When I was growing up Reduce, Reuse, Recycle was the manta that was all over mainstream media. Today, I never hear it anymore, it’s only about recycling.
I always thought Reduce, Reuse, Recycle was the correct order.
Reducing consumption is the best thing you can do, because things don’t need to be made in the first place.
Reuse means something else you may have otherwise bought doesn’t need to get made, which is another big win. I remember my grandpa’s shop growing up was full of old glass baby food jars to organize all his screws and things. Today someone would probably buy a plastic organizer and throw out the plastic baby food containers.
Recycle… something is still getting made. Some of the raw materials might be reused in the process, but it’s questionable how much, and how efficient the whole process is.
From what I’ve read, recycling program and push was paid for by the plastics industry. The hidden agenda was to get the public comfortable with single-use plastics, with the idea that they could be recycled, so it was no big deal. It seems they were amazingly successful in this effort to deceive the public.
Having them be "in order of preference" was always the intention,[0] but over time the other two got de-emphasized by the plastic industry. Reduce and reuse don't make anyone money (except savings for the consumer), but leaked internal industry studies showed that recycling gives people permission to consume more plastic.[1]
Surprisingly, the earliest media I remember calling this out was a chapter from Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men, which came out in _2001_. He provocatively said that in order to be a better environmentalist, he had stopped recycling (gasp!). This strikes me as being quite impressively far ahead of the curve on this issue...
Michael Moore later executive produced a movie about how wind and solar and EVs weren't green, so maybe he's just a sucker for oil propaganda if they wrap it in unconvincing green credentials.
That's unfortunate. I'll give it a watch and a fair shake, but it doesn't sound promising. I'll keep the skeptic hat on, one honed by years of anti-EV propaganda...
There used to be a law in canada that all the beer brands had to use the same bottle, and you paid deposit when you bought the beer, which you got back when you returned them to a bottle place. The bottles were cleaned and re-used multiple times. When the deposit was first introduced it was a reasonably amount and so people would always bring them back, and if they didn't kids would find them and do it for you. Some staggering figure like 90% of beer bottles were re-used. This has changed as the beer bottle requirements got softened, more imports with no re-usable bottles, and the inflation making the deposit worth much much less to the point its not worth it for many to bother with it.
Perfect example of a system that worked really well, but was weakened and was corrupted over time because neglect.
"As of 2015, less than 1% of polypropylene generated was recycled.[57] Heating degrades the carbon backbone more severely than for polyethylene, breaking it into smaller organic molecules, because the methyl side group of PP is susceptible to thermo-oxidative and photo-oxidative degradation."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene
Why would anyone use that figure to argue against expanding clean water access to 100%? Or for rolling that progress backwards.
And if we can't even sort out clean water for a quarter of the globe then it makes sense they're not going to be recycling.
Perhaps more relevantly, nearly half of all global waste is "uncontrolled" so isn't recycled, composted, incinerated or even landfilled (and that's not even accounting for the quality of any of those systems).
So should we give up on landfills, indoor plumbing etc?
It's such a fundamentally stupid talking point, it could only sustained by propaganda.
Here in Zurich we separate PET from other plastic and recycle the PET and incinerate everything else along with household waste to generate electricity and heating. The CO2 is captured (using some amine system) and piped to greenhouses and/or sold to bottlers. I'm not sure how they dispose of the ash.
It's probably not economically profitable but does make things better overall.
Tangential question: is it ok to recycle any PET, or just bottles? Where I'm from, the recycling spots at stores emphasize they're taking bottles only, but PET is used in a lot of other packaging as well. To me it's a no brainer any PET should go to the recycling, but they seem strict about having bottles only.
Forgot to mention... I spent some time working in Dublin and they do something similar. I met an engineer at a party that designs these systems as her job. She's American but lives in Europe where there's demand for this. For some reason Americans are anti-incinerators.
Pretty sure I saw one of these in Luzern? Quite an impressive structure in itself, and seems like a better solution than sticking it all in the ground to pollute the water table.
Belgium had a new plastics recycling factory, which made a big splash this week in the news. Has anybody an idea if this really changes the percentages of theoretically recyclable material if it gets scaled up?
Tl;Dr charge the producers of packaging for what happens to it after use.
They respond almost immediately to that financial incentive by both reducing unnecessary usage but also improving recycling of what is still necessary because it's the second best option after funding cheap propaganda to pass the buck onto others.
Contrast the latest form of that cheap propaganda, which is to point fingers at oil companies for promoting recycling that "can't economically work" with the reality that when their own money is on the line they adopt it rapidly.
Meanwhile America is doing that "Only developed country that is failing to do this claims it's not possible" thing again.
When I was growing up Reduce, Reuse, Recycle was the manta that was all over mainstream media. Today, I never hear it anymore, it’s only about recycling.
I always thought Reduce, Reuse, Recycle was the correct order.
Reducing consumption is the best thing you can do, because things don’t need to be made in the first place.
Reuse means something else you may have otherwise bought doesn’t need to get made, which is another big win. I remember my grandpa’s shop growing up was full of old glass baby food jars to organize all his screws and things. Today someone would probably buy a plastic organizer and throw out the plastic baby food containers.
Recycle… something is still getting made. Some of the raw materials might be reused in the process, but it’s questionable how much, and how efficient the whole process is.
From what I’ve read, recycling program and push was paid for by the plastics industry. The hidden agenda was to get the public comfortable with single-use plastics, with the idea that they could be recycled, so it was no big deal. It seems they were amazingly successful in this effort to deceive the public.
Bingo.
Having them be "in order of preference" was always the intention,[0] but over time the other two got de-emphasized by the plastic industry. Reduce and reuse don't make anyone money (except savings for the consumer), but leaked internal industry studies showed that recycling gives people permission to consume more plastic.[1]
Surprisingly, the earliest media I remember calling this out was a chapter from Michael Moore's book Stupid White Men, which came out in _2001_. He provocatively said that in order to be a better environmentalist, he had stopped recycling (gasp!). This strikes me as being quite impressively far ahead of the curve on this issue...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-pl...
Michael Moore later executive produced a movie about how wind and solar and EVs weren't green, so maybe he's just a sucker for oil propaganda if they wrap it in unconvincing green credentials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans
That's unfortunate. I'll give it a watch and a fair shake, but it doesn't sound promising. I'll keep the skeptic hat on, one honed by years of anti-EV propaganda...
There used to be a law in canada that all the beer brands had to use the same bottle, and you paid deposit when you bought the beer, which you got back when you returned them to a bottle place. The bottles were cleaned and re-used multiple times. When the deposit was first introduced it was a reasonably amount and so people would always bring them back, and if they didn't kids would find them and do it for you. Some staggering figure like 90% of beer bottles were re-used. This has changed as the beer bottle requirements got softened, more imports with no re-usable bottles, and the inflation making the deposit worth much much less to the point its not worth it for many to bother with it.
Perfect example of a system that worked really well, but was weakened and was corrupted over time because neglect.
Plastic is not a material.
Styrofoam doesn't get recycled in practice. But polypropylene and PETE are extremely recyclable.
The type of plastic matters. Anyone who says "10% of plastic" is already worse than wrong. They aren't even talking about the details that matter.
"As of 2015, less than 1% of polypropylene generated was recycled.[57] Heating degrades the carbon backbone more severely than for polyethylene, breaking it into smaller organic molecules, because the methyl side group of PP is susceptible to thermo-oxidative and photo-oxidative degradation." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene
Woops. I seem to have gotten confused.
Polypropylene is the easily reused one that cleans off easily. So I guess that means do reuse these but don't plan on recycling.
In any case, we need to get specific about the different kinds of plastics.
The 10% figure bothers me for other reasons.
Only 75% of people have clean water.
Why would anyone use that figure to argue against expanding clean water access to 100%? Or for rolling that progress backwards.
And if we can't even sort out clean water for a quarter of the globe then it makes sense they're not going to be recycling.
Perhaps more relevantly, nearly half of all global waste is "uncontrolled" so isn't recycled, composted, incinerated or even landfilled (and that's not even accounting for the quality of any of those systems).
So should we give up on landfills, indoor plumbing etc?
It's such a fundamentally stupid talking point, it could only sustained by propaganda.
Here in Zurich we separate PET from other plastic and recycle the PET and incinerate everything else along with household waste to generate electricity and heating. The CO2 is captured (using some amine system) and piped to greenhouses and/or sold to bottlers. I'm not sure how they dispose of the ash.
It's probably not economically profitable but does make things better overall.
Tangential question: is it ok to recycle any PET, or just bottles? Where I'm from, the recycling spots at stores emphasize they're taking bottles only, but PET is used in a lot of other packaging as well. To me it's a no brainer any PET should go to the recycling, but they seem strict about having bottles only.
Forgot to mention... I spent some time working in Dublin and they do something similar. I met an engineer at a party that designs these systems as her job. She's American but lives in Europe where there's demand for this. For some reason Americans are anti-incinerators.
Pretty sure I saw one of these in Luzern? Quite an impressive structure in itself, and seems like a better solution than sticking it all in the ground to pollute the water table.
If you go far enough into the countryside here it come full circle; I had a neighbor try to burn scrap LVP flooring
Copenhagen has something similar.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amager_Bakke
Should be a "Plastic" in the headline. Lots of other products recycle very efficiently. Lead acid batteries have a >99% recycling rate, for instance.
Belgium had a new plastics recycling factory, which made a big splash this week in the news. Has anybody an idea if this really changes the percentages of theoretically recyclable material if it gets scaled up?
https://www.belganewsagency.eu/new-plastic-recycling-facilit...
(Of course, recycling will still be the worst option.)
A couple of UK focused nerd YouTubers pushing back on this narrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOtrvBdRx8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuwaOiTHl7U
Tl;Dr charge the producers of packaging for what happens to it after use.
They respond almost immediately to that financial incentive by both reducing unnecessary usage but also improving recycling of what is still necessary because it's the second best option after funding cheap propaganda to pass the buck onto others.
Contrast the latest form of that cheap propaganda, which is to point fingers at oil companies for promoting recycling that "can't economically work" with the reality that when their own money is on the line they adopt it rapidly.
Meanwhile America is doing that "Only developed country that is failing to do this claims it's not possible" thing again.
Thank you for sharing those Youtube links, they are very informative!
Reduce, Reuse, Rinse & Recycle would have helped too.
[dead]