Random Thoughts

[1995hoo]

Right, you put the bags in their collection bin and...you just think they automatically go to a recycling center from there?

....

I don't know what they do, but it's beyond my control, so there's no point in my worrying about it. If I knew for certain that they threw them out, I might hold onto them until I go to another store that is likely to do something different.

We used to recycle wine corks, but Wegmans and Total Wine both stopped taking them.

[Max Rockatansky]

Quaint to recall a time when I lived out east and in-store customer recycling was a thing.

[jeffandnicole]

They also make excellent bags for scooping cat litter.

Nah.  They don't seal at all so we tend to buy cheap zipper bags (gallon size) for that.  No smell in the garbage can then.

Honestly, I find the plastic bags practically useless for anything other than gathering up all the other filmy plastic to take back to the store and place in their collection bin.  Paper bags on the other hand have a lot more uses from collecting paper and paperboard recycling to collecting old clothing for donation.

I'll do one better, plastic bags make a handy receptacle for outdoor dog waste.  My wife bought me a plastic bucket for Lowe's for the same purpose but ended up repossessing for her own garden purposes.

That's how we often used our bags as well.  We would occasionally use them when cleaning out the bird's cages as well, but they often had a small hole in the bottom and birdseed would leak out.

Do you mean the plastic bags from the grocery store, including the produce bags? Most grocery stores here have a plastic bag recycling dropoff at the entrance. We don't generally use many plastic grocery bags (in addition to the ubiquitous reusable bags, we have reusable produce bags), but we recycle the ones we do use, along with the plastic bags in which the newspaper is delivered on the weekends.

Right, you put the bags in their collection bin and...you just think they automatically go to a recycling center from there?

Adding to that:  When your recycling is picked up by the recycling truck, it doesn't always go to the recycling center either.  Because the cost of recycling can be equal to or exceed the cost of taking it to the landfill, those trucks are sometimes "diverted" away from the recycling center.

[Rothman]

They also make excellent bags for scooping cat litter.

Nah.  They don't seal at all so we tend to buy cheap zipper bags (gallon size) for that.  No smell in the garbage can then.

Honestly, I find the plastic bags practically useless for anything other than gathering up all the other filmy plastic to take back to the store and place in their collection bin.  Paper bags on the other hand have a lot more uses from collecting paper and paperboard recycling to collecting old clothing for donation.

I'll do one better, plastic bags make a handy receptacle for outdoor dog waste.  My wife bought me a plastic bucket for Lowe's for the same purpose but ended up repossessing for her own garden purposes.

That's how we often used our bags as well.  We would occasionally use them when cleaning out the bird's cages as well, but they often had a small hole in the bottom and birdseed would leak out.

Do you mean the plastic bags from the grocery store, including the produce bags? Most grocery stores here have a plastic bag recycling dropoff at the entrance. We don't generally use many plastic grocery bags (in addition to the ubiquitous reusable bags, we have reusable produce bags), but we recycle the ones we do use, along with the plastic bags in which the newspaper is delivered on the weekends.

Right, you put the bags in their collection bin and...you just think they automatically go to a recycling center from there?

Adding to that:  When your recycling is picked up by the recycling truck, it doesn't always go to the recycling center either.  Because the cost of recycling can be equal to or exceed the cost of taking it to the landfill, those trucks are sometimes "diverted" away from the recycling center.

Come to think of it, I had a friend that worked for a state environmental agency that had horror stories about tires sent for recycling that just ended up in some huge pile somewhere.

Recycling's some degree of a PR scam.  I've often thought that we need to rethink our use of at least some of our plastic packaging...

[Brandon]

They also make excellent bags for scooping cat litter.

Nah.  They don't seal at all so we tend to buy cheap zipper bags (gallon size) for that.  No smell in the garbage can then.

Honestly, I find the plastic bags practically useless for anything other than gathering up all the other filmy plastic to take back to the store and place in their collection bin.  Paper bags on the other hand have a lot more uses from collecting paper and paperboard recycling to collecting old clothing for donation.

I'll do one better, plastic bags make a handy receptacle for outdoor dog waste.  My wife bought me a plastic bucket for Lowe's for the same purpose but ended up repossessing for her own garden purposes.

They seemed to be recycled at the Stop & Shop where I worked. I don't know what happened after they left the store, but they were taken from the store as a large bag of plastic bags and nothing else.

Likely the adherence to internal recycling centers varies by store.  Some individual stores in chains I've found are hyper obsessed with recycling credits as a form of protecting margin erosion (particularly with cardboard bales and pallets). 

Not just that, but a lot of grocers who collect the bags also collect the shrink wrap around the pallets and send that back for recycling at a central point on the truck (I know as I worked in grocers who did that during high school and college).  It's easy enough to send those with the bags of bags as they're the same plastic.

Even where there's a deposit on bottles (i.e. Michigan), the grocer will collect them and send to them whatever facility they need to go to.  Aluminum cans and plastic bottles would go to their respective collectors, and glass bottles would be gathered to go back to the bottler for recycling (usually the beer distributor).

[vdeane]

They also make excellent bags for scooping cat litter.

Nah.  They don't seal at all so we tend to buy cheap zipper bags (gallon size) for that.  No smell in the garbage can then.

Honestly, I find the plastic bags practically useless for anything other than gathering up all the other filmy plastic to take back to the store and place in their collection bin.  Paper bags on the other hand have a lot more uses from collecting paper and paperboard recycling to collecting old clothing for donation.

I'll do one better, plastic bags make a handy receptacle for outdoor dog waste.  My wife bought me a plastic bucket for Lowe's for the same purpose but ended up repossessing for her own garden purposes.

That's how we often used our bags as well.  We would occasionally use them when cleaning out the bird's cages as well, but they often had a small hole in the bottom and birdseed would leak out.

Do you mean the plastic bags from the grocery store, including the produce bags? Most grocery stores here have a plastic bag recycling dropoff at the entrance. We don't generally use many plastic grocery bags (in addition to the ubiquitous reusable bags, we have reusable produce bags), but we recycle the ones we do use, along with the plastic bags in which the newspaper is delivered on the weekends.

Right, you put the bags in their collection bin and...you just think they automatically go to a recycling center from there?

Adding to that:  When your recycling is picked up by the recycling truck, it doesn't always go to the recycling center either.  Because the cost of recycling can be equal to or exceed the cost of taking it to the landfill, those trucks are sometimes "diverted" away from the recycling center.

Come to think of it, I had a friend that worked for a state environmental agency that had horror stories about tires sent for recycling that just ended up in some huge pile somewhere.

Recycling's some degree of a PR scam.  I've often thought that we need to rethink our use of at least some of our plastic packaging...

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling (ie, no throwing out bagged recyclables because you don't want to remove them from the bag, no throwing out a whole pizza box because the bottom part is full of grease, no throwing out a frozen food container because it needs to be washed, etc.), and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

Of course, whether this would be desirable with respect to what it would do for the cost of goods and services is another question entirely.

[mgk920]

At least there IS a local market for scrap paper around there (papermaking is a major industry in NE and central Wisconsin and 'scrap' is a major raw material at some mills), but they DON'T ant food soiled items.  OTOH, I can think of no use for 'scrap' plastic bags and other containers other than as boiler fuel, and that is not a good use due to toxic emissions.  there is a general market for aluminum and iron and steel are far and away the most recycled materials of all.  In addition, plastic soda and water bottles compress to nearly zero volume in landfills.

I still remember having glass beer and soda bottles that were cleaned and reused literally hundreds of times as just a part of normal, everyday life.

Mike

[kphoger]

they often had a small hole in the bottom

This is the main problem for me, and why half the plastic bags I end up are not actually worth reusing.

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling (ie, no throwing out bagged recyclables because you don't want to remove them from the bag, no throwing out a whole pizza box because the bottom part is full of grease, no throwing out a frozen food container because it needs to be washed, etc.), and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

The problem, though, is that a business can do all of that stuff—with or without government threats—and the material still not be profitable to recycle.  Recycling plastic was only ever profitable when an unusual combination of economic variables made it a feasible enterprise to ship garbage halfway around the world on cargo ships and then re-process it into something whose end value was still only a few cents—and that would subsequently need to be shipped halfway back around the world on cargo ships again for re-use.

It's easy to understand how that economic equilibrium was short-lived, how the profit margin even when it existed was quite slim, and why it's unreasonable to expect it to return.  Recycling companies no longer want to accept plastic, because it loses them money to process it.  Those countries no longer want to accept the recycled plastic we've been sending them by the ship-ful, because the recycling companies won't take it, and they don't really want to use their own landfill space for our trash.  So, if there's no one to take the plastic for processing, then there's no point in even collecting it anymore—whether it's been sorted, cut down, and cleaned or not.

Recycling's some degree of a PR scam.  I've often thought that we need to rethink our use of at least some of our plastic packaging...

Yes.  Plastic recycling was a scam initiated by the big beverage companies in order to make environment-conscious consumers feel better about purchasing their products, and they knew full-well at the time that it was not a sustainable model.

[1995hoo]

....

I still remember having glass beer and soda bottles that were cleaned and reused literally hundreds of times as just a part of normal, everyday life.

Heh. We have four glass water bottles (one 800 ml, the other three 375 ml) with screw-on plastic tops that we've been reusing for probably close to 20 years as a way of storing water in the refrigerator (ours does not have a through-the-door dispenser for ice and water).

[ZLoth]

We have four glass water bottles (one 800 ml, the other three 375 ml) with screw-on plastic tops that we've been reusing for probably close to 20 years as a way of storing water in the refrigerator (ours does not have a through-the-door dispenser for ice and water).

If the refrigerator is in good working order, there is no need to replace it for a through-the-door dispenser for ice and water. Have you considered filtered water pitchers stored in the fridge?

[1995hoo]

We have four glass water bottles (one 800 ml, the other three 375 ml) with screw-on plastic tops that we've been reusing for probably close to 20 years as a way of storing water in the refrigerator (ours does not have a through-the-door dispenser for ice and water).

If the refrigerator is in good working order, there is no need to replace it for a through-the-door dispenser for ice and water. Have you considered filtered water pitchers stored in the fridge?

Rather, we deliberately chose not to get a through-the-door dispenser when we replaced our refrigerator sometime within the last ten years or so (may have been earlier, I don't remember other than that it had to be after 2011). We don't use enough ice to make it worth having one, plus they take up space on the door and we noted that multiple relatives in Florida have had problems with the dispensers on theirs.

My mother uses a filtered pitcher for water, but we're not inclined to do that because of the space it would take up. There's already one pitcher in there that I use for lemonade. The bottles we use are smaller and thus easier to move around if and when we need to rearrange things (typically around Thanksgiving or Christmas).

[vdeane]

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling (ie, no throwing out bagged recyclables because you don't want to remove them from the bag, no throwing out a whole pizza box because the bottom part is full of grease, no throwing out a frozen food container because it needs to be washed, etc.), and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

The problem, though, is that a business can do all of that stuff—with or without government threats—and the material still not be profitable to recycle.  Recycling plastic was only ever profitable when an unusual combination of economic variables made it a feasible enterprise to ship garbage halfway around the world on cargo ships and then re-process it into something whose end value was still only a few cents—and that would subsequently need to be shipped halfway back around the world on cargo ships again for re-use.

It's easy to understand how that economic equilibrium was short-lived, how the profit margin even when it existed was quite slim, and why it's unreasonable to expect it to return.  Recycling companies no longer want to accept plastic, because it loses them money to process it.  Those countries no longer want to accept the recycled plastic we've been sending them by the ship-ful, because the recycling companies won't take it, and they don't really want to use their own landfill space for our trash.  So, if there's no one to take the plastic for processing, then there's no point in even collecting it anymore—whether it's been sorted, cut down, and cleaned or not.

That's why I included "it doesn't matter how economical it is".  The idea behind my hypothetical law would be to force everyone to actually recycle (as opposed to items that are supposedly "recycled" being thrown out because there's no money to be made in recycling them), even if it loses money.  Naturally, such a law will never be drafted let alone passed, but it would make recycling more effective.

[formulanone]

I feel like recycling would work better if there was a federal law that said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter how economical it is, you will recycle whenever it's physically possible, as much of the material as possible, including employing people to manually sort through, cut down, and clean items to make them suitable for recycling (ie, no throwing out bagged recyclables because you don't want to remove them from the bag, no throwing out a whole pizza box because the bottom part is full of grease, no throwing out a frozen food container because it needs to be washed, etc.), and if you don't, we will fine you so hard that you'll be beyond bankrupt".

The problem, though, is that a business can do all of that stuff—with or without government threats—and the material still not be profitable to recycle.  Recycling plastic was only ever profitable when an unusual combination of economic variables made it a feasible enterprise to ship garbage halfway around the world on cargo ships and then re-process it into something whose end value was still only a few cents—and that would subsequently need to be shipped halfway back around the world on cargo ships again for re-use.

It's easy to understand how that economic equilibrium was short-lived, how the profit margin even when it existed was quite slim, and why it's unreasonable to expect it to return.  Recycling companies no longer want to accept plastic, because it loses them money to process it.  Those countries no longer want to accept the recycled plastic we've been sending them by the ship-ful, because the recycling companies won't take it, and they don't really want to use their own landfill space for our trash.  So, if there's no one to take the plastic for processing, then there's no point in even collecting it anymore—whether it's been sorted, cut down, and cleaned or not.

That's why I included "it doesn't matter how economical it is".  The idea behind my hypothetical law would be to force everyone to actually recycle (as opposed to items that are supposedly "recycled" being thrown out because there's no money to be made in recycling them), even if it loses money.  Naturally, such a law will never be drafted let alone passed, but it would make recycling more effective.

Wouldn't be surprised if Alabama has quietly whispered this idea on occasion, because recycling is a big job creator in the southern third of the state. But (1) everything is challenged as "freedom" and requiring anyone to do more "work" implies we're in a totalitarian state that's counter to it's "values" (2) there's that nagging feeling the recycling waste materials and by-products are winding up in our soil, since somewhere else did not want to perform the processing in the first place, and we wind up as America's Trash Heap (and not the wise one from Fraggle Rock).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[kphoger]

That's why I included "it doesn't matter how economical it is".  The idea behind my hypothetical law would be to force everyone to actually recycle (as opposed to items that are supposedly "recycled" being thrown out because there's no money to be made in recycling them), even if it loses money.

Are we misunderstanding each other?  Who are the "you" and the "everyone" that would be required to recycle?  I was assuming you meant that all individuals would be required to put their recyclables into the recycle bin, and that businesses would be required to sort and clean such items to make them suitable for recycling.  But that still doesn't solve the problem that, at least for plastic, there would still be no companies willing to actually recycle it.  The individual and business can do all of that work and the item still end up in a landfill or an incinerator.

I mean, you can't legislate the existence of a company to actually do that recycling—unless it were funded or subsidized by the government, I suppose.

[Scott5114]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

[J N Winkler]

Are we misunderstanding each other?  Who are the "you" and the "everyone" that would be required to recycle?  I was assuming you meant that all individuals would be required to put their recyclables into the recycle bin, and that businesses would be required to sort and clean such items to make them suitable for recycling.

In my experience, mandatory recycling regimes generally rely on steep penalties for discarding more than a set amount of non-recyclable trash each collection period.

Is that coercive?  Yes.

Does it promote "wishcycling"?  Hell yes.

But that still doesn't solve the problem that, at least for plastic, there would still be no companies willing to actually recycle it.  The individual and business can do all of that work and the item still end up in a landfill or an incinerator.

I mean, you can't legislate the existence of a company to actually do that recycling—unless it were funded or subsidized by the government, I suppose.

Actually, yes, you can, if you are willing to set up a publicly owned corporation to do it.  There are other tools as well, which fall into distinct categories of stick (penalizing manufacturers for using excessive amounts of non-recyclable materials in their products, banning single-use plastic bags, etc.) and carrot (subsidies at various points along the waste and reuse streams).

There is a reason even some advocates of environmentally responsible living describe recycling as a scam.

[Brandon]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

[tmoore952]

I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

I would love (love!) to respond to this, but I'd be going into forbidden territory.

[Scott5114]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

[kphoger]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.

Right.  Passing a law that forces a company to engage in negative-cash-flow operations isn't the best idea if you want that company to remain in operation.

I was imagining, for example, a law requiring that all metal recyclers start recycling plastic as well, and then the recycler ends up with negative cash flow, so it goes out of business, and then not only is it not recycling plastic anymore, but it isn't recycling metal anymore either.

Or a grocery store with a very thin profit margin, now required by law to employ people to sort and clean and break down recyclable materials, and paying those extra wages eliminates that thin profit margin, so it goes out of business, and now there's a food desert because nobody else finds it profitable to move in either.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

Well, if we're eliminating the private sector from the equation, then why not just make it a government function and not even bother passing the law to begin with?

[Brandon]

I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

I would love (love!) to respond to this, but I'd be going into forbidden territory.

I will, but without going into the forbidden territory.

I'm on the board of and president of an HOA for 12 condominium buildings of 4 unit each.  Our duties are to maintain the driveways, parking areas, building exteriors (siding, roofs), provide for lawn, bush, and tree maintenance, and snow removal, along with repairs to some underground utilities on the property (sump pump lines, sewer lines on the property) and area lighting.  To do this, we charge an assessment fee based on a share for each property owner.  That share is based on the size of the unit as some have more square footage than others, and 3 out of every 4 units have basements.  We need to take in enough in assessment fees to cover our aforementioned expenses as well as insurance and setting aside a contingency for issues that may arise.  If we don't, then we cannot provide these services.

[Brandon]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

It's been tried.  It's failed in many countries, time and time again.

Even the casino you have worked for is technically a private business (and in Las Vegas, they all are).  They have income streams from gambling, lodging, restaurants, drink sales, gift shops, etc.  But then, they have to make enough money from those to cover their expenses: utilities, payroll, supplies, taxes (sales, property, etc.), equipment, repairs to said equipment, and in the case of a casino, when someone wins a jackpot, especially a whale (who can put a major dent in their earnings).  If they don't have enough of an income stream, they will eventually fail (and some have in the past).

[vdeane]

That's why I included "it doesn't matter how economical it is".  The idea behind my hypothetical law would be to force everyone to actually recycle (as opposed to items that are supposedly "recycled" being thrown out because there's no money to be made in recycling them), even if it loses money.

Are we misunderstanding each other?  Who are the "you" and the "everyone" that would be required to recycle?  I was assuming you meant that all individuals would be required to put their recyclables into the recycle bin, and that businesses would be required to sort and clean such items to make them suitable for recycling.  But that still doesn't solve the problem that, at least for plastic, there would still be no companies willing to actually recycle it.  The individual and business can do all of that work and the item still end up in a landfill or an incinerator.

I mean, you can't legislate the existence of a company to actually do that recycling—unless it were funded or subsidized by the government, I suppose.

Honestly, the individual end didn't factor in at all.  It was more that the recycling center would be forced to clean etc. the items (instead of just sending everything that isn't pristine to a landfill), and businesses would be forced to use recycled materials to make products wherever physically possible even if it's more expensive than using virgin material (ie, force the companies to be willing to recycle everything that physically can be).  I would expect that the price of goods would have to rise to counteract that such would be a money-losing proposition if prices remained as they are today.

And if the shareholders don't like it?  Tough.  I don't really care what they think, they've become parasites obsessed with short-term windfalls over long-term value anyways.

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.

Right.  Passing a law that forces a company to engage in negative-cash-flow operations isn't the best idea if you want that company to remain in operation.

I was imagining, for example, a law requiring that all metal recyclers start recycling plastic as well, and then the recycler ends up with negative cash flow, so it goes out of business, and then not only is it not recycling plastic anymore, but it isn't recycling metal anymore either.

Or a grocery store with a very thin profit margin, now required by law to employ people to sort and clean and break down recyclable materials, and paying those extra wages eliminates that thin profit margin, so it goes out of business, and now there's a food desert because nobody else finds it profitable to move in either.

Then maybe we need to move past the concept of owning businesses.

Well, if we're eliminating the private sector from the equation, then why not just make it a government function and not even bother passing the law to begin with?

Why would the grocery store be the one doing the cleaning?  My experience with recycling is that I put the recyclables in the dumpster marked for them, and periodically the truck that takes them to the recycling center picks them up.  Does the grocery store not just send them wherever they go to get processed?

[Rothman]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Private businesses don't take out loans?  *facepalm*

[Brandon]

The fundamental problem with America is that nobody wants to do the right thing if the right thing isn't profitable.

Well, if you own a business, and you're not making money (a positive cash flow), then you're losing money, and money-losing operations tend not to hang around too long.  I do wish government would grasp this concept - you can't spend more than you collect in taxes, tariffs, and fees.

Private businesses don't take out loans?  *facepalm*

They do, but banks kind of expect them paid back, with interest.  If you don't then your business can have a lien on it until you do (or declare bankruptcy).