that most people would throw away anyway. Maybe I'll get an aluminum or stainless steel bottle one of these days but I don't see the advantage really other than a possible reduction in BPA intake.
I guess you could also buy a home system which would further reduce the transport chain but I'm unhappy with most of these unless they use reverse osmosis and it's also "not in my budget".
lordskywalkerAug 17, 2010
Or start making the bottles from industrial hemp-based plastic instead of petroleum. Then they'd be decompose in within a year rather than taking more than a hundred to do so.
norman619Aug 17, 2010
Most of our trash will be preserved due to the lack of oxygen down there because it is so tightly packed so even the stuff that's supposed to be biodegradable will not decompose. They will be treasure troves to archaeologists of the future digging through our ruins.
kotiyaAug 18, 2010
Reminds me of a Pixar movie...
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
On the flip side it at least acts as a carbon sink.
rolfAug 18, 2010
Most bottles in Germany are glass. Because of a 25 euro cent "pfand", most bottles get recycled. This pfand is charged on purchase and returned when you bring the empty bottles back in. Unlike the 5 cent "deposit" here, any store that sell the bottles must take them back and participate in the system, so there are no recycling centers to look for and drive to on the customer's end.
Glass is also easily recyclable and probably better to drink out of. Hemp sounds fine when you need unbreakability, but it requires land use to grow and petroleum to harvest constantly the glass won't. Both would fit various needs.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
I'm interested as to why you don't have CFL and fluorescent. Is it due to the mercury?
lavarockAug 18, 2010
Okay, Hemp Guy
thoughtsonthisAug 18, 2010
FTA "The report also suggests incineration is the worst option in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, as burning the bottles releases the carbon they contain straight back into the atmosphere."
min3matAug 18, 2010
Fta ftw
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
Who the hell is incinerating this stuff?
hbyrneAug 18, 2010
How about just not using plastic bottles in the first place.
lavarockAug 18, 2010
Yes, drink from a gourd instead. It's the way God intended.
slipperyottterAug 18, 2010
i carry all my water in a sheep bladder
silentjAug 18, 2010
A live sheep bladder?
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
It's really easy to suggest that but you have to use something and different materials all have advantages and disadvantages. I'd like to see a major reduction in use but plastic does have it's benefits.
gasolineAug 20, 2010
Use glass. On average, a glass bottle can be reused some 20 times before having to melt it due to cracks etc.
scubaaronAug 18, 2010
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
simonjester666Aug 18, 2010
These reports are not new and this is the case for most of the recycling programs out there, they are a complete waist of time and energy, Newspaper and some scrap metals are about the only ones that make a difference. The old bottle deposit return program (i think some states still do this) worked much better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Aug 18, 2010
waste not waist
simonjester666Aug 18, 2010
Yea well, I suck at spelling, you knew what I meant. Do you feel better now that you have corrected me? LOL I assure you I will get it wrong again anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Aug 18, 2010
maybe this little reminder will stick with you! next time you write about waste you'll think to yourself "what did particle man say to me? oh yea, it's "waste" not "waist" ;)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
simonjester666Aug 18, 2010
No its a lost cause, seriously, I have to spell check every 3rd word, its a handicap, blind spot or whatever you want to call it, But I was trying to be funny not an ass, I admit I cant spell.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
quantumcipherAug 18, 2010
Buried for inaccuracy. Title is misleading.
FTA: "Dumping used plastic bottles in landfills *can sometimes* be better for the environment than recycling them, *a controversial report claims*."
The whole subject is, well, subjective. If you're *only* looking at the carbon footprint, it will be better or worse depending on where you recycle. If you take into account the amount of plastic that ends up in the ocean, then it doesn't seem so green now does it?
goweigusAug 18, 2010
the ocean is not a land fill
putting them in landfills would obviously be better than having them in the Ocean
but it is also better for the environment in some places to not recycle them at all
scottswearAug 18, 2010
Title of the article is extremely misleading.
c010rb1indusaAug 18, 2010
Burning trash with proper burners w/e filtration system on your own property is the greenest way to dispose of waste.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
I highly doubt this.
mattarangAug 18, 2010
Well, if your landfill is big enough, yeah, it'll release less carbons than a recycling plant. But the reason isn't magical; When you pile up "stuff" high enough, all the "stuff" in the centre of the pile no longer decomposes, or decomposes at a drastically slow rate. Right now, in major landfills, if you were to dig way into the heart of some of the huge garbage piles, you may find materials such as newspaper and packaging from the 70s or earlier, near-perfectly preserved. If the "stuff" have no access to air, they don't decompose. Add into the fact that PET products barely decompose anyway.
Now, compare this to a recycling plant, where everything that goes in has to be recycled. OF COURSE the recycling plant will release more carbon.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
It's mostly the energy costs involved in recycling but it is possible to use carbon free energy.
You also have to take into account the carbon costs of the alternative such as using and procuring virgin materials. Admittedly it's not exactly a clear question.
cwm9Aug 18, 2010
As long as it is buried in the ground and not thrown in the ocean, it just seems like carbon sequestration to me.
infraspaceAug 18, 2010
It's better to landfill if there isn't a proper infrastructure for recycling... well, no s**t Sherlock! Talk about stating the obvious.
kotiyaAug 18, 2010
An empty gallon jug and 25 cents gets me the best tasting, cleanest water from a Glacier reverse osmosis dispenser. Green and refreshing. Feels good to go out and gather water, kind of primal in a way.
gkiltzAug 18, 2010
Plastic actually requires more fossil fuel to recycle than it does to start over.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
Are you SURE about this? Oil refining in and of itself contributes carbon emissions before it's even used in the production of plastic.
mweatherAug 18, 2010
Simple solution: carbon scrubbers for recycling plants.
bipolarruledoutAug 19, 2010
Is there such a thing? Sounds like a pipe dream. A better option is to place plants near renewable and/or carbon free energy sources.
mweatherAug 19, 2010
Yes, there is such a thing. What do you think the coal industry has been talking about with "clean coal"?
fungowskiAug 19, 2010
Everything that needs to be said on this issue has already been said by a fat guy and a mute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQ
gendouAug 19, 2010
You know what else prevents carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere? Killing babies.
In all seriousness, though, we don't recycle to stop global warming, we recycle to slow the growth of landfills. Duh.