Is recycling worthwhile?

[kernelbogey]

....Why not just send it all to landfill? ....

It seems that the world can't cope with the recycling: I do not know the detail but China has been taking our (and other countries') plastic waste, but has now stopped taking it. The plastic recycling facilities in this country are inadequate for processing what we waste.

I believe that the solution is to incinerate most or all waste - including plastics, which help to burn the less combustible waste - and recover the energy. Unfortunately, plans to build incinerators invariably hit nimbyism (quite understandably) and/as I'm by no means sure that the technology yet exists to make emissions safe.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I believe that the solution is to incinerate most or all waste - including plastics, which help to burn the less combustible waste - and recover the energy. Unfortunately, plans to build incinerators invariably hit nimbyism (quite understandably) and/as I'm by no means sure that the technology yet exists to make emissions safe.

Concern about dioxins is hardly nimbyism.

[Serial_Apologist]

Two things have to h appen, in my view.

Firstly, for hundreds of thousands of years, humankind made do with things until they wore out, doing running repairs and modifications along the way to keep them useworthy. Things have to be made that can last as long as possible. Craftspersonship is its own reward. Unfortunately, the human race has got used to the idea of throwing stuff out. This is due to two things: the advent of disposable product, fulfilling the capitalist desiderata of maintaining production at all costs, or rather, at minimal costs, to satisfy competition and profitability, and the inculcation of concomitant expectations requiring everyone to conform with in vogueness, now extending to being in possession of the standardised 21st century body, the ultimate commodification of the individualised individual.

Secondly, therefore, the need, for the great plethora of urgent reasons including saving the earth's ecosystems, to fight for an alternative range of values that would secure an ending to the capitalist order and its needless waste. One suggestion towards the latter would have to be voluntary birth control, so an alternative, evidence- as much as experience-based spiritual approach involving awakening to the wonders of re-untrammelled nature replacing the omniscient obsession with fitness for its selfie sake, adopting tried, tested and proven disciplines from cultures where they "worked" for centuries alongside the development of environmentally safe technologies, such as occurred in China.

Of course, we first of all have to get rid of capitalism, and this could well mean putting the one big blockage, to wit the self-aggrandized in charge of armies, industry and capital - who have led everyone into the present global mess-up by mass-inculcating the worship of power and idea of inequality as being ingrained in the "natural" order - to work on physically clearing up some of the worst consequences, during which time they will be too exhausted to fight to reclaim their power and privilege, and might even end up being more like the rest of humanity, in terms of realising that they really aren't greatly superior and thereby eligible for greater status, possessions etc. than anyone else, and might be in possession, once redeemed, to offer what they have to offer in terms of supposed leadership qualities, in helping put things right again.

In summary, an ecologically-based approach to soclalism which, as far as I can ascertain, has not been tried in modern times outside small self-supporting communities, and would certainly be an alternative to class war, let alone the growing antagonisms of identity-based politics which are leading us all to the Gadarene clifftop edge. As the existing centralised network that pretends it is not centralised continues to break down, this might start happening anyway, with communities banding together to look after their immediate surrounds, so some kind of moral and ethical social basis along the straightforward lines I have suggested would be one way of pre-empting Groupthink Exclusionary Syndrome.

A first step would be for each and every one of us to commit to leaving any place where others are gathered feeling a little bit more cheerful than when you went in. This is not as difficult as it seems, once one gets into the swing of it. Just imagine the multiplier effect on all-round positivity. Ferneyhoughgeliebte manages it every time he posts on this forum. Anyone advocating this approach, or anything approximating it, would have my vote.

[Dave2002]

I fear that my first step would be to curb reproduction, but it’s not a vote winner.

It doesn’t really matter how much each generation “saves” by recycling at paltry levels if they then reproduce, generating children and grandchildren etc. who are in the first instance not likely to care about the environment, until it’s too late.

It’s not a vote winner. I’m slightly hypocritical, as I/we do have one child, but that’s it.

[oddoneout]

One answer in my view is to stop seeing recycling as the answer. Not so long ago it was third in the list(or 4th in some ) -[Refuse] Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. Then the twin evils of government and targets became involved, and distorted the whole thing. It became OK to create and throw away waste, so long as it was put in the right bins for collection, thus not only perpetuating the whole throw away mind set, but making it even more entrenched - 'My conscience is clear, I make sure I choose recyclable packaging', instead of 'why does this packaging even exist, I neither want nor need it'.
The question of incineration is a knotty one. Modern plants produce energy, and the residue has a variety of uses. Given the current news about microplastic pollution one could argue that incineration of plastic waste is preferable to recycling, which releases more particles into the environment. However, bad experiences from old and/or badly managed plants, coupled with public distrust of the planning and procurement processes around such projects has rather ruled them out of the picture currently. There is also the question about the extent to which such plants requiring a constant stream of fuel drives the demand for(which could be seen as creation of) waste and the diversion of materials suitable for re-use or alternative treatment away from other options. In this country the lack of a coherent national waste management strategy means that intelligent and appropriate solutions are unlikely to happen any time soon. In the meantime you end up with the kind of ridiculous situation we have in my area whereby households a few miles apart have different arrangements for what can be collected(especially with plastic waste) in what sort of container, simply because they are in a different council area, despite the fact that all the recyclables are dealt with at the same central plant. Further complications arise when contracts for specific waste disposal change and so what could be taken to the local tip one month can't the next. It's no wonder that the public tends to disengage at a personal level of responsibility while recognising and bemoaning the global problem but feeling powerless to do anything.

[Serial_Apologist]

I fear that my first step would be to curb reproduction, but it’s not a vote winner.

It doesn’t really matter how much each generation “saves” by recycling at paltry levels if they then reproduce, generating children and grandchildren etc. who are in the first instance not likely to care about the environment, until it’s too late.

It’s not a vote winner. I’m slightly hypocritical, as I/we do have one child, but that’s it.

No one should be criticised for having just one child, under any circumstances or system.

It should not need reminding us that the main reason for having large families in the so-called developing world is to take care of the elderly, but while the absence of social care is clearer to us, the direction in which we are heading here will eventually land us all in a similar situation. Nobody is there to look out for me if and when the situation arises, for example, apart, for the moment, from the authorities' care in mailing me the self-testing arrangements for bowel cancer every two years - which I believe comes to an end in my case this year.

[Serial_Apologist]

One answer in my view is to stop seeing recycling as the answer. Not so long ago it was third in the list(or 4th in some ) -[Refuse] Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. Then the twin evils of government and targets became involved, and distorted the whole thing. It became OK to create and throw away waste, so long as it was put in the right bins for collection, thus not only perpetuating the whole throw away mind set, but making it even more entrenched - 'My conscience is clear, I make sure I choose recyclable packaging', instead of 'why does this packaging even exist, I neither want nor need it'.
The question of incineration is a knotty one. Modern plants produce energy, and the residue has a variety of uses. Given the current news about microplastic pollution one could argue that incineration of plastic waste is preferable to recycling, which releases more particles into the environment. However, bad experiences from old and/or badly managed plants, coupled with public distrust of the planning and procurement processes around such projects has rather ruled them out of the picture currently. There is also the question about the extent to which such plants requiring a constant stream of fuel drives the demand for(which could be seen as creation of) waste and the diversion of materials suitable for re-use or alternative treatment away from other options. In this country the lack of a coherent national waste management strategy means that intelligent and appropriate solutions are unlikely to happen any time soon. In the meantime you end up with the kind of ridiculous situation we have in my area whereby households a few miles apart have different arrangements for what can be collected(especially with plastic waste) in what sort of container, simply because they are in a different council area, despite the fact that all the recyclables are dealt with at the same central plant. Further complications arise when contracts for specific waste disposal change and so what could be taken to the local tip one month can't the next. It's no wonder that the public tends to disengage at a personal level of responsibility while recognising and bemoaning the global problem but feeling powerless to do anything.

There's a lot worth thinking about in what you write, for which thank you, oddoneout. I understand that many waste facilities are in any case now re-uniting separated collectables at the final depot, due to the large incidence of misunderstandings by the public on what goes where rendering the exercise a waste of everybody's time and Council Tax contributions.

[Dave2002]

It should not need reminding us that the main reason for having large families in the so-called developing world is to take care of the elderly, but while the absence of social care is clearer to us, the direction in which we are heading here will eventually land us all in a similar situation. Nobody is there to look out for me if and when the situation arises, for example, apart, for the moment, from the authorities' care in mailing me the self-testing arrangements for bowel cancer every two years - which I believe comes to an end in my case this year.

I'm not so sure that conscious thinking comes into reasons for having large families. That assumes that people can control and have control over their own lives and always act ratioinally.

[oddoneout]

There's a lot worth thinking about in what you write, for which thank you, oddoneout. I understand that many waste facilities are in any case now re-uniting separated collectables at the final depot, due to the large incidence of misunderstandings by the public on what goes where rendering the exercise a waste of everybody's time and Council Tax contributions.

The consequences of the ways different authorities deal with their (potentially) recyclable waste will be apparent fairly quickly now that China is being more selective about what plastic it accepts. My district council has always insisted on a very limited range of plastic waste that can go in the recycling bin and so what they send abroad will be OK for now they say(no I don't quite see how that works with a central sorting plant either - something to do with what contracts are made with post-sorting businesses). In some other council areas within the county where all plastic has been accepted it will include types that the Chinese don't want as they have little value and/or are difficult to process into anything commercially useful, and a rethink will be needed. Good luck in getting that across to already confused and fed-up householders. I personally have never thought that that the single bin arrangement we have in my area is a good thing other than at the lowest expectation level of public compliance. The paper component for instance will inevitably be of poor quality due to contamination from wet and dirty containers. A piece in the paper 'celebrates' one million tonnes of waste being recycled since 2004 - but says nothing about how many million tonnes went to landfill(or, more recently, probably to out-of county incineration) having being rejected by the central sorting plant. It also doesn't address the anomaly that if an authority reduces the amount of waste sent to landfill but doesn't meet it's recycling targets it's deemed to be at fault - in other words throwing stuff away is still the default position rather than preventing/reducing the need for disposal in the first place. That is also the Catch 22 of incineration which demands a certain level of 'fuel' to be consistently available for both the efficient running of the plant but also - and far more important these days - to make the biggest return.

[Lat-Literal]

Deliberate maladministration of these schemes is an abuse of power. Ditto almost every other aspect of party politics and senior management. For every top down led burka wearer who is made to make an intimidating social statement, there is a bloke from Eton with a raging if childish ego who will make hay by making intimidating statements about burka wearers. For every no deal Brexit power wielder with no interest in giving anything, there is a high powered European bureaucrat who is exactly the same, only in reverse. For everyone who would sign up to an anti-semitism code which does not enable Israel to be criticised, there's an Israeli-phobe displaying that no one in power is without a racist scapegoat. To recycle or not?

That would not, as a question, be my priority. I'd like two years of military national service being introduced first for anyone of any age as a prerequisite for standing for high office although not for everyone else. In that sphere, they would be nothing but foot soldiers taking commands from others, before assuming any influential role. I am serious on this. All policy preferences and party political affiliations are now irrelevant. I can now see why my godfather - and uncle - at 50 odd voted Communist and/or National Front. He wasn't right but he wasn't wrong. It has all gone too far. The badges these people wear are cloaks for a desire for clout. They need to be pegged back by an extremist vote to show them who they are.

Actually, there are just two women standing between the current situation in Britain and an anarchy beyond that now in the US - each is extremely imperfect and both are very wobbly. They exhibit what might at one time have been called a manly strength before men lost that characteristic and women acquired the version of modern masculinity that is a dead loss. Male or female, those who govern are so ringing wet they might as well be collectively standing in a power shower with a nuclear bomb as their bar of soap. Time to get rid of them all. Incidentally, equal societies won't occur through mere discussion - the real revolution will occur when via thesis the public is made aware that those in power had poor toilet training.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'd like two years of military national service being introduced first for anyone of any age as a prerequisite for standing for high office although not for everyone else. In that sphere, they would be nothing but foot soldiers taking commands from others, before assuming any influential role. I am serious on this.

They tried that, and it sired the Teddy Boys. You crossed the road and the fingers. You're talking of a different kind of recycling: I remember that era.

[Lat-Literal]

They tried that, and it sired the Teddy Boys. You crossed the road and the fingers. You're talking of a different kind of recycling: I remember that era.

With respect, I don't think it did sire the teddy boys. They were the ones who would never be the movers and shakers. The most they could hope for was a clockwork orange. What we are talking about here is the overly feet-in-slippers since their smugly-privileged childhoods brigades. Whether they think they are Lab, Lib or Tory, they need to have experienced deprivation and no alternative. By law. Preferably with commandants overseeing them who are illogical, unreasonable, full of force and smash them so that they never do seek office.

To further clarify, if someone decides at 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 that they wish to stand for office, that is the time that I would require them to do two years of military national service first : spending 15 minutes at a time getting the lines on their sheets straight before they are ruffled and it has to be done several times again; cleaning a rifle for six hours at a time to barracking, unable to move from the spot; night exercises with blackened faces and rifles shooting blanks; having to clean their boots to perfection otherwise they are thrown back in their faces; and regular slopping out tasks. This was what was required of me in the CCF at 14 and I wasn't intending to stand for office. Let them be required by law to do the same.

[oddoneout]

Whether they think they are Lab, Lib or Tory, they need to have experienced deprivation and no alternative. By law. Preferably with commandants overseeing them who are illogical, unreasonable, full of force

National Service provided food, clothes, shelter - try removing those certainties and see how those wishing to run for public office survive. Much better to make them spend 6 months living in the benefit system, (especially Universal Credit with its 5 week min wait for money), arbitrary money withholding, rent due and facing eviction and homelessness. Something like National Service can be good for some things, but I doubt it does anything to force policy makers to work through the consequences of their decisions and, to get back to the OP topic it is this lack of attention to consequences(often because informed input is rejected if it doesn't fit with the desired and stated policy outcome) and the subsequent rejection of any calls to re-consider that cause so many difficulties in all spheres of people's existence.

[french frank]

I'd like two years of military national service being introduced first for anyone of any age as a prerequisite for standing for high office although not for everyone else. In that sphere, they would be nothing but foot soldiers taking commands from others, before assuming any influential role. I am serious on this.

One tends to see the world through the prism of one's own life experience. I'm not sure that that provides answers to the wider problems.

While we're at it: Is recycling worthwhile? Yes, of course it is. Why is that even being questioned? Ideally, it should be done efficiently, but if it started with everyone at the consumer level doing their bit efficiently (which they don't) and insisting that is was worthwhile, it would put more pressure on suppliers (retailers, manufacturers) and make it easier for those operating the schemes.

À propos-ish, having spent three weeks travelling in France, I said to a friend who has a house in France that I thought the British were very messy and that I'd been struck by how tidy and well kept all the cities that I visited were. She said she thought the French were just as messy but the authorities came and cleared up after them.

[oddoneout]

Is recycling worthwhile? Yes, of course it is. Why is that even being questioned?

Because for me it comes with conditions. As I've already said, when it is seen as the principal and most 'desirable'(whether environmentally or politically)alternative to landfill that can blind to considerations of other aspects of waste management, of which the most important I think is not producing it in the first place. Some of the recycling options are not without questionable costs and benefits, such as shipping waste overseas, use of resources in processing, and so long as virgin material continues to be cheaper than recycled then creating and sustaining markets for recycled material will be problematic.
Recycling is still throwing stuff away, it is not the only answer to dealing with waste. I think it is necessary to keep questioning what is done, how, and why, not least because decisions about waste management in this country seem to be based more on politics, money for favoured contractors, and doing the minimum to comply with external regulatory factors, rather than a desire to find a workable national strategy that can adapt to changing circumstances.