Iinformation on Recycling?

[luchog]

Searching through the archives here isn't bringing up quite what I'm looking for. I need information on the general environmental impact of Post-Consumer Waste recycling vs. virgin products for things like paper, glass, and plastics.

Specifically, something that gives statistics and comparisons and actually references studies; rather than an entertaining but ultimately fluffy piece like the Bullsh1t! espiode. Googling is pretty useless, since it's almost impossible find anything skeptical in the flood of pro-recycling info.

 

[casebro]

You mean proof that they don't actually recycle glass bottles, that they just dump it into the local land fill because it's cheaper for the bottle makers to use virgin sand from their own pit than pay to ship broken bottles across the country? and becauser melting broken bottles doesn't save any energy over melting virgin sand, whereas recycling aluminum saves 90% of the energy used to make aluminum from ore?

I've never seen any either.

 

[KingMerv00]

You mean proof that they don't actually recycle glass bottles, that they just dump it into the local land fill because it's cheaper for the bottle makers to use virgin sand from their own pit than pay to ship broken bottles across the country? and becauser melting broken bottles doesn't save any energy over melting virgin sand, whereas recycling aluminum saves 90% of the energy used to make aluminum from ore?

I've never seen any either.

The burden to prove the benefits of recycling is on the proponents. Right?

I don't have an opinion either way because I am not knowledgable enough on the subject.

 

[Earthborn]

As usual, Wikipedia is your friend.

 

[KingMerv00]

So where did P&T get their information?

 

[teddygrahams]

Re-using glass bottles or re-cycling ?

 

[Yoink]

The burden to prove the benefits of recycling is on the proponents. Right?

Why? Wouldn't the burden of proof normally fall on the more extraordinary claim? Surely the common-sense position would be that recycling is a sensible action? You don't throw out your dishes after every use. You don't throw away your clothes after every use. It clearly makes economic sense to compost your green waste rather than throw it away and buy compost etc. etc.

I'm prepared to believe that in some areas recycling is pointless, but I don't see why the burden of proof is on the recyclers.

 

[WildCat]

Surely the common-sense position would be that recycling is a sensible action?

Here's my rule of thumb: If the scavengers in the alley take it for free, it's worth recycling. If you have to pay for someone to take it away, it isn't worth it.

Example: I threw an old washing machine in the alley, within 30 minutes it was gone. I could stack bottles in the alley up to the roof of the garage, nobody's going to take that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Searching through the archives here isn't bringing up quite what I'm looking for. I need information on the general environmental impact of Post-Consumer Waste recycling vs. virgin products for things like paper, glass, and plastics.

Specifically, something that gives statistics and comparisons and actually references studies; rather than an entertaining but ultimately fluffy piece like the Bullsh1t! espiode. Googling is pretty useless, since it's almost impossible find anything skeptical in the flood of pro-recycling info.

Australian councils, including the one where I live, are actually being paid for the recycling waste, they don't have to pay to get rid of it any more. It goes on ships to China, apparently, where the recylable products are valuable.

 

[Roboramma]

Here's my rule of thumb: If the scavengers in the alley take it for free, it's worth recycling. If you have to pay for someone to take it away, it isn't worth it.

Example: I threw an old washing machine in the alley, within 30 minutes it was gone. I could stack bottles in the alley up to the roof of the garage, nobody's going to take that.

Surely it's possible for something to be economic on a large scale, but not on a small scale?
Also, some costs are hidden. Mining for instance causes a lot of damage (in the form of polution) that is not paid for by the mining companies. This cost isn't factored into the price of metals, but it's a cost that's saved by recycling cans.

 

[casebro]

Re-using glass bottles or re-cycling ?

Good point. Some breweries still refill some bottles. I could see that transporting and washing takes less energy than making new. I can't see that transporting broken glass that needs to be cleaned, then melted again, would save anything over melting local sand. Unless there are local bottle makers using local broken bottles. But I believe there are only about 29 bottle making plants in the country- from the media, somehow.

 

[Soapy Sam]

As always, location affects value. I was shocked on a Kenyan safari when the organiser prepared to break camp, leaving a number of empty bottles under a tree.

"Watch" he said, when I protested.
We pulled off the site and stopped. Within seconds, kids materialised and removed everything. Anything that holds water is worth something in Africa.

 

[Vitnir]

As usual, Wikipedia is your friend.

What is not revealed in the Wiki article is how transports are factored in. Even I can understand that it takes less energy to smelt collected glass rather than starting from sand. The energy expended for collecting the glass and transporting it is what I would like more information on and perhaps convince me it's not just a "feel good" project with no environmental benefits.

 

[Cuddles]

The obvious answer for plastics is recycling is not only useful, but also necessary. Almost all plastic is made from oil. Since we only have a limited supply we will eventually run out. Paper and glass are less obvious since we can plant more trees and are unlikely to run out of sand any time soon.

This is much like the arguments about climate change. You can argue about the reality and causes of global warming until the cows come home, but the fact is that we have a limited supply of some things, so if we keep using them we will run out. Whether recylcling is more energy efficient is irrelevant, when there's nothing left in the ground to dig out we will have no choice.

 

[casebro]

What is not revealed in the Wiki article is how transports are factored in. Even I can understand that it takes less energy to smelt collected glass rather than starting from sand. The energy expended for collecting the glass and transporting it is what I would like more information on and perhaps convince me it's not just a "feel good" project with no environmental benefits.

Glass does not go through a 'smelting' process. Smelting is a process where impurities are burned out of an ore. Glass is just melted minerals. How do you figure it takes less energy to melt one kilo of a substance, just because it has been melted before? Is energy consumed in the 'alloying' of blending the various ingredients?

 

[Vitnir]

Glass does not go through a 'smelting' process. Smelting is a process where impurities are burned out of an ore. Glass is just melted minerals. How do you figure it takes less energy to melt one kilo of a substance, just because it has been melted before? Is energy consumed in the 'alloying' of blending the various ingredients?

The claim that energy is saved by recycling glass is from the wiki article.

 

[luchog]

So, does anyone have any sources for information besides a Wikipedia article of dubious validity and accuracy?

 

[Sagger]

I've always been very keenly interested in recycling, and have at times gone out of my way to recycle many things that people typically would't think twice about throwing out. That included cutting the pages out of a 50 year old Encyclopedia Brittanica with a utility knife, so I could recycle just the paper. And sending an obsolete CD player (via mail) to a company that specializes in recycling them in a correct manner (or at least so they say). That company is called Intercon Solutions.
Another company that will recycle your VHS tapes, audiocassettes, old software etc... is called Greendisk. Both these companies charge a fee since we are talking about obselete stuff that has a negative value (ie costs them money to recycle).

I will admit that I have been guilty of being motivated by that feelgood, recycle everything you can idealism. Reading threads like this reminds me that I was probably wrong about many things I thought were useful or worthwhile. What I'd really rather focus my efforts on would be doing things that are logical and that contribute to achieving the desired result in the long term.

 

[Yoink]

Here's my rule of thumb: If the scavengers in the alley take it for free, it's worth recycling. If you have to pay for someone to take it away, it isn't worth it.

Example: I threw an old washing machine in the alley, within 30 minutes it was gone. I could stack bottles in the alley up to the roof of the garage, nobody's going to take that.

I think this point has been made, but I'd like to point out that this "rule of thumb" seems to assume that we operate in a pure and perfect market. There are many things that are good, rational choices for society as a whole from which no one individual can make money. This could be for a whole range of reasons. Recycling efforts are caught up in a whole web of regulatory complications which distort the true costs involved. Governments have typically subsidized trash disposal, for example, in ways that hide the true costs of waste (in terms of pollution, land use etc.). Pollution, in general, is a "tragedy of the commons" problem--the kind that is often particularly difficult to redress by simple market-based solutions: all the individual actors may be acting "rationally" within their own terms, but the system as a whole can be entirely counterproductive.

Similarly, Governments often subsidize extraction industries and other primary product industries in ways that lower the competition barrier for new products vs. recycled products. And this, of course, is often the result of private sector companies "acting rationally" to maximize their profits by investing heavily in the political process. Etc. etc. etc.

In the absence of a perfectly transparent market in which all costs and benefits are reflected back to all the actors involved immediately, the only way to approach a question like recycling is by a massive life-cycle study of the goods involved. And whose interest is it in to fund such a massive study? Industry's if they think the results will spare them costs or increase their profits. The public's if they think the results will save them costs, or teach them to invest those costs more effectively.

 

[KingMerv00]

Why? Wouldn't the burden of proof normally fall on the more extraordinary claim? Surely the common-sense position would be that recycling is a sensible action? You don't throw out your dishes after every use. You don't throw away your clothes after every use. It clearly makes economic sense to compost your green waste rather than throw it away and buy compost etc. etc.

I'm prepared to believe that in some areas recycling is pointless, but I don't see why the burden of proof is on the recyclers.

Whoops, sorry for the hit and run. I forgot about this thread over the weekend.

I agree that reusing IS sensible assuming it saves energy. Are there energy calculations around somewhere? Where did P&T go so wrong?