1
   

Recycling

 
 
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 01:57 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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 498 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2007 03:10 pm
Re: Recycling
JOEBIALEK wrote:
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.


Is there a good reason that it shouldn't rely on the altruism of the consumer?

Quote:
The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used?


IMO, yes, they do.

Quote:
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?


What is "equitable"? I'm not talking about teh defenitrion of eeh word here. What I mean is - who get sto decide what "equitable" is? Why is it equitable that the producer of a product bear responsibility because they made a profit selling the product? How does that responsibility weigh against the benefit the consumer gained by buying the product?

Quote:
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.


These deposits that the bottlers charged allowed them to get their specific bottles back. The bottles were then washed and reused - neither of which is allowed by law any more.

Under current processes the used materials have to be broken down and (in the case of glass) melted as a sanitation method or they can't be reused in products that come in contact with food stuffs.

Your proposal not only creates a system where the producer gets back materials they can't use but would pretty much force them to establish their own recycling plants or you end up with several people involved in the process unnecessarily.

There is no reason for the recycleables to go back to the original manufacturer. It is much more economical to have specialized recycling businesses that take in the materials, porocess them and then resell them back to manufacturers as the needed raw materials.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Recycling
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 08:17:09