Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2019, 05:07 PM
 
4,795 posts, read 4,806,376 times
Reputation: 7348

Advertisements

Recycling is a myth. most of our recycling is put into shipping containers and sent to China where it goes into a landfill that we can't see so we don't feel so bad about it. The waste disposal company that services the office I work at has now stopped providing separate recycling bins with signs on the trash cans that say all recycling is now separated from trash off site after pick up (yeah right)

Instead of worrying about recycling, people should focus on not buying as much stuff that turns into trash
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2019, 05:10 PM
 
388 posts, read 199,204 times
Reputation: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
One more time folks: plastic straws, packing material, parts of manufactured goods, etc are made from the products of petroleum distillation. We take billions of gallons of oil and crack it in refineries every year to produce much needed fuels and solvents. This releases much more ethane, propane & their congeners than we have use for....What can we do with this excess material?


We can take it and just throw it out, or...we can take it and turn it into plastic,
reduce, reuse? sounds like reuse to me. the devils in the details of course, so while i can imagine a decent liberal retort to this, i dont expect one to come from one of the most laughably superficial parties in written history.

i like those "made from PLANT, a renewable resource" spoons, though theyre useless for hot soup.

devils in the details-- if the plant is corn, youre spraying it with endocrine disrupting pesticides and salamanders and frogs grow extra limbs-- while being sterile. youre also giving cancer to the people applying the pesticides. at that point, id rather it be made from petroleum, eh?

so the devils in the details-- i honestly wish the details mattered to more people. we could have a more honest (or even a meaningful) conversation about it, rather than a world full of stupid, expensive virtue signaling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 05:36 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,181 posts, read 5,033,283 times
Reputation: 17554
Seeing several new names here in this discussion, some facts presented in other similar threads should be repeated here:


A good deal of the sentiment against trash and for recycling has to do with the false impression that landfills pose some sort of problem to the environment. They don't.


Potential problems like leaching of toxins into the surrounding countryside or ground water have been adequately addressed over the last several decades. This is essentially no longer a problem.


Landfills do not take up much space: over the next century, America will pile trash 100 ft deep over 1000 sq mi (total US area 19 Million sq mi) Once filled, these areas will be landscaped and turned into natural area, parks & recreation areas-- recycling on a grand scale, if you will....For comparison, every year 1500 sq mi are lost to development, probably never to be returned again to Nature.


As someone else mentioned above, we're really not in any danger of depleting any natural resource anytime in the next several centuries.


So when we come right down to it, we shouldn't give much consideration to the non-problem of landfills or resource depletion. Recycling should be done strictly for its economic advantages and not for some environmental advantage that exists only in our incorrect fantasies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 05:36 PM
 
Location: New York Area
34,746 posts, read 16,767,477 times
Reputation: 29883
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanms3030 View Post
Recycling is a myth. most of our recycling is put into shipping containers and sent to China where it goes into a landfill that we can't see so we don't feel so bad about it. The waste disposal company that services the office I work at has now stopped providing separate recycling bins with signs on the trash cans that say all recycling is now separated from trash off site after pick up (yeah right)
Not a surprise.I have represented some recycling outfits in bankruptcy court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanms3030 View Post
Instead of worrying about recycling, people should focus on not buying as much stuff that turns into trash
Instead of worrying about recycling, people should not feel guilty about prosperity. See Speed and cell phone laws - Self-Inflicted Drag on Productivity. I argue that is a perennial motivation for useless restrictions and sacrifices that benefit no one. Excerpts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
LOW SPEED LIMITS

******* The NMSL was supposed to be temporary but didn't end until December 1995. I suspect the real motive was a "hair-shirt" mentality; that self-abnegation may feel good for the soul and for the conscience if not for the economy.

CELL PHONE USE RESTRICTIONS

************ But the law makes no distinction between texting, hand-held use of a cell phone for talking or changing a music selection, which is much like changing a radio station. Nobody ever discussed restricting car radios back in the day. Maybe people had more cajones then and wouldn't accept a nanny state.

CONCLUSION

Sensible safety laws are fine. But they should be tailored to allow activities that are safe, and not be used for either "feel-good" expiation of guilt, or to fill localities' coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Juneau, AK + Puna, HI
10,489 posts, read 7,621,430 times
Reputation: 15924
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
... I've no problem with the idea of recycling things, but the onus needs to be targeted on those creating excess packaging and poorly designed products instead of consumers.
Interesting article.

I like your idea, but also think it's helpful for us consumers to be more aware of how much waste we're generating and make an attempt to do less of it.

"..Some places are still trying to get people to buy less. The city of San Francisco, for instance, is trying to get residents to think of a fourth r beyond “reduce, reuse, and recycle”—“refuse.” It wants people to be smarter about what they purchase, avoiding plastic bottles and straws and other disposable goods.."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2019, 10:21 PM
 
1,950 posts, read 1,124,381 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot View Post
Would you get off the large portions! I hardly ever see people take leftovers home and I eat out about once a day. A full grown working man needs fuel.
I'm not sure how many restaurants you own, but across the nation, I own and manage several restaurants and hotels. Large portions - beyond what an average healthy individual should eat in one sitting - are expected. Not everyone is Michael Phelps.

A lot of people take leftovers home. Around 34% of Americans on the east and west coasts (the percentage rises slightly as you go south). Midwest and Southwest are around 56% of Americans.

Interesting fact: Of those who do not take leftovers home, the northeast and northwest tend to allow more food to be thrown away (as in, leaving unfinished plates). The southern states tend to finish their plates more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 05:46 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,181 posts, read 5,033,283 times
Reputation: 17554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Cleric View Post
Interesting article.

I like your idea, but also think it's helpful for us consumers to be more aware of how much waste we're generating and make an attempt to do less of it.

"..Some places are still trying to get people to buy less. The city of San Francisco, for instance, is trying to get residents to think of a fourth r beyond “reduce, reuse, and recycle”—“refuse.” It wants people to be smarter about what they purchase, avoiding plastic bottles and straws and other disposable goods.."

Think of the bigger picture-- web of life:...if we consume less, that means fewer jobs and lower wages which in turn means lower standard of living and all the things that imposes on the Human Condition--- all for the sake of solving the non-problem of landfills.....Good idea?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 07:17 AM
 
Location: New York Area
34,746 posts, read 16,767,477 times
Reputation: 29883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Cleric View Post
Interesting article.

I like your idea, but also think it's helpful for us consumers to be more aware of how much waste we're generating and make an attempt to do less of it.

"..Some places are still trying to get people to buy less. The city of San Francisco, for instance, is trying to get residents to think of a fourth r beyond “reduce, reuse, and recycle”—“refuse.” It wants people to be smarter about what they purchase, avoiding plastic bottles and straws and other disposable goods.."
Will San Francisco be happy with the job losses from "refusing" to purchase? Or the sales tax losses?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 11:30 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,650 posts, read 28,557,937 times
Reputation: 50477
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Think of the bigger picture-- web of life:...if we consume less, that means fewer jobs and lower wages which in turn means lower standard of living and all the things that imposes on the Human Condition--- all for the sake of solving the non-problem of landfills.....Good idea?????
That's the old way of thinking. Jobs. More and more money. Greed. That's what got us into the political mess we're in now. We have been brainwashed by big corporations into thinking that we need to constantly buy more and more and more. Bigger and better. New and improved.

Actually, we should be learning what people have known throughout history: that there's more to life than constantly buying things we don't even need. We need to adjust our values and learn to appreciate other things in life and we would have an overall better quality of life for it. Our families, friends, the outdoors, nature, travel, and so much more. Life should not be about buying things.

And landfills ARE a problem. They can't be swept under the carpet and the junk in them is never going to go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2019, 07:19 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,181 posts, read 5,033,283 times
Reputation: 17554
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
That's the old way of thinking. Jobs. .


A simple lesson in the mathematics of populations: populations grow as long as there is an excess of the factors that allow life: water, air, space, food. Negative factors include disease & predation. Taken together, they allow the population to grow until it reaches the carrying capacity-- the point at which the population stabilizes; death rate = birth rate. One of those factors listed will be the limiting factor-- It makes no matter if you have enough space, water or air for a million if there's only food for 900,000- that'll be the limit.


H. sapiens is a special case: we can live just about anywhere, so space is no problem; the atmosphere is 5 miles thick and we're only 5 ft tall, so air is no problem; water covers 70% of the planet, so water is no problem (work with me here, I'm trying to make a point) and we can produce enough food for everyone and still have half of it to waste-- BUT-- it takes money to BUY the food. Most of us don't produce our own....JOBS are the limiting factor in the carrying capacity for H. sapiens.


Unless you're suggesting we all return to a hunting/gathering lifestyle or to subsistence farming, jobs and therefor profits ARE important.


Back in the 1880s, people weren't using much fossil fuel or any plastics at all. They shivered around a fireplace in winter. The often died if they caught a simple cold. Childbirth was often lethal and few couples enjoyed the survival to adulthood of all their kids. I guess they were greedy to want a better way of living.


BTW-Please give us an example of a problem with a modern landfill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top