Mtn, you totally can vote for all of that! Vote with your dollars. Buy only the products that meet those specs. In cases like this, it's important to recognize the role that we all play, every day.

Interesting case in point, look at what's happening to crap-ola overprocessed foods. Companies are dropping them. There was a story from Target last week, and they are getting rid of those foods, carrying fewer of them, and moving them to less prominent locations on the shelves. The consumers have spoken, and most of us don't want that junk anymore.

Busy, if you were a gardener you'd be singing a different compost tune. We live in the middle of the city and have been composting since 1985. We're fortunate to have a corner of the yard where the bins are pretty much tucked away from view. There's no odor. We do have the occasional raccoon visitor, but we'd have them regardless of the compost bins.

i do like to garden, but have never had too much space to grow veggies... just enough space for a few different veggies-- I might have gotten the compost bug if I had had a larger veggie space like you do!! (our current location doesn't have the deer problem we had previously, but the darned rabbits are going to drive me crazy! have a list of things I will do differently next season!)

anyway, I just came in from being out with the dogs and think it's rather ironic that I bag (in plastic) and throw away a ridiculous amount of dog poop every week...!!!

total aside ....

Cindymac, how beautiful! I think I have seen the cottage before, but don't recall the garden, and I am bad and putting screennames with houses!

Wow... that guy comes across as a bigger jerk than I do...!

As soon as you see someone compare recycling to flights to Europe, you know it's someone to whom listening is a waste of time. At best it's apples to oranges. It ONLY compares the CO2 outputs and conveniently ignores every other aspect of the issue. And that is only for those who do fly to Europe, and... that carbon exchange comparison is even further conflated by assuming a person would (or could) decide not to travel! It's contrived nonsense meant to distract from the real issues.

This is a worse example for capitalism than George W. admonishing people to take their tax rebates and spend them on products that were made in China!

Maybe they aren't selling enough magazines so they drag up someone willing to write controversy for the sake of controversy itself.

My very well-read researcher-type DS has been saying this for years, but I still recycle and it would be very hard for me to stop. I just can't help but believe it's beneficial.

And apropos to nothing really, I'm quite certain that we lived in the neighborhood Teirney referred to in VA built next to a landfill (his description fit perfectly). It was a newer, very large upper end development and the landfill was so far away from us that it was a non-issue. We've been gone for years now but visited a couple of years ago and noted that a section of the development now butts up against the landfill. They have done an excellent job with this l/fill but when the wind blows in a particular direction these homes know it. I don't envy them when it comes time to sell.

I really wish plastic would be replaced with something more biodegradable. It's so disheartening to go to remote beaches in the world and find SO much plastic on the beaches and in the water.

Just googled and saw that only 10 states have bottle deposits. I would be curious to know whether recycling rates are higher in those states than the others.

Every month I get 25.00 or close to it for the recyclables I turn in. That is from my parents and my home. I buy plants with it to beautify the garden. We put the rest of the recycling out in the city pickup bin. I wish more food came in glass. Glass is healthier than plastic but costs more to ship. You only need 10 percent new glass added to the old glass to make a new container. I like the look of glass. I like any material that goes back to the ground and does not pollute later. The thing I would like less of is Styrofoam food containers.

Kittymoonbeam,

It is banned in some places, in NYC the ban was just overturned.

This news story is a good example of the potential hazards of landfills, including the so-called "safe", lined ones of modern times . It isn't simply a matter of putting trash in the ground, burying it, and forgetting it, even if you plop a park over it. Garbage is full of potentially troublesome substances which, once buried and virtually out of reach, can have complex interactions for a very long time afterward.

We have a small garden and also just started composting because we realized if we did that, we would hardly have any trash at all. We definitely have less. DH has gotten into gardening, composting, and now wants a rainbarrel and a greenhouse. Yay! Whoever said they don't have a lot of space, you can use pots and raised boxes/beds. Although we were laughing over what we spent in cedar boxes, soil, plants, and pots to grow our own vegetables and herbs. We could buy a lot of cilantro, etc.

Our neighborhood seems to be pretty good about recycling, but I read that overall in our city it is only something like 33%.

Just watched the cbs video with tierney. He makes the point about plastics and carbon offsets and about "safely" burying plastic back into the earth. Unfortunately carbon isn't the only way that plastic pollutes and much of it does not end up safely back in the ground. If recycling gets plastic into an appropriate waste stream, then that alone makes it worthwhile.

I live in Ontario, in a city that is extreme about recycling. It's a bit of a chore, because aside from our regular bins for recycling glass containers, cans, plastics and paper, and our organic waste bin (food remains, diapers, hygiene products, dog fur, etc.) we also have to sort multiple other things that will not be picked up, if they are found in your garbage bin.

We must put aside containers with any trace of chemicals (empty paint/oil/hairspray cans, etc.) to go to a separate recycling depot. Then there's another separation for any kind of battery disposal, and another one for disposal of anything with an electric cord. All wood and household construction remains go to yet another depot.

None of these items are picked up, one has to take them personally to the various recycle depots that process them. So it's kind of time consuming to keep up with all the separating and only put out one can of garbage every two weeks. (Recycling gets picked up every week.

However, my brother is a partner in the environmental engineering firm that assessed the toxicity of the Love Canal, if any of you remember that. It was the real life tragedy of people in Niagara Falls, NY, who bought homes in a development built on top of a filled in canal, which was once used to dump chemical waste. It was basically a real life comparison of the fictitious 'Erin Brockovich' movie made years later, depicting a town with a similar scenario.

After learning of the tragic deaths from cancer, leukemia and birth defects suffered by those who lived in Love Canal, on top of an old landfill, I have always been scared to death to ever trust that living near a landfill, let alone on top of an old one, could ever be considered safe.

pickyshopper - I worked on Love Canal and Times Beach (Missouri) environmental investigations. I also worked on investigations of Pacific Gas and Electric Company sites in California, not the one that was the subject of the Erin Brockovich movie. However, Erin is a real person, as was the PG&E site depicted in the movie. Some details in the movie may have been fictitious, but the story is sadly mostly true. More than 1,700 sites were put on the U.S. National Priorities List for investigation and clean up since 1982. Yes, even municipal landfills have been known to have problems.ETA: Even in communities with curbside recycling, multi-family housing complexes are not always included. MFH residents seldom have capacity for storing recyclables. Therein lies some of the reason why recycling percentages are not higher.

Oaktown, re: deposits. One thing that I notice when I visit my family in NY state is that there is very little trash because people do turn in the bottles and cans for recycling. Even water bottles have to be recycled. So, it's all soda cans and bottles, beer cans and bottles, and water bottles. Wine bottles are recycled. Here, all of that would be recycled, and we see a lot more trash.

Re bottle deposits: We have them here (of course!) and you hardly ever see a container as litter along the road. Collecting containers from trash and roadsides serves as a source of income for those just scraping by. During the recession, in particular, our neighborhood had folks going through our recycle bins put out for morning collection during the night, looking for items to turn into cash.

Re municipal landfills: you bet they have problems. I did some work not long ago for an older, unlined relic that is still getting re-permitted because there is no feasible alternative site left here in the Bay Area. This is despite a known toxic plume heading into the brackish marsh that surrounds it on three sides (they sure knew how to pick sites in the old days -- invariably the most ecologically-sensitive areas that could have been chosen!). Instead, permits to operate continue to be issued based on wistful hopes of "mitigating" the toxic plume. The project I was involved with was to try to use phytoremediation (pollution uptake by plants) to intercept the plume, partially in lieu of the pumping system being used.

Delilah, yes I know Erin Brockovich is a real woman, I've seen her speak many times. I was also aware that the movie was based on a real case, but I realize now that my sentence "It was basically a real life comparison of the fictitious 'Erin Brockovich' movie made years later, depicting a town with a similar scenario." (trying to describe the Love Canal situation) clearly was misleading, as it does infer I'm saying the whole movie is fictitious, which it most definitely is not.

I should have said 'The movie "Erin Brockovich' based on a real life event...' as the crux of the movie is true, it simply incorporates some fictitious elements that don't affect the truth of the story, as is common to most 'based on a real event' movies. Thank you for clarifying that, as I certainly didn't express it correctly!

soon after I moved to this area we had two separate collections. we got a plastic "sack" from the city for recyclables and a green bin for garbage, I also proudly composted. a few years later we had "single bin recycling" so garbage went in bags in the bin, and recyclables were loose and it all went to a recycling plant for sorting which seemed like double handling to me. Eventually I learned that the recycling plant went out of business and it was all going to landfill anyway.

recently we got 3 bins, 1 garbage, a larger for recyclables (although the very specific list from the city was confusing), and one for green waste (garden waste). I sort my rubbish as best I can but I am paying extra for all these bins (compulsory) and really have no idea if it is going where they tell me (since they didn't announce the former system was defunct and going to landfill). I don't judge anyone who doesn't recycle since ive become a bit of a cynic from all this, but as long as everything is being made in china and "disposable" e.g. appliances we used to take for repair but is now cheaper to just buy new, then I don't hold out much hope. we ARE a disposable society whether we like it or not. manufacturing needs to be overhauled so that cheap chinese imports are no longer the only/cheapest option.

much has changed over the years and we wonder why there is so much waste???? we need to get back to how things were done in previous generations. (people here used to dig a hole and bury glass bottles etc because there just wasn't the huge amount of waste being produced and there were no garbage collections either.)

I have not read the thread, but on a similar note, let me ask this: do you carry your own grocery bags into the store when shopping? I read today that those that do tend to buy more junk food, which puzzled me. We carry reusable grocery bags, bought at our favorite stores: Whole Foods, Market Basket, Stop and Shop and Trader Joe's. We are shameless about which bag we carry into any particular store. I was shocked to read this and find it hard to believe:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/plastic-bag-reusable-junk-food/398372/

We do recycle. We have curbside pick-up by trucks with "lifers". We are allowed one "trash can" per week without incurring extra charges. We can use unlimited recycle containers curbside. Oh, and we have a compost bin, provided by our DPW for organic waste-yes we use it! I once saw a show on Discovery about what plastic waste does to our ecosystem.

that's so odd... !? I would question it too!

This is the kinda stuff that turns people against recycling

Implying that .0000001% smaller cap will save the world from plastic invasion. Insulting and hypocritical

My head has exploded. I can't believe that an opinion of recycling not being economically viable is a reason not to do it. Kind of like throwing away your pennies because on their own they're not going to buy you much.

In Oregon, particularly in the NW portion of the state where I reside, recycling is done by everyone. We've got once a week garbage and compost pick up and bi-weekly recycling pick up. Toss everything that is not compostable into the 64 gal wheeled bin and the trash haulers do the rest. Seperate trucks come by so there is no cross dumping. We can recycle virtually every single thing you can imagine-a lot curbside and even more if you go to a sponsored event or to the transfer stations.

Many public events and places have special recycling bins for different types of waste, and it's actually kind of neat to see the actual trash bins have far less in them than the properly sorted recycling bins.

We do have a stringent Bottle Bill-in was recently expanded to include plastic water bottles-you must pay a 5 cent deposit and there are now bottle redemption centers springing up all over-you can even have an account where when you drop them off, they will sort and deposit the money into an account for you.

Backyard composting is quite common, and many people also recycle their gray water and capture roof run off to use for irrigation. And we're in a rainy region too! I guess living in an area that is quite 'green' both by nature and economy, it's just unacceptable to not be a responsible steward of our limited natural resources.

I've worked with projects involving land fills-both reclaiming and expanding. It's not pretty by any means, and they fill up VERY fast. Reclaiming them is not an easy task.

I suppose if you're in an area that doesn't have the stringent land use laws and environmental laws we have here in the PNW, then it would seem to be a waste of time and energy to try to reduce our carbon footprint, but when the last wetland is gone and the last tree is cut down to make way for more sprawl-you won't be able to have the taxpayers bail you out from when Mother Nature has her hissy fits.

(OK, I now step down from my soapbox)

I think recycling has a long way to go before it becomes viable enough that it truly works and captures much of our waste. If you read my post a few above yours neetsiepie, I thought my city had a good recycling program (they have sent out enough colour brochures over the years touting how much waste is saved from landfill - that in itself is ironic) but it turned out the recycling plant that had the contract couldn't make it work and so the trucks just went back to taking it all to landfill without saying a word about it. I think if people truly believed there was a market for recyclables and processing them could be cost and energy efficient, it would be hard to argue but I suspect the energy required to collect, sort, process recyclables is much greater than using new materials and I think that is a part of the problem that I can see. Eventually when raw materials become scarce enough, then it likely will become viable.

"but when the last wetland is gone and the last tree is cut down to make
way for more sprawl-you won't be able to have the taxpayers bail you out
from when Mother Nature has her hissy fits."

this statement confuses me, Im assuming by sprawl you mean urban sprawl, not sure how recycling will prevent that since it is a whole other issue which honestly, has a logical answer that no one wants to touch with a barge pole, and until people are ready to address the elephant in the room, you can bet eventually all those things will inevitably be lost, IMO not because people don't recycle and not because people don't care, they just don't care enough to accept big life altering sacrifices as the price to pay. It's always a case of postponing the difficult choices, and let future generations deal with it, and I tend to believe until we are absolutely forced by circumstance to change to save the environment for our own survival, then it isn't going to happen. I just think thats the sad reality of the human mindset, but I also accept it and see it as the way it has to be.

I find the entire PC save the world, global warming, recycling thing a great idea but as usual with USA no follow through. While that crew is pushing their agenda..we have products being pushed that have INCREASED our garbage. Bathroom wipes, disposable bathroom towels, use once and flush toilet cleaners, plastic vs paper grocery sacks, WATER in bottles on and on.

I live in an area of California that is very recycling conscious. We have recycling and yard waste/compost pickups, bottle/can redemption tax and a plastic bag ban (BYOB or pay for paper). But, we are encouraged to keep a cache of water in plastic bottles in case of earthquakes. Plastic because it is less likely to break. Bottles rather than tanks so it's less likely that contamination will ruin your whole supply. Even then it doesn't keep indefinitely, so you are supposed to use and replenish regularly :-P

One of the good things about our mixed materials curbside collection bins is that the workers at the transfer station don't have to stand in piles of garbage to retrieve the valuable recyclable materials. I remember when they did because the city wanted those materials. Now they stand at a conveyor belt and sort out glass, plastic and aluminum and cardboard with less exposure to needles and diapers, etc. This is mainly why I sort and bring in my materials myself. It's not for the 25 dollars. At least at the recycling center the materials are pretty clean and there isn't the smell of trash and truck exhaust. I go there to support the jobs of the guys that weigh the items and keep it clean. I know most of the stuff isn't going to the landfill as it might at the transfer station. The rest goes in the city bin but probably they just pick out the cardboard and bundled paper along with some metals and plastics and let the rest get thrown in with what the trash trucks take away.

Oaktown, my solution to the earthquake water supply is to give away my supply every so often--kids team parties, Halloween trick or treaters get water as well as goodies at my house, etc. Then I restock. Not perfect, but seems like the best I can figure out.

It's always a case of postponing the difficult choices, and let future generations deal with it, and I tend to believe until we are absolutely forced by circumstance to change to save the environment for our own survival, then it isn't going to happen. I just think thats the sad reality of the human mindset, but I also accept it and see it as the way it has to be.

I think this is an overly pessimistic assessment. Many actions have taken place since the 1960s that forced people to change their ways before an absolute brink was reached and also made huge differences. Naming a few off the top of my head: Clean Air and Water Acts, Endangered Species Act, and the Montreal Protocol (to reverse stratospheric ozone depletion; read here about what a success that was). Policy nudges, new technology, patience with the incremental changes needed to "ooze" into new modes of thinking, and super-phenomena like Ralph Nader all play parts.

Even the much-maligned mega-corporations, always looking forward for advantage, tend to want to jump in before we get to the brink (as they did for the Clean Air Act, etc.). Already insurance companies, and others, are assessing the impact of more violent storms, rising sea levels, etc. due to global warming and "suddenly" carbon taxes have gained a wider following. Even Exxon-Mobil, after decades of ads on the lower-right-hand section of the NY Times op-ed page that denied the existence of climate change, finally threw in the towel a few years ago (almost choked on my toast that morning! couldn't believe it!). That was after British Petroleum started funding alternative energy projects... Exxon-Mobil finally saw some potentially profitable ventures in that direction and dropped the charade.

It often is one step forward, two back (as Arcy notes, there seem to be a ton of new wasteful products even as others have worked feverishly to reduce waste in packaging...), but when one compares the overall state of things now versus the 1960s, there has been progress, despite the terrible burden created by exponential human population increase. The Cuyahoga River no longer regularly catches on fire, for one thing. Recycling will find its way.

catspa I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic, realistically pessimistic I do agree. Yes there have been changes but I feel all they are achieving is postponing things, they don't really address the real problems, so you and I might be ok, but future generations will still have bigger issues to deal with than we have now. with all these laws and acts, I doubt our air and water are cleaner overall than they were in the 60s, so all it has done is slow things down to keep them to a tolerable level a bit longer.

We also have more endangered species, loss of habitat and more obvious environmental and climate issues than ever, so I don't see how things have improved and that is my point. It's not that I'm against these things but I just don't think anything is truly improving and as mentioned, there are more disposable products now than ever, which counteracts a lot of the recycling and waste reduction effort in place. whether someone recycles or chooses not to use all these disposables available, who really knows what would make the bigger difference. The fact these products are becoming more pervasive just shows we are not even close to a point of really understanding how bad things may become.

I think govts choose to pick the easier problems to address to appear as if they are doing something vital but not make them too unpopular, while more problems just keep festering and even during my lifetime I've seen things change dramatically for the worse, I don't see the bigger picture getting better at this stage, and even with recycling I don't think it will truly be viable (i.e. have a huge commercial market and the costs to reuse the materials competitive) until the raw materials start running out and becoming too expensive for manufacturers to use. Even then, recycling will only slow down the rate at which materials are lost but it isn't going to solve all the other problems, that will be up to people who likely haven't even been born yet and by then, I'm sure there will be much bigger problems than there are now.

Like I said, Im not against these things, but I don't think plugging holes in a leaky boat the way we do is achieving anything solid apart from postponing certain things (like manufacturers running out of materials for production), meanwhile our climates go to hell and we keep counting how many more species have become extinct from habitat loss while feeling good about the fact that we recycle - and I still believe this is because we know we aren't going to be the ones who will really have to deal with the ultimate consequences, life is still good and plentiful right now.

And the alternatives are, trancegemini?

First, environmental conditions in the U.S. are demonstrably better than in the 1960s. A few examples: Nowadays, people living in Los Angeles can actually see that they are surrounded by mountains. When my husband was growing up in the suburb of Claremont there in the 1960s, you wouldn't even know that Mt. Baldy towered over the town because the smog was so prevalent and thick that no mountain could be seen, save for a few days in winter when the smog would clear. Around Seattle, Lake Washington used to be known as "Lake Stinko" and was virtually ecologically dead by the early 1960s. It is now a cleaner, functioning lake (see that story here). You could find literally a million such examples across the U.S., I bet: wetlands and other habitats saved, preserved, and restored and species that were trending to extinction on the way to recovery (peregrine falcons, bald eagles, brown pelicans, etc.).

In general, despite a burgeoning population, we are inflicting new damage at a lower rate than previous generations, at least, and making some progress on fixing some of the old damage. It doesn't happen overnight and has taken a lot of work, both volunteer and paid. Unfortunately, the U.S. has incidentally reduced some of its pollution burdens by offshoring some of the dirtiest industries (for economic reasons) to other countries with fewer environmental regulations, something that is coming to a reckoning, sooner or later.

Governments tread carefully because they must. Truth be told, the fundamental or ultimate source of environmental woes is the exponential explosion of human population that began with the Industrial Revolution, really took off after WWII, and is still surging today (we have apparently not hit the "carrying capacity" for humans yet on Earth, and it will not be pretty if we do). Forcing people to not reproduce, however, is not a popular solution (that's an understatement!) and has only been implemented in one country: China. Equally unpopular would be forcing people, "at gunpoint", to live at much lower standards of living than those to which they are accustomed. Capitalism, unfortunately, seems to thrive on selling people things that are not only unnecessary but harmful on many levels, but wiping out capitalism would be a political non-starter in much of the world. Without those options on the table, only persuasion, education, and gradual policy change based on the majority's willingness remain, as slow and unsatisfactory as they seem to be.

So, yes, there is reason for pessimism, but I don't see other pathways that are feasible, and from past experience, it is possible to make great progress by incremental change. Things would be much, much worse now if not for the Clean Air and Water Acts, etc. Even if recycling doesn't yet pencil out everywhere on a cost-benefit basis, it still serves to create awareness of what is actually being consumed and to instill an ethic of conservation. These are critical foundations for future steps.

Excellent video Cindy!

It's always good to get perspective. After knowing a bit of history we can begin to understand how pernicious the special interest efforts to derail recycling and other environmental policies!

People like the guy who wrote the originally discussed article is only given a soap box because he represents corporate interests to subtly affect public opinion. When we aren't told the whole truth, nor do we know where we've been, we can be led anywhere the smooth-tongued want to lead.

Capitalism, unfortunately, seems to thrive on selling people things that are not only unnecessary but harmful on many levels, but wiping out capitalism would be a political non-starter in much of the world.

A bit of an aside, and I am guessing you are not actually advising "wiping out" capitalism, but your phraseology makes it sound as though it is imposed on people, rather than selected by people, and even fought for. You get the government you deserve.

I think anybody over 40 (at least if they are paying attention) realizes that we all spend a lot of resources on things that are "unnecessary", but the demand for the "unnecessary" seems to pop up pretty organically in civilizations of all kinds, throughout the world and throughout time. Getting rid of capitalism isn't going to change that per se.

There are a lot of ways within capitalism to change behavior by actually adding to the costs of consumption and disposal, as a means of capturing the externalities, like pollution, that otherwise are not explicitly priced and hence influence behavior less That is the direction we are headed and makes the most sense.

In your zeal for capitalism, I think you've over-parsed what I've written, there, MtnRdRedux. I'm not "advising" any of the pathways mentioned in that paragraph. My implication was that they are ALL not something governments would be able to do long-term and survive (you may have noticed that China has begun loosening their reproduction restrictions...).

I agree that capturing externalities is the way we are likely to go in the future. Now, if the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street Journal editorial board, and their ilk would stop yammering about how enacting policies embracing those principles will lead to the total destruction of our economy every time they are proposed or even hinted at (they won't, because capitalism works), we could get there faster.

Yeah, the demand for unnecessary stuff is a given throughout history, but more recently extra-amplified by modern media. I've spent a lot of time, to no avail, trying to figure out why a 1200 sq. ft. house was fine for raising an entire, average-sized family in the 1950's but 2600 sq. ft. (or larger!) seems to be considered the rock-bottom minimum these days. Odd.

I've spent a lot of time, to no avail, trying to figure out why a 1200
sq. ft. house was fine for raising an entire, average-sized family in
the 1950's but 2600 sq. ft. (or larger!) seems to be considered the
rock-bottom minimum these days. Odd.

Yes, very odd. In the 60s we were a family of 4 living in 1200 sf. I don't think that included the basement ... half of which was finished. There was only 1 bathroom. That was enough.

When dh & I bought our house in 1981 it was just under 1200 sf. We never had kids, so it was easy to feel comfortable here. Added 500 sf 8 years ago. It feels so spacious now, but we've come to realize we use about the same amount of space as we did before the addition ... just in a different way. I would never be comfortable in a bigger house.

"Forcing people to not reproduce, however, is not a popular solution
(that's an understatement!) and has only been implemented in one
country: China. Equally unpopular would be forcing people, "at
gunpoint", to live at much lower standards of living than those to which
they are accustomed."

That's my point, people want what they want and to force them to do these things would be political suicide but for now we are ok, and it won't be us who has to live in a world with 15 billion, 30 billion or 50 billion other people and dwindling resources doing it tough.

mtnredux made this comment above which no one even commented on: it is convenient for "Big Business * to misdirect the conversation so
that we all focus on rinsing cans and sorting plastics by illegible
stamped numbers, rather than admit that we are a drop in the bucket
compared to the real progress they could make.

I totally agree with that and govts use this redirecting of responsibility to take the onus off industry who have the power to alter the waste being generated in the first place. If you put the responsibility on the general population, it gives them a sense of being in control, of "doing something" and helping the planet but it's a feelgood smokescreen and industry continues to carry on as usual with no one pressuring them to reduce the waste at the production level. While we are feeling good about doing our bit, the real issues get ignored because we aren't even looking in that direction so it may be more of a disadvantage to get distracted like this.

btw catspa, I have to pay a yearly extra fee for my compulsory recycling. I do sort my waste but Im under no illusion that it is saving the planet. I've seen my own govt use these same tactics with other issues as well and it works beautifully to let govts and industry off the hook and usually ends up with people pointing blaming fingers at their neighbours for "doing the wrong thing", when it shouldn't have been their responsibility in the first place but it's surprisingly easy to spin certain issues and convince the masses that by doing x they are a better person for it, even if it's illogical and unlikely to make much difference in the scheme of things or even the best way to go about it.

mtnredux made this comment above which no one even commented on: it is convenient for "Big Business * to misdirect the conversation so that we all focus on rinsing cans and sorting plastics by illegible stamped numbers, rather than admit that we are a drop in the bucket compared to the real progress they could make.

I did let that slide by (having to go to work!), but will comment now. First of all, not exactly a "drop in the bucket". Two decades ago, 94% of generated solid waste in the U.S. as a whole went to the landfill; these days (as of 2011) just 50%, and this is what California has achieved, too -- now we're shooting for just 25% to the landfill. (See the EPA report here.) This sort of progress was accomplished not only by the so-called "drop in the bucket" stuff of individual household recycling but also the economics-inspired actions of businesses who have been faced with the ever-increasing "tipping fees" imposed by landfills (which may be either government- or privately-run). Since, as the EPA states, EVERY landfill will eventually leak, including modern ones being built with state-of-the-art technology, reducing the number of municipal landfills is no small matter for the environment.

As noted by this 2014 study in Sustainability, the rate of total municipal solid waste increase in the U.S. has lagged well behind the rate of increase of industrial production (expressed as an "index", for reasons described in the paper, see graph here), indicating that "Big Business" -- or somebody -- must be doing something to reduce waste. Part of this, as I mentioned in an earlier post, is no doubt due to practice of offshoring some of the dirtier industries, and even some of the actual waste ("ship it to Mexico -- they will love our garbage!"), because of economic sanctions, government and otherwise, targeted toward reducing waste here in the U.S. California, for one, has actively set up diversions for construction waste, which is 50% of all industrial waste. There are specific sites where concrete, wood, and other debris generated by construction and demolition are recycled.

In any case, casually sloughing off one's personal responsibility to conserve and avoid doing harm because some nebulous "big business" entity should be doing more just doesn't wash with me (and, believe me, I am no friend of large corporations). We are all in this together, and even I, adamant skeptic of all corporate activities, believe that they can be, and are, motivated by the same incentives we all are: cutting costs and, even, sometimes, "doing the right thing" (good ad copy there, at least!). The idea that it is acceptable to palm off your waste and toxins on economically-desperate populations, because you can afford to do that, is particularly repugnant. There's a long, nasty, and even racist, history of doing that in the U.S. which should not be continued.

If you want a strategy in lieu of personally bothersome recycling, my husband has suggested that perhaps we should be required to be the personal, lifetime stewards of the plastic we purchase. That is at least as long as a given piece of plastic will persist, especially if it is buried in a landfill. THAT requirement would probably cut the generation of plastic waste very abruptly.

We also pay a recycling fee here, trancegemini, which was recently increased by 30% or so to cover actual costs of the program (ouch). As far as "saving the planet", I can only point to progress and actions here in the U.S., which do seem to be working (which is good, since we generate more waste, per capita, than anybody), with some things still needing to be fixed.

But, if the "masses" don't participate, too, then how does the work get done? Who else would force "big business" in the right direction? Public opinion, and action, does count, eventually, though the pace can seem glacial. Simply sitting around being cynical about the tendency of corporations to want to avoid responsibility for as long as possible (lots to be cynical about there, no doubt!), doesn't seem the best path to me.

"If you want a strategy in lieu of personally bothersome recycling,"

I never said I find it bothersome, but I don't believe it should be revered as some massive movement that will save the planet. I think we should be honest and realistic about what it is going to achieve and what the costs are, there is nothing wrong with that IMO.

"Two decades ago, 94% of generated solid waste in the U.S. as a whole
went to the landfill; these days (as of 2011) just 50%, and this is what
California has achieved -- now we're shooting for just 25% to the
landfill."

unless the same level of waste is being generated now than there was 20 years ago, talking in percentages is comparing apples to oranges since 94% of 10lbs is still less than 50% of 20lbs. Using information like percentages is often a way in which statistics get skewed to sound impressive, when the reality may be there has been little actual reduction if the overall waste has increased a lot.

You also have to do more than keep waste out of landfill, if it is just being stockpiled at recycling facilities with no end market then it's not achieving much either in terms of reduction, and can become a different environmental risk. I know of at least 3 recycling plants local to me that have caught fire at different times over the years (lots of paper, cardboard, plastic burning can't be good for the environment and they often keep burning until all the fuel is gone).

"Who else would force "big business" in the right direction?"

governments have the power to legislate big business in the right direction, but govts tend to not like getting big business off side, it's much less problematic to convince the general public that *they* are the ones generating the waste and it is their responsibility. meanwhile, big business comes up with ridiculous gestures such as the plastic cap posted above.

" Simply sitting around being cynical about the tendency of corporations to want to avoid responsibility for as long as possible (lots to be cynical about there, no doubt!), doesn't seem the best path to me."

I feel that as long as the consumer is accepting the responsibility and convinced it is making some massive change to the state of things, there is no impetus to pressure big business to make substantial changes. That is one of the dangers IMO and I suspect it is by design. why else would various govts around the world embark on ill conceived recycling programs before figuring out the finer details? e.g. is it cost/energy effective, is there a decent market for the recyclables etc.

Well, all I can say, trancegemini, is that there is no free lunch. One can focus, as the OP did, on the fact that recycling and/or diversion doesn't pencil out for many items (though it does for some) while ignoring the costs of building, maintaining, and mitigating landfills that may be leaching pollutants for at least several lifetimes, no matter how "good" modern landfill technology is or how "willing" impoverished populations are to accept the garbage.

However, no matter what pathway "big business" chooses or is forced to take, it will have a cost that everyone will pay, either directly or indirectly. So, choose what you want "big business" to do: Sell only in bulk (tell consumers to bring their own containers)? Cease the use of plastic and glass and sell only in containers that biodegrade quickly? Cease all construction and resource extraction and use only materials already on hand? Come up with better technology for materials and/or disposal? Or? Every path has its price and problems, whether it is the cost of re-using materials or coming up with alternative materials and processes.

Plus, consumer demand does generate the waste, so, yes, all of us consumers do own a share of the problem along with the businesses that create it, at our request. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that they are making a "massive" change, but it does make most people happy to "pitch in", no matter what it is, and feel they are making some contribution. A manifestation of that is that volunteer environmental clean-up projects around here are very popular and well-attended. After all, it was "we" (communally) who left that trash lying around.

Don't forget that "big business" has to pay costs for disposal or diversion, too, so they can be as motivated as the "masses" when a process becomes too pricey. The delays in making improvements in waste center on the difficulty in finding viable alternatives for complex problems. (Though, it certainly is true that, over here at least, the favorite initial strategy of corporations seems to be to whine about EPA or other regulations and lobby to evade or overturn them. Nevertheless, fundamental anti-pollution laws have stayed in place and have even been improved to some extent.)

At 61 years old, I have seen many environmental improvements on many fronts during my lifetime that were the result of legislation and, with that perspective, I remain hopeful. This despite having a rather depressing profession, being a restoration ecologist in the San Francisco Bay Area and looking at ecosystems broken beyond real repair every single day (that would be the vast majority of them here), not to mention superfund sites. Even so, things are better than they were!

"So, choose what you want "big business" to do: Sell only in bulk (tell consumers to bring their own containers)?"

Actually this option is very doable and would remove a whole lot of waste from the stream if it was implemented in some product areas. I already do this with my cleaning supplies (e.g. hand wash, dish liquid, general purpose cleaner, laundry detergent, occasionally window cleaner and carpet shampoo etc). I buy it from a local cleaning supply company who only sell in larger containers and it's a small inconvenience to decant my dish liquid or whatever from the bulk container when the bottle is empty. They also use a deposit system.

Big business would not take this on willingly, but it's certainly a very doable option moving across to bulk packaging for many non perishables, particularly things like cleaning supplies. I only have to order about once a year and even though I live in a tiny house, I am still able to store the products. run out of dish liquid, just refill from the large container etc. so it's not that crazy or even difficult. If a smaller medium sized producer can do this, why can't large producers? answer: no one is making them and they don't want the added hassle, plus they make more profit selling in smaller bottles than in bulk.

If bulk containers were made available and there was a big price incentive that normally comes with buying bulk I think lots of people would go for it then consumers can choose perceived convenience over lower price/waste reduction. This then does actually involve the consumer by giving them better choices rather than just choosing which bin to throw your recyclables in when you're done. As far as consumer demand goes, I feel it has less to do with packaging and more to do with the actual product (particularly repeat purchases) so consumers aren't creating the demand for the packaging/waste, they are demanding the actual product, and are forced to accept however it is packaged/overpackaged.

"I don't think anyone is under the illusion that they are making a "massive" change"

I disagree, some of the phrases people use are almost evangelical/spiritual, and most people just accept the spiel and PR around it, without realising it is not the easy solution it appears to be, it has many issues that are still to be worked out and until then, I don't think anyone should feel bad for not buying into it, especially if it means they have to travel distances by car to offload recyclables since in some cases it may simply be going to stockpiling, or landfill anyway (which happens here when stockpiles get too large).

FYI, this has nothing to do with the above posts.

Austin has chosen to ban plastic bags, which forces shoppers to supply their own. The higher end stores do supply bags, but they will be paper. If you choose not to supply your own bag/s, you may be forced to purchase those from the store with their logo, usally plastic, for twenty-five cents. Lower market 'discount stores' such as TJ Max, Marshall's, Tuesday Morning, sell cloth bags usually for $1.00. Food stores have them also. If you do not choose to purchase bags, your only option will be to wheel the shopping cart out to your vehicle and unload it in your trunk, rearseat, bed of truck, or whatever suits you. After you've done this once or twice, you WILL remember to bring bags(place them back in the vehicle immediately after unloading!)as you will have accumulated an unlimited amount of the cloth bags.

If the cities choose to 'embrace' recycling and put into effect their own action plan, we won't need to rely on the state OR our governments choices. It may only be a small cog in the wheel, but Rome wasn't built in a day either.

This is not only food shopping

This is what happened in my town. Plastic is banned, except for the dry cleaners. Everyone else had to use paper bags, or little paper shopping bags.

Forward about four years. CVS now has a thicker plastic bag, and on it, it says this bag is recyclable. I find this very funny. This is NOW allowed.

Next town over, there is not a ban. At the Stop and Shop there are plastic bags galore. They of course sell (and I do use) their name brand shopping bag. But, for a cheaper price, they also sell a thicker shopping bag! And of course it has the fact that it is reusable written on it.

NPR, "On Point" had a discussion on this very issue this morning, with the author of the article Mtn posted at the top as a guest, giving the "pull back on recycling" argument, a woman on the 'Keep it going and evolving side" to give the other side of the argument, but also there was basically an "actuary" on this topic, an economist who had no "skin in the game" as the host said when introducing him and who had done all the math and figuring to try to get to the real answer. He factored in everything: transportation costs, pollution, methane produced, carbon creation and mitigation, etc.

He came to the conclusion that aluminum absolutely should be recycled, along with paper, but not glass and plastic.

It was very interesting.

"...but also there was basically an "actuary" on this topic, an economist
who had no 'skin in the game' as the host said when introducing him and
who had done all the math and figuring to try to get to the real answer."

Unfortunately the very background of the 'actuary' colored the conclusions of the discussion. Simply by using an economist, the question of whether or not to recycle was decided upon using only 1 metric... economics.

As was thoroughly discussed above, this makes the discussion, at best, arbitrary. At worst... misleading propaganda. The story is an hour long, so I haven't heard the whole thing. Did they factor in hidden costs such as the above discussed political consequences of oil. How about the pollution from the plastics manufacturing process? How about the now known health affects from plastics as food storage?

Then there are the NIMBY factors and the very-real loss of property values from landfills?

How about the effects of plastics in the ocean? If you take away the importance of recycling, do you really think people will be diligent to toss everything in trash cans? Are they now?

This whole narrow-minded discussion is a sad expose on a throw-away culture.

no, green, he factored in environmental impact, both pro and con. It sounds like you didn't listen to the discussion.

Btw, I'm a rabid recycler, but after listening to this discussion today, and namely to that guy, NOT the person who was against recycling and the person who is for it, but rather the person who did the cold analysis, I will start recycling aluminum and paper and cardboard and throwing away glass and plastics. You have to listen to the discussion!

I stated plainly that I had not yet listened. However, I just did finish listening to the program. To draw a conclusion, as you say you have, based on the article, this thread, or that radio show about whether or not you should recycle glass, plastics, or any other material. is haphazardly presumptive.

For example... watch the video I linked above. In my community, the recycling of both plastic and glass produce a net positive economic value! Have you contacted your waste management center? Every one of the guests have said that the efficacy is extremely regional!

Did you factor in the hidden costs? There are not only economic hidden costs, but as was clearly demonstrated in the discussion, aesthetic and social impact costs.

Further, the 2 economists only looked at economic costs and environmental costs. What exact costs were taken into consideration? It was extremely vague, and really, who can know the totality of the factors involved? As I mentioned previously, even terrorism is a hidden cost to oil extraction and the use of virgin resources. Did they include the costs of the Patriot Act?

On the radio show they admitted that the numbers used in their equations are mostly from European countries. They even said they didn't translate those numbers to factors in the U.S. They simply transposed the results into their economic models. They didn't even question what was considered in getting those numbers.

And what exactly does 'environmental cost' mean to an economist? As I tried to explain above, the person that supposedly has 'no skin in the game' is biased by virtue of his profession. I, and many others, are questioning whether or not economics is the proper metric. It surely holds a lot of power, but that means nothing against whether or not the total value is economic in nature.

Did they even consider the health consequences of using plastics at all?

All these issues point to one conclusion... that PERHAPS, in some locations, it is more economically cost effective to recycle metal and paper than plastic and glass, but that this conclusion is not, by any means, comprehensive.

Edit... I know that I'm very opinionated and my writing can rub people the wrong way (I'm not really like that in person... well opinionated [pig headed?] yeah lol, and certainly stubborn, but also much more amiable,) so unless directly addressed, I'll try to refrain from responding further.

That anything sold in the USA ( regardless of the manufacturing origin) is allowed excessive packaging (oh, so much) is a good place to start with earnest recycling. Everything from cereal to barbies to tv gizmos. And shipping.