Just wanted to point out to Cecil (as if he didn’t already know) that while recycling most plastics isn’t quite so cost effective, recycling PETE is. Generally virgin PETE sells for 70 cents per pound and recycled for 40 cents. Much of the recycled PET goes into such things like polyester fabrics including things like polar fleece. This fabric, being synthetic based, is extremely is much more adapt at providing warmth when wet than cotton, and makes excellent winter equipment.
Out of the big 6 ( [1] PETE (Polyethleneterephthalate), [2] HDPE (High density Polyethylene), [3] V(Polyvinyl chloride), [4] LDPE (Low density Polyethylene), [5] PP(Polypropylene) and [6] PS(Polystyrene) ) PETE is extremely cost effective to recycle. (Incidentally the numbers next to each refer to the recycle type number you’ll find in the little triangle on plastics.)
PET also happens to be the most expensive plastic of the six to produce, so both environmentally and economically it’s a good idea to recycle PETE.
As a side note, recycling isn’t always the best idea. Far too often it’s placed as the best means to an end. If you ask me, try to get stuff you can reuse more than recycle. It’s cheaper to you and it eliminates some of the waste that you produce.
Somewhere between a controlled study and antedotal evidence:
On the subject of paper recycling, I have been mulching the non-newsprint paper waste, shredding it and mixing it with the kitchen waste for our suburban flower-vegetable garden. I don’t believe it adds much in the way of nutrients, as the yields are about the same as with kitchen waste alone. But it has made a noticeable improvement in soil aeration. Not as much as with hair, but it did help.
Cecil mentions the banning of lawn clippings from landfills. I’ve wondered about the effect this ban has on greenhouse gases. I’ve always heard that nothing decomposes in a landfill, so how much carbon could we lock up by having mandatory bagging and disposal?
Not to mention the replenshiment of oil and/or coal supplies for our (extremely distant) descendants.
Cecil was en route to writing a nice article on recycling until he skipped past one of the key points. He addressed many elements of the cost effectiveness question, but then neglected the fact that most every citizen is required by this sort of program to piddle away some of their most precious commodity - their time. Perhaps I’m out of line, but I get really disturbed when some bureaucrat imposes demands on my time, especially when those requirements serve no real public benefit.
Recycling, as it exists today, is a symptom of two problems that’re not unique to American society: creeping Barney Fifism (Little guys with the power to cause a little hassle for a lot of people, doing so without reservation because it makes them feel big); and the gotta-have-a-cause crowd (who need the crisis de jure to justify getting up in the morning).
Now if we could only direct the focuses of the Barney Fifes toward the crisis a day folk, perhaps that’s be the answer.
Ted, as I understand it the costs with recycling plastic stem not from the processes involved but the need to separate one type from another. Sure, if we had a bin full of just PETE we’d be in great shape. But we have to hire someone to sort out the PETE first, right?
billholt, do you live then in an area where not recycling is illegal? I put my trash in black garbage bags when it goes out for collection, no one can see what I’m throwing away. If I’m putting cans and newspaper in there, no one’s gonna know. But then, throwing away recyclables isn’t illegal where I live, so that’s moot.
Unless you are required by law to recycle, the gummint isn’t forcing you to do any extra work, right?
New York city has mandatory recycling. The current catagories are 1) mixed paper and cardboard, 2) plastics, 3) metals and 4) all other.
IIRC, the fine is $75 for the first offense and escalates for subsequent offenses. And yes, there are garbage inspectors.
This is something of an issue in a town where most people live in multi-unit buildings. See, DSNY issues the fine to the building owner; they don’t rummage through the garbage to find which apartment occupant is the actual offender.
So of course there is a practical disconnect between who is required to do something and who is fined if it is not done. But it is legally mandated nonetheless.
So, I may be missing something here, but why are you so concerned about removing carbon? Carbon itself does not cause the greenhouse effect. Carbon particles suspended in the air can have a somewhat temporary effect, but that is not a greenhouse gas. Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide are greenhouse gases. To create them, carbon must be oxidized, hence the name.
Rainforests, however, use Carbon Dioxide and release Oxygen in to the atmosphere, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect.
So, I am at a loss as to why removing rainforests would help to reduce the greenhouse effect and why bagging grass clippings would do the same.
I worked in a recycling plant in the mid 90’s for four years. There was (and still is, as far as I know) no market for plastics rated above 3. #1, PETE, was mostly soda bottles and our second biggest payoff. #2, HDPE, was our biggest, and #3 was only good if clear and clean (a lot of plastic lamp oil containers are #3, but the oil wasn’t good for the bale machine.)
Where did the informaion you got on prices and types come from? Having a first-hand at the sorting, and pricing, or recycling, I would be interested to see where this data is presented.
Thanks
I’m in favor of recycling, when & where it’s feasible. I am opposed to mandatory recycling, though - it always seems to cause more problems than it solves. (Perhaps that’s just because people like to gripe, though. ;~})
I prefer the California method…each household is issued garbage & recyclables containers. Garbage cans come in different sizes; your garbage bill depends on the size and number of your container(s). Recyclables containers are picked up for free, as long as you follow the rules (e.g., only recyclables - no ‘garbage’). IIRC, some cities require sorting, some don’t.
For those people who want to recycle and/or reduce their city bill, they can do so. For those who don’t have time & do have an excess of $$$, they can pay for the privilege of throwing away whatever they want.
I’m a packrat & hate to throw away anything that could be even remotely considered useful. On the other hand, whenever I do the recycling thing, I just end up with bags & bags & bags & bags of stuff that never make it to the center. (Altho’ the schools & girl scouts & such love me when they do aluminum can drives.) I wish we had curbside recycling here. The issue was in a recent election, but the methods they had chosen to follow were so mucked up that NOBODY (even pro-recyclers) would vote for it. :~(
Celosage, why are you using “non-newsprint” paper in your garden? You mean magazines? It was my understanding that magazine ink is more likely to contain heavy metals like cadmium, and that you shouldn’t use it in the garden. Conversely, AFAIK, newsprint ink is now made with soybean oil and is safe to use in the garden.
Also, (you probably know this but I’ll say it anyway, for the benefit of those Teeming Millions who may not know), anytime you’re adding a lot of carbon (read: dry) material to your garden, you’re supposed to add nitrogen so the microorganisms can break it down easier. Otherwise they suck the nitrogen out of your soil, and then it’s not there for the plants to use. When you’re composting you do this by adding grass clippings to the shredded newspaper, but if you’re mixing the shredded paper directly into the soil, you can add dried blood meal or a small sprinkle of any high-nitrogen fertilizer.
But yes, you’re right, it does wonders for the soil texture and its water-holding ability. Rock on!
One side note to this Column. I know that computers (and other electronic devices) can be recycled, but who is actually doing this? With the pace that this technology changes, these very expensive (in terms of resources that go into making them, if not always in terms of dollars) pieces of equipment can be outdated in no time.
Does anyone here know (duh, of course someone knows) what real efforts are in place to recycle all this hardware, and make use of the metals and any other re-usable parts?
I have a question that I have asked several people who promote recycling but I have never gotten an answer. When soda cans are melted down for their aluminum, what happens to the paint? Does it burn off into the atmosphere or does it float to the top and is disposed off in some other way? And how do they make sure the cans don’t have anything in them that may be dangerous?
Manny, that sucks. you’re right, that disconnect is ridculous. Is this another Guilianism, or has it been like that for longer?
D[sup]2[/sup]G, you asked of celosage:
That was my first thought as well, but then I figured s/he meant plain paper waste, like the mounds of old computer paper I generate. (I remember a paper-airplane kick I was on as a child–I know my mom would have loved the idea of mulching the oceans of paper I used that summer.) You’re absolutely right about glossy–I wouldn’t dare eat anything grown in magazine ink.
Remember how hot it gets--enough to melt aluminum! Paint that wasn't removed by other means would certainly be burned off. As for other dangerous things--most dangerous things fall into one of two categories--organics and heavy metals.
Virtually anything organic is going to be destroyed by the melting of recycling. Thus it's not really an issue.
Heavy metals are another issue. I don't know how they are dealt with. Note that there would be very little in the way of heavy metals in the aluminum in the first place--the consumer has little access to heavy metals in forms that could be added to the recycling bin without being obvious. (The only common consumer heavy metal that comes to mind at present is batteries. Batteries are a very differnet shape than scrap aluminum.)
and that is the answer that I usually get. But that really isn’t an answer because my question is about what happens after it is “burned off”. Burning means oxidizing, not disappearing. Once the paint is hot enough to burn, what happens to it? Does it melt and mix with the aluminum? Do the fumes go into the air? Does it form a scum that has to be removed? I guess the basic question is what kind of paint is it?
As for the contents of the cans, I was thinking of things like gasoline, solvents, etc that might have been be stored in a soda can. It seems like these might be dangerous if heated to the the melting point of aluminum.
BigAl, paint and plastic (I’m told there is a very thin layer of plastic on the inside of soda cans) from the cans burn off. That means part is vaporized and fumes into the air, part becomes a sludge that floats on the surface of the aluminum. Ever seen molten metal?
Same for gas or solvents or other organics. Of course they won’t be full when they hit the recycling center, having been poured out, leaked, or evaporated away. Some traces may remain. If they aren’t washed out by the recycling center as part of sorting (?), then they will just burn off. Yeah, fumes. I don’t think it poses a problem for the workers because they are probably wearing safety gear, and the chimney pulls the fumes up and away. Then the soot is scrubbed out with filters and such. http://www.recyclemetal.com/aluminum.htm
Here’s a page mentioning a new kiln process that strips those contaminants off the cans and such and uses them as part of the fuel. http://www.oit.doe.gov/news/kiln.shtml
