California's 'Truth in Recycling' Law Blocked by Judge (yahoo.com) 117
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Los Angeles Times:
A federal judge has halted California's groundbreaking "Truth in Recycling" law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled. [Originally planned to take effect October 4th], California's recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a "chasing arrows" recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies...
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations sued the state in March, arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as "government-imposed censorship." Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law "until further order of the Court...." Advocates of reducing plastic use disagreed. "The court got it wrong, and I'm confident that the state will ultimately prevail," said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. "S.B. 343 does not violate the 1st Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the 1st Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades."
In January, CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, reported that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled. Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or No. 1 plastic, are getting recycled...
Plastic materials that can't be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.
The bill's author told the Los Angeles Times "All you have to do is look at the numbers. These products are not getting recycled, despite what the industry is claiming. They are just confusing consumers, clogging the waste stream, polluting the environment, leading to higher and higher prices for local governments and ratepayers." He argues the symbols shouldn't be used to "confuse people who see the symbols [on products] and assume they can be recycled."
The article also quotes Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. "Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet."
A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations sued the state in March, arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as "government-imposed censorship." Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law "until further order of the Court...." Advocates of reducing plastic use disagreed. "The court got it wrong, and I'm confident that the state will ultimately prevail," said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. "S.B. 343 does not violate the 1st Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the 1st Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades."
In January, CalRecycle, the state's waste agency, reported that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled. Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or No. 1 plastic, are getting recycled...
Plastic materials that can't be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.
The bill's author told the Los Angeles Times "All you have to do is look at the numbers. These products are not getting recycled, despite what the industry is claiming. They are just confusing consumers, clogging the waste stream, polluting the environment, leading to higher and higher prices for local governments and ratepayers." He argues the symbols shouldn't be used to "confuse people who see the symbols [on products] and assume they can be recycled."
The article also quotes Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. "Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet."
Oh goody (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is really simple. You cannot lie for money. False advertising is not free speech. Or didn't used to be. Since we've become a kleptocracy and kekistocracy all bets are off.
On the off chance that there is anyone out there who votes republican, and realistically this is being driven by the republicans, they are going to come for your prop
Re:Oh goody (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh goody (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they won't object to the labels. They will claim that forcing them to put the actual nutritional information is the violation of their free speech. I mean, if they can lie about recycling, why can't they lie about the nutritional content or the ingredients?
Biased news (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they won't object to the labels. They will claim that forcing them to put the actual nutritional information is the violation of their free speech. I mean, if they can lie about recycling, why can't they lie about the nutritional content or the ingredients?
A simpler explanation is that this is a biased news report intended to stir up outrage. ... and you and the grandparent post fell for it, and are adding to the overall outrage level.
Take a moment to look at the arguments against [google.com].
It looks a whole lot like manufacturers are *not* trying to lie about packaging or content, it's the complete opposite of that. The manufacturers want the labels on based on the product material, and not based on whether there are recycling program within the state. The stamp should describe the product, not the availability of recycling to the end consumer.
If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled. If California doesn't have facilities for doing that, it doesn't make the bag non-recyclable. California only manages to recycle 2% of this type, manufacturers want to put the stamp there to inform the consumer, the language of the bill would force them to remove the stamp because California doesn't recycle this type of plastic, and of course the manufacturers wouldn't do that for just California they would do it for everyone.
That's what this is about, not lying.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs the Pack act, which would install one standard country-wide, eliminating the maze of state-wide regulations. [wastedive.com]
Stop adding to the outrage, look at both sides of an issue before commenting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
*can* be recycled
everything *can* be recycled in the crushing of a fusion star, why not put the logo on everything
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
One could infer that the State of California thinks its citizens are dumber than the average American, and thus can'
Re:Biased news (Score:5, Insightful)
A simpler explanation is that this is a biased news report intended to stir up outrage
No the simplest explanation is big companies want to buy laws to make themselves more profitable.
If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled.
No, it can be recycled in theory, not in practice.
They want to sow confusion, because consumers don't really know what's only theoretically recyclable versus actually recycled. The manufacturers wants consumers to think they are paying extra for the latter while actually selling them a cheaper version of the former.
Re: (Score:2)
> Federal law already took care of this! Section 12 here - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/t... [ecfr.gov]
Not sure what California wants to change but the following points from your link sure make it look like current commercial practices need to change:
260.3 General principles.
(a) Qualifications and disclosures. To prevent deceptive claims, qualifications and disclosures should be clear, prominent, and understandable. To make disclosures clear and prominent, marketers should use plain language and sufficient
Re: (Score:2)
And I would be okay with the federal government clarifying this. That most of us think that the symbol means recyclable instead of what it's made of is something tha
Re: (Score:2)
california should create a law that enforces the 260.13 Recycled content claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Marking a product according to some proprietary standard is not following the law, even if the intention is in the same ballpark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biased news (Score:5, Informative)
If the bag your product came in has a polypropylene triangle on it (a "5"), it means the bag *can* be recycled.
"Can" is doing some really heavy lifting in that statement.
The only people who can 3, 6 or 7 are people with access to a chemistry lab. There are ZERO facilities to recycle those anywhere in the world.
If the bag I have has a "6" on it, then I cannot recycle it, since no facilities to do so exist. It has a 0.000000% chance of ever being recycled.
This is a symbol that was designed by the Society of to Plastics Industry to SPECIFICALLY resemble the recycling symbol. It was there to prevent the sane, rational approach to this, which was to return the bottles to the store, who would return them to manufacturers or refill at the stores. The trucks on both the store to distributor and distributor to manufacturer routes are empty anyway, it would have been the far cheaper solution. But this would massively reduce plastic sales. They pushed "recycling" to move the responsibility onto the consumer and boost their own sales.
This is 100% about the industry continuing a lie.
You are either incredibly stupid or an industry shill. Either way, fuck off.
Re: Biased news (Score:2)
Easy fix: if there is no truthful and complete nutritional information on display, youree not allowed to sell it.
There. No violation of free speech anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
'It looks a whole lot like manufacturers are *not* trying to lie about packaging or content'
The original symbolic border around the Resin Identification Code was intentionally designed to look like the recycling symbol without actually being a copy of the recycling symbol.
Not only are the manufacturers *trying* to lie, they have successfully fooled you into being their apologist for free.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are some other points worth considering here. The "chasing arrows" logo was originally intended more for labeling material content than recyclability. And there is evidence that plastic/petchems industry has used this state of affairs to promote plastics as being much recyclable than they actually are.
Everything I've learned suggests that only plastics # 1-3 are "practicably recyclable" in that the material recovered from these has decent purity and can be used for a meaningful range of purpo
Re: (Score:2)
You have to tax or ban products that use difficult-to-recycle packaging. Waste has a negative value and negative externality. You can't let the free market fix the problem.
Some countries have a $2 of CRV equivalent. That's enough for people to put in the effort to recycle. Alternatively, you can require manufacturers to buy back the waste.
Directly subsidizing building of factories that make highly recyclable or compostable packaging is another option.
Durable goods don't really need recycling rules. We don't
Re: Oh goody (Score:3)
I guess the warning labels on tobacco products are the next to go as the biggest violators of freedom of speech of the tobacco industry.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Last time I checked the Epstein class was not restricted to one party. Get the story right, it's a elite vs rest of us problem. The elites are pitting the middle class against each other so we don't come after them.
Re:Oh goody (Score:4, Informative)
It is also not really a symbol to be used as "can be recycled at your single stream recycler" even though that is exactly how it being poorly used currently, this was never the intention of the symbol.
The law should require a new symbol on the front of every package with a simple meaning: accepted at all single-stream recycling facilities.
- politics sucks. and it makes up half of your 'interesting' post. think about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal regulations already say exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your statement is that the materials are recyclable, but Californians (along with the rest of the country) aren't prepared to pay for it. If your gallon jug of milk was $20, you'd stop drinking milk. If you had to pay a recycling charge on the plastic bag in which your loaf of bread was packaged, it would cost $10.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is really simple. You cannot lie for money. False advertising is not free speech. Or didn't used to be. Since we've become a kleptocracy and kekistocracy all bets are off.
The fight against false or misleading advertising is often a challenging and losing battle, partly due to First Amendment ambiguity. Perhaps an alternative is to highlight the practical level of recycling success. Have the government post conspicuous numbers about the percentage of each recycling group that actually gets recycled. That way, the companies can use whatever recycling symbols they want, and consumers can match those symbols up with the actual rate of recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why people stop listening.
You start with a legitimate point about consumer protection, then bury it under conspiracy theories, collective guilt, and blanket attacks on tens of millions of people. If your argument only works by assuming everyone who disagrees with you is evil, you're not making a case you're ranting. Stick to facts, evidence, and policy instead of treating political opponents as a caricature.
5, Insightful, my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also the subjec
Re: Oh goody (Score:2)
curious.
i_ do not see names.
who are the heroes of this
Recycling Plastic Is a Dangerous Waste of Time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if it can be diced up and used for amalgamation plastics where esthetics don't matter much.
Re: Recycling Plastic Is a Dangerous Waste of Time (Score:2)
Not usually. You have to add so many plasticizers back in that it would be more economical to burn it in a modern waste-to-energy incinerator, if onlynthose weren't basically illegal in California
Yeah but if we ever stop doing it (Score:3)
I was pretty damn old when I learned what a externalized cost was.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes household plastic waste should be incinerated and turned into electrical power. At least for now, fossil fuels are going to continue to provide a decent amount of baseline power. If so, we might as well burn the plastics to help with that, rather then let them pollute.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, we should do more of the kind of thing they do in Sweden. Only 1% of household waste in Sweden ends up in landfills. What cannot be recycled is incinerated and used to heat homes and produce some electricity.
Preliminary injunction? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a judge says something it is a ruling. Preliminary injunctions are rulings.
Perhaps you're confusing it with a finding, or a "final ruling."
Bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
"government-imposed censorship."
It's government protection from predatory and false advertising. If it's on the product or packaging the the maker is advertising that the product is recyclable.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I confess I'm confused. Is it false advertising if the container can be recycled, but there is no existing process in the recycling industry to handle the waste?
I agree the consumer needs clear markings for what can be recycled. But as for what actually is recycled, it seems to me that's on those who collect and manage waste. And often, those are the municipalities. It sounds like they need to step up their programs, rather than constrain the manufacturers who use plastic containers.
Now, recycling plastic is difficult: so many kinds, so much sorting, and I suspect low profit-margins. So, I'm in favor of controlling use of the chasing-arrow logo to those materials for which a recycling process is viable. (Chip bags, for example, seem doubtful to me.)
In the end, I'd hate to see fewer containers labeled as recyclable, because it could discourage consumers from placing items in recycle bins. And maybe we're just using too damn much plastic anyway.
Re: Bullshit. (Score:2)
well right, your closing sentence is the clincher : we're using too much plastic.
labeling that suggests it gets recycled when in fact it doesn't is sustainability theater.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hate to see fewer containers labeled as recyclable, because it could discourage consumers from placing items in recycle bins.
The goal isn't to fill the bin. The goal is to reduce wastage of resources. A recycling bin that is almost empty isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing a logo that indicates something can be recycled, even it it isn't always, sustains a recycling mindset. That was my point. If it becomes less common, so will the habit of recycling.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers don't recycle: they place items in the recycling bins, with or without various preliminary steps to clean and separate said items. Some of the items may, due to lack of cleaning or separation, affect the viability of recycling others of the items. The goal of public policy should be to encourage a mindset and habits which facilitate the recycling of the items which can be viably recycled (where "viably" ideally takes into account all externalities), not to encourage thoughtless mixing of non-recyc
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the consumer needs clear markings for what can be recycled. But as for what actually is recycled, it seems to me that's on those who collect and manage waste. And often, those are the municipalities. It sounds like they need to step up their programs, rather than constrain the manufacturers who use plastic containers.
It is simply not realistic to have different packaging for every jurisdiction based on their particular recycling programs. I suspect manufacturers put these generic markings on the products because government encouraged it to begin with. Now government wants to discourage it. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Go figure that the government isn't a monolithic entity with a single opinion that never changes over time. Of course there will always be changes over time as things that seem like a good idea to the present government are tried, found wanting and then changed by a future government.
Even within a single government there are often many opinions - and sometimes one group gets a temporary win that gets overturned by another group a while later.
Of course, the definition of "good idea" and "found wanting" chang
Re: (Score:2)
But as for what actually is recycled, it seems to me that's on those who collect and manage waste.
What is actually recycled is determine purely by economics of what is practical to recycle. It's shitty reasoning like yours is why things like Tetrapaks are labelled as recyclable. There is no known way of separating the thin,glued layers of paper, aluminium and polythene. It's not the fucking municipalities fault no one has figured out how to do that cheaply.
In the end, I'd hate to see fewer containers labele
Re: (Score:3)
As noted elsewhere, everything is recyclable - it just depends how much effort you want to put into doing so. That ranges from "just clean it up and use it again" to "pop it into the nearest star to be broken down into constituent sub-atomic particles".
Here in Europeland, they put "widely recycled" on the parts that are, well, widely recycled (or else they put "not recyclable"). It doesn't mean you local refuse depot will definitely recycle it, but it means that most people across most of the country can re
Re: (Score:2)
They need a new symbol with only one meaning, not the number codes which is a failure when it comes to public knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
"government-imposed censorship."
It's government protection from predatory and false advertising. If it's on the product or packaging the the maker is advertising that the product is recyclable.
Thank you for identifying the specific problem here; electing leadershit who should be wearing a warning label about predatory and false (campaign) advertising. So that a citizen may recycle their vote elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
California doesn't get to change that for the rest of the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
California doesn't get to change that for the rest of the nation.
Correct, they are only trying to change it for California. You should read the article closer.
Re: (Score:2)
And it would be so much easier just to run ads saying that the chasing arrows symbol does not mean recyclable. Instead of forcing others to make your misconception true, just fix the misconception!
Re: (Score:2)
So, every plastics maker has to run separate machinery just to provide California something special?
Nope, just the packaging. Seriously, you need to the read the article because you are being a total fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
plastic bottle has a raised or imprinted RIC, so they would need to run a separate manufacturing line just for bottles being sold in California.
Where did you get that idea? The issue isn't stuff at the bottom of a bottle, it's what's on the label.
Doesn't that sound at least a little bit silly?
Your argument is what is silly because nobody has complained about the plastic identifier under the bottle. This is all about what's printed on the labels.
Re: (Score:2)
Sue again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some forms like bottles and milk jugs have a higher rate, but it's brought down by all the generic plastic containers, often containing a mixture of plastics.
Manufacturers should be forced to have a contract with some company that will actually do the recycling in order to mark something as recyclable, not just have a theoretical process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sue again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that 5% = 0%?
The reason that its only 5% is that its expensive to do so. The means some localities, including the county in which I live, don't accept plastics to be recycled.
Oddly enough they don't accept paper here, and paper has been recycleable for almost 1000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that 5% = 0%?
No, just that the recyclable claim is only 5% truth
California Will Win This (Score:2)
This law is no different than so many other laws that require certain amounts of this or that in order to carry a specific labeling.
California will win this. And, though I'm no 'save the whales/turtles' guy, it'll be a win for consumers on a national level as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Recycling costs money (Score:2)
And contrary to what you've been told plastic can be recycled (do some research, educate yourself). The municipalities would have you believe otherwise because they don't want to be stuck with the bill of sorting and processing. It is costly and no one wants to do it, neither consumers or recyclers.
But that's not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is keeping people from throwing this stuff into the environment where it doesn't degrade, the solution? Ban it
Re: (Score:2)
And contrary to what you've been told plastic can be recycled (do some research, educate yourself). The municipalities would have you believe otherwise because they don't want to be stuck with the bill of sorting and processing. It is costly and no one wants to do it, neither consumers or recyclers.
How much diesel is burned in the trucks that collect the recycling? How much of what they collect is actually used in a meaningful way? It may be the case that the bigger net benefit for "the environment" is to simply bury the stuff in a hole (landfill) or burn it for energy (like many countries in Europe)
But that's not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is keeping people from throwing this stuff into the environment where it doesn't degrade, the solution? Ban it
Yes, putting it any kind of bin is better than just throwing it in the street or roadside. This requires initial effort from two parties: The individual, to hold onto their trash until they see a bin, and
Re: (Score:2)
re: diesel. A lot, more than will ever be recovered by recycling anything other than metals. Gold, silver, aluminum, copper, and steel are all recycled because its less expensive than mining.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is throwing it away a problem? If somebody owns a piece of land and wants to make a few bucks storing garbage who is harmed?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone whose water supply is contaminated by heavy metals leaching into the groundwater, or whose air is contaminated by dust from the landfill site, or whose life is impacted by vermin which find a food source there.
Re: (Score:2)
Make that illegal instead, then? Oh, it is already? Sounds like the problem is underfunded law enforcement and uneven access to justice. A new law to ban plastics isn't going to help when the problem is people are allowed to break the law.
But... but... (Score:2)
One way around it would be to legally define the meaning of the symbol (in the same way the term "organic" has a legal meaning). But I'm not sure that could be done as the symbol is not trademarked -- it's in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
In Trump's America this will be overturned. They just have to shop around to the right crooks and eventually they'll win; luckily it takes time and also it is hard to predict how corrupt a judge will be... Unless they start out clearly corrupt from the beginning and since that is becoming an accepted norm, that time will come. It may take another attempt and after the 3rd trump term; not that he is required, he merely accelerated and demonstrated how incompetent and corrupt America has become, the rest wil
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This law should be blocked, it is a bad law! (Score:2)
The "manufacturers" and "being recycled" What is the goal here?
Manufacturers don't know what the end customer does or what the customers recycling options are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal regulators also set rules for recyclability labeling, and they include whether or not a product is likely to be recycled. If a product/package is recyclable, it will say so, with words.
Catch 22? (Score:1)
If you can’t put a recycling symbol on a product until the type of material is already being recycled seems like it will ensure no new types of materials will be recycled.
I understand these plastics aren’t being widely recycled mainly because it costs more to recycle than to use virgin material. Are the recycling centers accepting them and not recycling? If so, they are the ones that are deceiving the public.
Our local recycling clearly calls out what plastics they accept and what they won
Re: (Score:2)
We consumers need a single obvious new symbol, if a product has it then I can give it to my single-stream recycler. Don't bother changing the resin recycling number codes - they weren't intended for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
understood by the industry, every other State, and the Federal government
Notably, this list does not include consumers who will identify it as a recycling symbol with a number in it. The plastics industry came up with the idea and then convinced governments to adopt the symbol, fully knowing what it would imply to consumers.
That said, I think the federal government should change this, since California really can't.
"Is recycleable" vs. "is recycled". (Score:3)
The manufacturers may win by arguing that "is recycleable" in the law doesn't mean "is recycled" which is what the state wants to enforce. And they'd be right. If you read "is recycleable" as "made from material that can be recycled", which is the right reading at the manufacturing level, then the label is accurate: the containers are made of recycleable material. The counter-argument is that the law isn't requiring truth about what the material itself is but requiring truth about the container as finally delivered to the consumer. Yogurt containers, for example, may be made of recycleable materials but, as delivered to the consumer, are not recycleable because they're contaminated with food product and will not be accepted by recycling programs. Most consumers assumed that if the container is marked with the "chasing arrows" symbol, that means they can put it in the recycling bin and it'll be recycled. The manufacturers, the plaintiffs here, deliberately contribute to that misunderstanding by their advertising and promotional material about recycleables, and they know what their products are going to be used for so they know it's going to result in the containers not being recycleable.
It's going to come down to how the CA lawyers argue the case. As usual, if they let the plaintiffs frame the case they're going to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what "is recyclable" actually means. Everything is recyclable to some degree, given enough effort and expense. The ONLY difference between "recyclable" and "not recyclable" is the expense required. If the cost of recycling is low enough to be economically viable, recyclers will do so, because they can make money doing it. If it costs more to recycle, than to make something new, they won't recycle.
So I'd argue that "recyclable" really does mean "is recycled."
When was the last time you read the Constitution? (Score:2)
The Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to regulate packaging labels, so this is a state issue. The federal judge is wrong.
On the other hand, a standardized package label that tells me how to recycle the package is useful, regardless of how much of that type of packaging gets recycled. It doesn't matter if there are no facilities for recycling that type of packaging nearby today. There might be in a year or three. My complaint is that all too often the symbol is hard to find, or hard to read.
Th
Re: When was the last time you read the Constituti (Score:2)
The Commerce clause gives the federal government nearly limitless authority over the States despite what the rest of the Constitution says.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, a standardized package label that tells me how to recycle the package is useful, regardless of how much of that type of packaging gets recycled.
If there's nowhere to recycle it then it's not telling you how to recycle the material.
It doesn't matter if there are no facilities for recycling that type of packaging nearby today. There might be in a year or three.
Or never. It might not be something that's practical to recycle with current technology.
The state can publish a report on how much o
Re: (Score:2)
Remove the symbol and then what? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you remove the symbol then it's just unsortable organic waste for the incinerator and you lose any ability to start recycling it in the future.
Can be recycled doesn't mean will be recycled. Just like cardboard. Some gets recycled. Some goes up the flue as fire starter in the winter at my house or in Spokane's incinertor. Some ends up in the landfill if it gets covered in paint or oil from a spill. Some the cat turns into confetti.
Economically the best thing to do is just burn it. Yes you need an afterburner and a scrubber. From oil it came, to combustion is its fate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be far, far better for the majority of plastic and paper wastes to go to a municipal incinerator vs being "recycled" with huge energy, water, people and fuel inputs required.
The recycle bin should hold aluminium and steel. Perhaps clean cardboard as there's enough of it in most households to make it possibly worth sorting.
I could argue that you'd only recycle aluminum curbside. Everything else should go in the general waste can and be incinerated. They can recover the iron with magnets.
Easy for billionaires (Score:1)
It's easy to see why corporations control the government: It's cheap for billionaires to claim they're the victim, even cheaper when Fox News does the propaganda for them.
commercial speech (Score:2)
Commercial speech is not free speech ... Fight me
Simple work-around, tax (Score:2)
Then add a 25% or more sales tax to all packages that are not recycled per what this law is trying to do. The current US Supreme Court has said many times State Taxes cannot be regulated by the Federal Gov.
$10 gas (Score:2)
By time October comes around there may be new demand for the microwave pyrolysis methods of reducing plastics to petroleum feedstocks.
If the editors here are to be believed California has so much solar power and plastic waste that they don't know what to do with and gasoline is already approaching $8 there due to the foolish wars and foolish taxation.
IIRC the heavy plastic chains could help with the disastrous heavy crude shortage, especially. Chemical engineers, please correct.
Freedom of speech over fraud? (Score:2)
Why am I hearing Obi Wan say "from a certain point of view" in my head while reading this?
1st amendment and lies without consequences (Score:2)
The 1st amendment was added to protect citizens' freedom for political speech and other government "retaliation". It's not a free pass to say anything you want. It doesn't protect slander, incitement to violence, defamation, or the classic "crying FIRE in a crowded theatre".
This case seems to be pretty similar to USRDA labels, where "people have a right to know" certain things about what's being sold to them. And placing a recycling symbol (and even some with a number) when they know the packaging or pro
Can't be or won't be recycled? (Score:2)
That's the question. Is it truly that some plastic CAN'T be recycled or is it more likely that they aren't because it's too expensive or time consuming to do so and there's no market for it? Places like California love to stroke their own egos when they have 27 different trash containers for every conceivable use-case and then it's out-of-sight-out-of-mind. Just like everywhere else that uses one recycle container.
everything (Score:2)
Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of soup in the kitchen though!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not being argued here. What's being argued here is that materials that are recyclable, and marked as such, aren't being recycled -- for various reasons, none of which should matter to the manufacturer/distributor.
For example, if I sell you a beverage in an aluminium can, I can't stop you from thowing it in the trash even though it is marked as recyclable, and is one of the materials that is commonly recycled.
If a plastic container is marked as recyclable (because a process exists to recycle tha