Why I Don't Recycle: My Time is Better Spent

[slide_Rules]

Outside of obviously toxic items like chemicals, electronics and batteries, I don't recycle my trash. I don't think the environmental benefit is worth the opportunity cost of my time (lost classifying and sorting trash). My time is better spent working, improving my skills, paying more taxes, and generating wealth.

Also, given that:
A) landfill space is inexpensive in North America AND
B) within 100 years we should have robotic sorters (with RFD chips in packaging?!?) to separate trash
- it makes no sense to separate trash manually now. Increasing economic growth by working harder so that we get to the point where trash can be sorted by robots would be a better use of everyone's time.

 

[DaveC426913]

We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

Major change doesn't happen overnight; it often doesn't even happen in a generation. But next generation will grow up with it as second nature; just like they are growing up knowing how to type and use a phone. They don't know a world without it.

We recycle for the future.

 

[Cyrus]

Outside of obviously toxic items like chemicals, electronics and batteries, I don't recycle my trash. I don't think the environmental benefit is worth the opportunity cost of my time (lost classifying and sorting trash). My time is better spent working, improving my skills, paying more taxes, and generating wealth.

Also, given that:
A) landfill space is inexpensive in North America AND
B) within 100 years we should have robotic sorters (with RFD chips in packaging?!?) to separate trash
- it makes no sense to separate trash manually now. Increasing economic growth by working harder so that we get to the point where trash can be sorted by robots would be a better use of everyone's time.

You're time is better spent paying more taxes? You're dead wrong on that. Also, recycling means throwing away plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and paper products. You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.

 

[Cyrus]

We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

What? No.

Major change doesn't happen overnight; it often doesn't even happen in a generation. But next generation will grow up with it as second nature; just like they are growing up knowing how to type and use a phone. They don't know a world without it.

We recycle for the future.

For the future? This is nonsense.

 

[slide_Rules]

We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

I don't find virtue in doing manual labor that can (and should) be automated.
Trash recycling needs the same economies of scale that modern sewage systems have.

 

[DaveC426913]

What? No.



For the future? This is nonsense.

There are many detractors who point out that it is expensive and inefficient to recycle. If we simply went with what is or is not working right now, it would be not.

 

[BobG]

We recycle for the future.

Once in a while, a person's post and signature are totally in synch.

Fortunately, my kids are grown and I don't have to worry about setting a good example for them. Plus, I can't believe the ex used the recycle crates to pack her stuff in when she left. I'm going to lose my deposit on those!

I guess I still have those pesky grandkids coming around asking me if I recycle. I'll handle it the same way as when the kids asked where I buried their bird, their gerbil, and their pet goldfish.

(Disgusting trivia: When my sister-in-law moved, her brother discovered a dead cat in her freezer. Evidently, the ground was frozen too hard when it died, so she stuck it in the freezer until the ground thawed. But, she moved in August!)

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't find virtue in doing manual labor that can (and should) be automated.
Trash recycling needs the same economies of scale that modern sewage systems have.

I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?

 

[Mu naught]

Once in a while, a person's post and signature are totally in synch.

Fortunately, my kids are grown and I don't have to worry about setting a good example for them. Plus, I can't believe the ex used the recycle crates to pack her stuff in when she left. I'm going to lose my deposit on those!

I guess I still have those pesky grandkids coming around asking me if I recycle. I'll handle it the same way as when the kids asked where I buried their bird, their gerbil, and their pet goldfish.

(Disgusting trivia: When my sister-in-law moved, her brother discovered a dead cat in her freezer. Evidently, the ground was frozen too hard when it died, so she stuck it in the freezer until the ground thawed. But, she moved in August!)

If it was too cold to bury the cat she could have just put it in the garage!

 

[BobG]

If it was too cold to bury the cat she could have just put it in the garage!

At least the cat would have reminded her no later than June.

 

[slide_Rules]

You're time is better spent paying more taxes? You're dead wrong on that. Also, recycling means throwing away plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and paper products. You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.

Plastic, aluminum and paper are renewable. Landfill space is cheap. When the cost of these items rises to the point where it's profitable to remove them from the trash stream, it will be done.

My time to put items (properly, according to my local G) in a bin is expensive. Therefore, the benefit is near zero to me. I guess economic literacy isn't very common.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.

Exactly: for me it is as simple as having two trash cans in my kitchen!

 

[humanino]

You're time

It's "your".
You're argument is invalid.

 

[slide_Rules]

I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?

Knowledge about disease and sickness would make living in one's own filth dumb. It would be cost effective to be clean even if doing so was horribly inconvenient. Avoiding the very (often fatal) consequences of becoming ill back then would be worth the effort.

Fusion research is a valid scientific endeavor for governments - although I think fission will rule for another century or two.
Automated trash sorting research is also a valid endeavor for governments.

 

[Evo]

Plastic, aluminum and paper are renewable. Landfill space is cheap. When the cost of these items rises to the point where it's profitable to remove them from the trash stream, it will be done.

My time to put items (properly, according to my local G) in a bin is expensive. Therefore, the benefit is near zero to me. I guess economic literacy isn't very common.

Some states don't even have landfill space, they have to pay to ship it to another state.

This thread is pointless, you're obviously trolling.

 

[Jack21222]

I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?

I don't think fusion power plants should be built until after they produce more power than they take in. Likewise, I don't think recycling should be mandatory until it's more cost efficient than throwing garbage out.

You're conflating doing research with a finished product. Fusion is in the research stage, recycling is in the "out in the marketplace" stage, so to speak. You're quick to point out other peoples logical fallacies, so I'm sure you knew that when you made your post.

 

[Cyrus]

It's "your".
You're argument is invalid.

Zing!

 

[Cyrus]

There are many detractors who point out that it is expensive and inefficient to recycle. If we simply went with what is or is not working right now, it would be not.

Then, why are you bothering to recycle if its expensive and inefficient! -it doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's a bad idea and a waste of money in that case.

 

[DaveC426913]

Knowledge about disease and sickness would make living in one's own filth dumb. It would be cost effective to be clean even if doing so was horribly inconvenient. Avoiding the very (often fatal) consequences of becoming ill back then would be worth the effort.

So you only bother to make an effort if it is personally, directly beneficial to you directly?

Fusion research is a valid scientific endeavor for governments

Not yet it isn't. It is only valid if we see it as in investment in the future.

Automated trash sorting research is also a valid endeavor for governments.

It certainly may be. But we're not there yet.

What do you propose in the meantime? Sit on your duff and toss your plastic into landfills?

 

[slide_Rules]

Exactly: for me it is as simple as having two trash cans in my kitchen!

I've done that - but not anymore. I live in a 600 sq. ft. apartment with my significant other. It's inconvenient and space inefficient for me to have a 2nd 'trash' can.

Then there's the time to rinse things - or they can smell or attract bugs - 10 or 20 minutes per week.
The environmental 'costs' are meaningless to me. We've been land filling with paper and plastics for 100 years - we can do it for another ~100 until we can sort the waste stream.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then, why are you bothering to recycle if its expensive and inefficient! -it doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's a bad idea and a waste of money in that case.

Really? You really don't get the logic?

To make a long-term positive change in behaviour, it is almost always inefficient at the outset. In some ways it gets better right away, but not in all ways at once. Not everything can happen at 00:01 on day 1.

Think of road widening (as and off the top of my head example). Closing one lane of a busy two-lane road is inefficient because it causes traffic congestion (inefficent, waste of money) in the short-term. We do it though, because we know
- it must be done
- it will pay off when everything comes together and the new six-lane road opens up.

 

[Cyrus]

Really? You really don't get the logic?

To make change in behaviour, it is almost always inefficient at the outset. Not everything can happen at 00:01 on day 1.

Think of road widening (as and off the top of my head example). Closing one lane of a busy two-lane road is inefficient because it causes traffic congestion (inefficent, waste of money) in the short-term. We do it though, because we know
- it must be done
- it will pay off when everything comes together and the new six-lane road opens up.

I got a better idea, spend your* tax dollars on something that is expensive and inefficient, not mine. Really? Recycling must be done? Why? (The problem is that you don't have any logic)

*That one's for you humanino.

 

[DaveC426913]

I got a better idea, spend your tax dollars on something that is expensive and inefficient, not mine.

Wait. You don't believe in research and development until after a process becomes profitable? You don't think widespread change has to happen in phases? You don't think changing consumer behaviour should happen in parallel with change in process (as oppsed to after the dust has settled)?

 

[Cyrus]

Wait. You don't believe in research and development until after a process becomes profitable? You don't think widespread change has to happen in phases? You don't think changing consumer behaviour should happen in parallel with change in process (as oppsed to after the dust has settled)?

<shrug> Recycling is not "research and development". And why should I have widespread change "in phases"? And what "dust has settled"?

Come on Dave, support your opinion as to why you're wasting my tax dollars.

 

[slide_Rules]

So you only bother to make an effort if it is personally, directly beneficial to you directly?What do you propose in the meantime? Sit on your duff and toss your plastic into landfills?

RE: In general, yes.
I won't poison the environment - but I don't consider putting plastic, paper, or aluminum in a landfill poison.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I see fusion research a a valid future investment.
I do NOT see sorting trash as an valid future investment.

I work, stand, play, sit, and jog all while tossing plastic (and paper and aluminum) into landfills.

 

[DaveC426913]

<shrug> Recycling is not "research and development".

You seem to be claiming that we should not put effort into something until after it becomes profitable.

And why should I have widespread change "in phases"? And what "dust has settled"?

So we'll just wake up one Monday morning and
- the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?
- we will instantly know how to use them?
- the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas, service zones premarked?
- the processing plants will all be ready, fire up in concert and be running at full capacity?

- and we won't have to pay taxes for this until AFTER it's all implemented? Is that the way it works?
etc.etc.
Massive change - especially when it comes to consumer behaviour - is a huge process.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do NOT see sorting trash as an valid future investment.

You feel that a machine should take responsibility for that which you do not wish to.


Even when there is, as yet, no such machine.

 

[Cyrus]

You seem to be claiming that we should not put effort into something until after it becomes profitable.

If you're spending my tax dollars on something expensive and inefficient, there better be a very good payoff.

So we'll just wake up one Monday morning and
- the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?
- we will instantly know how to use them?
- the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas road maps deployed?
- the processing plants will all be ready, fire up in concert and be running at full capacity?

- and we won't have to pay taxes for this until AFTER it's all implemented? Is that the way it works?
etc.etc.
Massive change - especially when it comes to consumer behaviour - is a huge process.

What is this load of nonsense? I can't take you seriously when you make such asinine statements (if you think recycling would magically kick in over night when the price point becomes competitive, you're being ridiculous). Answer my question - why are you justified in spending my hard earned tax dollars. It has become very clear to me you have no good answer.

 

[slide_Rules]

Some states don't even have landfill space, they have to pay to ship it to another state.

This thread is pointless, you're obviously trolling.

We have interstate commerce. We have vast open areas in many states. Landfill space IS cheap.

If you think I'm trolling, you're a mentor. Kill this thread.
It's economically inefficient to sort trash manually. That's the point of this thread.
Many (maybe even most) people don't sort their trash - because it's economically inefficient.

 

[DaveC426913]

What is this load of nonsense? I can't take you seriously when you make such asinine statements (if you think recycling would magically kick in over night when the price point becomes competitive, you're being ridiculous).

It was you claiming that it should not happen in phases. It is you who seems to feel that it should just kick in when it becomes cost-effective. Of course it's ridiculous. That's my point about your apparent logic.

Cyrus, you're no fool. You should not be so badly misinterpreting this. Read the train of posts again if you must.

Answer my question - why are you justified in spending my hard earned tax dollars. It has become very clear to me you have no good answer.

I am answering your question.

Some of what we do is cost-effective. Some recycling is now becoming profitable. But not all. We do it, even the less profitable parts, because we must change our behaviour, even if not all of it nets us a profit right now.

Now stop being so melodramatic. You might not like my answers, but pretending as if I'm speaking gibberish is just theatrical.