On 13 Nov, 23:01, wrote:
wrote:
On 13 Nov, 15:19, Broadback wrote:
If you offered any half sensible adult a job that consisted of
removing labels and washing cans, and proposed to pay them the scrap
value of the cans minus all collection costs, they'd laugh. And yet
you're expected to spend a portion of your life doing exactly that -
oh, and its someone else that will be paid the scrap value btw.

The labour, fuel, materials and so on throughout the chain involved in
cleaning, collecting, transporting, sorting and processing means that
there is no genuine saving of energy & resources - figures quoted are
normally derived by completely ignoring significant portions of the
system that is working to do the whole recycling process.

And despite all the above, the greenwash is so unrealistic/dishonest
that many people think that not only is it s noble and constructive
way to spend your time, but that you have a moral duty no less to do
it! You couldnt make it up.

You make some good points.

For my own part, I'm prepared to make a little effort to try and make
the environment less bad than it might have been. Reducing humankind's
effect on the environment, to me, is a good thing - so long as it can
be achieved without too radical a change in quality of life. I'm not
quite ready for composting toilets and knitting my own yoghurt yet.

Whole life economic calculations are extremely difficult to do (as you
allude to), often because people neglect externalities - both from the
'greenwash' side and the 'can't be bothered with this environmentalism
nonsense' side. For example, even using cold water to soak used food
containers is questionable due to the problem of using potable water
for non-drinking purposes. I suppose I could wait for the
(hypothetical) dishwater to go cold. :-) (It's hypothetical because I
use a dishwashing machine). I'm not a (vegetable-based) dyed in the
(organic) wool rabid tree-hugging card-carrying member of Greenpeace
environmentalist. I am, however, all for practical solutions that
minimise humanity's effect on our common living space, so that it can
become better for all of us now, and for future generations. I am
aware that some people believe quite strongly that future generations
can, will, and should look after themselves, and we'll enjoy what
we've got while we can.

Quite often, recycling seems expensive, because the current price of
raw materials and energy is artificially low at present. If you have a
10-year perspective, it is obvious to make new 'stuff' from abundantly
available raw materials and energy. If you have a 100-year
perspective, it becomes a little more nuanced, and if you have a 1000-
year perspective, almost any use of limited resources becomes
anathema. One thing many successful Japanese companies have is a 1000-
year strategy. We all know that most companies (and people) have a
shorter lifespan than this, but is shows (a) ambition and (b) and
acceptance that long-term thinking has it's place.

I'm dead against greenwash. Lieing for the cause is an acceptable, or
even necessary (in some minds) means to an end, which I think gives
some parts of the green movement a bad name. Some people don't even
know they are doing it, which makes having a reasoned debate
difficult.

Now for the case in point, I realise we are not going to run out of
silica to make good quality glass any time soon. There's a little bit
less iron ore around. The energy required to make new rather than
clean or reprocess existing containers is where things get
interesting. At current energy prices, we can argue whether it is
worthwhile (I'd agree that cleaning a single glass jar in hot water to
remove the label, washing it in a dishwasher, then driving to the
recycling centre in a 'gas-guzzling' 4x4 isn't likely to save energy
over making new) - but the point is that by adjusting the variables we
can make the argument go one way or the other. As energy costs rise,
and raw materials become less available, recycling will become more
favoured. Where the cross-over point is, is anybody's guess. Some
would say now, some in the far future, but I don't think anyone
serious argues that recycling will not become necessary rather than
optional at some point.

Please do continue to question the necessity of recycling, but also,
please do be prepared to find out you may, just possibly be wrong. I'm
happy to be shown to be wrong, and hope to learn from the experience.

Regards,

Sid