Recycling

JOEBIALEK · 08-25-2007, 09:36 PM

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.

MC Mushi Mo · 08-25-2007, 10:02 PM

Recycle. It's good for the bottle. It's good for the can.

*Sorry, couldn't resist*

Anyhoo, wouldn't this system that you're suggesting still rely on the consumer to actually care enough to recycle in the first place?

**March of the Covenant** · 08-25-2007, 10:14 PM

Click to view video.

Sarai and Samiel · 08-27-2007, 01:48 AM

I'm pretty sure that deposit thing is still happening, actually. At least, every single can, bottle, or jar I've ever seen has 'ME 5(cent symbol) deposit' printed on it or its label somewhere- referring to the fact that (presumably) returning it to the manufacturer (in Maine, I guess?) will warrant a return of said nickel.

Lord Kenny · 08-27-2007, 01:53 AM

Recycling isn't that great.

It costs more and uses more energy than simply making a new, better-quality product.

**Crazyswordsman** · 08-27-2007, 10:01 AM

Would you rather chuck it in the trash? -CSM

Eye Toy · 08-27-2007, 10:22 AM

It's good for the can, yes.

Princess Zelda of Hyrule · 08-27-2007, 12:02 PM

I'm pretty irresponsible about recycling.

08-25-2007, 09:36 PM	#1
JOEBIALEK Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CLEVELAND Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 6,645.46 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 7,145.46 Donate	Recycling According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer. The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.

08-25-2007, 10:02 PM	#2
MC Mushi Mo Bark Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: That one place. Gender: Posts: 6,621 Thanks: 110 Thanked 309 Times in 246 Posts Points: 11,802.73 Bank: 53,769.19 Total Points: 65,571.92 Donate	Recycle. It's good for the bottle. It's good for the can. Sorry, couldn't resist Anyhoo, wouldn't this system that you're suggesting still rely on the consumer to actually care enough to recycle in the first place? __________________ RUN, SERAS, RUN!!

08-27-2007, 01:48 AM	#4
Sarai and Samiel Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Aisle 12, between the kumquats and the radicchio. Gender: Posts: 2,274 Thanks: 163 Thanked 124 Times in 86 Posts Points: 1,865.97 Bank: 74,253.47 Total Points: 76,119.44 Donate	...wait. I'm pretty sure that deposit thing is still happening, actually. At least, every single can, bottle, or jar I've ever seen has 'ME 5(cent symbol) deposit' printed on it or its label somewhere- referring to the fact that (presumably) returning it to the manufacturer (in Maine, I guess?) will warrant a return of said nickel.

08-27-2007, 01:53 AM	#5
Lord Kenny for breakfast?! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Not Minnesota Gender: Posts: 1,984 Thanks: 239 Thanked 214 Times in 91 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 170.85 Bank: 172,833.41 Total Points: 173,004.26 Donate	Recycling isn't that great. It costs more and uses more energy than simply making a new, better-quality product.

08-27-2007, 10:01 AM	#6
Crazyswordsman RPG Mod Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Booyaville (yeah!) Gender: Posts: 8,164 Thanks: 560 Thanked 403 Times in 272 Posts Points: 141,027.71 Bank: 39,667.72 Total Points: 180,695.42 Donate	Would you rather chuck it in the trash? -CSM

08-27-2007, 10:22 AM	#7
Eye Toy Newbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Gender: Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 235.10 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 235.10 Donate	It's good for the can, yes.

08-27-2007, 12:02 PM	#8
Princess Zelda of Hyrule Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Hyrule Castle Gender: Posts: 6,128 Thanks: 35 Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts Points: 7,525.36 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,025.36 Donate	I'm pretty irresponsible about recycling.