HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

John Oliver did a rant on plastics recycling, a few weeks ago[0].

TL;DR: Anything with a "Number in triangle" over 2, is probably not going to be recycled, and you might as well toss it in the trash, as that's where it will end up, anyway[1].

Different from this symbol, and probably won't be affected, but recycling has a great deal of "PR spin" to it.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E

[1] https://dilbert.com/strip/1997-08-16

⬐ q1w2

Burying plastic is likely the best solution anyway as it's a CO2 sink. It's a great way to sequester carbon.

⬐ omgwtfbyobbq

That's a great point. Shred it and use it as infill.

⬐ titzer

Except it is made from fossil fuels in the first place, so it is at best carbon neutral--but isn't, because making plastic takes energy. There's nothing green about burying plastics.

Somewhat related: John Oliver recently did a segment [0] on plastics and how we recycle it (spoiler: mostly we can't).

It seems regulations are sorely needed: differentiating domestic plastic waste will not get us very far. Still, research on waste reuse must continue: I'm afraid we won't put effort into really cleaning up our mess unless it becomes a somewhat profitable business.

[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E

⬐ delfinom

Not to worry, people want to recycle it by turning into roads!

Completely ignoring the microplastics disaster it will accelerate

⬐ 8note

Let alone that blacktop is the big win of reuse and recycling already, and these plastic additives likely make it less reusable

Why do we need a separate business for this?

Apple should be made to pay for it.

If anyone finds an Airpod on the street or in trash/landfills, they should be able to take it to the nearest Apple store or mail it and get 20-40$ back for it.

This should be the law for _all_ and any products, not just electronics. Large corporations have cleverly shifted the responsibility of recycling on the consumer, while they get to reap all the profits and benefits. This was recently well explained in a John Oliver segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E

⬐ qeternity

You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point. It’s clear you have an axe to grind, but at the same time, where do we draw the line of individual responsibility?

It’s not like we haven’t known for decades we were killing the planet…and yet here we all are. Why does the average Joe get off the hook here?

⬐ fshbbdssbbgdd

The average Joe has known for decades and the problem continues. Ergo, we can’t rely on individual action to solve it. We need society-scale solutions. Corporate action is the only tool civilization has for this.

⬐ mschuster91

> You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point.

The point itself is enough. Bottle and car battery deposit schemes show that the system works to significantly reduce littering. Most people take them to the recycling on their own and those who can't be bothered always get picked up by people.

A 10-20€ deposit on phones, a 5€ deposit on small scale stuff like chargers and earphones and a 1€ deposit on batteries would definitely get electronics stuff back into circulation.

⬐ KingMachiavelli

Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).

It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.

⬐ qeternity

> It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.

A totally fair point (one that I also happen to agree with) but not in the spirit of OP’s comment, which suggests some sort of moral trickery by the likes of Apple.

⬐ reaperducer

Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).

Blame your municipality.

When I lived in the southwest, the city required the trash companies to pick up or recycle EVERYTHING for free. From old paint to batteries to giant tube TVs to washing machines. Everything, or they didn't get the trash hauling contract.

This was to make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of things properly, rather than dump them in the desert.

If your city doesn't make this happen, it's a failure of the city to negotiate the contract properly and allowing the trash companies to shift the expense onto the homeowners.

⬐ KingMachiavelli

That just moves the cost of recycling to the public. The public shouldn't have to bear the costs of the negative externality of other people's consumption. It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods. Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).

Furthermore, single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure. The portion of stuff that is actually recycled is very low as much is contaminated with non-recyclable materials. I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.

If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle. The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.

⬐ reaperducer

That just moves the cost of recycling to the public

The public has an interest in a clean desert, since the desert surrounding the city was the primary source of recreation for the people living there.

It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods

Trash fees were based on the assessed value of your home, so the wealthy paid more in trash fees than the poor.

Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).

As noted in the original comment, there were multiple trash companies in this city. All had to adhere to the same rules.

single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure

It wasn't single stream. There were four bins. One each for garbage, glass, metals, and plastics.

I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.

I rented my house, so I couldn't tell you if it was expensive, or not. But as I stated above, the price was based on the value of the home. I doubt anyone ever changed their mind about buying a house because the cost of trash disposal in City A was $10/month more than in City B.

If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle.

I agree. But that's not the reality today. We may get there 50 years from now, but people don't want to live surrounded by 50 years of garbage in order to fulfill a social theory.

The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.

Which was exactly what this did: Make it easy for people to recycle everything that could be recycled.

⬐ jrowen

IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality. What's going to be easier: a never-ending campaign of trying to educate and motivate millions of different average Joes to properly recycle [some item], or simply legally preventing those items from being created by a few centralized sources (or requiring them to take responsibility in some other way)?

Same thing with with 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. A lot of people will say "well they shouldn't have taken those loans." Yes, true, but it would have been much easier if they were never allowed to be offered in the first place. Some people are against the "save the people from themselves" mentality, but it really seems to be a lot more effective and there's not a strong argument for allowing practices that are likely to result in average Joes taking deleterious actions.

⬐ qeternity

> IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality.

A huge chunk of judicial history is about just this issue. It’s a lot more effective to just throw all accused in jail without a trial: you’re likely to get all the accused (effective) but you’re also likely to round up as many innocent people (immoral).

Society came together and decided that the morality of locking up an innocent person was so obscene that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was guilty.

It’s ok for everyone to come together and admit we have a tragedy of commons that needs collective action, but I think this incredible willingness to hand-wave individual responsibility is really concerning these days.

⬐ culopatin

You’re looking at it from the wrong end. These guys saw an opportunity and opened a business. This is capitalism, it’s all around us.

⬐ lttlrck

I agree that manufacturers should bear responsibility for recycling unwanted/returned devices - but why should they be forced to pay a bounty for lost/stolen devices?

"Not recyclable" in the literal sense. You have lower yields when you reform plastics and there's always contaminants which are difficult (read "we don't know how to") remove. This is a complicated technical challenge. In fact, the recent John Oliver episode was on this topic[0]. There's kinda this weird conspiracy about this, which is more about shifting responsibility.

Though the more honest answer is closer to "mostly not recyclable, a bit not economically viable". But that also depends what we mean by "economically viable". If we're using it in the typical sense of "slightly more expensive for producers" then a small percentage increase. But if we're talking about "if producers had infinite resources" then well still no, but we'd be able to recycle a bit more (we're still not talking much more). I'm assuming the former because the latter is an absurd position.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E

⬐ ratsforhorses

Just wondering, anyone know if/when/how the Biden administration is planning on ratifying the treaty (Basel convention) signed by 180 other countries placing strict limits on the export of plastic from richer countries to poorer ones?

"The United States, however, has not ratified the Convention because it does not have sufficient domestic statutory authority to implement all of its provisions"