Ask Lemmy

Everything would be a bit more efficient, a bit more interchangeable nine Ted. Landfills would fill a bit more slowly.

A useful step to reduce the growth of environmental damage, but not enough

Unless industry is using the raw material produced from recycling, we'll never get to 100% recycling. People throwing stuff in the blue bag or green bin, whatever it is in your region, that's only the first step. We are a long way off from 100%. We have countries who have refused to accept shipments of recycled products because there's no market for that material.

Instead of focusing on the efforts of individual persons and households, I think more effort should be focused on industrial symbiosis - identifying industrial waste and side streams that can be useful inputs into the products of other industries, and connecting those industries.

For example, you might have a local electricity-generating station that takes some of the steam that's created as a side effect of their process, and sends that steam to an oil refinery located next door. The oil refinery has a water hook-up and sends regular water to power station for their power generation, but they also send their treated effluent water for the power plant to use in cleaning as well as stabilizing fly ash, and they also send over their flare gas as an extra energy source for generating power.

The oil refinery could send it's excess gas to a gypsum board manufacturer just down the road; the gypsum board manufacturer could also get most of it's gypsum from the power plant's sulfur dioxide scrubbers.

The power station could also send more of it's excess steam to a nearby pharmaceutical manufacturer; the pharmaceutical manufacturer could send some of the bio-sludge waste it produces to local farms as fertilizer, and the rest of the sludge might get processed into biofuel for the power station. Hot water from the pharmaceutical plant could be sent to the local wastewater treatment plant, which generates sludge, which could be sold to a soil remediation firm.

The power station could use it's excess heat to heat a bunch of local homes, some local greenhouses, and then they could also send some more excess heat to a fish farm. The sludge from the fish farm could be used as fertilizer at local farms.

The power station's fly ash and clinker could be sent to roadbuilders and cement manufacturers, and the oil refinery's recovered sulfur could be sold to a sulfuric acid manufacturer.

Such a theoretical symbiosis could prevent 200,000 tons of fly ash and clinker and 80,000 tons of scrubber sludge from going into a local landfill; 130,000 tons of carbon dioxide and 4,300-5,300 tons of sulfur/sulfur dioxide being released into the air; and 1,000,000 cubic meters of sludge headed to either the landfill or the sea.

Oh, wait - that's not fantasy, that's the Kalundborg Eco-industrial Park in Denmark. It's not 100% recycling, but it's fucking glorious.

Look into the notion of the circular economy if you want to investigate this further, although it goes well beyond just recycling.

Recycling is a fraud. It was invented by the oil and plastic industry to pass the blame to consumers and shield themselves from repercussions. While some plastics CAN be recycled, its only numbers 1-3, every other plastic cannot be recycled or its so expensive that companies had no incentive to do it, and this still doesn't include paper that also has a limit on what it can be recycled to.

Recycling doesn’t work unless you have a respectful and intelligent society like Japan or South Korea. Americans would never follow the rules. 🤣

[off topic?]

"The Midas Plague" by Fredrick Pohl.

A light-hearted science fiction story where 100% recycling, free atomic power, and robot labor have combined to create a glut of consumer goods. So, the higher your status, the less you use. Folks in the ghetto have ten houses and a thousand robot servants, while the Beverly Hills elites live in shacks and play cards for matches.

Fun read.

A robot would climb up your bum to steal your poo while you sleep

You technically didn't ask for them, but presumably this goes hand-in-hand with reduce and reuse as first steps, which would have perhaps a more visible impact.

Reduce means to cut back on the amount of products we produce in the first place, particularly also the trash being used for packaging.
This would require:

• More craftsmanship. Instead of buying a new jeans when your pants have a hole, you'd sew them.
• More robust, repairable products. Don't need to throw away the whole phone due to a broken screen when it doesn't break in the first place or if you can get the screen replaced.
• More sharing. Not every household needs their own car or toolbox or whatever, if you can share them with your neighbors.
• There would be more shops that sell products unpackaged, where you bring your own containers to fill.

Reuse means to sell products in glass jars, metal boxes or similar, which can be washed out and filled anew.
This would require:

• Some container-deposit system, so that you can bring your emptied glass jars etc. back to the shops and the shop sends it back to the producer.
• In that vein, there would need to be a tax on non-reusable packaging to finance the recycling or safe deposition of it.
• Some products would probably be sold in larger quantities or not anymore, because they just aren't sustainable, if you make them pay their environmental costs.

As for recycling, i.e. breaking the thing down and creating a new thing, it's unlikely that we would ever reach 100% with it alone, at the very least because it's more effort than reduce and reuse.
But to improve our rates, there is a whole load of products currently being sold in plastic, which could be sold in paper or wood, if glass jars or metal boxes don't work there.

In a hypothetical world, where we could have 100% effective recycling without giving a toss about reduce and reuse, then I guess, we'd have a garbage disposal system which funnels right back into a massive 3D printer.

Compost lol.

By what metric? Recycling gives a new use to discarded materials, so the material might be 100% not-discarded, but new energy is still consumed in the recycling process. This is why reducing and re-using are more powerful levers than recycling.

There is also the detail of whether a material is truly "re" cycled back to the original use, or is "down" cycled to a use with less rigorous technical requirements.

As soon as someone dies, they make a new one from the parts. One Orangehead after the other.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mzq5CVcZak