Opinions on recycling

Recycling is processing used materials (waste) into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials, reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduce energy usage, reduce air pollution (from incineration) and water pollution (from landfilling) by reducing the need for "conventional" waste disposal, and lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to virgin production. Recycling is a key component of modern waste reduction and is the third component of the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" waste hierarchy.

There are some ISO standards relating to recycling such as ISO 15270:2008 for plastics waste and ISO 14001:2004 for environmental management control of recycling practice.

Recyclable materials include many kinds of glass, paper, metal, plastic, textiles, and electronics. Although similar in effect, the composting or other reuse of biodegradable waste – such as food or garden waste – is not typically considered recycling. Materials to be recycled are either brought to a collection center or picked up from the curbside, then sorted, cleaned, and reprocessed into new materials bound for manufacturing.

In the strictest sense, recycling of a material would produce a fresh supply of the same material—for example, used office paper would be converted into new office paper, or used foamed polystyrene into new polystyrene. However, this is often difficult or too expensive (compared with producing the same product from raw materials or other sources), so "recycling" of many products or materials involves their reuse in producing different materials (e.g., paperboard) instead. Another form of recycling is the salvage of certain materials from complex products, either due to their intrinsic value (e.g., lead from car batteries, or gold from computer components), or due to their hazardous nature (e.g., removal and reuse of mercury from various items). Critics dispute the net economic and environmental benefits of recycling over its costs, and suggest that proponents of recycling often make matters worse and suffer from confirmation bias. Specifically, critics argue that the costs and energy used in collection and transportation detract from (and outweigh) the costs and energy saved in the production process; also that the jobs produced by the recycling industry can be a poor trade for the jobs lost in logging, mining, and other industries associated with virgin production; and that materials such as paper pulp can only be recycled a few times before material degradation prevents further recycling. Proponents of recycling dispute each of these claims, and the validity of arguments from both sides has led to enduring controversy

Recycling has been a common practice for most of human history, with recorded advocates as far back as Plato in 400 BC. During periods when resources were scarce, archaeological studies of ancient waste dumps show less household waste (such as ash, broken tools and pottery)—implying more waste was being recycled in the absence of new material.

In pre-industrial times, there is evidence of scrap bronze and other metals being collected in Europe and melted down for perpetual reuse. In Britain dust and ash from wood and coal fires was collected by 'dustmen' and downcycled as a base material used in brick making. The main driver for these types of recycling was the economic advantage of obtaining recycled feedstock instead of acquiring virgin material, as well as a lack of public waste removal in ever more densely populated areas.[3] In 1813, Benjamin Law developed the process of turning rags into 'shoddy' and 'mungo' wool in Batley, Yorkshire. This material combined recycled fibres with virgin wool. The West Yorkshire shoddy industry in towns such as Batley and Dewsbury, lasted from the early 19th century to at least 1914.

Industrialization spurred demand for affordable materials; aside from rags, ferrous scrap metals were coveted as they were cheaper to acquire than was virgin ore. Railroads both purchased and sold scrap metal in the 19th century, and the growing steel and automobile industries purchased scrap in the early 20th century. Many secondary goods were collected, processed, and sold by peddlers who combed dumps, city streets, and went door to door looking for discarded machinery, pots, pans, and other sources of metal. By World War I, thousands of such peddlers roamed the streets of American cities, taking advantage of market forces to recycle post-consumer materials back into industrial production.

Legislation has also been used to increase and maintain a demand for recycled materials. Four methods of such legislation exist: minimum recycled content mandates, utilization rates, procurement policies, recycled product labeling.

Both minimum recycled content mandates and utilization rates increase demand directly by forcing manufacturers to include recycling in their operations. Content mandates specify that a certain percentage of a new product must consist of recycled material. Utilization rates are a more flexible option: industries are permitted to meet the recycling targets at any point of their operation or even contract recycling out in exchange for [trade]able credits. Opponents to both of these methods point to the large increase in reporting requirements they impose, and claim that they rob industry of necessary flexibility.

Governments have used their own purchasing power to increase recycling demand through what are called "procurement policies." These policies are either "set-asides," which earmark a certain amount of spending solely towards recycled products, or "price preference" programs which provide a larger budget when recycled items are purchased. Additional regulations can target specific cases: in the United States, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency mandates the purchase of oil, paper, tires and building insulation from recycled or re-refined sources whenever possible.

The final government regulation towards increased demand is recycled product labeling. When producers are required to label their packaging with amount of recycled material in the product (including the packaging), consumers are better able to make educated choices. Consumers with sufficient buying power can then choose more environmentally conscious options, prompt producers to increase the amount of recycled material in their products, and indirectly increase demand. Standardized recycling labeling can also have a positive effect on supply of recyclates if the labeling includes information on how and where the product can be recycled

Can you give me the Reader's Digest version?

As for recycling, it is much like regular cycling; a fraud.

Racehorse wrote:

Can you give me the Reader's Digest version?

As for recycling, it is much like regular cycling; a fraud.

Look, idiot, if you cannot read what is essentially 1 or 2 pages of material to get quasi-informed then just STFU. You are too damned lazy to learn anything anyway so don't waste your time pretending.

I have recycled for the past 40 years. But recycling is more than taking your trash to a place that stores it and packages it. Recycling is a loop that cannot have a break in it or it doesn't work. The most important part of the loop is the consumer, YOU and me. We are the first and last step of the loop. We have to buy intelligently and have an idea what is going to happen to our purchase before we pay for it. In nature, all materials are recycled. Humans think we are not part of nature, but we are. So, in time, even though resources will line the old roads and highways (the best place for them) and be mined from old landfills (the second best place) once the methane gas has all escaped and the leachate has reached the groundwater, they will all go back to Big Mamma.

Great thread and very interesting responses. Another reason to run barefooted!!!! Running shoes are not recycleable and you can buy a used bike for the price of a pair!

Visit your local sanitary landfill.

Some workers at a local recycling plant recent got a surprise when a dead body rolled by along on a conveyer belt with trash to be sorted.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Seattle-police-investigate-homicide-at-recycling-facility-125232299.html

Neither here nor there as to OPs question, but an unusual story nonetheless.

Seriously? What does it hurt to recycle? If you don't want to toss your crap into the trash.

run with the wom wrote:

Seriously? What does it hurt to recycle? If you don't want to toss your crap into the trash.

The arguments against recycling are that is costs the US 8 billion dollars a year more than if we landfilled it, Paper is made from trees grown on paper tree farms, it actually takes more energy to recycle most things than it would to make new ones giving it a net negative environmental impact.

In the short run, which is what most folks think about, saving the earth is expensive compared to wasting resources. In the long run, saving resources is the least expensive way to live. Do you and the class care about the short term or the long term or both? Please share your thoughts!

green liberal = big hypocrite