Just bury your trash: What if everything we know about recycling is wrong?

This author does what other pro-industry mouthpieces do: 1. Reference a real scientific study with a genuine but conditional result, 2. Remove the qualifications associated with the study, so they can 3. Make a much stronger rhetorical conclusion.

Or they simply willfully misreport the results.It's exhausting exercise to have to continuously fact-check these shills. Here's just one example from the article:

"Approximately a hundred rivers, mostly in South and South-East Asia, account for half of ocean plastic."

That is not supported by the cited study. Earlier models estimated highly concentrated emissions; the cited paper concluded that emissions were distributed among far more rivers than previously thought.The cited paper actually helped overturn the older “a handful of rivers cause nearly everything” story. Yet the article uses it to tell essentially that same concentrated-source story.

Also, not "Half of ocean plastic." The paper actually says: “More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global _riverine plastic emissions_ into the ocean." They did not measure half of all plastic in the ocean. The paper modeled annual floating macroplastic (not microplastics) emissions from rivers to ocean. That is different from: "all plastic already present in the ocean or "all plastic entering the ocean from every source".

The authors think reusing a cotton bag for 173 times is difficult - that's all we need to say about this article. When recommendation for landfilling comes from this kind of sources, I think we can safely assume we are doing absolutely great with our demands to reuse, repair and recycle!

As someone who works in sustainability, and life cycle analysis, it's quite frustrating to see someone who is clearly not technically trained lay out an argument for single-use based on LCA data. Establishing a functional unit is critical for this type of analysis, otherwise yeah, it looks like every single-use item is "more sustainable" than a reusable. That isn't actually how you measure a sustainability scenario in this context. Also, the simplification of these vastly complex problems being presented as if we have been over reacting or too dumb to solve them -- be, as the kids say, so for real. It is exhausting to have non-technical sustainability folks write these articles as if they've provided some insight on how simple this all can be, as if we eggheads got too caught up in our science textbooks. Now we have to spend time undoing the perception that "it's just so simple, landfills and single use aren't that bad" instead of moving forward into better systems and effective action. Either spend 5 minutes talking with someone who actually works in sustainability or don't write these nonsense articles.

Proper recycling improves national security and the well-being of their citizens.

Good example is South Korea. They were devastated after continual war in the 1950s. So they implemented mandatory recycling. Food waste goings into bin A, metals into bin B, plastics into bin C, ... This allows for reducing the cost of recycling by presorting items. It helped them rebuild and become stronger. To this day they still properly separate their garbage to ease recycling.

Recycling food waste and scraps means creating a nutrient rich fertilize resource. Tossing them into a land fill removes nutrients from the food chain. USA food has less nutrients than years past because of the push for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49535835

It's strict here in Switzerland and from what I've heard similarly in Japan. There really isn't much that can actually be recycled - PET can be but other plastics are incinerated to produce electricity so they have to be sorted. Newspaper can be recycled but pretty much no other paper can be so it gets incinerated also. Cardboard can be recycled. And we have to recycle glass and metal. If you do it wrong you may be fined.

My cousin lives in Japan and says buying pringles is a pain because you have to tear the "can" apart into its separate components - metal, paper, and plastic all in one container.

> We have plenty of space to put them – less than 0.01 percent of the US is used for landfill, less than 0.001 percent of Australia is, and only about 0.02 percent of Germany is.

Not all space is equally viable. Landfills need to be close enough to populated areas to make waste transportation feasible, while far enough from populated areas to avoid being a blight.

So, sure, you can build a landfill in the very center of the Australian outback, but who's going to use it?

A question I've often wondered: is the "cost" of bad recycling higher or lower than the cost of not recycling?

We've moved a few times over the years and it's often surprising what is and isn't recyclable in different jurisdictions. This means I often find myself putting something into the recycle that isn't recyclable in my current jurisdiction.

Is this worse than just not recycling, let's say on a per unit basis? I.e. is one unit of recyclable material in the landfill more or less bad than one unit of trash in the recycling pipeline?

Not sure there's an answer, but it's a question I've pondered often.

That's fine if said trash actually ends up in the landfill. When it ends up ont the grass next to the parking lot is when you start to get the idea that we're all living in each others filth.

Also I disagree that energy should be the item to minimize. It makes sense if you are burning stuff for it, but we've known how to get free energy from the sky for quite a while.

I don't want another landfill. Ours is almost full and they're talking about converting a beautiful valley into the next one. And it's way father out of town. Shipping trash ain't free.

There's a balance between safety, cost, and energy use that should be struck. "Just landfill" doesn't seem to be chasing that balance.

Engineering is about _tradeoffs_. By reducing a complex objective down to a single metric -- in this case, the author chooses energy expenditure -- you can arrive at a great many number of asinine conclusions, such as, single use plastic bags and solo cups are better for the environment...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

the article and most comments here are focused in the wrong direction.

To me the real and only question is, can burying trash in landfills be made environmentally safe, and is it sustainable enough that we can do it for the next 100 years after which solar powered robots can mine those goldmines for new uses?

my time on earth is limited, and I'd prefer not to spend it handling trash; this waste of human life and potential is an irretrievable cost. I'd prefer not to even have had it dominating and skewing politics since the 1970s. Leisure time before you die is precious, that's something we can all agree on.

[dupe] Discussion on alt url: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49535835

The whole cotton bag thing could only work for people who already carry bags around all the time.

OT: I really like the aesthetics of this site.

I have a cotton bag in my car. I've been using it for 20 years. It was used 173 times probably in the first 3 years. I have a ceramic coffee mug on my desk. It's moved with me through multiple jobs over the last 25 years. It's been used tens of thousands of times. Some goods are naturally disposable like a Kleenex, but much more could be reusable. The math is right there.

This was pointed out to me a while ago, but it seems to hold true:

Whether someone appreciates a modern engineered landfill is a useful Shibboleth for distinguishing real evidence-based environmentalism from narcissistic signaling "environmentalism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44