David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/27/2009 9:23 AM Pete C. spake thus:

On that last part, yes it is naive to think that much of any of these
recycling efforts makes any real difference. Some of the stuff we have
been recycling for the longest time such as glass is a net negative
environmentally to recycle, but it makes folks who don't look at the
details feel better.

How do you figure that recycling glass is a "net negative environmentally"?

Not necessarily challenging that, but I am interested in the details.
I've always thought that recycling glass is basically picking some of
the lowest-hanging fruit, environmentally and economically speaking. It
requires little processing other than remelting (along with some
separation of dross) to make new bottles, etc., out of it. Certainly
better than recycling plastic, which I assume must be a horrible net
negative.


It varies with the particular commodity being recycled, with glass being
about the worst example.

Glass is basically made from sand, there is no shortage of sand on the
planet, glass is entirely inert in landfills and the energy required to
re-melt glass to recycle it is nearly the same as that required to make
new glass from raw materials. Therefore the energy, typically diesel
fuel, and other overhead required to transport glass to be recycled is a
net negative environmentally.

Aluminum is probably one of the best examples since while the raw
material is abundant, the energy required to refine useable aluminum
from the raw material vastly exceeds the energy required to collect,
re-melt and recycle it.

Recycling plastic used to be pretty negative back when about all you
could do with it was burn it to run a generator. Technology improved and
they were able to take mixed plastic and re-melt it to form non critical
items like shipping crates and palettes. The latest recycling technology
can separate mixed ground plastic into the different types of plastic
which allows it to be recycled into higher grade applications.