Recycling is a sign of failure

Cheeble

Hi,

There have been several threads in this forum about different aspects of recycling: how to do it; where to do it; how much it costs etc.

The general view seems to be that recycling is a good thing.

I'm challenging that, and suggesting that it's a sign of failure to deal properly with the waste problem.

For waste material, the waste hierarchy advises -

1st: Stop using it
2nd: Use less of it
3rd: Re-use it
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest

Have you tried to apply this to your waste? What were your experiences? Did you find people were willing to help, or did you meet a lot of barriers? Any advice for the rest of us?

Cheeble-eers

JosephQ

the only way to get true recycling is to get all waste produced to be collected by Local CC and not by private firms and sent to a recycling sorting plant to be sorted.

This is happening in the UK now where most households both urban and rural have a two week collecting cycle ie WK1 general houshold rubbish for land fill
and wk2 for paper.plastics, cans and many more items. some councils even have a glass collection every 4 wks plus what they also call specal uplifts like white house hould goods and old furniture.

This is all done with the latest eco freindly trucks some are even using electric trucks again

If households dont comply they can be fined

Almost 95% of households on these recycling runs comply and some councils are acheiving reducing their land fill by upto 50 %

Cheeble

It seems you still think recycling is "A Good Thing"?

JosephQ

Yes if it is done correctly with all the correct pieces in place i.e fines for contaminating recycable material. once fined 97% dont do it again and so on

Cheeble

Ok, I agree with all that, but you've missed the point of the OP.

Recycling is a bad choice, and should be a last resort when the better options have failed.

Cheeble-eers

quietsailor

Cheeble wrote: »

Hi,

There have been several threads in this forum about different aspects of recycling: how to do it; where to do it; how much it costs etc.

The general view seems to be that recycling is a good thing.

I'm challenging that, and suggesting that it's a sign of failure to deal properly with the waste problem.

For waste material, the waste hierarchy advises -

1st: Stop using it
2nd: Use less of it
3rd: Re-use it
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest

Have you tried to apply this to your waste? What were your experiences? Did you find people were willing to help, or did you meet a lot of barriers? Any advice for the rest of us?

Cheeble-eers

I had a massive clear out of the shed last weekend and came across loads of small hand tools that had been doubled up on (usually from presents) There was a lad in working on my mother's garden so I gave him a look and he took them to use himself rather than put them in the recycling bins.

That was a good experience, but asides from that I've found it hard enough. Anythime I've tried to get secondhand stuff to use in the garden or house and use the jumble town or freecycle I've found people will only put up siht yet if I go to the recycling centre I see perfectly usable items thrown away.

On a further note a friend of mine fits kitchens and I sometimes help him. I was fitting a new kitchen to my ouse and asked a woman where he was working could I take the units instead of dumping them. Absolutely not she said - I'd even have given her 50 euros for them but she didn't want to be seen "doing that sort of thing" - peoples attitudes really need to change in this country as recycling costs energy, it's better to reuse first

bonkey

Cheeble wrote: »

The general view seems to be that recycling is a good thing.

Recycling is a good thing.

There are situations where it may not be the best thing, but that doesn't prevent it from being good. It is certainly preferable (in many situations) to options which would otherwise be chosen.

For waste material, the waste hierarchy advises -

1st: Stop using it
2nd: Use less of it
3rd: Re-use it
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest

Item 1...I'm all for it, to a point. I don't think anyone is going to accept that we have to stop using everything in our lives that isn't absolutely essential, but there is still a huge amount of waste we can cut out.

Item 2...use less. OK. So we're at item 2 because its something that doesn't fall under item 1. Its something we haven't, can't or won't cut out, but also something we can reduce our usage on.

So now we've less waste. Great. We still need to something with this less waste. Option 1 isn't an option, nor is option 2...because we've passed those to even get to this point. So the applicable options start at position 3. So for the "waste that remains after we've cut out and reduced", we can take position 3 as the Gold standard, 4 as the Silver, and 5 as bronze.

Now lets look at those...

Option 3: re-use it.

Firstly, Re-use is a form of recycling.

Secondly, re-use only applies when there is a suitable re-use potential at hand. There's no point, for example, in spending a load of resources shipping something to somewhere it can be reused, if that shipping cost is greater than the saving from not choosing the next best option.

Thirdly, re-use assumes that the item is suitable for re-use, which it may not be. It could be that its broken beyond all practical application (including using it for another purpose).


Option 4: recycle it

How can this be bad? I'm looking at the reduced waste I have, which I can't re-use for one reason or another. Recycling is the best possible thing I can do with it, but you want me to believe its not a good choice? That its a sign of failure?

Recycling is not a panacea...but I don't think anyone ever claimed it was. It is, and should be, an integral part of any waste management strategy.

Therefore, it is not a bad thing, nor a sign of failure.

JosephQ

Talking of recycling used items Local council here has some good ideas like collecting Bikes that people no longer need or grown out and given them to underplige kids etc after checking them first and if they are not dismantleing them for spare parts and then selling the unusable parts for scrape metal. They also do the same with the white goods. They employ ten people in this and it is 85% cost free to the council. So Recycling as I said if done correctly it is well worth it for all

Lobelia Overhill

Cheeble wrote: »

1st: Stop using it
2nd: Use less of it
3rd: Re-use it
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest

1st: Stop using it - stop using what? Everything has an impact on the environment. Everything you purchase comes in some form of packaging, and most things were manufactured somewhere ...
2nd: Use less of it - Is it possible that the manufacturers etc could cut down on the amount of packaging being used?
3rd: Re-use it - I do, where possible.
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it - I do this where possible
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest - I'm not sure what that means? Burn stuff as fuel...?

JosephQ wrote: »

This is happening in the UK now where most households both urban and rural have a two week collecting cycle ie WK1 general houshold rubbish for land fil and wk2 for paper.plastics, cans and many more items.

Happens here in Ireland too!

Hagar

Cheeble wrote: »

For waste material, the waste hierarchy advises -

1st: Stop using it
2nd: Use less of it
3rd: Re-use it
4th (and out of the medal positions): recycle it
5th: recover the energy from it and discard the rest

There's an option completely missing from the list:
Stop producing it in the first place.

The amount of excess packaging on goods we buy is enormous. A lot of it is just there to force extra sales. ie Multipacks. We are forced to buy packets of crisps inside a bigger packet when we may only want to buy one or two. The packing on a lot of stuff is artificially big to fool the buyer into thinking the product is bigger. Half filled packets, big boxes with inserts to hold a much smaller item in place behind a plastic window. Is that really necessary? Then the consumer who has been forced to pay for this ridiculous amount of packaging is forced to pay to get rid of it under the stupid notion that "the polluter pays". The consumers are not the polluters, the manufacturers are.

Then there is a sham of a scheme where the manufacturers pay a paltry amount per annum to a "green" waster disposal organization to absolve themselves of all responsibilitity for the waste they generated. Naturally the consumer handed over that money to them as well since the cost is passed on in the cost of the goods.

Before anyone says nobody is forcing you to buy x, y or z thinks again. Most of us must buy x,y and z as they are needed in our daily lives. The only choice we really have is what shop to buy them in.

Stop demonising the consumers, they are the victims. Find the source of the waste and stop it there.

bonkey

Hagar wrote: »

There's an option completely missing from the list:
Stop producing it in the first place.

In fairness, thats part of options 1 and 2.

You make some excellent points about the waste that the manufacturers generate into their goods, but the "waste hiererchy" applies to them just as much as to us.

They should stop using unnecessary packaging, using less packaging in total.

Stop demonising the consumsers, they are the victims. Find the source of the waste and stop it there.

Consumers are part of the problem, when they show that they are indifferent.

SeanW

quietsailor wrote: »

On a further note a friend of mine fits kitchens and I sometimes help him. I was fitting a new kitchen to my ouse and asked a woman where he was working could I take the units instead of dumping them. Absolutely not she said - I'd even have given her 50 euros for them but she didn't want to be seen "doing that sort of thing" - peoples attitudes really need to change in this country

I agree that is ridiculous.

Lobelia Overhill

bonkey wrote: »

Consumers are part of the problem, when they show that they are indifferent.

There was at least one brand of Easter Egg available this year with reduced packaging, due to public demand. There are several products now available in concentrated form - therefore the pack is smaller - again due to public demand.

Cheeble

Lobelia Overhill wrote: »

..... There are several products now available in concentrated form - therefore the pack is smaller - again due to public demand.

Yes, and I agree that there is a net benefit in this overall, but it's a pity they decided to increase the amount of packaging by using smaller packs.

Cheeble-eers

robtri

Cheeble wrote: »

Yes, and I agree that there is a net benefit in this overall, but it's a pity they decided to increase the amount of packaging by using smaller packs.

Cheeble-eers

can you give examples ???

I can only think of products with less packaging in smaller packs....
all the fabric softners bottles, nearly 50% less packaging
all the diluteable juices I buy from tesco, super concentrate, again nearly 50% less packaging...

the_syco

The problem most places are now facing is that no-one wants to buy the recycled product. China, me thinks, used to buy a lot of it, but no longer so. They could reduce the price, but that wouldn't pay for the overheads.

Lobelia Overhill

the_syco wrote: »

The problem most places are now facing is that no-one wants to buy the recycled product. China, me thinks, used to buy a lot of it, but no longer so. They could reduce the price, but that wouldn't pay for the overheads.

Wasn't it because the market became saturated, so many people started recycling that the recycling plants were overwhelmed.

Will it even itself out eventually? Particularly if they stop manufacturing from raw materials entirely?

Cheeble

robtri wrote: »

can you give examples ???

I can only think of products with less packaging in smaller packs....
all the fabric softners bottles, nearly 50% less packaging
all the diluteable juices I buy from tesco, super concentrate, again nearly 50% less packaging...

Hi Robtri,
What I was referring to is that putting things into smaller packages uses more packaging (always). So whilst there's a benefit from making the product more concentrated, part of that benefit is thrown away by then using a smaller package.

For example, eight 250ml cartons of juice use twice as much packaging as a single 2 litre carton. Yes, it's better that the juice is concentrated, and it's true that there's a net saving overall, but it could be even better if it was still sold in 2 litre cartons.

Cheeble-eers

astrofool

Cheeble wrote: »

Hi Robtri,
What I was referring to is that putting things into smaller packages uses more packaging (always). So whilst there's a benefit from making the product more concentrated, part of that benefit is thrown away by then using a smaller package.

For example, eight 250ml cartons of juice use twice as much packaging as a single 2 litre carton. Yes, it's better that the juice is concentrated, and it's true that there's a net saving overall, but it could be even better if it was still sold in 2 litre cartons.

Cheeble-eers

You're going around in circles here, if someone is only going to consume 250ml of juice, then buying 2litres is waste and is the number 1 thing on your list to cut

Hagar

Cheeble wrote: »

So whilst there's a benefit from making the product more concentrated

Let's not believe that the manufacturers are being totally altruistic here. There is also a fair bit of cynical marketing going on. Take fabric softener for instance, the new 500ml bottle that does the same job as the old 1000ml and costs more or less the same. The cost to manufacture, package, stock, handle and transport the product is significantly lower but I doubt that the saving is passed on to the consumer. This "green" product has just been a profit boosting exercise. Add to this that the average consumer will use almost certainly more than of the product than is required, due to doubting that half a cap-full will do the job, this is wasteful of the product and leads to further more profitable sales.

robtri

Hagar wrote: »

Let's not believe that the manufacturers are being totally altruistic here. There is also a fair bit of cynical marketing going on. Take fabric softener for instance, the new 500ml bottle that does the same job as the old 1000ml and costs more or less the same. The cost to manufacture, package, stock, handle and transport the product is significantly lower but I doubt that the saving is passed on to the consumer. This "green" product has just been a profit boosting exercise. Add to this that the average consumer will use almost certainly more than of the product than is required, due to doubting that half a cap-full will do the job, this is wasteful of the product and leads to further more profitable sales.

can you demonstrate, the price difference??? or is it speculation

Hagar

You've lost me? Do you expect me to provide exact figures? If so you are being unreasonable. Are you denying that there are savings to the manufacturer or do you think the full saving is passed on to the consumer?


Smaller bottles cost less than bigger bottles = saving.
More smaller bottles fit on fewer pallets = saving
Fewer pallets to store in warehouse = saving
Less mechanical handling -> lower labour costs = saving
Fewer pallets to transport = saving
Less labour at shelf stocking stage = saving

djpbarry

Cheeble wrote: »

For example, eight 250ml cartons of juice use twice as much packaging as a single 2 litre carton. Yes, it's better that the juice is concentrated, and it's true that there's a net saving overall, but it could be even better if it was still sold in 2 litre cartons.

So what you’re saying is it would be better if the manufacturer concentrated 8 litres of product into 2 litres? Would the argument not then become “it would be better if the manufacturer concentrated 64 litres into 8 litres”? No solution is ever going to be perfect, but by reducing a volume from 2 litres to 250ml, you get a four-fold reduction in packaging (not-withstanding Hagar’s points about higher efficiency leading to increased consumption), which is obviously a good thing from a waste-management perspective.