Household Brands Want To Redefine 'Recyclable' To Include Products Virtually Impossible To Recycle (propublica.org) 158
Most kitchen products use plastics that are practically unrecyclable, yet a trade group representing major brands is pressuring regulators to allow companies to label such items as "recyclable," even though they are likely to end up in landfills. Experts warn this could worsen the plastic crisis and misleading labels could further deceive consumers about the true recyclability of these products. ProPublica reports: The Consumer Brands Association believes companies should be able to stamp "recyclable" on products that are technically "capable" of being recycled, even if they're all but guaranteed to end up in a landfill. As ProPublica previously reported, the group argued for a looser definition of "recyclable" in written comments to the Federal Trade Commission as the agency revises the Green Guides -- guidelines for advertising products with sustainable attributes. [...] ProPublica contacted the 51 companies on the association's board of directors to ask if they agreed with the trade group's definition of "recyclable." Most did not respond. None said they disagreed with the definition. Nine companies referred ProPublica back to the association.
The Green Guides are meant to increase consumer trust in sustainable products. Though these guidelines are not laws, they serve as a national reference for companies and other government agencies for how to define terms like "compostable," "nontoxic" and "recyclable." [...] The current Green Guides allow companies to label products and packaging as "recyclable" if at least 60% of Americans have access to facilities that will take the material. As written, the guidelines don't specify whether it's enough for the facilities to simply collect and sort the items or if there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the material will be made into something new. "The Green Guides have long set forth that items labeled as 'recyclable' are those which are capable of being recycled," [Joseph Aquilina, the association's vice president and deputy general counsel] told ProPublica. "Any characterization suggesting Consumer Brands is pushing for a 'looser definition' is false." But the association seemed to disregard what the FTC said in a separate document released alongside the guides, which states that a truthful recyclable claim means that "a substantial majority of consumers or communities have access to facilities that will actually recycle, not accept and ultimately discard, the product."
In its comments to the FTC, the association pushed back on that idea. The U.S. recycling system is decentralized, and manufacturers have no control over economic factors that might lead a recycler to change its mind about how it handles a certain type of plastic, the association wrote, adding that it was unrealistic to force brands to predict which products will be "ultimately recycled." The association represents sellers and will naturally seek more flexibility in its positions, Jef Richards, a professor of advertising and public relations at Michigan State University, said in an email. The "problem with defining 'recyclable' as anything that MIGHT be recycled is that I seriously doubt that's how consumers define it." When consumer expectations fail to match what the advertiser is saying, "consumers are being deceived," he added. That deception has concrete impacts: Plastic bags that mistakenly end up at recycling centers can gum up machinery, start fires and contaminate bales of paper, which then can't be recycled. The problem could get worse if the FTC listens to the Consumer Brands Association and allows companies to market plastic bags as "recyclable."
The Green Guides are meant to increase consumer trust in sustainable products. Though these guidelines are not laws, they serve as a national reference for companies and other government agencies for how to define terms like "compostable," "nontoxic" and "recyclable." [...] The current Green Guides allow companies to label products and packaging as "recyclable" if at least 60% of Americans have access to facilities that will take the material. As written, the guidelines don't specify whether it's enough for the facilities to simply collect and sort the items or if there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the material will be made into something new. "The Green Guides have long set forth that items labeled as 'recyclable' are those which are capable of being recycled," [Joseph Aquilina, the association's vice president and deputy general counsel] told ProPublica. "Any characterization suggesting Consumer Brands is pushing for a 'looser definition' is false." But the association seemed to disregard what the FTC said in a separate document released alongside the guides, which states that a truthful recyclable claim means that "a substantial majority of consumers or communities have access to facilities that will actually recycle, not accept and ultimately discard, the product."
In its comments to the FTC, the association pushed back on that idea. The U.S. recycling system is decentralized, and manufacturers have no control over economic factors that might lead a recycler to change its mind about how it handles a certain type of plastic, the association wrote, adding that it was unrealistic to force brands to predict which products will be "ultimately recycled." The association represents sellers and will naturally seek more flexibility in its positions, Jef Richards, a professor of advertising and public relations at Michigan State University, said in an email. The "problem with defining 'recyclable' as anything that MIGHT be recycled is that I seriously doubt that's how consumers define it." When consumer expectations fail to match what the advertiser is saying, "consumers are being deceived," he added. That deception has concrete impacts: Plastic bags that mistakenly end up at recycling centers can gum up machinery, start fires and contaminate bales of paper, which then can't be recycled. The problem could get worse if the FTC listens to the Consumer Brands Association and allows companies to market plastic bags as "recyclable."
recycleable = can be burned (Score:3, Interesting)
Essentially all that it means is that it can be burned.
Great fuel for a cement kiln though.
Re: (Score:3)
Metal and glass are both recyclable. And unlike plastic, manufacturers actually want to recycle those materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Paper and cardboard and clothes as well. At least here (Europe). The recyclers pay to be allowed to collect these, same as metal and glass. Incidentally, same for PET, but not other plastics where I live.
Re: recycleable = can be burned (Score:2)
Same for PET, *if* you can guarantee it actually is PET and only PET, which is the tough bit.
Re: (Score:2)
PET has a certain signature in the infrared spectrum. Identifying the polymer isn't the problem; getting people to put it in the recycling bin is. Here where I live, it is routine for recycling containers to be conspicuously absent from state parks, public facilities, etc...
The problem of small margins is that a large volume is required for economic viability. From the recycler's perspective, the problem isn't that the materials aren't recyclable, but that the general public throws recyclable material
Re: (Score:2)
We are lucky in that our local trash haulers go through ALL of our trash and recycle what they can. We don't have to try to figure out what is recyclable and not.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. If you put "trash" in the recycling, the whole thing gets sent to the landfill if it's picked up at all.
Here, if you even put a plastic bag in the recycling, you get written up and they won't pick up the bin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do people (in significant numbers) really buy products based upon if they are labeled "recyclable" or not....?
Yes, of course. Are you seriously asking this question???
If I see two similar products (and sometimes it's the same exact product), and one is in a plastic clamshell with glossy cardboard inserts and such, and the other is in fully recyclable brown cardboard, I'll get the latter.
Amazon has had a certified frustration-free packaging program in place since 2008: https://bpkc.com/blogs/blog/un... [bpkc.com]
While not exact the same as the topic at hand, it's closely related and fairly successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I am seriously asking....I've never encountered anyone that does this before.
I didn't even really know or notice items had this type labeling.
I've never recycled anything before....and really only known one person that did the save cans type thing....
Re: (Score:2)
Clothing does not recycle very well.
It can be shredded for crummy padding. If it's in good shape resold/donated.
But clothing fabrics made out of recycled materials usually can't be recycled again and absolutely suck as fabric in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Metal and glass are both recyclable. And unlike plastic, manufacturers actually want to recycle those materials.
Where I live (Florida), we have a collection of recyclables. However, they don't collect glass, but they do collect plastic. I am skeptical that any recycling is actually being done.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's single stream and accepts plastic it's very unlikely.
They'll probably do a quick pass and try to get as much of the aluminum as they can, and maybe they'll even try to get the paper.
But anything too stuck together just gets junked, and the plastic likely isn't even attempted to be salvaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Also in Florida. Not sure if it still goes on, but when the city I used to live in (Gainesville) started the recycling thing... all of it was going to the same landfill as the regular garbage. So in all, worse for the environment, since it was now two garbage truck trips per route per week instead of the single general trash pickup run....
Re: (Score:2)
Almost no plastic is actually recycled. The recycle logos from 1-5, mostly only 1 is ever considered recyclable, and in places like Alaska, it costs too much money to ship recyclables back to the lower 48, where as Hawaii has the same problem Japan does... if it's not recycled it has to be burned. Quite frankly it's amazing that only 10 US states even recycle at all. https://www.oberk.com/packaging-crash-course/states-best-worst-recycling
Glass is recycled into fiberglass, a mostly inferior insulation materi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than landfill, since at least you get energy out of it, but..
Finland currently recycles about 27% of plastics used in packaging, and the rest (of packaging plastics) are burned for energy. About 4% of the plastic recycled is from deposit-based plastic bottles (= consumers get some money back from recycling them properly). Out of the collected plastics, only around 40% is actually used in plastics production, because a lot of the collected plastics is not high quality enough to be cost effective to us
Re: recycleable = can be burned (Score:2)
Re:recycleable = can be burned (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. Why don't we just redefine every problem there is as a non-problem? Then we only have non-problems! Of course, these will just harm and kill just the same are real problems.
The collective stupidity is staggering. This story being about the US, I expect if the right palms are greased enough this will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I agree with you. I admire the EU and it's regulations. I have little faith left in the U.S. It's currently a plutocracy where money is the major political driver. Large/Mega companies are just money and power levers for the ultra rich. I don't know if there is a way back towards democracy and even if there is, I may not live to see it.
We are consistently being lied to by industries e.g. Oil and Gas had evidence of climate change from the 70s but lied e.g. Plastic industry said plastic wa
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. It does not look good for the US. The EU is in no way perfect, but some really critical stuff (like anti-trust) works here, while it has been completely corrupted in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I admire the EU and it's regulations. I have little faith left in the U.S.
eu citizen here. you should read those with a grain of salt. regarding labor conditions and social security, yes, europeans tend to have indeed better protection all around, but that is mostly state regulation (and gradually being dismantled), not something the eu deals with. the eu legislates about mostly everything else from privacy to agriculture to recycling and is mainly about a) posturing and b) imposing fines and milking corporations (can't say that makes me feel bad, though).
take the gdpr, for examp
Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Most plastics with the stamp aren't recyclable already. #1 and #2 can be recycled profitably (at least according to our local recycle center), but everything else? Nah. #5 plastic is very common and our recycler won't touch the stuff. They used to, but not anymore.
Anyway trying to stamp a bunch of oddball plastics that aren't currently stamped is not going to have any meaningful effect on existing waste flows. #5 and #6 plastics already to go incinerators or landfills, and the films and other miscellaneous crap will go along with it. It's probably not going to get any worse unless these new recyclable designations allow plastics manufacturers to duck new regulations intended to curb production of non-recyclable plastic (and let's be honest, if lawmakers ignore this new designation when going through such a rulemaking process, they're either morons or compromised).
Re: (Score:3)
Most plastics with the stamp aren't recyclable already.
All plastics, with or without the stamp, can be recycled with fluid bed pyrolysis [nih.gov].
We are only not doing it because it's not profitable, not because it's not possible.
Make the producers of the plastic responsible for recycling it and fine them a meaningful amount if they don't do it, the problem will be solved in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Make the producers of the plastic responsible for recycling it and fine them a meaningful amount if they don't do it, the problem will be solved in short order.
Is your plan to ship all manufactured goods made of plastic back to where the raw plastic material was originally produced?
Re: (Score:2)
Is your plan to ship all manufactured goods made of plastic back to where the raw plastic material was originally produced?
No, it's to require every plastics manufacturer to have a code and stamp it on anything plastic they make, and for anything which doesn't have the code on it to be rejected at the port of entry. Then the code can be used for billing them. If they want to arrange to take it back, they can, but that will usually be impractical.
Re: (Score:2)
Is your plan to ship all manufactured goods made of plastic back to where the raw plastic material was originally produced?
No, it's to require every plastics manufacturer to have a code and stamp it on anything plastic they make, and for anything which doesn't have the code on it to be rejected at the port of entry. Then the code can be used for billing them. If they want to arrange to take it back, they can, but that will usually be impractical.
Plastics manufacturers make plastic raw materials in form factors like small pellets. These pellets get melted down and combined with other materials by manufacturers of goods made of plastics.
Re: (Score:3)
oh my god did we actually find a valid use case for the blockchain? I think i'm gonna pass out.
Re: (Score:3)
Plastics manufacturers make plastic raw materials in form factors like small pellets. These pellets get melted down and combined with other materials by manufacturers of goods made of plastics.
I think it's fairly obvious what I meant there, but thanks for saying something that was true but added nothing whatsoever to the conversation. The one person who couldn't figure out what I was saying really needed your help there.
It's fairly obvious that you proposed an unworkable strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious that you proposed an unworkable strategy.
People do harder things for money all the time. We simply don't have the will, and by "we" I mean people like you who would rather bitch than solve problems with the technology we already have available, because it might raise your costs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious that you proposed an unworkable strategy.
People do harder things for money all the time. We simply don't have the will, and by "we" I mean people like you who would rather bitch than solve problems with the technology we already have available, because it might raise your costs.
You propose an impractical strategy and you think you accomplished something.
I point out the impracticality and you call that "bitching".
You're the perfect pointy-haired boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't his proposal more or less a glass bottle deposit? As long as they pay for it to happen it doesn't matter if they do it themselves or not.
No, that one is easy. There is no need to associate the finished good with the manufacturer of the materials used to produce it, the manufacturer of the finished good, or the chain of wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. They are just generic recyclable materials being collected, which is exactly what you have today.
But what you also have today is "aspirational recycling". Consumers gather up recyclables into bins as directed by their locality. The bin contents are collected by the waste haulers con
Re: (Score:2)
It feels like what happened is single stream recycling became the norm when we could make it china's problem (how much actually got recycled I don't know) for the cost of shipping.
Everywhere went single stream, curbside pickup. Now that's still offered, but not much is even pretend recycled because it's not practical to deal with and there's no shipping it off and pretending.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that there is too much plastic being used and it's ending up in our food supply and our balls.
There are some places where plastic really is the right material and the added cost of actually dealing with it likely won't be a deterrent.
But in other cases there are cheaper (for society) options, but the manufacturers, packagers, etc. don't need to deal with it.
Why is soda provided in plastic bottles rather than aluminum ones? To save a few pennies (I'm not sure the exact amount, but consid
Re: (Score:2)
Soda should be in glass bottles with metal lids, it will have indefinite shelf life then. The plastic bottles have short shelf lives because the CO2 will escape through the plastic slowly. They could make it out of gorilla glass, and then just refill the bottles and that would be a lot cheaper in the end because they don't have to keep makin g as many bottles as they do, thus reducing waste going into the pipeline.
Re: Meh (Score:2)
You mean like glass beer bottles and champagne?
That would bump the transportation cost a bit, and cause tons more of CO2. No option is perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a long chain from making raw plastic to the end user / consumer. I would be in favor of everyone just dumping it one link upstream of the chain. So I, a household consumer, could drop off my plastic at the businesses I purchased it from. They in turn, not wanting giant piles of plastic, can drop it off with their wholesalers. The wholesales, in turn, would drop it off at t
Re: (Score:2)
It works fine downstream because the packaging - plastic - is an extremely tiny fraction of the cost of most items. Moving upstream with the only value being the plastic makes the approach impossible. Getting the plastic from end user to ultimate receiver of plastic to recycle in the cheapest method possible would be best. But nobody wants to pay for the sorting and transport, especially when not done in country, and it takes a large input stream, I would suspect, to make a recycling plant commercially viab
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's making the store's unwilling to buy products THEY have to ship back. Problem is quickly solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Not profitable means ultimately unsustainable. Unprofitable enterprises don't survive simply on their own merits.
Re: (Score:3)
"Most plastics with the stamp aren't recyclable already."
The resin identification code is not a mark of recyclability. However, the logo shape was deliberately chosen to be confused with the recycling symbol. Somehow we have never gone after ASTM for creating a deliberately misleading mark.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Informative)
Just FYI, the number inside the three arrows is not a "recycling" symbol. It's a resin identification code. The recycling symbol is just 3 arrows chasing in a triangle with no number. The guy who invented it neglected to trademark it, so the plastics industry took it and used it when they were required to identify what resins they were using to make plastics seem more recyclable than they are. It's deceptive green washing, basically.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but it's still the stamp that the industry now wants to put in films/bags/other crap where it doesn't appear currently.
Ask the customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Two questions for customers:
1) Do you want "recyclable" on anything that could theoretically be recycled, but will ruin your city's batch of recycling?
2) Do you want the heads of the Consumer Brands Association to be lined up and given several kicks in the balls?
Re:Ask the customers (Score:5, Funny)
2) Do you want the heads of the Consumer Brands Association to be lined up and given several kicks in the balls?
No, they should be recycled. I.e. we'll tell them they are getting a new job at a different company and instead we'll thrown in a garbage heap and leave them to rot.
Re: (Score:2)
Deserves the Funny mod notwithstanding the typos--but the only joke on the rich target story?
Re: (Score:2)
3) Have the government be actually serious about recycling and mandating removal of unneccesary packaging because corporation don't care at all.
I can show one thing to explain why I don't take recycling here seriously: the plastic cap on large yoghurts to cover them if they're not completely eaten at once.
I don't know for how many years I buy around a dozen per week, and only one yoghurt from one brand came with a reusable cap for several months a few years ago, after which the disposable cover was left off
Re: (Score:2)
"2) Do you want the heads of the Consumer Brands Association to be lined up and given several kicks in the balls?"
That's sexist. "given several kicks to the genitals" would be quite acceptable.
By the way, the local recycling center only takes cardboard, aluminum cans, and newsprint. No glass, no plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 is basically already happening.
#2 sounds promising.
Who are "regulators" ... (Score:2)
Who are the regulators? What is the pressure used? Will bribes work instead? Who creates these regulations?
All of that seems to be key information missing in the reporting of corruption in consumer affairs regulation.
Re: Who are "regulators" ... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's now legal to "tip" the regulators after they do the thing you're definitely not bribing them to do. . Thanks SCOTUS.
Plastic recycling is a lie (Score:5, Informative)
With very few exceptions, plastic recycling is a lie, and what there is is downcycling. There is no plastic recycling whatsoever beyond a single reuse of the material. We should stop the charade and just burn that stuff. It's fuel with useful extra steps, and there isn't nearly enough of it to cause CO2 concerns. If it's not that, we're going to have to stop using plastics.
Want recycling rates to go up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge manufacturers a $10 fee for creating the plastic garbage, which can be refunded when *actually* recycled.
Re:Want recycling rates to go up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax what you don't want to happen.
Use the money to:
Subsidise what you want to happen.
It's the only pattern in the world, and nobody does it any more.
Tax non-recycled plastic use, subsidise plastic recycling.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Want recycling rates to go up? (Score:5, Insightful)
That only works in a non-corrupt system. The US does not have one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
I will agree there is a place for this; but taken to its logical end it more or less results in a top down command economy. We know how well that works.
I don't care what your social/environmental/development projects are, they are not worth creating conditions that result in large amounts of your fellow citizens without roofs over their heads, food on their tables, and gasoline in their tanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*** Woosh ***
A 6-digit U.Id. and you still don't know what "moving the goal-posts" or "regulatory capture" means.
We already have 'recycled' cardboard that recyclers throw in the contaminated-materials bin or too-difficult bin. We already have 'recycled' plastics that are dumped permanently into the contaminated-materials bin, no-profit bin and why-bother bin.
When everyone was dumping their lead-filled CRT Tv.s, lead-filled batteries were recycled, CRT.s were not. We're a long way from useful, green
Re: (Score:2)
Any number of jurisdictions (here in Australia, various US states etc) have a "container deposit scheme" for various kinds of containers (which usually covers PET drink containers) where the manufacturer/importer pays 5c or 10c per unit or something and then if the consumer returns it to a drop-off point they get the 5c or 10c back.
Re: (Score:2)
That fee has never increased in my lifetime. It was worth it for me to collect soda cans for my scout troop of for myself in the 80. Now? I just chuck them in the recycle bin with everything else. I just don't think it is enough to act as an incentive anymore. Nobody cares about nickels. I rarely even see home homeless folks with shopping carts full of cans anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
In California it's only 2.5Â and hasn't increased in decades (ever?)... Even the homeless don't bother with glass bottle deposits -- not worth the effort given the larger volume and weight.
Re: (Score:2)
I have that here. Every appliance already comes with a fee for recycling, calculated on the real cost. As a consequence, you can give them to anybody that sells appliances for recycling, not just the shop you got it from.
Re:Want recycling rates to go up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you out of your mind? Those $10 will be added instantly to each and every product. And guess who will pay it? Yeah, you!
You mean consumers would have to pay for the true cost of producing the goods, including externalities? Sounds fair to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong -- I am suggesting making the manufacturer liable for polluting the planet. The environment is not a free resource any more. We all accepted this in terms of air pollution, though the usual crowd were kicking and screaming for decades...
And no, I will NOT be paying it. I won't pay an extra $10 for a liter of milk in a Tetra Brik when I can easily get my $10 back on the milk on glass, truly recyclable plastic, cardboard...
Recycable only means trash collection fees go up (Score:2)
But very little is actually recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are countries where 50% of all domestic waste gets recycled. Still too low, but more than "very little".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't realize how much of a dog and pony show recycling is until some weeks they just dump both containers into the same truck that goes to the landfill. You don't get a discount when that happens. I guess the recycling companies are full those weeks.
"Technically true", the best kind of false (Score:5, Insightful)
ALL materials are "technically capable" of being recycled, no exception. Even nuclear waste can in theory be put together to U-235, given a particle accelerator and enough energy.
The definition should be: can be recycled at a cost inferior to new production. If it can't, it's not going to be recycled, and for all relevant intents and purposes it's not recyclable.
How to implement: manufacturers claiming their products are recyclable must be willing to take them back, and demonstrate ability to recycle these materials themselves (no subcontracting, dumping, shipping to south-east Asia or other shenanigans). Can't do that? Then it's not recyclable.
More marketing BS (Score:2)
More recycling that no one will do (Score:2)
Um (Score:2)
Even the truly recyclable stuff isn't recycled; we go through the charade and then they ship it somewhere and dump it.
What's one more act to this performance art?
Forget Recyclable, give me "Repairable"! (Score:2)
I'd much rather see some sort of definition of repairable to at least allow goods to be repaired (or easily dismantled).
Sure, the idea of repair is natural. Hey, your toaster is busted, you can disassemble it without too many specialized tools and a quart of epoxy. But if you can disassemble it, it also means you can break it down into smaller parts that can at least be properly disposed of. (metal shell, plastic knobs, copper cords, etc.)
Alas, I fear it might still be too high of a hurdle for those peop
great idea ! (Score:3)
should be able to stamp "recyclable" on products that are technically "capable" of being recycled
That's an amazing idea !
I vote for letting them do that. Also, I should be able to stamp "paid" on any bills from these same companies that I am technically capable of paying.
Take it to the extreme... (Score:2)
Then, if all plastic is recycleable, then why is there so much in the ocean and landfills?
Deposits (Score:2)
Maybe there should be a manufacturer deposit on plastics (bottles, for starters?) that they would get back after the plastic were recycled, as approved by the government. It would be somewhat of a pain, but cleaning up after oneself is always a pain, and the feedback loop would force them to comply and actually be g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A point of origin tax to pay for recycling that is refundable on proof that the product has been fully recycled is the only way to ensure we actually have recyclable products and actually recycle them.
What problem is plastic recycling solving? (Score:2)
Landfills are only running out of space due to the NIMBY crowd and modern landfills have less environmental impact than a pig farm.
The great pacific garbage patch is because many countries use their rivers for waste disposal. Recycling won't change that. Municipal garbage pickup and a change in attitudes is needed.
Switching to metal and glass is more energy and resource intensi
Fine, then just apply a 'recyclable' tax. (Score:2)
Also the recycle symbol must be on the public facing side of the product package and be at least a size no one needs glasses to identify. No stupid hiding useless symbols under caps or in crevices under the bottle.
-Oh No! more taxes, just apply it as a recycle diffi
I thought.... (Score:2)
We already had this problem with "recycling plastic". Most plastic isn't really recycleable. Is this not true?
If you don't like plastic waste then don't buy it. (Score:2)
I make a point of buying things that come in glass and metal.
I take my own glass and metal containers to bulk stores and refill them and have fabric net bags for buying produce.
I take large, watertight, plastic containers to the butcher shop and instead if using the plastic bags I have them put my meats in there (been using the same 8 bins for nearly 5 years now); when I get home I use silicone baking sheets or waxed paper to separate the cuts once I have finished 'dressing' it for the freezer. I cook my ow
Re: (Score:2)
We recently got ourselves a membership at Costco here, unfortunately for financial reasons. It's really blowing me away how much of the food in our fridge now comes wrapped in plastic - basically all of it. It's less plastic than buying smaller quantities elsewhere if plastic is unavoidable, but Costco doesn't sell anything by weight. Everything is wrapped in plastic.
It's truly disturbing how much plastic we now use in an effort to save money.
Re: (Score:2)
Plastic wrapping is a vanishingly small fraction of all plastic. Everything is made out of plastic, for example cars and airplanes have a lot of it. All electronics. All medical supplies. Furniture. Carpeting. Clothing. Flooring. Plumbing pipes. The list is very very long, and plastic wrapping comes way way way down the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That one is really about loss prevention. It's cheaper to package it that way than to lose them all to theft. It sucks, but with theft being legalized in some areas, it's only going to get worse. I'm a little surprised stores haven't switched to "order online and come pick things up" due to this mess.
ho hum (Score:2)
Who cares what they say? Anyone who bases their buying decision on whether it says "recyclable" on the product deserves to be ripped off, since even the things the wise government deigns to call "recyclable" are unlikely to be recycled. This dream from 1970 is over. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree. I like the idea, but it isn't working and we can't fix it without admitting there is a problem. In my area, I'm REQUIRED to pay extra for a recycling bin that I know full well isn't being recycled. I do try to give them stuff they might be able to use, metal cans, clean cardboard and such. But if I'm required to pay for it, I want it done right. Right now, it's useless and lines pockets.
How about we start with truth in labeling. If it's marked recyclable, it MUST be recycled. And it can NOT
Re: (Score:2)
It absolutely will stink your country up whilst they stockpile the mix of recycle and kitchen waste before dumping in containers and carry off on a stinky ship making it's return from third world.
Wouldn't it just be better to use recyclable glass/metals so it doesn't have to make expensive journeys that stink up both sender and receiver?
Re: (Score:3)
The classical argument is that metal/glass are heavier and cost much more in fossil fuels during transport; such that making the whole thing in plastic actually saves fossil fuels in the total. (I don't know how numerically correct the argument is.)
Re: (Score:2)
The classical argument is that metal/glass are heavier and cost much more in fossil fuels during transport; such that making the whole thing in plastic actually saves fossil fuels in the total. (I don't know how numerically correct the argument is.)
Rather ironic that the actual “classical” argument remembers citizens getting their milk in glass bottles that were reused dozens of times, along with carrying sacks, metal tins, or glass jars to the general store to fill themselves and reuse dozens of times.
The planet would probably LOVE to have a classical argument again.
Re: (Score:2)
the actual “classical” argument remembers citizens getting their milk in glass bottles
This has to be a peculiarity of your place of living. Milk is shipped in cartons as this improves the shelf life (air-free milk thanks to sealing of the carton under continuous flow; plus the protection from light). If this innovation (original idea Tetra Pak, founded 1951) has not reached your place of living, maybe some established interests are trying to prevent it.
along with carrying sacks, metal tins, or glass jars to the general store to fill themselves and reuse dozens of times.
Bringing your additional sacks and tins own to the store is a different thing. The argument I am making is about shipping from factory. It is
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you go stick a cork in it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should use dispensers, not scoops, to avoid contamination.
They should require customers to use a container that's sold at the same location. Even better would be a statewide or nationwide set of standard containers that can be used at any b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
By the time it washes into the mid pacific garbage patch, the plastic is quite clean.
True, but all those things we humans pull out of the ocean and call “food”, are quite dirty as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always assumed that until it becomes cost efficient to mine landfills for their "recyclables", it's useless. All "recycling" does is transfer a portion of work and effort from the public into the hands of corporations who make the actual money off of that labor.
If people really wanted to solve the waste problem, they'd be developing tech for efficiently mining landfills.