Are landfills the best solution for rubbish

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Where do these (unregulated free markets) exist? Public facing businesses are required by law to provide recycling containers, as just one example.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/
http://recycling.arlingtonva.us/business/

A blanket requirement to "recycle" is not a free market solution. Recycling is poorly defined and poorly executed. Thus OmCheeto's factoid about ¾ of the waste coming from the regulated commercial sector seems reasonable.

A free market solution would assign economic costs more fairly, allowing businesses to come up with solutions that directly addressed real problems rather than a one size fits all solution that works poorly.

Free markets have many flaws, but they are strong at efficiently solving production problems.

 

[OmCheeto]

A blanket requirement to "recycle" is not a free market solution. Recycling is poorly defined and poorly executed. Thus OmCheeto's factoid about ¾ of the waste coming from the regulated commercial sector seems reasonable.

A free market solution would assign economic costs more fairly, allowing businesses to come up with solutions that directly addressed real problems rather than a one size fits all solution that works poorly.

Free markets have many flaws, but they are strong at efficiently solving production problems.

Hmmm... I'm not an economist, so I don't really understand what a "free market" means.
Going over the wiki entry, it appears that "free market" fits into my definition of "wacko as religion and politics".
Everyone has an opinion about what's right and wrong.

A blip just popped up on my Facebook feed, and it reminded me of this thread, as it mentioned "free market", and the commenter kind of mirrored what I've been thinking for several years.

http://usuncut.com/climate/bill-gates-only-socialism-can-save-us-from-climate-change/

Since World War II, U.S.-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area.
The private sector is in general inept.

[original article: Atlantic, Nov 2015]

Since "free market", is somewhat an obtuse subject, I think I'll follow my earlier lead:

I think I'll not respond any more to "recycling is bad" posts

and not respond to it further, as it's really not a very well defined subject. To me, it's just a weasel phrase.

ps. I've been doing experiments in my oven over the last 36 hours: Roasting bell peppers to make Paprika. I know this may not seem relevant, but it is to me, as I can roast HDPE in my oven, and keep my house warm at the same time. Why turn on my heat, when I can be doing science!

 

[OmCheeto]

I think I have a love/hate relationship with Mr. Zuckerberg...

this just popped up:

Dow Co-Sponsors “Energy Bag” Pilot Program for Plastic Waste [Dow Chemical]
Collaborative effort demonstrates a recycle-to-energy alternative that diverts plastic waste from landfills
MIDLAND, Mich. - 02/17/2015

Dow, along with the Flexible Packaging Association, Republic Services, Agilyx [YAY! ], Reynolds Consumer Products and the city of Citrus Heights, Calif. joined forces during the course of 2014, to drive a collection pilot program intended to divert non-recycled plastics from landfills and to optimize their resource efficiency across the lifecycle.

Results

• Nearly 8,000 purple Energy Bags collected
• Approximately 6,000 pounds of typically non-recycled items diverted from landfills
• 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil produced from the conversion
• 30 percent citizen participation
• 78 percent of citizens said they would be likely to participate if given another chance

hmmmm...

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I think I have a love/hate relationship with Mr. Zuckerberg...

this just popped up:
hmmmm...

So 26,000 homes managed to produce 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil. It was a roaring success for the DOW publicity department. Media blurbs make us feel good, a laudable goal. But do they solve the problem?

Every little bit helps, but at some point we need to define success in tons of product made from recycled products per person rather than in grams. Perhaps, like in religion and politics, we need less "science" and more practicality? Sure it's not clearly rational, but the free market works for some value of the word "works".

 

[rootone]

Sure it's not clearly rational, but the free market works for some value of the word "works".

and the value of the word 'works' is at the moment equal to maximum profit (in the US and other primarily market driven countries), or minimum fines elsewhere.
This won't change until politicians see votes in changing it.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

and the value of the word 'works' is at the moment equal to maximum profit (in the US and other some other market driven countries), or minimum fines elsewhere.
This won't change until politicians see votes in changing it.

I agree. Yet my argument is not to change the definition of profit, but to better align profit with the public good.

I am not a believer in free markets as free markets. I acknowledge they have severe and sometimes fatal problems. I am a believer in humanity. Free markets or modified free markets are often the best solution to the problems we face. When they are not, we shouldn't use them.

(Also, our economy is no longer a free market. Large corporations are inherently anti-free market.)

 

[OmCheeto]

So 26,000 homes managed to produce 512 gallons of synthetic crude oil. It was a roaring success for the DOW publicity department. Media blurbs make us feel good, a laudable goal. But do they solve the problem?

No. But that doesn't bother me one bit.
I learned many decades ago that some problems have no "discrete" solutions.
The problem, as defined by Wolram, is "Are landfills the best solution for rubbish"
It has been noted that plastics are a major contributor of landfills.
Dow's solution to the "plastic" part of the problem, strikes me as pure genius.

Every little bit helps, but at some point we need to define success in tons of product made from recycled products per person rather than in grams. Perhaps, like in religion and politics, we need less "science" and more practicality? Sure it's not clearly rational, but the free market works for some value of the word "works".

It was an experiment. I love experiments.
If you look closely, the article mentions that the plastic recycled into fuel is that which normally goes to the landfill:

...the Energy Bag Pilot Program which demonstrated that certain plastics like juice pouches, candy wrappers and plastic dinnerware that are not easily recyclable under traditional models, can be converted into synthetic crude oil for fuel.​

.
So people are still sending their 1-6 marked plastics to be recycled conventionally.
What they've recycled into fuel probably accounts for 99.9% of my landfill destined refuse.
Were I to get "purple energy bags", I would generate ZERO* lbs of landfill refuse per year.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's a good idea.

Btw, the cumulative 660,000,000 tons of plastic, temporarily sequestered in landfills, has a current energy value of about 324 billion dollars.
Which is about 18% more than what us colonists cumulatively spent on gasoline back in 2014.
So, we're not really talking about "grams" here.

Yes. I know. Crude oil is a bit cheaper than gasoline. But it was fun to look at non-grammy numbers. *I could hide the other 0.1% in a large tin under the back porch. Mostly old loudspeakers, with magnets. I do not know how to recycle old magnets...

 

[OmCheeto]

I agree. Yet my argument is not to change the definition of profit, but to better align profit with the public good.

I am not a believer in free markets as free markets. I acknowledge they have severe and sometimes fatal problems. I am a believer in humanity. Free markets or modified free markets are often the best solution to the problems we face. When they are not, we shouldn't use them.

(Also, our economy is no longer a free market. Large corporations are inherently anti-free market.)

I know I said I wouldn't respond to anything regarding "free market", but this is pure magic.
I have just learned, that "Free Market" is a noun, and;

A noun is the name of a person, place, thing, or idea.​

I'm guessing it's some kind of "idea", from what I've recently read.

Ergo:

I am not a believer in ideas as ideas. I acknowledge they have severe and sometimes fatal problems. I am a believer in humanity. Ideas or modified ideas are often the best solution to the problems we face. When they are not, we shouldn't use them.

(Also, our economy is no longer an idea. Large corporations are inherently anti-idea.)

Jeff, you are one post away from being put on my "ignore" list.

-----------------
Ok to delete.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I do not know how to recycle old magnets...

Donate them to machine shops and auto repair places. They are wonderful for hanging chuck keys, hex wrenches, and other tools off drill presses and lathes and mills, or for keeping screws together. Anyone who recycles aluminum might also want one because they are an easy way to distinguish ferrous from non-ferrous metals when in doubt.

 

[zoobyshoe]

512 gallons of synthetic crude oil produced from the conversion

The question is, how much coal was used to effect the conversion and how many man hours?

 

[OmCheeto]

The question is, how much coal was used to effect the conversion and how many man hours?

Good questions. I don't have the answers.
But the answers would only be part of the solution.
As I mentioned last night, cooking plastic in my oven during the winter requires zero extra energy, as I'd have to turn on my furnace otherwise.

As far as man-hours... hmmmm...
The average adult american spends 33 hours/week watching TV.
At minimum wage, that's $5 trillion.
Perhaps you should expand on what you mean by "man hours".

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but the infrastructure is already there, and picking out little purple bags probably amounts to very little, in the big scheme of things.

 

[edward]

I think I have a love/hate relationship with Mr. Zuckerberg...

this just popped up:
hmmmm...

Waste Management has a recycle by mail program. For a fee they will send people boxes for various items, then just send it back and they take care of it. For $19.95 they will send people a box that will hold 4 lb. of dry cell batteries. (no lithium batteries allowed) People can just ; fill the box, send it back., and presume it doesn't end up in a land fill.

They also have very large green plastic bags for outdoor waste and construction debris. They come and pick these up with a truck fitted with a small crane.

http://www.wm.com/residential/recycle-by-mail.jsp

 

[OmCheeto]

Donate them to machine shops and auto repair places. They are wonderful for hanging chuck keys, hex wrenches, and other tools off drill presses and lathes and mills,

hmmm... Maybe I'll keep them

or for keeping screws together.

I do that when disassembling old projects.

Anyone who recycles aluminum might also want one because they are an easy way to distinguish ferrous from non-ferrous metals when in doubt.

I did that just the other day. I was trying to separate my tin can full of very old brass from steel screws, and couldn't tell them apart. I have several hundred bucky-cubes which I keep around the house, which solved the problem. They only weigh 0.45 grams a piece, so they're much easier to carry around than a 2 lb old speaker magnet.

Waste Management has a recycle by mail program.

Well, that's a novel solution, that I'd have never thought of. How far out of town to do you live? I would think a more cost effective way would be to just have selected supermarkets have recycling centers. They sell the junk, so they should be responsible for taking it back. They do that for bottles and cans around here. It's all automatic. The customer puts the cans and bottles in a machine, which reads the barcode, and then prints out a receipt once you're done. Then you take the receipt inside and get your money! I used to do this, but it's such a lucrative endeavor, that every poor person in town now does this for money. And poor people kind of creepy. As in, toothless crazy smile, halloween every day of the year, kind of creepy.

For a fee they will send people boxes for various items, then just send it back and they take care of it. For $19.95 they will send people a box that will hold 4 lb. of dry cell batteries. (no lithium batteries allowed) People can just ; fill the box, send it back., and presume it doesn't end up in a land fill.

They also have very large green plastic bags for outdoor waste and construction debris. They come and pick these up with a truck fitted with a small crane.

http://www.wm.com/residential/recycle-by-mail.jsp

That reminds me. I have dead fluorescent bulbs from as far back as when I bought my house, 26 years ago. Someone remind me in the spring to recycle them. I no longer buy fluorescent bulbs, so I think I'm done with that "era".

 

[zoobyshoe]

Good questions. I don't have the answers.
But the answers would only be part of the solution.
As I mentioned last night, cooking plastic in my oven during the winter requires zero extra energy, as I'd have to turn on my furnace otherwise.

Cooking plastic in your oven won't make oil. It just makes small pieces of plastic into larger pieces after they melt together.

I was asking about how much coal was used to make that 512 gallons of oil from waste plastic. That's a number that absolutely must be pinned down (not necessarily by you, but by someone) to see if this scheme is actually better than putting the plastic in landfills.

As far as man-hours... hmmmm...
The average adult american spends 33 hours/week watching TV.
At minimum wage, that's $5 trillion.
Perhaps you should expand on what you mean by "man hours".

I'm pretty sure I know what you mean, but the infrastructure is already there, and picking out little purple bags probably amounts to very little, in the big scheme of things.

A one-off volunteer effort is one thing, but a sustained effort to keep plastic out of landfills is probably going to require paying people.

My thoughts at this point involve selling the resulting oil back to plastics manufacturers. You'd think oil made from plastic ought to be readily convertible back to plastic, but I'm not sure this is the case. The result of plastic pyrolysis seems to be A.) gasoline B.)kerosene and C.)lubricating grade oil. Separating those requires distillation. It's just not clear to me what plastic oil is good for.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Cooking plastic in your oven won't make oil. It just makes small pieces of plastic into larger pieces after they melt together.

I was asking about how much coal was used to make that 512 gallons of oil from waste plastic. That's a number that absolutely must be pinned down (not necessarily by you, but by someone) to see if this scheme is actually better than putting the plastic in landfills.

A one-off volunteer effort is one thing, but a sustained effort to keep plastic out of landfills is probably going to require paying people.

My thoughts at this point involve selling the resulting oil back to plastics manufacturers. You'd think oil made from plastic ought to be readily convertible back to plastic, but I'm not sure this is the case. The result of plastic pyrolysis seems to be A.) gasoline B.)kerosene and C.)lubricating grade oil. Separating those requires distillation. It's just not clear to me what plastic oil is good for.

I agree with you.

Another thing to consider is how much waste is produced by the process. I assume some of the plastic oil can be burned to fuel the process, but it's a question of how much. So what's left over and how dangerous is it?

For example, suppose the process required a catalyst and leaked small amounts of dangerous PCBs or such? Lots of hydrocarbon chains are both stable and poisonous/mutagens. So reducing 10 tons of plastic might leave 5 tons of oil and 5 tons of waste of varying degrees of toxicity. Or it might leave 9 tons of oil and 1 ton of stable waste. The numbers matter.

And the idea that people should just volunteer to do this sort of thing is offensive to me. Workers deserve to be paid. Offering free workers to help out rich corporations (who should be paying for their mess) undercuts wages and helps the rich get richer and the poor suffer. I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing the rich while poor people die of pollution. (About 30,000 Americans die each year due to coal pollution: China -- I shudder.)

 

[mheslep]

I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing the rich while poor people die of pollution. (About 30,000 Americans die each year due to coal pollution: China -- I shudder.)

Coal fired electric plant emissions are responsible for thousands of early deaths in the US, but I don't know that air pollution distinguishes between rich and poor here.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Coal fired electric plant emissions are responsible for thousands of early deaths in the US, but I don't know that air pollution distinguishes between rich and poor here.

As I mentioned earlier, coal pollutes twice: once when you burn it and once when you mine it.

The cost of human life due to the mining process is pretty much extracted exclusively from the low income people who both live near, and work for, the mines:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693168/

Appalachia is being destroyed by the mining process known as "mountain top removal."

The long-standing concerns over the impact of the mines on the environment and human health have intensified in recent years with the advent of mountaintop mining. Begun in the 1970s, MTM, also called surface mining, escalated in the 1990s as a cheaper way to access the energy-rich bituminous coal beds lying beneath the Appalachian mountain forests. After a forest is cleared, explosives are used to blast away mountain peaks to expose seams of coal within. Debris from the blasts is deposited in the nearby valleys. Seen from above, MTM looks like brown rash splotches on a green body.

MTM is incredibly efficient. It also may be making people sick. A study of 403 counties in central Appalachia found that those with MTM have higher rates of cancers of the colon, liver, lung and cervix, as well as leukemia, compared with counties without mining. Cancer-related deaths were also more common in the MTM counties.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/31/cancer-epidemic-central-appalachia-354857.html

Strangely, that Newsweek article doesn't even mention the huge toxic coal sludge ponds that are leaking all kinds of pollutants into the ground. The mining companies are not required to do anything about these ponds. When they deplete the coal in a given mountain, they spread a little dirt around, throw some grass seed on it and move on, leaving the sludge ponds in place as is.

In 2000 one of these ponds broke through into old mineshafts below and came out the entrances of the mines, polluting waterways for miles around. The amount of sludge spilled was estimated to be 25 to 30 times greater than the amount of oil spilled by the Exon Valdez. Yet, for reasons not clear to me, this sludge spill is unknown to the average American. I never heard of it until last month. Somehow, coal related pollution is just not given the same press as oil and nuclear pollution. I have no clue why not.
From a contemporary story:

So far, more than 100 miles of creeks, streams, and rivers have been affected, despite attempts by federal and state crews to contain the spreading mess. No human injuries have been reported, but the smothering sludge has been deadly to wildlife.

About 250 million gallons of the creeping goo, known as coal slurry, leaked from a Martin County Coal Corp. waste containment pond on Oct. 11 in Inez, Ky., about 140 miles east of Lexington, and has been inching through streams and rivers. The polluting glop meandered from the mine into creeks, then down the Big Sandy River and into the Ohio River last Friday.

“It’s a big mess, just as bad as if you had a big oil spill,” says Fred Stroud, on-scene coordinator with the Environmental Protection Agency’s emergency response team.

In the wake of the spill, the federal government announced a wide-ranging review of 653 coal-waste dams across the country. But officials are stumped about how to prevent the sludge from contaminating additional waterways in the Southeast.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95285&page=1

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Coal fired electric plant emissions are responsible for thousands of early deaths in the US, but I don't know that air pollution distinguishes between rich and poor here.

I wonder how many of the uber-rich live down wind of coal power plants? While many have their homes of record in New York, they seem to spend more time in places like Aspen or Disney World.

I don't blame them for that. I would avoid toxic smoke if I could. Yet I believe everyone matters, not just those on the Riviera. Workers in particular have a right to some of what they produce. There's an ugly name for expecting people to work for free.

Free market capitalism works. And it works best when there's a balance between owners, management, and labor. But for the past 30 years or so, there have been huge gains in worker productivity while workers real compensation was stagnant (or worse). IMO, government policies like expecting people to "volunteer" (It's not volunteering when it's mandatory.) to work for free are a big reason.

 

[Evo]

IMO, government policies like expecting people to "volunteer" (It's not volunteering when it's mandatory.) to work for free are a big reason.

You've lost me here. Government policies to work for free where? At your place of work?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm getting a little tired of subsidizing the rich while poor people die of pollution...

[separate post]

I wonder how many of the uber-rich live down wind of coal power plants? While many have their homes of record in New York, they seem to spend more time in places like Aspen or Disney World.

You switched from "rich" to "uber rich", which is probably a factor of 100 difference in income and population and you said "I wonder", which means you really have no idea. So, basically this is free-form idle speculation, right?

IE, a lot of pretty rich actors really do live in the LA area and rich tech workers in the San Francisco area, and the cities in and around those are 6 of the top 10 most polluted in the country:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...04/30/the-10-most-polluted-cities-in-the-u-s/

A lot of that is pollution from driving - Maseratis burn a lot of gas.

(About 30,000 Americans die each year due to coal pollution

I can't blame you too much for that number because it used to be true, but it is pretty far out of date today.

See:
"Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have...
This latest report [2014] finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. "
http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

You've lost me here. Government policies to work for free where? At your place of work?

Policies such as forcing people to sort their own garbage rather than having a company do it. Another example is forced community service as a form of punishment. Another is the use of prison labor to manufacture stuff. So prisoners manufacture the garbage, people sort it for free, then those guilty of minor crimes clean up the recycling center. Honest citizens have to compete with this free labor.

But at least it's not racially motivated slavery. (I'm not claiming it is racially unbiased though.)

I think the Green movement tends to be run by upper middle class people with little understanding of the costs they incur with simple plans built on their justified outrage. But perhaps I'm wrong? Does anyone have data?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Policies such as forcing people to sort their own garbage rather than having a company do it.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Here in San Diego, everyone is supplied with a recycling bin along with their trash bin, but actually using the recycling bin is completely optional.

Is it mandatory to recycle where you live?

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

Russ, it's easier to look at uber-rich than rich. Further they have more input on social decisions than the rich, at least individually (though probably not as a group). Tracking the rich is harder.

Would you accept a list of the richest counties? These can be compared to a map of deaths per state from coal. I would note that the large plant near D.C. (and all those rich counties) is actually a gas fired plant though it still retains its coal capability for emergencies. Meanwhile Californians are dying to air pollution other than direct coal burning.

Looking at the map in your link, there is a lot of risk in the East. Excepting a few counties around Washington and other large cities the mortality effects are much higher. Examining the list of rich counties, it seems to match the counties with low risk of mortality. Still, not all rich people live in rich counties.

But let me be clear, I'm not arguing against burning coal. There are costs to not burning coal such as not having power for hospitals and the like. Nor am I arguing against rich people. I believe some people provide more value to society than others and deserve more money. But I also believe that everyone is of some value, and we shouldn't ignore people just because they work lower paying jobs in poor areas. A fast food employee serves her fellow humans as much as Donald Trump, even if Trump has a larger economic impact.

We should promote economic policies which help everyone, not just rich people. Giving free labor to rich people seems churlish to me.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Here in San Diego, everyone is supplied with a recycling bin along with their trash bin, but actually using the recycling bin is completely optional.

Is it mandatory to recycle where you live?

No, but I've lived places where it is.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No, but I've lived places where it is.

I just checked and, ironically, San Diego does, allegedly, have mandatory recycling. I say "allegedly" because I have never seen, or heard of it, being enforced.

 

[wolram]

In the UK we have three bins one for rubbish one for garden waste and one for recycling, i think the bins are not checked for proper usage. it is up to the user, but obviously if the collectors saw a branch sticking out of the recycle bin they would say some thing.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

In the UK we have three bins one for rubbish one for garden waste and one for recycling, i think the bins are not checked for proper usage. it is up to the user, but obviously if the collectors saw a branch sticking out of the recycle bin they would say some thing.

I've heard stories from the U.K. It seems the local authorities vary quite a bit in trash rules and enforcement. The stories I've heard were of authoritarian excess, but they probably were the worst of the worst.

 

[wolram]

There are extremes, like this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-dumping-wrong-items-wrong-bin-scrapped.html

I think there was good and bad in this argument, things should be sorted into the correct bins, the to early dumping is okay.