https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/

America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work

Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

by Jon Miltimore

"A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I was taught in elementary school.

€œReduce, reuse, recycle,€� she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote learning.

The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States. It has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a recent trip to the Caribbean, my friends wife exhibited nervous guilt while collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash since our resort offered no recycling bins.

€œI feel terrible throwing these into garbage,€� she said, wearing a pained look on her face.

I didnt have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the bottles she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on the Caribbean island we were visiting.


Difficult Implementation

As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky business.. A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the plastic collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was €œrecyclable.€�

€œThis results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,€� researchers concluded.

Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country are abandoning recycling efforts.

'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to huge price increases.'

One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage to alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.

€œWe are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,€� Fiona Ma, the treasurer of California, told the Times.

Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an economic activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have always been dubious for some time.

€œRecycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,€� Mitch Hedlund, executive director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.


Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?

How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago, Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and local governments were pursuing€”mostly through mandates, naturally€”with a religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he observed.

The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesnt. In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of every proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that something be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even occur..

If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reeds advice, or that of John Tierney, who offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.

Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.

Thats economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we dont have sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.

'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood). Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're running out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns out to have been a red herring.'


Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves

And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How much water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a landfill? How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across highways and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that belch their own emissions?

The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped only to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises would, say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making decisions instead of consumers through free markets.

Most market economists, Reed points out, €œby nature, philosophy, and experience€� a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.

As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,

'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and powered.

All this also produces pollution €“ from the factories that build the trucks and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that produce the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the fuel burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper, then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used. However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.

Again, economics is the key.'

Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the planet is highly dubious.

Its taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not a moral or legal imperative...."

</>

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times.

Reach him at .

</>

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>
> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work

They're not wrong. Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
especially disposable stuff.

Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!

Cindy Hamilton

On 3/21/2019 10:07 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>
>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>
> They're not wrong. Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
> especially disposable stuff.
>
Beaufort County, SC recently, and so far successfully banned stores from
offering plastic bags. If you don't bring your own cloth bags, stores
offer paper bags. I now have a collection of paper bags. The ones from
Publix Supermarket are quite nice: sturdy, foldable and with handles. I
do re-use them.

> Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
LOL

Jill

On 3/21/2019 10:45 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 3/21/2019 10:07 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
>>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>>
>>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>>
>> They're not wrong.Â* Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
>> especially disposable stuff.
>>
> Beaufort County, SC recently, and so far successfully banned stores from
> offering plastic bags.Â* If you don't bring your own cloth bags, stores
> offer paper bags.Â* I now have a collection of paper bags.Â* The ones from
> Publix Supermarket are quite nice: sturdy, foldable and with handles.Â* I
> do re-use them.
>
>
> Jill

Paper bags are a fallacy too. In landfills they do not disappear like
people think, though they can be recycled, same as plastic. Reusable is
still the best idea.

Trash to energy plants are becoming more common too. Trash can be
burned cleaner than coal and instead of digging a hole to hold the
trash, get the energy from it to fuel Kuthe's car. Most plastics
contain about 18,000 BTU per pound. Newspaper is 8,000 BTU per
pound.Even coffee grounds have 10,000 BTU to burn

Many companies have reduced packaging, but it still has a long way to
go. Especially fancy products like high end cosmetics that depends on
fancy packaging to sell the cheap ingredients inside. Some years go a
customer gave us a package design to quote for a car radio and speaker
system. We gave them a price, but also gave them a design idea that
would save them 20%. Nope, they wanted the bigger package to put some
eye catching graphics when sitting on the shelf at the auto supply store.

In article >, Ed Pawlowski >
wrote:

> Many companies have reduced packaging, but it still has a long way to
> go. Especially fancy products like high end cosmetics that depends on
> fancy packaging to sell the cheap ingredients inside. Some years go a
> customer gave us a package design to quote for a car radio and speaker
> system. We gave them a price, but also gave them a design idea that
> would save them 20%. Nope, they wanted the bigger package to put some
> eye catching graphics when sitting on the shelf at the auto supply store.

My company's flagship product could be dropped in a 10 by 12 inch
plastic bag and stapled closed with a folding header card. We did that
for years. We finally ended up with a stiff clamshell package with
fitting header board and cardboard insert in the clam. Same product.
I just bought our main moneymaker (earmuff hearing protector) on eBay
and just because. The product was good to me, and I felt nostalgic. I'd
like to show my grandkids what grandpa did to make a good living for
over twenty years.
They used to cost us about five bucks to produce. This one cost me
thirty seven bucks including shipping. The company owner would have
given me one or ten if I asked. We used to donate lots of them to Ducks
Unlimited.
The company is defunct and has been for many years. It was a great
company to work for in its time. Our main product never changed, but
our packaging did. We were keeping up with the Joneses, I suppose, and
it was necessary at the time. Bad for recycle!

leo

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 22:20:17 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 3/21/2019 10:45 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 3/21/2019 10:07 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
>>>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>>>
>>>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn’t Work
>>>
>>> They're not wrong.* Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
>>> especially disposable stuff.
>>>
>> Beaufort County, SC recently, and so far successfully banned stores from
>> offering plastic bags.* If you don't bring your own cloth bags, stores
>> offer paper bags.* I now have a collection of paper bags.* The ones from
>> Publix Supermarket are quite nice: sturdy, foldable and with handles.* I
>> do re-use them.
>>
>>
>> Jill
>
>Paper bags are a fallacy too. In landfills they do not disappear like
>people think, though they can be recycled, same as plastic. Reusable is
>still the best idea.
>
>Trash to energy plants are becoming more common too. Trash can be
>burned cleaner than coal and instead of digging a hole to hold the
>trash, get the energy from it to fuel Kuthe's car. Most plastics
>contain about 18,000 BTU per pound. Newspaper is 8,000 BTU per
>pound.Even coffee grounds have 10,000 BTU to burn
>
>Many companies have reduced packaging, but it still has a long way to
>go. Especially fancy products like high end cosmetics that depends on
>fancy packaging to sell the cheap ingredients inside. Some years go a
>customer gave us a package design to quote for a car radio and speaker
>system. We gave them a price, but also gave them a design idea that
>would save them 20%. Nope, they wanted the bigger package to put some
>eye catching graphics when sitting on the shelf at the auto supply store.

In my community we save in a separate bag all of our plastic. The
plastic is recycled into diesel fuel. My landfill captures the gas
produced by the garbage and uses it as fuel for themselves and also
sells the gas. Not a total solution. My hometown always used to burn
what the garbage trucks collected I have never understood why it was
a good idea to bury it instead.

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
> > https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
> >
> > America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>
> They're not wrong. Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
> especially disposable stuff.
>
> Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Um, YES!!! Use LESS DAMNED STUFF!! NO NEW STUFF if at all possible!!

We have made ENOUGH DAMNED STUFF!! Repair, rehab, repurpose, etc. And that's what CooperativeCorporationsSTL.ORG is all about!! That's what I am doing with 3068 Bellerive!! Built in 1930 as a "single family" home, now it's been rebuilt, rehabbed and REPURPOSED as Shared International Student Living home! MY Shared International Student Living home and MY RETIREMENT HOME!!

Get with the 21st Century! I did!! :-)

John Kuthe, Climate Activist!

John Kuthe wrote:

> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
> > > https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
> > >
> > > America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
> >
> > They're not wrong. Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
> > especially disposable stuff.
> >
> > Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Um, YES!!! Use LESS DAMNED STUFF!! NO NEW STUFF if at all possible!!
>
> We have made ENOUGH DAMNED STUFF!! Repair, rehab, repurpose, etc. And that's what CooperativeCorporationsSTL.ORG is all about!! That's what I am doing with 3068 Bellerive!! Built in 1930 as a "single family" home, now it's been rebuilt, rehabbed and REPURPOSED as Shared International Student Living home! MY Shared International Student Living home and MY RETIREMENT HOME!!
>
> Get with the 21st Century! I did!! :-)
>
> John Kuthe, Climate Activist!


http://cooperativecorporationsstl.org/

"John Kuthe's MIND cant be reached cooperativecorporationsstl.orgs server IP address could not be found.
Search Google for cooperative corporations stl org
ERR_JOHN KUTHE_NOT_RESOLVE..."

--
Best
Greg

On 3/21/19 7:46 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:26:34 AM UTC-4, GM wrote:
>>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>>
>>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>>
>> They're not wrong. Perhaps we could just use less damned stuff,
>> especially disposable stuff.
>>
>> Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Um, YES!!! Use LESS DAMNED STUFF!! NO NEW STUFF if at all possible!!
>
> We have made ENOUGH DAMNED STUFF!! Repair, rehab, repurpose, etc. And that's what CooperativeCorporationsSTL.ORG is all about!! That's what I am doing with 3068 Bellerive!! Built in 1930 as a "single family" home, now it's been rebuilt, rehabbed and REPURPOSED as Shared International Student Living home! MY Shared International Student Living home and MY RETIREMENT HOME!!
>
> Get with the 21st Century! I did!! :-)
>
> John Kuthe, Climate Activist!
>
did you repair and/or rehab a used auto instead of buying a new one?

"GM" wrote in message
...

https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/

America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work

Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

by Jon Miltimore

"A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I was
taught in elementary school.

€œReduce, reuse, recycle,€� she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
learning.

The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States. It
has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
recent trip to the Caribbean, my friends wife exhibited nervous guilt while
collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash since
our resort offered no recycling bins.

€œI feel terrible throwing these into garbage,€� she said, wearing a pained
look on her face.

I didnt have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the bottles
she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
the Caribbean island we were visiting.


Difficult Implementation

As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky business.
A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the plastic
collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was €œrecyclable.€�

€œThis results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,€�
researchers concluded.

Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
are abandoning recycling efforts.

'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents
recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to
huge price increases.'

One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage to
alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.

€œWe are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,€� Fiona Ma,
the treasurer of California, told the Times.

Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an economic
activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
always been dubious for some time.

€œRecycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,€� Mitch Hedlund, executive
director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.


Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?

How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
local governments were pursuing€”mostly through mandates, naturally€”with a
religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
observed.

The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesnt.
In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of every
proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that something
be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even occur.

If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reeds advice, or that of John Tierney, who
offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.

Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that
recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for some
materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option
is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.

Thats economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we dont have
sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.

'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the
next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across
on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood).
Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're running
out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
out to have been a red herring.'


Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves

And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How much
water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a landfill?
How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across highways
and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
belch their own emissions?

The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped only
to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises would,
say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
decisions instead of consumers through free markets.

Most market economists, Reed points out, €œby nature, philosophy, and
experience€� a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.

As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,

'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and
powered.

All this also produces pollution €“ from the factories that build the trucks
and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that produce
the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the fuel
burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.

Again, economics is the key.'

Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
planet is highly dubious.

Its taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not a
moral or legal imperative...."

</>

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting
has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
News, and the Washington Times.

Reach him at .

</>

==

Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )

Ophelia wrote:

> "GM" wrote in message
> ...
>
> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>
> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
>
> Thursday, March 21, 2019
>
> by Jon Miltimore
>
> "A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
> school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I was
> taught in elementary school.
>
> €œReduce, reuse, recycle,€� she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
> learning.
>
> The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States. It
> has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
> recent trip to the Caribbean, my friends wife exhibited nervous guilt while
> collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash since
> our resort offered no recycling bins.
>
> €œI feel terrible throwing these into garbage,€� she said, wearing a pained
> look on her face.
>
> I didnt have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the bottles
> she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
> the Caribbean island we were visiting.
>
>
> Difficult Implementation
>
> As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky business.
> A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the plastic
> collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was €œrecyclable.€�
>
> €œThis results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,€�
> researchers concluded.
>
> Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
> York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
> are abandoning recycling efforts.
>
> 'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents
> recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
> Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
> terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
> landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
> faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
> curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
> the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
> recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed to
> huge price increases.'
>
> One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
> recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
> Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage to
> alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
>
> €œWe are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,€� Fiona Ma,
> the treasurer of California, told the Times.
>
> Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an economic
> activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
> always been dubious for some time.
>
> €œRecycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,€� Mitch Hedlund, executive
> director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
>
>
> Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
>
> How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
> Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
> local governments were pursuing€”mostly through mandates, naturally€”with a
> religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
> observed.
>
> The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesnt.
> In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
> governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of every
> proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
> lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that something
> be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
> recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even occur.
>
> If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reeds advice, or that of John Tierney, who
> offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
>
> Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that
> recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
> conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for some
> materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option
> is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
> there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
> alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
>
> Thats economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
> environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
> Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we dont have
> sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
>
> 'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for the
> next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles across
> on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the neighborhood).
> Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
> landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're running
> out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
> out to have been a red herring.'
>
>
> Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
>
> And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How much
> water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a landfill?
> How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across highways
> and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
> belch their own emissions?
>
> The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
> effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
> all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped only
> to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises would,
> say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
> decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
>
> Most market economists, Reed points out, €œby nature, philosophy, and
> experience€� a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
> choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
>
> As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
>
> 'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
> collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
> manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and
> powered.
>
> All this also produces pollution €“ from the factories that build the trucks
> and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that produce
> the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the fuel
> burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
> then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
> However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
>
> Again, economics is the key.'
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
> feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
> planet is highly dubious.
>
> Its taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
> Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not a
> moral or legal imperative...."
>
> </>
>
> Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting
> has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
> News, and the Washington Times.
>
> Reach him at .
>
> </>
>
> ==
>
> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )


Luv, If I were you I'd send my rubbish to Janet UK...!!!

;-D

Best
Greg

"GM" wrote in message
...

Ophelia wrote:

> "GM" wrote in message
> ...
>
> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>
> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
>
> Thursday, March 21, 2019
>
> by Jon Miltimore
>
> "A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
> school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I
> was
> taught in elementary school.
>
> €œReduce, reuse, recycle,€� she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
> learning.
>
> The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States.
> It
> has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
> recent trip to the Caribbean, my friends wife exhibited nervous guilt
> while
> collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash
> since
> our resort offered no recycling bins.
>
> €œI feel terrible throwing these into garbage,€� she said, wearing a pained
> look on her face.
>
> I didnt have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the
> bottles
> she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
> the Caribbean island we were visiting.
>
>
> Difficult Implementation
>
> As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky
> business.
> A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the
> plastic
> collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was €œrecyclable.€�
>
> €œThis results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,€�
> researchers concluded.
>
> Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
> York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
> are abandoning recycling efforts.
>
> 'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents
> recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
> Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
> terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
> landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
> faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
> curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
> the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
> recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed
> to
> huge price increases.'
>
> One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
> recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
> Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage
> to
> alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
>
> €œWe are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,€� Fiona Ma,
> the treasurer of California, told the Times.
>
> Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an
> economic
> activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
> always been dubious for some time.
>
> €œRecycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,€� Mitch Hedlund,
> executive
> director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
>
>
> Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
>
> How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
> Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
> local governments were pursuing€”mostly through mandates, naturally€”with a
> religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
> observed.
>
> The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesnt.
> In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
> governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of
> every
> proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
> lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that
> something
> be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
> recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even
> occur.
>
> If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reeds advice, or that of John Tierney,
> who
> offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
>
> Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded
> that
> recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
> conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for
> some
> materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest
> option
> is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
> there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
> alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
>
> Thats economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
> environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
> Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we dont have
> sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
>
> 'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for
> the
> next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles
> across
> on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the
> neighborhood).
> Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
> landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're
> running
> out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
> out to have been a red herring.'
>
>
> Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
>
> And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How
> much
> water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a
> landfill?
> How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across
> highways
> and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
> belch their own emissions?
>
> The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
> effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
> all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped
> only
> to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises
> would,
> say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
> decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
>
> Most market economists, Reed points out, €œby nature, philosophy, and
> experience€� a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
> choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
>
> As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
>
> 'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
> collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
> manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed
> and
> powered.
>
> All this also produces pollution €“ from the factories that build the
> trucks
> and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that
> produce
> the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the
> fuel
> burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
> then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
> However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
>
> Again, economics is the key.'
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
> feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
> planet is highly dubious.
>
> Its taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
> Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not
> a
> moral or legal imperative...."
>
> </>
>
> Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His
> writing/reporting
> has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
> News, and the Washington Times.
>
> Reach him at .
>
> </>
>
> ==
>
> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )


Luv, If I were you I'd send my rubbish to Janet UK...!!!

;-D

Best
Greg

==

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "GM" wrote in message
> ...
>
> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>
> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesnt Work
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
>
> Thursday, March 21, 2019
>
> by Jon Miltimore
>
> "A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
> school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I
> was
> taught in elementary school.
>
> €œReduce, reuse, recycle,€� she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
> learning.
>
> The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States.
> It
> has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
> recent trip to the Caribbean, my friends wife exhibited nervous guilt
> while
> collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash
> since
> our resort offered no recycling bins.
>
> €œI feel terrible throwing these into garbage,€� she said, wearing a pained
> look on her face.
>
> I didnt have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the
> bottles
> she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
> the Caribbean island we were visiting.
>
>
> Difficult Implementation
>
> As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky
> business.
> A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the
> plastic
> collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was €œrecyclable.€�
>
> €œThis results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,€�
> researchers concluded.
>
> Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
> York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
> are abandoning recycling efforts.
>
> 'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents
> recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
> Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
> terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
> landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
> faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
> curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
> the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
> recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed
> to
> huge price increases.'
>
> One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
> recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
> Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage
> to
> alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
>
> €œWe are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,€� Fiona Ma,
> the treasurer of California, told the Times.
>
> Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an
> economic
> activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
> always been dubious for some time.
>
> €œRecycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,€� Mitch Hedlund,
> executive
> director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
>
>
> Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
>
> How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
> Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
> local governments were pursuing€”mostly through mandates, naturally€”with a
> religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
> observed.
>
> The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesnt.
> In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
> governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of
> every
> proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
> lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that
> something
> be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
> recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even
> occur.
>
> If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reeds advice, or that of John Tierney,
> who
> offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
>
> Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded
> that
> recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
> conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for
> some
> materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest
> option
> is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
> there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
> alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
>
> Thats economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
> environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
> Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we dont have
> sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
>
> 'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for
> the
> next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles
> across
> on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the
> neighborhood).
> Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
> landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're
> running
> out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
> out to have been a red herring.'
>
>
> Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
>
> And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How
> much
> water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a
> landfill?
> How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across
> highways
> and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
> belch their own emissions?
>
> The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
> effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
> all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped
> only
> to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises
> would,
> say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
> decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
>
> Most market economists, Reed points out, €œby nature, philosophy, and
> experience€� a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
> choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
>
> As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
>
> 'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
> collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
> manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed
> and
> powered.
>
> All this also produces pollution €“ from the factories that build the
> trucks
> and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that
> produce
> the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the
> fuel
> burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
> then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
> However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
>
> Again, economics is the key.'
>
> Its time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
> feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
> planet is highly dubious.
>
> Its taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
> Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not
> a
> moral or legal imperative...."
>
> </>
>
> Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His
> writing/reporting
> has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
> News, and the Washington Times.
>
> Reach him at .
>
> </>
>
> ==
>
> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )

You have to take it yourself?

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> "GM" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>
>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn’t Work
>>
>> It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
>>
>> Thursday, March 21, 2019
>>
>> by Jon Miltimore
>>
>> "A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
>> school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I
>> was
>> taught in elementary school.
>>
>> “Reduce, reuse, recycle,” she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
>> learning.
>>
>> The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States.
>> It
>> has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
>> recent trip to the Caribbean, my friend’s wife exhibited nervous guilt
>> while
>> collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash
>> since
>> our resort offered no recycling bins.
>>
>> “I feel terrible throwing these into garbage,” she said, wearing a pained
>> look on her face.
>>
>> I didn’t have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the
>> bottles
>> she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
>> the Caribbean island we were visiting.
>>
>>
>> Difficult Implementation
>>
>> As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky
>> business.
>> A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the
>> plastic
>> collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was “recyclable.”
>>
>> “This results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,”
>> researchers concluded.
>>
>> Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
>> York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
>> are abandoning recycling efforts.
>>
>> 'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’
>> recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
>> Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
>> terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
>> landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
>> faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
>> curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
>> the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
>> recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed
>> to
>> huge price increases.'
>>
>> One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
>> recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
>> Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage
>> to
>> alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
>>
>> “We are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,” Fiona Ma,
>> the treasurer of California, told the Times.
>>
>> Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an
>> economic
>> activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
>> always been dubious for some time.
>>
>> “Recycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,” Mitch Hedlund,
>> executive
>> director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
>>
>>
>> Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
>>
>> How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
>> Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
>> local governments were pursuing—mostly through mandates, naturally—with a
>> religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
>> observed.
>>
>> The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t.
>> In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
>> governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of
>> every
>> proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
>> lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that
>> something
>> be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
>> recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even
>> occur.
>>
>> If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reed’s advice, or that of John Tierney,
>> who
>> offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
>>
>> Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded
>> that
>> recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
>> conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for
>> some
>> materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest
>> option
>> is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
>> there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
>> alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
>>
>> That’s economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
>> environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
>> Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we don’t have
>> sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
>>
>> 'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for
>> the
>> next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles
>> across
>> on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the
>> neighborhood).
>> Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
>> landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're
>> running
>> out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
>> out to have been a red herring.'
>>
>>
>> Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
>>
>> And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How
>> much
>> water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a
>> landfill?
>> How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across
>> highways
>> and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
>> belch their own emissions?
>>
>> The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
>> effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
>> all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped
>> only
>> to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises
>> would,
>> say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
>> decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
>>
>> Most market economists, Reed points out, “by nature, philosophy, and
>> experience” a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
>> choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
>>
>> As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
>>
>> 'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
>> collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
>> manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed
>> and
>> powered.
>>
>> All this also produces pollution – from the factories that build the
>> trucks
>> and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that
>> produce
>> the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the
>> fuel
>> burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
>> then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
>> However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
>>
>> Again, economics is the key.'
>>
>> It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
>> feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
>> planet is highly dubious.
>>
>> It’s taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
>> Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not
>> a
>> moral or legal imperative...."
>>
>> </>
>>
>> Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His
>> writing/reporting
>> has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
>> News, and the Washington Times.
>>
>> Reach him at .
>>
>> </>
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>
>You have to take it yourself?

Imbecile dumb **** can't trim before posting her widdle bit of
worthless shit... TYPICAL LEFT/WEST COAST MORON!
You sicko POS.

wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "GM" wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> https://fee.org/articles/america-fin...-doesn-t-work/
>>>
>>> America Finally Admits Recycling Doesn’t Work
>>>
>>> It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo.
>>>
>>> Thursday, March 21, 2019
>>>
>>> by Jon Miltimore
>>>
>>> "A couple of years ago, after sending my five-year-old daughter off to
>>> school, she came home reciting the same cheerful environmental mantra I
>>> was
>>> taught in elementary school.
>>>
>>> “Reduce, reuse, recycle,” she beamed, proud to show off a bit of rote
>>> learning.
>>>
>>> The moral virtue of recycling is rarely questioned in the United States.
>>> It
>>> has been ingrained into the American psyche over several decades. On a
>>> recent trip to the Caribbean, my friend’s wife exhibited nervous guilt
>>> while
>>> collecting empty soda, water, and beer bottles destined for the trash
>>> since
>>> our resort offered no recycling bins.
>>>
>>> “I feel terrible throwing these into garbage,” she said, wearing a pained
>>> look on her face.
>>>
>>> I didn’t have the heart to tell her that there was a good chance the
>>> bottles
>>> she was recycling back in the States were ending up just like the ones on
>>> the Caribbean island we were visiting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Difficult Implementation
>>>
>>> As Discover magazine pointed out a decade ago, recycling is tricky
>>> business.
>>> A 2010 Columbia University study found that just 16.5 percent of the
>>> plastic
>>> collected by the New York Department of Sanitation was “recyclable.”
>>>
>>> “This results in nearly half of the plastics collected being landfilled,”
>>> researchers concluded.
>>>
>>> Since that time, things have only gotten worse. Over the weekend, The New
>>> York Times ran a story detailing how hundreds of cities across the country
>>> are abandoning recycling efforts.
>>>
>>> 'Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’
>>> recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy. In
>>> Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the
>>> terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a
>>> landfill. And last month, officials in the central Florida city of Deltona
>>> faced the reality that, despite their best efforts to recycle, their
>>> curbside program was not working and suspended it. Those are just three of
>>> the hundreds of towns and cities across the country that have canceled
>>> recycling programs, limited the types of material they accepted or agreed
>>> to
>>> huge price increases.'
>>>
>>> One reason for this is that China, perhaps the largest buyer of US
>>> recyclables, stopped accepting them in 2018. Other countries, such as
>>> Thailand and India, have increased imports, but not in sufficient tonnage
>>> to
>>> alleviate the mounting costs cities are facing.
>>>
>>> “We are in a crisis moment in the recycling movement right now,” Fiona Ma,
>>> the treasurer of California, told the Times.
>>>
>>> Cost is the key word. Like any activity or service, recycling is an
>>> economic
>>> activity. The dirty little secret is that the benefits of recycling have
>>> always been dubious for some time.
>>>
>>> “Recycling has been dysfunctional for a long time,” Mitch Hedlund,
>>> executive
>>> director of Recycle Across America, told The Times.
>>>
>>>
>>> Has Recycling Always Been An Illusion?
>>>
>>> How long? Perhaps from the very beginning. Nearly a quarter century ago,
>>> Lawrence Reed wrote about the growing fad of recycling, which state and
>>> local governments were pursuing—mostly through mandates, naturally—with a
>>> religious-like fervor. There were numerous problems with the approach, he
>>> observed.
>>>
>>> The fact is that sometimes recycling makes sense and sometimes it doesn’t.
>>> In the legislative rush to pass recycling mandates, state and local
>>> governments should pause to consider the science and the economics of
>>> every
>>> proposition. Often, bad ideas are worse than none at all and can produce
>>> lasting damage if they are enshrined in law. Simply demanding that
>>> something
>>> be recycled can be disruptive of markets and it does not guarantee that
>>> recycling that makes either economic or environmental sense will even
>>> occur.
>>>
>>> If only lawmakers had heeded Mr. Reed’s advice, or that of John Tierney,
>>> who
>>> offered similar guidance in The Times the following year.
>>>
>>> Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded
>>> that
>>> recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their
>>> conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes make sense--for
>>> some
>>> materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest
>>> option
>>> is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since
>>> there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false
>>> alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.
>>>
>>> That’s economics, you say. What about the environment? Well, the
>>> environmental benefits of recycling are far from clear. For starters, as
>>> Popular Mechanics noted a few years ago, the idea that we don’t have
>>> sufficient space to safely store trash is untrue.
>>>
>>> 'According to one calculation, all the garbage produced in the U.S. for
>>> the
>>> next 1000 years could fit into a landfill 100 yards deep and 35 miles
>>> across
>>> on each side--not that big (unless you happen to live in the
>>> neighborhood).
>>> Or put another way, it would take another 20 years to run through the
>>> landfills that the U.S. has already built. So the notion that we're
>>> running
>>> out of landfill space--the original impetus for the recycling boom--turns
>>> out to have been a red herring.'
>>>
>>>
>>> Recycling Efforts Backfire and Create Waste Themselves
>>>
>>> And then there are the energy and resources that go into recycling. How
>>> much
>>> water do Americans spend annually recycling items that end up in a
>>> landfill?
>>> How much fuel is spent deploying fleets of barges and trucks across
>>> highways
>>> and oceans, carrying tons of garbage to be processed at facilities that
>>> belch their own emissions?
>>>
>>> The data on this front is thin, and results on the environmental
>>> effectiveness of recycling vary based on the material being recycled. Yet
>>> all of this presumes the recyclables are not being cleaned and shipped
>>> only
>>> to be buried in a landfill, like so much of it is today. This, Mises
>>> would,
>>> say is planned chaos, the inevitable result of central planners making
>>> decisions instead of consumers through free markets.
>>>
>>> Most market economists, Reed points out, “by nature, philosophy, and
>>> experience” a bunch skeptical of centrally planned schemes that supplant
>>> choice, were wise to the dynamics of recycling from the beginning.
>>>
>>> As engineer and author Richard Fulmer wrote in 2016,
>>>
>>> 'Recycling resources costs resources. For instance, old newsprint must be
>>> collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be
>>> manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed
>>> and
>>> powered.
>>>
>>> All this also produces pollution – from the factories that build the
>>> trucks
>>> and from the fuel burned to power them, and from the factories that
>>> produce
>>> the components to build and construct the recycling plant and from the
>>> fuel
>>> burned to power the plant. If companies can make a profit recycling paper,
>>> then we can be confident that more resources are saved than are used.
>>> However, if recycling is mandated by law, we have no such assurance.
>>>
>>> Again, economics is the key.'
>>>
>>> It’s time to admit the recycling mania is a giant placebo. It makes people
>>> feel good, but the idea that it improves the condition of humans or the
>>> planet is highly dubious.
>>>
>>> It’s taken three decades, but the actions of hundreds of US cities suggest
>>> Americans are finally willing to entertain the idea that recycling is not
>>> a
>>> moral or legal imperative...."
>>>
>>> </>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His
>>> writing/reporting
>>> has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox
>>> News, and the Washington Times.
>>>
>>> Reach him at .
>>>
>>> </>
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>>
>> You have to take it yourself?
>
> Imbecile dumb **** can't trim before posting her widdle bit of
> worthless shit... TYPICAL LEFT/WEST COAST MORON!
> You sicko POS.
>

Relax Poopeye, just pretend she's yoose aunt or mammy or daughter, then
shove yoose big ole saw-seege in deep, till she squeals.

Oink Oink!

Sheldon wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

> >> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> >> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
> >
> >You have to take it yourself?
>
> Imbecile dumb **** can't trim before posting her widdle bit of
> worthless shit... TYPICAL LEFT/WEST COAST MORON!
> You sicko POS.


The Bovine is *such* a DUMBIE that when her doc prescribed burf control pills and told her "take by mouth" she instead inserted them into her a - n - u - s ...and thus her mongoloid daughter Angela was spawned...

--
Best
Greg

GM wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:28:43 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>>>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>>>
>>> You have to take it yourself?
>>
>> Imbecile dumb **** can't trim before posting her widdle bit of
>> worthless shit... TYPICAL LEFT/WEST COAST MORON!
>> You sicko POS.
>
>
> The Bovine is *such* a DUMBIE that when her doc prescribed burf control pills and told her "take by mouth" she instead inserted them into her a - n - u - s ...and thus her mongoloid daughter Angela was spawned...
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
>

DAMN! I thought Popeye raped her. Right after Jill turned down his big
ole Navy peepee he's always talking about.

"Julie Bove" wrote in message ...


> ==
>
> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )

You have to take it yourself?

===

We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
waiting for the collectors in the week.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:01:28 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
>
>
>> ==
>>
>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>
>You have to take it yourself?
>
>===
>
> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
>waiting for the collectors in the week.

Is that common practice where you are? It is here for people who are
too remote for garbage retrieval. We're just within reach.

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:01:28 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>
>
>"Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
>
>
>> ==
>>
>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>
>You have to take it yourself?
>
>===
>
> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
>waiting for the collectors in the week.

Is that common practice where you are? It is here for people who are
too remote for garbage retrieval. We're just within reach.
==

A common practice to do what we do or the bins?? If you mean what we
do, I don't think so, because all the bins are out on emptying days.

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> "Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
>
>
> > ==
> >
> > Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> > the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>
> You have to take it yourself?
>
> ===
>
> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
> waiting for the collectors in the week.

A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
truck.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> "Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
>
>
> > ==
> >
> > Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage
> > to
> > the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>
> You have to take it yourself?
>
> ===
>
> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined
> up
> waiting for the collectors in the week.

A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
truck.

Cindy Hamilton

===

I don't actually know what goes in them but at the last count it was 5!
Yes, FIVE!!

In article >,
says...
>
> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> > "Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > >
> > > Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
> > > the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
> >
> > You have to take it yourself?
> >
> > ===
> >
> > We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
> > waiting for the collectors in the week.
>
> A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
> Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
> rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
> wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
> truck.

Just like our service here in Scotland. Are you surprised ?
Janet UK.

On 2019-03-22 4:30 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Julie Bove" wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> Well I understand that, but I still like to be able to take my garbage to
>>> the garbage centre every week to let them sort it all out )
>>
>> You have to take it yourself?
>>
>> ===
>>
>> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
>> waiting for the collectors in the week.
>
> A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
> Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
> rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
> wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
> truck.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
We have 3: recyclables, garbage and organics. The latter are composted
by the city for sale and use in the city parks.
People complain about the extra weekly charges, particularly singles and
elderly who take several weeks to accumulate enough to bother about
putting out the bins. I'm both but I think the system is great.

On 2019-03-22 6:30 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>> We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
>> waiting for the collectors in the week.
>
> A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
> Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
> rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
> wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
> truck.

We put out a garbage bag for household garbage, a grey bin for
newspapers and cardboard, a blue bin for plastics, glass and cans, and a
green bin for compost. A couple decades ago when we stayed at a
friend's apartment in Germany they had at least 5 different bins for
their garbage, including one for "wet paper" , like used tissues.

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:30:51 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:02:10 AM UTC-4, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > We don't have to no, but I prefer it to having a bunch of bins lined up
> > waiting for the collectors in the week.
>
> A bunch of bins? We have one for recyclables and one for non-recyclables.
> Provided by the company contracted by our local government to provide
> rubbish hauling services. Each of them is a 95-gallon (0.35 cubic meter)
> wheeled thing that can be picked up by a pair of arms on the collection
> truck.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Same here. But I opted several years ago for 64 gallon trash and 64 gallon
recyclable cans. My neighborhood is a bit over 100 years old so we have
alleys and the trash guys have to roll our bins up to the truck and hook
them on the back. Then they are hoisted into the air and dumped. Out in
suburbs it's just one guy in the truck and the arm reaches out and picks
up the bin and empties it.

Makes you wonder how much two people can have in garbage each week the way
she writes about "having a bunch of bins lined up waiting for the collectors
in the week."