• GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m fond of saying that recycling is almost exclusively bad for the planet. It’s true and people don’t like hearing it.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The rhetoric causing people to put their guard down is what’s bad, or actually recycling is a bad thing?

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Recycling was actively brought forward as a solution by the oil companies to push the blame of plastic use onto consumers.

        So while recycling rare metals is always valuable, plastic is definitely not. Almost all plastic gets buried in landfills, and the only way to make this not happen is to not make products with plastics.

        By creating and marketing plastic recycling as a solution that the consumers must take onto themselves, it allowed them to rake in profits by moving everything to cheap plastic alternatives.

        We are now literally made of microplastics as a result.

        • m4x@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          What I don’t understand is why burning plastic waste and using the generated heat (for example for district heating) is not discussed more often. I think recycling offers very little benefit over simple burning of plastics due to the amount of oil still being burned everywhere compared to the amount of oil used for plastic production.

          • Match!!@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I guess I’m surprised we don’t do it but we all know that burning plastic is gonna end up directly in the lungs of some poor people who have to live by the pollution factory

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Reduce, reuse, recycle. In that order.

      If you don’t need to, don’t produce something. Chocolates don’t need to be all individually wrapped inside of yet another wrapper. Transport should be mostly by public and active transport (though we also need better city planning to help enable this), and private motor vehicles can, at this point, mostly be converted to the less-polluting EVs. That kind of thing.

      If it’s been produced, rather than throwing it away, find ways to reuse it. Coke should be taking in glass bottles, washing them, and putting more coke back in it, rather than producing new bottles all the time.

      If something has been produced and cannot be reused, we should try to find ways to recycle it. You’re right that recycling is bad, but that’s mainly true of plastics. Glass and paper are far more easy to recycle, if collected effectively. Which is also why the move from glass and paper products to plastic is such an environmental disaster, brought on because companies don’t want to spend the larger cost of producing those products, or collecting them in to effectively recycle the glass.

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is absolutely right. It’s reductive of me to say that recycling is bad for the environment; intentionally reductive.

        People generally have a very hard time absorbing the fact that plastic recycling is a scam, so it’s hard to start nuanced to actually get the point across.

        But you definitely nailed it. I would argue that if it was reduce, reuse, revolt, the environment would be in a much better place.