"Huge" wrote in message
...
"David Hearn" writes:

"Huge" wrote in message
...

[15 lines snipped]

Simple. Don't bother. The vast majority of recycling schemes are bunk.
The
materials are either sold at a loss, imposing a cost on chargepayers,
in
which case it wasn't worth recycling, or in some cases put in landfill
anyway.

[8 lines snipped]

Recycling isn't meant to be a cheap alternative to landfill, its meant to
stop us from polluting (large landfills with plastics which don't really
decompose) and stop wasting resources (metal and plastics - plastics use
petrochemicals which are a finite resource).

I'm well aware of that. But unless the materials *are* recycled, then it
is a waste of everyone's time and money. And if the recycled materials
are more expensive than new ones, then the entire process is pointless.

Why does recycled goods have to be cheaper than non-recycled? I'm not
someone who worships the environment, but I can see the sense in reducing
the amount of waste we just bury into the ground. There is a cost to this,
hence recycling may not be cheapest. There is also the thing that some
things have a finite resource (oil as a major one). Why bury goods which
requre oil to produce (eg. plastics) when they can be recycled? Surely its
better to do that than just hide it in the ground?

Personally, your posts almost sound like a troll who likes baiting people
who recycle.

D