Recycling - when will we/will we see a result?

[Bugz]

This discussion got me curious today. With the new recycling bins put in place and most households recycling more than they ever did, are we likely to see some sort of benefit from this huge investment.

For anyone curious - here are the facts and figures re: recycling:

- The unreleased energy contained in the average dustbin each year could power a television for 5,000 hours.
- 1 recycled plastic bottle would save enough energy to power a 60-watt light bulb for 3 hours.
- 1 recycled glass bottle would save enough energy to power a computer for 25 minutes.
- 70% less energy is required to recycle paper compared with making it from raw materials.
- £36,000,000 worth of aluminium is thrown away each year.


Those are pretty absurd figures and I speak for my household and my friends households when I say that 90%+ of what is recyclable, I recycle.

Now that begs the question, should we receive an investment back? Less council tax? Cheaper electricity rates?

If ~5 million households recycled a year's worth of unreleased energy, the output would power a television for 25,000,000,000 hours. A 65 inch TV will
cost £0.02 - £0.03 to run per hour -> savings of £750,000,000.

Provided my maths is right - that is quite simply put - mega savings.

So this begs the question, if the council/government/companies are making mega savings through our 'forced-recycling' - should we be receiving something in return?

 

[Wij]

This discussion got me curious today. With the new recycling bins put in place and most households recycling more than they ever did, are we likely to see some sort of benefit from this huge investment.

For anyone curious - here are the facts and figures re: recycling:

- The unreleased energy contained in the average dustbin each year could power a television for 5,000 hours.
- 1 recycled plastic bottle would save enough energy to power a 60-watt light bulb for 3 hours.
- 1 recycled glass bottle would save enough energy to power a computer for 25 minutes.
- 70% less energy is required to recycle paper compared with making it from raw materials.
- £36,000,000 worth of aluminium is thrown away each year.


Those are pretty absurd figures and I speak for my household and my friends households when I say that 90%+ of what is recyclable, I recycle.

Now that begs the question, should we receive an investment back? Less council tax? Cheaper electricity rates?

If ~5 million households recycled a year's worth of unreleased energy, the output would power a television for 25,000,000,000 hours. A 65 inch TV will
cost £0.02 - £0.03 to run per hour -> savings of £750,000,000.

Provided my maths is right - that is quite simply put - mega savings.

So this begs the question, if the council/government/companies are making mega savings through our 'forced-recycling' - should we be receiving something in return?

Those figures are misleading.

For instance, paper. Does that figure inlude the amount of energy it takes to drive the recycled paper around at the consumer and recycler end? Does it take into account the fact that shedloads of bleach is required to recycle paper ?

If it was that cost-effective noone would ever do anything but recycle.

Statistics should be analysed, not believed.

 

[Thadius]

Those figures are misleading.

For instance, paper. Does that figure inlude the amount of energy it takes to drive the recycled paper around at the consumer and recycler end? Does it take into account the fact that shedloads of bleach is required to recycle paper ?

If it was that cost-effective noone would ever do anything but recycle.

Statistics should be analysed, not believed.

And why should it be the UK that does all the rcycling when you have fuckheads like China and USA who refuse to do anything about thier own pollution?

Yes, the UK is doing its part, but its all wasted due to the above two countries.

 

[Bugz]

Those figures are misleading.

For instance, paper. Does that figure inlude the amount of energy it takes to drive the recycled paper around at the consumer and recycler end? Does it take into account the fact that shedloads of bleach is required to recycle paper ?

If it was that cost-effective noone would ever do anything but recycle.

Statistics should be analysed, not believed.

I doubt they take into account the travelling costs but then again, you can't really use travelling costs as a way to defend against it. Forests all over the globe are being cut down in order to create our paper. I'm sure a trip to a plant ~100-200 miles away will be more beneficial than traveling across half the world in order to deforest a forest to then bring the materials back.

Furthermore, at least around here, the rubbish days are the same in frequency, except half is now devoted to recycling instead of all the days for normal rubbish. Therefore, the traveling costs remain the same.

Not to mention making bleach is dirt cheap and doesn't carry as many economical, environmental and social factors as taking down trees.

 

[Thadius]

I doubt they take into account the travelling costs but then again, you can't really use travelling costs as a way to defend against it. Forests all over the globe are being cut down in order to create our paper. I'm sure a trip to a plant ~100-200 miles away will be more beneficial than traveling across half the world in order to deforest a forest to then bring the materials back.

Furthermore, at least around here, the rubbish days are the same in frequency, except half is now devoted to recycling instead of all the days for normal rubbish. Therefore, the traveling costs remain the same.

Not to mention making bleach is dirt cheap and doesn't carry as many economical, environmental and social factors as taking down trees.

Recycling is like communism, useless unless everyone does it

 

[crispy]

I doubt they take into account the travelling costs but then again, you can't really use travelling costs as a way to defend against it. Forests all over the globe are being cut down in order to create our paper. I'm sure a trip to a plant ~100-200 miles away will be more beneficial than traveling across half the world in order to deforest a forest to then bring the materials back.

Furthermore, at least around here, the rubbish days are the same in frequency, except half is now devoted to recycling instead of all the days for normal rubbish. Therefore, the traveling costs remain the same.

Not to mention making bleach is dirt cheap and doesn't carry as many economical, environmental and social factors as taking down trees.

Trees = paper and Paper = money therefore trees = money... pretty good business planting trees actually so dont worry about that :>

Only thing i can really understand we recycle is aluminum.. Thats a fucking great idea since its quite hard to come by compared to just picking it out of the garbage :>

Recycling is such a waste of time and money really, but it gives people a good concience.. and an even better concience to force what you think is right upon others ;<

 

[Gorbachioo]

There was a Penn and Teller episode about recycling, you should watch it.

It was biased as always but it does give some good info about recycling.

 

[Ormorof]

we are forced to recycle as otherwise our black bin fills up too quick

but im a student so dont pay tax yet anyway
and im an immigrant so im not allowed to vote in general elections so my opinion isnt particularly important either

 

[leviathane]

too little too late.

 

[Golena]

It's another example of people completely missing the point.

Lets give people a bin so they can recycle paper then charge them when they don't do it.. instead of stopping the mass mailing companies from dumping a ton of the stuff through my letterbox each year in the first place.

The answer to getting where we want to be isn't by pushing recycling. It's working out how to get rid of the need for most of the stuff in the first place.

70% of what I throw out each week could easilly of not been produced in the first place, and they don't need a truck to come pick up the stuff and then a plant to process it in order to gain from it.

 

[Thadius]

It's another example of people completely missing the point.

Lets give people a bin so they can recycle paper then charge them when they don't do it.. instead of stopping the mass mailing companies from dumping a ton of the stuff through my letterbox each year in the first place.

The answer to getting where we want to be isn't by pushing recycling. It's working out how to get rid of the need for most of the stuff in the first place.

70% of what I throw out each week could easilly of not been produced in the first place, and they don't need a truck to come pick up the stuff and then a plant to process it in order to gain from it.

Exactly.

And I was watching "Dumped" on Channel 4, found out that different companies manufacture the plastic for bottles in different ways to each other. This makes it harder to recycle!

So average people throw it all the garbage expecting it to be recycled, when it just ends up in landfillbecause noone gives a toss

 

[Lamp]

The best way to recycle is to throw Michael Moore into an incinerator

 

[Thadius]

The best way to recycle is to throw Michael Moore into an incinerator

I was thinking of sending him to Eithopia, im sure he could keep every family there fed for a week!

 

[Kagato]

And does it take into account the increased costs of pest control due to the increased rat infestations which are now causing a problem due to only having general waste removed once a fortnight?

Does it take into account the increased costs due to the health implications.


I don't mind having extra bins etc but recycling should be optional, not enforced by the do good nazi's that are ramming it down our throats and adding extra green taxes to everything and fining us for having the wrong stuff in the wrong bins etc.

 

[Glacier]

I doubt they take into account the travelling costs but then again, you can't really use travelling costs as a way to defend against it. Forests all over the globe are being cut down in order to create our paper.

That's not entirely true, they dont cut down rainforests for trees, they plant trees to be cut down for paper, as in; they plant what they sow.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The more interesting part is, why should we care? The planets gonna be fine after it shakes us off it like a bad case of flees.

Recycling is pointless really and the "savings" are just a problem made by man, to man. Just like poverty.

 

[Bugz]

The more interesting part is, why should we care? The planets gonna be fine after it shakes us off it like a bad case of flees.

Recycling is pointless really and the "savings" are just a problem made by man, to man. Just like poverty.

I think the caring is to do with making the planet habitable for us for longer

 

[tris-]

not sure i care about that. once im dead then the universe as i know it no longer exists for me anyway.

 

[Lamp]

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species | Search Home

 

[Huntingtons]

I doubt they take into account the travelling costs but then again, you can't really use travelling costs as a way to defend against it. Forests all over the globe are being cut down in order to create our paper. I'm sure a trip to a plant ~100-200 miles away will be more beneficial than traveling across half the world in order to deforest a forest to then bring the materials back.

you know that the rainforest consumes as much O2 as it produces? in that sence the rainforest is useless.

and glacier im pretty sure they cut down rainforest in order to make room for agroculture

and i couldnt disagree more with kagato - if you're too lazy to sort your waste you shouldnt be allowed to have waste. im really curious of why it should be optional and not enforced?

 

[old.Tohtori]

and i couldnt disagree more with kagato - if you're too lazy to sort your waste you shouldnt be allowed to have waste. im really curious of why it should be optional and not enforced?

Because police states lead to nothing but problems.

I've had my quota of "forced" behavior with the smoking law, the moment some government wankjob tries to force some eco crap down my throat, is the day i go and buy a shotgun.

 

[Thadius]

Because police states lead to nothing but problems.

I've had my quota of "forced" behavior with the smoking law, the moment some government wankjob tries to force some eco crap down my throat, is the day i go and buy a shotgun.

I like your country Seely

 

[Gamah]

Recycling should be enforced, and why not?

If it saves energy who cares? You're still using up less natural resources that you would if everything is made form new.

It's like the hybrid cars and more efficient light bulbs, even if the whole global warming thing is false, surely still using less natural resources is a good thing?

People who moan about recycling are just lazy c*nts that cant be bothered to put paper/plastic separate from everything else. It's not really hard to put your cans into a separate bin now is it? These are the same people who drive around in 4x4's in the city…pompous pricks who don't give a fuck about anyone else including their children.

Anyone who is against recycling is a fucking cock, as there is no valid reason not to do it, however, a lot of this eco stuff that the government do is another excuse to get more money from people with "green taxes"

That said, the only way you can make most people listen is through the pocket, it's just a shame the poorer people suffer.

 

[Heta]

it all just go to the same place anyhow, so why bother recycling, I throw everything in the same bin, and only way to get me to change is possible if there is a armed guard standing watch over the bins

why should I bother when my part is minimal, get the coal power plants and what not factories in china and other countries that spew out my whole life consumption every hour

and yes, I drive a 4x4 in the city

 

[Gamah]

Point proven.

Infact, the attitude of "no one else does so why should I" is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

It's people like you I hope they tax through the nose with green taxes.

 

[Heta]

pff, were already taxed through our noses in sweden

 

[old.Tohtori]

pompous pricks who don't give a fuck about anyone else including their children.

Hey! I may not give a crap about anyones children, or them, but i am NOT pompous

the reason, i myself, find recycling pointless is the fact that it's one of the least harmful things around.

Wars, nukes, old fossil based fuels, fossil fueled plants, etc etc...hell...even LIVING, as in, housing, is about 75% of the "pollution" due to heat alone.

So me, putting paper/plastic/metal cans in same plastic bag...doesn't seem like a problem.

Also, recycling is noe of those things that some do, others don't. In other words, if i do this, how will you change your lifestyle to accomodate MY lifestyle.

 

[Gamah]

Hey! I may not give a crap about anyones children, or them, but i am NOT pompous

Easy Tiger!

 

[Lamp]

 

[Kagato]

you know that the rainforest consumes as much O2 as it produces? in that sence the rainforest is useless.

and glacier im pretty sure they cut down rainforest in order to make room for agroculture

and i couldnt disagree more with kagato - if you're too lazy to sort your waste you shouldnt be allowed to have waste. im really curious of why it should be optional and not enforced?

And who are you or the government to dictate what I do with items I pay for.

I pay for an item, packaging and all, it is mine to dispose of as I see fit so long as it is not littering anyone elses property.

Recycling should be encourage of cause but not enforced, its enough of a nanny state as it is and i'm fed up of the green nazi's bumping up the prices and telling us what to do.

Like fuck am I gonna waste my time washing all my tins and cans out before I throw them away, I pay my hideously high council tax and all they do is reduce bin collections to once a fortnight, make people, young old and disabled carry their own bins out instead of collecting them like they used to, and now they want us to clean and wash out all our rubbish before it goes in the blue bin AND stick the bloody tax up for it when their doing less !

It's like the hybrid cars and more efficient light bulbs, even if the whole global warming thing is false, surely still using less natural resources is a good thing?

Sorry but the hybrid cars is just bullshit, its a proven fact that Hybrid cars are less efficent then plain old diesel cars.
Trust me, I make cars for a living and work for Toyota who make the Prius, so called award winning green car and it's all bullshit.

Soon as you get above 30 mph your working of the less efficient normal petrol engine and for anyone who travels any kind of respectable distance to work your immediatly worse of then if you just stuck to normal diesel, or even better, vegetable oil.

The only time the crap hybrid cars become any good is when your running about short distances in a city centre in which case you might as well use a full electric car.

Now personally i'd like to see the car companies scrap the stupid hybrids and actually put more research into full electric cars.