Circular Economy & Recycling & e-Waste

[8enotto]

I'mThe macro level for recycling demands a certain quantity collected so the buyer has enough to keep his factory running.

In town here a guy makes pet plastic into plastic rope. That runs all week. His aluminum extruder operation works two weeks s month for lack of scrap of the right grade.

The stuff with no buyers is where a problem begins. It has to be stored somewhere.

I prefer the micro level where old broken stuff is taken apart to make new useful stuff. It isn't driving an economy or really making any big dents in the trash problem but does get me useful tools cheaply.

Some recent efforts to make paint rollers of a better quality level at near no spending.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I don't think I have a position on that. But I would be fairly certain that "almost circular" which is an extreme would probably be net wasteful and so not optimal or efficient.

Wouldn't your suspicion of "net waste" have to depend on the amount of production that can be supplied by air, wind, land (energy and agricultural science)?

We also already know we produce more food than we can distribute effectively at the moment.

Also environmentalists are not immune from neglecting to include some costs in the assessment of their actions (for example if you have to wash out a small glass container extensively in order to pop it into the recycle collection it may be better to save the water and throw it away)

Who are "environmentalists"?

Dirty glass has been recently used to build roads here, including part of the Tullamarine Freeway.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...a-billion-bottles-a-year-20190531-p51t7c.html

 

[Francesca R]

Wouldn't your suspicion of "net waste" have to depend on the amount of production that can be supplied by air, wind, land (energy and agricultural science)?

Rather it depends on what the definition of circular is, in particular how encompassing the minimisation of waste is.

Dirty glass has been recently used to build roads here, including part of the Tullamarine Freeway.

Fine if there is unwanted dirty glass on hand but it would not seem to make net environmental sense to send my used jar of peanut butter to Victoria. The cost of recycling which includes the amount of it which gets rejected is not an easy calculation (and the calculation is itself one of the costs), and promoting it for its own sake because it must be superior would not seem to increase the likelihood that such cost is properly assessed.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I read a book where the author traveled to China and lived with a family that pulls rare metals out of junked (recycled) electronics. Both the father and young child worked all day in piles of metals in basically poverty conditions (abject, by US standards), and they were exposed to all manner of toxins.

This has nothing to do with recycling.

Recycling can be good for the economy - but it has a very human cost that isn't being priced into the system.

Permitting unsafe working conditions and not providing an adequate social safety net has a very human cost, no matter what industry is involved.

Like all grey market problems, there is no easy answer. If we demand propper pay and safety for these workers, the business will just flow somewhere else and they won't have jobs at all. At the same time, our lifestyles are largely built upon a mountain of human misery.

Actually there is an easy answer. All countries simply have to agree to provide proper pay and safety for workers, support for those who can't work, and refuse to trade with businesses that 'flow somewhere else'.

Or at least it would be an easy answer, if it wasn't for those short-sighted fools in the 'land of the free' who were afraid it might hurt them. People who opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I'm looking at you!

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'mThe macro level for recycling demands a certain quantity collected so the buyer has enough to keep his factory running.

In town here a guy makes pet plastic into plastic rope. That runs all week. His aluminum extruder operation works two weeks s month for lack of scrap of the right grade.

The stuff with no buyers is where a problem begins. It has to be stored somewhere.

I prefer the micro level where old broken stuff is taken apart to make new useful stuff. It isn't driving an economy or really making any big dents in the trash problem but does get me useful tools cheaply.

Some recent efforts to make paint rollers of a better quality level at near no spending.

That's terrific, 8enotto! I love this sort of thing.

I've started a 3 month "Slow Fashion Season Challenge". The idea is to not buy any new clothes.

If I need anything, I'll be buying second-hand, and re-styling it if I want. I will also mend things. Looking forward to getting creative.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Rather it depends on what the definition of circular is, in particular how encompassing the minimisation of waste is.

Fine if there is unwanted dirty glass on hand but it would not seem to make net environmental sense to send my used jar of peanut butter to Victoria.

They have dirty jars and need roads everywhere. This could be done anywhere.

The cost of recycling which includes the amount of it which gets rejected is not an easy calculation (and the calculation is itself one of the costs), and promoting it for its own sake because it must be superior would not seem to increase the likelihood that such cost is properly assessed.

The "cost" is the pollution and carbon emissions, not "waste". More and more waste can be recycled.


This is cool:

I discovered businesses can sell their old binders/lever arch folders to a company here, and they pull them apart and (I was told) re-use or sell all the materials/parts, and then you can buy back the cardboard which has been re-made into notebooks.

 

[Orphia Nay]

This has nothing to do with recycling.

Permitting unsafe working conditions and not providing an adequate social safety net has a very human cost, no matter what industry is involved.

Actually there is an easy answer. All countries simply have to agree to provide proper pay and safety for workers, support for those who can't work, and refuse to trade with businesses that 'flow somewhere else'.

Or at least it would be an easy answer, if it wasn't for those short-sighted fools in the 'land of the free' who were afraid it might hurt them. People who opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I'm looking at you!

Indeed, "tarriffs" on China are just making China buy elsewhere, and manufacture and sell more, hence jobs at least, if perhaps many sweatshop jobs, but better than rubbish heaps. Small steps.

China's ban on importing other countries' recycling since around a year ago could help people Loss Leader is worried about.


Found this:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190613-a-simple-online-system-that-could-end-plastic-pollution

"There are signs that this recycling-for-digital-payment industry may be just about to take off. Earlier in September 2018, Plastic Bank, a Vancouver-based blockchain company powered by IBM technology, also launched a similar inaugural project [to one which cleaned up the plastic at Manila Bay Beach]. They set up a scheme in Naga, a town in southern Luzon, the country's [The Philippines] largest island, establishing a permanent collection point to let people trade plastic and recyclable materials for digital payouts through a reward system. Shaun Frankson, co-founder of Plastic Bank, says three more similar locations will open near Manila Bay over the next six months."

 

[Francesca R]

They have dirty jars and need roads everywhere. This could be done anywhere.

What does it cost? Relative to other ways of making roads.

China's ban on importing other countries' recycling since around a year ago could help people Loss Leader is worried about.

Banning imports of recycling doesn't exactly help recycling though.

 

[Orphia Nay]

What does it cost? Relative to other ways of making roads.

How are you measuring cost? Does it include the cost of recycling, and of transport (info at the link and more at this one)?


More information from the City of Yarra about their overall reduction to the cost of unsustainability to the environment.

https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/about-us/sustainability-initiatives

Banning imports of recycling doesn't exactly help recycling though.

It's boosted efforts in recycling in all the countries that weren't doing their own.

 

[8enotto]

Coming up in Mexico in 2020 is a end of use of " one use " plastic shopping bags unless it is a biodegradable type of plastic. Drinking cups and water bottles also are going to a you bring it reusable instead of disposable, although it isn't always possible with all products.

Drinking straws are becoming taboo and a massive push for buyer supplied reusable shopping bags. The recycling push is backed by a reduced use of items not easily recycled.

It's all kind of disconnected yet but each is a step to reduce trash quantity and get more reusable products and materials in place.

There doesn't seem to be much resistance to all this, in fact people are getting it into use early. Recycling some materials pays well now. Various people do it as primary income and others as s supplement to pensions.
I do alu, steel and copper but leave plastics to those who want to store bulky stuff. Glass and paper has a price too but you need a truckload to pay the gas used hauling it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Coming up in Mexico in 2020 is a end of use of " one use " plastic shopping bags unless it is a biodegradable type of plastic. Drinking cups and water bottles also are going to a you bring it reusable instead of disposable, although it isn't always possible with all products.

Drinking straws are becoming taboo and a massive push for buyer supplied reusable shopping bags. The recycling push is backed by a reduced use of items not easily recycled.

It's all kind of disconnected yet but each is a step to reduce trash quantity and get more reusable products and materials in place.

Yes, I agree, it's all happening gradually.

Sometimes you see a story in the media about how 'everyone hates the idea of paying to buy a reusable bag', but that's just clickbait for everyone to comment and share about how they're OK with it.

I do alu, steel and copper but leave plastics to those who want to store bulky stuff.

That's great!

Some guys in town buy/accept old drills and laptops for the lithium batteries.


It's been occurring to me that the main opposition might be people who think we need the mining boom to continue.

In a way, that's partly true, in that the Materials* financial sector will definitely be important, but that is becoming more and more about sustainable energy and renewable resources / recycling, and probably eventually become less about mining.

*"chemicals, construction materials, glass, paper, forest products and related packaging products, and metals, minerals and mining companies, including producers of steel". - ASX

 

[Francesca R]

How are you measuring cost?

I am not measuring it at all, but I am not suggesting turning dirty glass into roads is a good idea. I would not think it possible to conclude this absent costs (and benefits). And you asked "who are environmentalists?" One answer is those who promote things like this as a good idea supposedly because it just is. (Not that you are)

It's boosted efforts in recycling in all the countries that weren't doing their own.

Dodge noted.

 

[Francesca R]

In a way, that's partly true, in that the Materials* financial sector will definitely be important, but that is becoming more and more about sustainable energy and renewable resources / recycling, and probably eventually become less about mining.

I believe materials is shrinking as a fraction of the whole (meaning market capitalisation) for many countries over time, including Australia, but it may not be shrinking in absolute terms, and in many countries (such as South Africa) it has heavy state involvement which doesn't appear in stock market cap. Other sectors such as consumer discretionary (relative luxuries) are expanding faster. It is almost certaintly a good thing if the latter can grow without the need for ever more extraction. There is no need in my view to protect materials industry economically/politically to protect jobs or even "national interests".

Energy is also shrinking as a fraction in a lot of places I think. Typically it includes renewable energy.

 

[8enotto]

Yes, I agree, it's all happening gradually.

Sometimes you see a story in the media about how 'everyone hates the idea of paying to buy a reusable bag', but that's just clickbait for everyone to comment and share about how they're OK with it.



That's great!

Some guys in town buy/accept old drills and laptops for the lithium batteries.


It's been occurring to me that the main opposition might be people who think we need the mining boom to continue.

In a way, that's partly true, in that the Materials* financial sector will definitely be important, but that is becoming more and more about sustainable energy and renewable resources / recycling, and probably eventually become less about mining.

*"chemicals, construction materials, glass, paper, forest products and related packaging products, and metals, minerals and mining companies, including producers of steel". - ASX

One idiot in Mexico builds an item Big Corporation makes and sells for three bucks at a million big box stores, Big Corp won't care.
Sales were not affected as stores sell thousands of this widget daily. Now if sales dropped off because everyone was making a better widget like it at home they should worry some.

Disposable and short lived widgets especially. Repeated sales of items that are indispensable and must be replaced when the get used or fail are a huge market. The bottle cap and the plastic bag, disposable razors and shoes. It's a long list. We all depend on some daily.


If you showered this morning before going shopping you easily used a dozen of them and didn't think about it. Now you are home unpacking the bags and are you wondering the uses the waste products of these items might have, or did it all get stuffed into a now empty shopping bag and out to the trash?

Big Corp likes it when you don't think about it. Profit margins and repeat sales of relatively cheap "premium" products with a short useful life keep them going.


Alu recycling was so successful they make short lived ore cars for the trains as fuel costs running empty are more than replacing the bic railcars. They get decent use before wear renders them back to shops or cutting for recycling again.


The plastic films industry was given a year to develop a biodegradable plastic film that meets certain specs or find another product for their materials. Somebody isn't too happy about that. Environmentalists and marine biologists love it. In the end all will balance out again .

 

[Orphia Nay]

Dodge noted.

Wow.



No time for more comments, dear Francesca R, and they all seem to be angering you anyway.

 

[Hellbound]

Wow.



No time for more comments, dear Francesca R, and they all seem to be angering you anyway.

I think (and Francesca can correct me if I'm wrong) that she's not getting angry, but trying to point out that a lot of times costs aren't properly assessed for recycling. Recycling is assumed to be good, without fully integrating the costs.

An example I've heard before that might help clarify the point: cups. Is it better to use Styrofoam cups, paper cups, or an actual cup that you wash and reuse? And it isn't an easy answer.

Some people would say the wash and reuse is best. However, there's a much higher cost per unit to manufacturer the cup in the first place. Add to that that transportation costs are higher, and fewer can be transported at a time, meaning you add to air pollution and use more fuels. And the washing requires dishwashing soap of some sort (another cost), and uses water which is itself a limited resource.

Paper cups cause more trees to be cut down, and provide less functionality for things like hot beverages. They also way more than Styrofoam, with the resultant transport costs. And paper manufacture produces a lot of pollutants.

Styrofoam is fairly cheap to produce and transport, and works for hot liquids, but isn't recyclable.

Trying to figure out which one is the best for the environment is not a simple matter. I don't know the answer as to which option is better; I've not seen studies done that calculate the full costs from acquiring materials to end-of-life, so I can't say.

In some cases, it is fairly obvious. For example, aluminum recycling actually cuts down significantly on the costs of manufacture (from what I've found, it's easier to use scrap aluminum than to try and smelt new), so that one's pretty clear. But it isn't always that clear, and a lot of reports don't count the full cost.

ETA: I think that's the idea she's getting at, but as always, these posts represent only my own opinions, and should not be considered to represent the opinion of any other poster, alive or dead, the U.S. Government, or the Reticulans from Saggitarius IV.

 

[8enotto]

Styrofoam has been used in Mexico for making cement roof sealing products. Old tires are the newest rage in that area now. Kinda not admitting the older formula isn't standing the test of time.

Styrofoam is harvested here at the landfill level mostly, bigger concetration so less special handling required.

The real push now is for durable goods to replace disposable. First we need to break a generation of laziness for the ease of use and toss. I certainly like that in food packages. Even if I know it's not right.

 

[Hellbound]

Styrofoam has been used in Mexico for making cement roof sealing products. Old tires are the newest rage in that area now. Kinda not admitting the older formula isn't standing the test of time.

Styrofoam is harvested here at the landfill level mostly, bigger concetration so less special handling required.

The real push now is for durable goods to replace disposable. First we need to break a generation of laziness for the ease of use and toss. I certainly like that in food packages. Even if I know it's not right.

Of course the question is is that right? And are non-disposable products better? There are some obvious answers, but reusable doesn't necessarily mean better or less polluting, depending on things like the differences in materials gathering, production, transportation...the cost of re-use, and the viable shelf life.

IN other words, are recyclable single-use plastic grocery bags better or worse than a cloth reusable one? Does the rate at which they're recycled make a difference? Would it be better to keep using disposable ones and increase the recycling rate, or use cloth ones with their higher manufacture and transport costs that will still eventually need replacement? And what if we factor in the costs for washing them?

I'm not claiming any is better; I don't know. Just that we all seem to jump on certain things (reusable is better) and I don't know that anyone has actually done a full study of whether it really is or not.

ETA: And, just to toss in a bit more of a wrench, time taken is not a negligible cost either. The time needed to clean and repair reusable items is time that can't be used for other things, so which is more valuable? And how do you quantify that?

 

[8enotto]

I am with you on that Sir.

It doesn't all make sense and doesn't make a cohesive picture yet. I think it's a combination of short term solutions and some knee jerk mixed into a few solid ideas.

I am not the captain of this ship, I only choose to participate or not. Some of this affects me, some is just weird and political jockeying has made some law.

The best solution always has been to put a cash value on useful waste products. The speed people get that stuff off the roadsides is amazing.

If they put a price on worn out tires here everything but the wet cardboard would be gone.

 

[Hellbound]

I am with you on that Sir.

It doesn't all make sense and doesn't make a cohesive picture yet. I think it's a combination of short term solutions and some knee jerk mixed into a few solid ideas.

I am not the captain of this ship, I only choose to participate or not. Some of this affects me, some is just weird and political jockeying has made some law.

The best solution always has been to put a cash value on useful waste products. The speed people get that stuff off the roadsides is amazing.

If they put a price on worn out tires here everything but the wet cardboard would be gone.

Hey, wet cardboard can be recycled, too