Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j1yqb7j wrote

[removed]

14

LOA503 t1_j1yty6b wrote

And every city recycle 100% of it's recyclables, which they don't.

10

Goodkat203 t1_j1zupjv wrote

Recycling is largely a distraction tto take attention away from the root cause: overconsumption.

8

Fit-Impression-9010 t1_j20z8d2 wrote

Recycling is the last step, the big companies don’t reduce and rarely reuse so the last step is pretty null and void.

5

LordOfRuinsOtherSelf t1_j2152er wrote

UK here, we have a local waste to energy plant. What can be recycled is, everything else gets turned into electricity, no landfill.

5

Rapiz t1_j1yrup1 wrote

And every city should have multiple containers to throw away electronics.

4

kittenbag t1_j2006q5 wrote

You mean an incinerator where they burn up “recyclables” for power generation? Because outside of pulling out valuable metals (cans) and sometimes some cardboard, that’s how most of them work

1

Extension-Standard17 t1_j21jqzj wrote

I think this new legislation is great, but it does not even come close to solving the problems we have with recycling. All incinerators generate power, most do not make enough to push that back to the grid, see Newton's first law. You can't input fule to destroy something and get more energy out of it than you out into destroying it. The EPA can generate law after law for manufacturing, and local manisapalities can make all the rules they want. Neither of these address the actual recycler. Recycling is a for profit business. They choose the most profitable things to sell off. If they don't have a buyer, or the market is below their cost to sort these items out, they just send them to a landfill.
Legislation to regulate the recycler it what's needed.

4

Accujack t1_j21jum7 wrote

The EPA in question is the Taiwan EPA, FYI.

Also, this seems pointless. Plastic recycling doesn't work for the most part. As far as I'm aware Taiwan hasn't fared any better than the US in that respect. Most plastics are burned in power plants for fuel, even those that are separated and sent to recycling bins.

3

renato4803 t1_j1yu8zh wrote

This is what I was talking about earlier, I think this is a great step forward.

−3

Arminas t1_j21dwoe wrote

This would have been a moderate step forward in 1965.

10