Are landfills the best solution for rubbish

[mheslep]

Host: "You are not going to condemn regulations regarding emissions ..."
Friedman: "I certainly am. Of course I'm going to condemn them. Why not?"

 

[DEvens]

3. The Unclean Truth: How Five Cities Stack Up On Recycling

Philadelphia’s recycling rate now stands at 37 percent, just over the national average.​

Conclusion: Portlandia's recycle rate is between 2 to 10 times as compared to Philly's, for the same cost.​

Lots of snips from the post I am quoting. But note: In another post I claimed that the success of recycling programs is determined by compliance, and compliance only. And that the reason for that is that the purpose of recycle programs is to extend the power and extent of government. And here you are holding up compliance rate as the measure of success.

I don't see any information about what the actual effect on the environment is. What is the net impact of recycling as compared to once-through? For example, I have seen several studies that claimed that recycling paper was bad for forests. In much the same way, and for much the same reasons, that many people stopping eating potatoes would be bad for potato farms. Not that it proves that recycling paper is bad. (Although, it probably isn't very good.) But it raises the point in a different way.

You have here offered compliance as evidence of success. Compliance is only success if either the goal is, as I state, more government. Or if there is additional evidence that recycling actually improves things. Except for aluminum cans, and some limited types of paper, the data seems to suggest the benefit is nil or negative.

How does one determine the relative value of things like land use, release of chemicals (as for example bleaching paper for recycling releases), the effort of sorting my garbage for recycling, the presence on my driveway of now THREE huge bins for garbage, etc. etc. These are value judgements. They require balancing a large number of potential, actual, present, and future values. Governments are notoriously poor at making such value judgements, especially when placed "in charge" over long periods. They nearly always, and more often sooner than later, come down to compliance as the measure. The Iron Law still applies.

And for recycling programs, they pretty much seized on it from day one.

So, you have not offered evidence of the benefit of recycle programs. You have offered compliance rates, which bolsters my view.

So, yes, I still think your "stance" is more important to you than the science.

 

[WWGD]

Host: "You are not going to condemn regulations regarding emissions ..."
Friedman: "I certainly am. Of course I'm going to condemn them. Why not?"

But if you claim Friedman is not being a hypocrite by accepting tenure " in an imperfect world" , then you can allege that regulations may be necessary because this is an imperfect world.

 

[OmCheeto]

Lots of snips from the post I am quoting. But note: In another post I claimed that the success of recycling programs is determined by compliance, and compliance only. And that the reason for that is that the purpose of recycle programs is to extend the power and extent of government. And here you are holding up compliance rate as the measure of success.

(Thank you for the snip. One subtopic at a time!
These responses would get exponential otherwise.)

Regarding compliance: Redirecting this back to the OP, if we had 100% compliance, Wolram and I would have no rubbish in our hedgerows, and dumping grounds could be used for farmland.

I don't see any information about what the actual effect on the environment is. What is the net impact of recycling as compared to once-through?

On a finite world?

No recycling:

For example, I have seen several studies that claimed that recycling paper was bad for forests.

References please! Otherwise, it's just hearsay. And most of the google "studies" I've seen that say that, are rubbish, IMHO.
Pro-paper recycling reference:

IS RECYCLING PAPER BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? [Sciencefocus.com, 2009]
In favour of recycling is the fact that paper mills use toxic compounds such as toluene, methanol and formaldehyde. A report by the US Environmental Protection Agency states that paper mills are among the worst polluters of any industry in the US. Recycling causes 35 per cent less water pollution and 74 per cent less air pollution than making new paper.

In much the same way, and for much the same reasons, that many people stopping eating potatoes would be bad for potato farms.

What?

Not that it proves that recycling paper is bad. (Although, it probably isn't very good.) But it raises the point in a different way.

You have here offered compliance as evidence of success.

No, I offered referenced evidence that successful, voluntary, government directed, economically sound theories, is effective. As in, financially neutral, and goal oriented.

Compliance is only success if either the goal is, as I state, more government.

pfft! Once people figure out how simple it is, government will be obsolete, in this meddlesome task.

Or if there is additional evidence that recycling actually improves things. Except for aluminum cans, and some limited types of paper, the data seems to suggest the benefit is nil or negative.
How does one determine the relative value of things

wait for it

land use, release of chemicals (as for example bleaching paper for recycling releases), the effort of sorting my garbage for recycling,

wait for it

like the presence on my driveway of now THREE huge bins for garbage

BAZINGA!
Sorry. I see the TWO huge RECYCLE bins, and my diminutive garbage bin, as a thing of beauty.

, etc. etc. These are value judgements. They require balancing a large number of potential, actual, present, and future values. Governments are notoriously poor at making such value judgements, especially when placed "in charge" over long periods. They nearly always, and more often sooner than later, come down to compliance as the measure. The Iron Law still applies.

I still haven't seen a reference to where you've pointed out that ANYONE is required to recycle. So, I consider your "Iron Law", a moot point.

And for recycling programs, they pretty much seized on it from day one.

So, you have not offered evidence of the benefit of recycle programs. You have offered compliance rates, which bolsters my view.

Oh, good god...

So, yes, I still think your "stance" is more important to you than the science.

You "think" my stance blah blah blah.
Sounds like an opinion to me.

You know what they say about opinions; They're like barn pots. Not everyone is one, but you can spot them, a smile away.

 

[mheslep]

... then you can allege that regulations may be necessary because this is an imperfect world.

Chopped the first clause because i) the 2nd is a non-sequitor to the 1st, ii) DEvens already responded to the fallacy, iii) I didn't claim here anything about Friedman's academic career.

The main problem with the part of your post that I quoted is demonstrating that regulations render the imperfect world at large more perfect. Yes regulations on the surface seem to have an upside, but they almost always have a downside. That video clip has several examples. See for instance the EPA's recent yellow paint job on the Animas river yellow even though it was warned of the likely outcome of tampering with a mine. So, instead of slapping a new regulation on every perceived imperfection, I would make regulations relatively rare, used as an absolute last resort.

 

[WWGD]

Chopped the first clause because i) the 2nd is a non-sequitor to the 1st, ii) DEvens already responded to the fallacy, iii) I didn't claim here anything about Friedman's academic career.

.

i') Not a non-seq. You can always fall on the : yes, regulations ( or just-about anything you want) are bad, but they are necessary in an imperfect world.

ii') I never accepted it is a fallacy. By that same token, no one has to be held to anything, since they can always claim that their views hold only under certain assumptions/conditions, but not in this imperfect world. I believe one should not kill. But only in an ideal world where certain things happen.

My bad, I confuse

 

[WWGD]

Chopped the first clause because i) the 2nd is a non-sequitor to the 1st, ii) DEvens already responded to the fallacy, iii) I didn't claim here anything about Friedman's academic career.

The main problem with the part of your post that I quoted is demonstrating that regulations render the imperfect world at large more perfect. Yes regulations on the surface seem to have an upside, but they almost always have a downside. That video clip has several examples. See for instance the EPA's recent yellow paint job on the Animas river yellow even though it was warned of the likely outcome of tampering with a mine. So, instead of slapping a new regulation on every perceived imperfection, I would make regulations relatively rare, used as an absolute last resort.

Why didn't you require Evens to argue that in a world with tenure (and regulations?) accepting a position with tenure does no harm?

And I entirely agree with you; regulation is an art, and should be kept at a minimum, though 'minimum' is kind of a loaded term..

 

[wolram]

I work for a charity, we collect items from donaters that would normally be taken to the tip, i can tell you it is unbelievable what people throw away that can be recycled.
our charity is self sustaining and we sell all the items bought in, electronics, furniture, crockery etc are sold to the general public, plastic. paper, cardboard, metal and rags are all recycled
So it is incomprehensible why we need land fill sites, by the way we make about £2000 a week from our donations.

 

[OmCheeto]

One way to save waste is to buy your veg (loose) instead of in plastic bags, compost all food waste and do not buy any thing that has multiple wrappings.

Thank you!
I went shopping shortly after this post, and it actually affected my habits.
I did not put my single onion into a plastic bag. (pat on back, pat on back)
Though, I did put my 6 apples into one.
But, when I arrived home, I noticed my front porch, recycled/purposed rubbish collector, was full.
I deposited said apples onto my kitchen counter, and promptly used the apple bag as a new liner.

Of course, empty coffee ground containers also make good flower pots.

In spite of Evo's claim, that potting tomatoes is a fool's endeavor, I seem to have had much success.

And the lids come in handy, also, when feeding the neighbor's little Mexican hound.

IMHO, not recycling, is a social disease.

I work for a charity, we collect items from donaters that would normally be taken to the tip, i can tell you it is unbelievable what people throw away that can be recycled.

I will comment on this later, as things are afoot. (Remind me tomorrow, to mention the world's tiniest radiator, that I found the other day.)

 

[edward]

Even China is now rejecting our dirty recyclables.

The problem is we don’t have a market for it,” Jeff Hardwood, an Olympia-area recycling center manager, tells Washington state’s KIRO-TV. “China is saying we are only going to accept the high-value material we have a demand for now.”Hardwood is referring to China’s “Green Fence” campaign banning “foreign garbage” (link in Chinese). China has rejected 68,000 tons (61,700 tonnes) of waste in the first five months of 2013, when the program was officially launched. The Green Fence initiative bans bales of plastic that haven’t been cleaned or thoroughly sorted. That type of recyclable material, which costs more to recycle, often ends up in China’s landfills, which have become a source of recent unrest in the country’s south.

Instead of investing in the sorting and cleaning technologies required to process soiled and unsorted recyclables, which both China and the US have been reluctant to do, China’s Green Fence policy blocks the import of those plastics. As a result, US recycling centers that once accepted scrap plastic for recycling are being forced to send it to American landfills.

http://qz.com/117151/us-states-banned-from-exporting-their-trash-to-china-are-drowning-in-plastic/

 

[Czcibor]

The purpose of letting the government continue is what it does. It let's the government continue. Thus, such a scheme is automatically successful, since its purpose is to expand and extend the power of government. Whether it helps the environment or not (almost universally not) is irrelevant to the evaluation of a scheme to let the government continue.

That we are most certainly NOT doing our best to protect the environment is not even on the list of evaluation checks for such a scheme. There is no mechanism nor measurement even contemplated. Other than compliance that is.

A recycle scheme, for example, is deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Rules about packaging are deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Helping the environment is not the purpose. Extending and expanding government control is the purpose. For that is what it does.

Maybe that's a cultural difference (I'm not American, and consider US anti-state approach as a bit weird), but I think that you get the problem incorrectly. Generally the point of flawed gov interventions is NOT to expand power of state. (there may be indeed an incentive to expand number of gov officials, as there would be a chance for patronage while hiring, but the power as such has got a limited value for politician who would anyway end his term soon)

A democratically elected gov has to show voters that is doing something about existing or perceived problems. The easiest way to show that gov is doing something would be pass new laws and create new agencies, regulate problematic activities... Take into account that voters want to feel good concerning their choices (pending on place on left-right axis it may be more ecological and social stuff or religion mixed with nationalism stuff), so they would insist on passing a law that would make them feel good, not necessary that would indeed work. Moreover voters tend to express contradictory expectations (low taxes, low deficit, high spending ;) ) and rarely try to look about further reaching consequences of some policies (I really doubt that voters see relationship between zoning laws and prices of housing). Additionally policies usually need while to make possible to assess their effectiveness, so a politician who regulated something presumably scored some points from his voters, while quite possibly, whether it worked in long run or not would have limited impact on next election.

Nevertheless, I think that one crucial point, actually mentioned by Milton Friedman (in Free to Choose), got neglected here - gov creates the framework for private companies to work. I mean, as a way of including social cost of pollution, he suggested gov auctioning pollution quotas / sin tax, to allow market mechanism to reduce pollution in most cost effective way.

 

[wolram]

Czcibor
I am sure a sin tax would work in the UK, more people would bring their used items to us for recycling, we recycle everything, electrical goods, we PAT test them, any that do not pass get stripped down for there metal and plastic, all household goods, furniture, clothes, paper, cardboard about the only stuff we chuck away is dirt and thin film plastic, we have not found a way to recycle this yet, bubble wrap is a pain in the ass, people should not use this or Styrofoam for packaging,

 

[OmCheeto]

Even China is now rejecting our dirty recyclables.

http://qz.com/117151/us-states-banned-from-exporting-their-trash-to-china-are-drowning-in-plastic/

Wow! That's an interesting article.

China imports around 40% of the world’s plastic scrap, collecting the rest domestically.​

Coincidentally, the husband of a young lady I worked with, used to work for a local company called Agilyx. I'd have probably never heard of the company otherwise, as I've never seen an advertisement for their product. Anyways, they have a machine that converts unsorted plastics back into crude oil. I thought that was kind of a brilliant solution to my problem. And fortunately, a wealthy Brit also likes the idea.

Another step closer to zero waste [Virgin, Richard Branson]
Delighted to have invested in Agilyx, an alternative energy company launched to convert plastics that can’t be recycled into crude oil. Every year over 200 million tonnes of plastic around the world ends up in landfill. In addition, many millions of tonnes end up in the ocean and on beaches where they can fatally harm wildlife and ecosystems as a whole.
...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Anyways, they have a machine that converts unsorted plastics back into crude oil. I thought that was kind of a brilliant solution to my problem. And fortunately, a wealthy Brit also likes the idea.

There's a lot of people working on this.

Here's a thread I found on snopes:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=67107

The process requires energy, of course, and one objection would be the complete dumbness of using grid electricity to effect the conversion.

However, if solar or wind power were used to convert plastic to oil, it would represent a way of storing those intermittent forms of energy for use as needed. The other benefit is less junk in landfills.

 

[OmCheeto]

There's a lot of people working on this.

That is good news!

Here's a thread I found on snopes:

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=67107

The process requires energy, of course, and one objection would be the complete dumbness of using grid electricity to effect the conversion.

However, if solar or wind power were used to convert plastic to oil, it would represent a way of storing those intermittent forms of energy for use as needed. The other benefit is less junk in landfills.

Very true. I would imagine that economic science dictates that if it were a losing system, it wouldn't be feasible, and it would be cheaper to just dump it.

But Agilyx claims;

http://www.agilyx.com/index.php/our-technology
...
Our proven technology returns 5X more energy than it uses (“EROEI”) in the production process.

If true, all we would need to know, or guesstimate, would be:

1. the cost of one of their "Gen6" devices, if produced at an economy of scale
2. the current cost of dumping plastic
3. future costs of cleaning up landfill dumped plastics, should it be determined that it's an environmental problem
4. forecast cost of crude oil
5. logistical costs
​

to determine the time to profitability.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That is good news!

Very true. I would imagine that economic science dictates that if it were a losing system, it wouldn't be feasible, and it would be cheaper to just dump it.

But Agilyx claims;
If true, all we would need to know, or guesstimate, would be:

1. the cost of one of their "Gen6" devices, if produced at an economy of scale
2. the current cost of dumping plastic
3. future costs of cleaning up landfill dumped plastics, should it be determined that it's an environmental problem
4. forecast cost of crude oil
5. logistical costs
​

to determine the time to profitability.

Due to claims made in the snopes thread, that it takes more energy to convert plastic to oil than you can get from the oil produced, the Agilyx claims are suspect in my mind. Regardless, using solar or wind to convert it, would still take care of the landfill problem and produce stored energy in the form of the oil produced.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here you go:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Waste-Plastic-to-Fuel/?ALLSTEPS

Apparently this is simple enough that a person can try it at home. Essentially you are heating the plastic till it gives off fumes, then collecting and condensing the fumes as oil. I suppose a good test would be to start the "reactor" with, say, a conventional propane stove top burner, then switch to using some of the output of the reactor to continue the process and see if you end up with any leftover.

If that didn't work, I'd try rigging up a big fresnel lens and a mirror to heat the "reactor".

 

[OmCheeto]

Due to claims made in the snopes thread, that it takes more energy to convert plastic to oil than you can get from the oil produced, the Agilyx claims are suspect in my mind. Regardless, using solar or wind to convert it, would still take care of the landfill problem and produce stored energy in the form of the oil produced.

If you are referring to the 7th, and final post, well, I'm very suspect of the duplicitous comments made by the author:

...BUT actually it's impractical because it uses more energy than it converts.
...
Admittedly waste plastic IS a very pure raw material and has a very high calorific content. That's why it's also good to simply burn it in a (clean) waste incinerator (along with other general refuse) and recover the heat energy to provide district hot water and electricity (Scandinavia, Switzerland, Holland and probably Germany)

bolding mine

Probably a good topic for the Chemistry Forum.
And perhaps another forum.
I knew someone, who bragged about how he made all his money, by falsifying the records, while chief chemist, at a now defunct chemical company, so the company could dump toxic waste into the environment.
I wonder how Mr. Friedman, were he still alive today, would respond to that situation.

Well, this is a third party issue. Obviously, the government should have been paying attention, and caught that. But, because they are so big and bloated, they didn't.

 

[wolram]

Here are some ways plastic is all ready being recycled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling

 

[OmCheeto]

Here you go:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Waste-Plastic-to-Fuel/?ALLSTEPS

Apparently this is simple enough that a person can try it at home. Essentially you are heating the plastic till it gives off fumes, then collecting and condensing the fumes as oil. I suppose a good test would be to start the "reactor" with, say, a conventional propane stove top burner, then switch to using some of the output of the reactor to continue the process and see if you end up with any leftover.

If that didn't work, I'd try rigging up a big fresnel lens and a mirror to heat the "reactor".

Nyet!
I've done many an experiment, but I will not do that.
My friends' house burned down a couple of weeks ago, and upon arriving at my convenience store about an hour ago, something burst into a 4 firetruck fire, less than a mile from my house.
It's a sign!

ps. Champagne glassware that Om was told to throw away after the fire, but instead, meticulously cleaned, and yesterday broke in the dishwasher, goes in the garbage. It is not municipally recyclable.

 

[wolram]

Nyet!
I've done many an experiment, but I will not do that.
My friends' house burned down a couple of weeks ago, and upon arriving at my convenience store about an hour ago, something burst into a 4 firetruck fire, less than a mile from my house.
It's a sign!

ps. Champagne glassware that Om was told to throw away after the fire, but instead, meticulously cleaned, and yesterday broke in the dishwasher, goes in the garbage. It is not municipally recyclable.

Our broken glass on non recyclable glass goes to hardcore.

 

[OmCheeto]

Our broken glass on non recyclable glass goes to hardcore.

I am not googling that...

 

[edward]

Garbage (trash) companies here pick up recyclables once a week as they do in many places I assume. The one material that they will not take is glass of any kind. As a kid I made a fortune returning glass soft drink bottles to the store. The pay was 2 cents for small bottles and 5 cents, a whole nickel, for the large ones. Now, at least in Tucson AZ, they go to the landfill.

There is some hope. There are companies making countertops out of recycled glass, cement, and a few other ingredients.

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Recycled_Glass_Countertops

 

[OmCheeto]

Garbage (trash) companies here pick up recyclables once a week as they do in many places I assume. The one material that they will not take is glass of any kind. As a kid I made a fortune returning glass soft drink bottles to the store. The pay was 2 cents for small bottles and 5 cents, a whole nickel, for the large ones. Now, at least in Tucson AZ, they go to the landfill.

There is some hope. There are companies making countertops out of recycled glass, cement, and a few other ingredients.

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Recycled_Glass_Countertops

That's quite interesting about the bottles. Knowing approximately how old you are, that does sounds like a fortune!
A very successful business owner friend of mine started out almost the same way.
He would collect dead old lead acid batteries, and via some kind of voo-doo scientific magic, restore them, and re-sell them.
I'm guessing he's about 75 by now, and from my recollection, he was 15 at the time he started. So he was recycling, profitably, before I was born.

So, I guess the problem has 4 "-ate" avenues of solution:

1. Innovate
2. Legislate
3. Litigate
4. Ignore it until it's too late​

I'm going to throw out #4, as I'm a believer in the "7th Generation" philosophy, and #4 leads to #3; "let the problem happen, and then sue them". Great idea, if you can afford a lawyer. And pray that the statute of limitations hasn't run out when you find out about it.

I guess my stance is a combination of #1 & #2, as neither one is really an ideal solution.

 

[Czcibor]

Due to claims made in the snopes thread, that it takes more energy to convert plastic to oil than you can get from the oil produced, the Agilyx claims are suspect in my mind. Regardless, using solar or wind to convert it, would still take care of the landfill problem and produce stored energy in the form of the oil produced.

Maybe it is just simpler, cheaper and comparably ecological to just leave it in landfill?

we have not found a way to recycle this yet, bubble wrap is a pain in the ass, people should not use this or Styrofoam for packaging

Really? I recycle both of it from time to time, when I have to send someone a package and I am unwilling to spend any money on protection. ;)

 

[OmCheeto]

Maybe it is just simpler, cheaper and comparably ecological to just leave it in landfill?
...

Could be.

I spent about an hour yesterday trying to figure out what "plastic" was.
I just spent another 3 hours today, doing the same.

I don't really know much more than I did yesterday: Melting points, the difference between a monomer and a polymer, why the boiling points are irrelevant, formulas, names, ranks by production.

Too much for my brain to process.

One neat site I found, listed a whole bunch of fascinating statistics:

http://www.plasticsindustry.org/economicstats [plasticsindustry.org]

Plastics play an indispensable role in a wide variety of markets, ranging from packaging and building/construction to transportation, consumer and institutional products, furniture and furnishings, electronics and more.

A Few Facts on the Plastics Industry

The plastics industry is the third largest manufacturing industry in the United States
...

I did not know that.

hmmm...

 

[rootone]

Plastics industry:
Is that just manufacturing of plastics as such, or does it also include manufacturing of items using plastics? - a vast range.
Probably the latter is a bigger industry in cash value terms.

 

[mheslep]

I suspect the low price of oil and natural gas and therefore the low price of ethylene is pushing down the value of recycled plastics, especially in developing world countries where oil and gas imports were very expensive just a few years ago (e.g. China ).

 

[edward]

What happens to rubbish in the landfills?? Sometimes not much. I remembered an article in the local newspaper about a group in Tucson from back in the late eighties. They dug up, among other things a copy of the Tucson newspaper that was dated 1950 something. The newspaper was in good condition. I couldn't find that article, but the article below from 1992 was most likely that same group.

After 20 years of sorting through garbage cans and landfills, the archaeologist William L. Rathje has accumulated precious memories. There are the 40-year-old hot dogs, perfectly preserved beneath dozens of strata of waste, and the head of lettuce still in pristine condition after 25 years. But the hands-down winner, the one that still makes him shake his head in disbelief, is an order of guacamole he recently unearthed. Almost as good as new, it sat next to a newspaper apparently thrown out the same day. The date was 1967.[QUOTE/]

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/13/nyregion/seeking-the-truth-in-refuse.html?pagewanted=all

 

[zoobyshoe]

What happens to rubbish in the landfills?? Sometimes not much. I remembered an article in the local newspaper about a group in Tucson from back in the late eighties. They dug up, among other things a copy of the Tucson newspaper that was dated 1950 something. The newspaper was in good condition. I couldn't find that article, but the article below from 1992 was most likely that same group.

That's mind-blowing, Edward.

The article continues:

The garbage dumped in landfills tends not to biodegrade. It becomes mummified.

That's not all. "Rubbish!" pulls the rug from under a number of popular misconceptions about what experts call the "solid-waste stream." It reports that disposable diapers, plastic and foam account, by volume, for perhaps 3 percent of the nation's landfill waste. "If you could wave a magic wand and make all the plastic and the disposable diapers disappear overnight, landfill operators wouldn't even notice," said Mr. Rathje, who has sorted through parts of the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and was interviewed recently in Manhattan with Mr. Murphy. Not a Crisis, but a Task

Paper, on the other hand, counts for more than 40 percent of landfill volume, and like the guacamole, it stubbornly resists biodegradation.

So, plastic is not the main offender by any means, it is actually paper.

The fact all this stuff is "mummified" means it could eventually be mined, for whatever that's worth.