Recycling down across Alberta

[Save Us Sutter]

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/...15bd3a&k=53284

The percentage of containers returned to bottle depots in Alberta has dropped across the province in the past two years...

Not sure why the decline, though the explanation that labour shortages are causing long wait times seems viable. The other thing I've noticed, is that most of the depots close at 5pm or so... not exactly convenient for a city that seems to like working long hours.

But the real question IMO (and I'm new to this province, so excuse my ignorance) is if the Albertan government wants to increase recycling, why not have curbside pick-up? As I type this, I have about 30 bottles/cans in bags in my storage closet. Not enough to justify racing out to the depot after work to catch it before it closes, but annoying and smelly enough that I don't really want them in my house.

If I were back home, I'd throw them in a bag and out to the curb on garbage day.

Obviously there's a cost associated with this, but the government is already paying us 5 or 10 cents for these items. This way they keep their money and landfills get a much needed break.

In Halifax we also have curbside composting... but one step at a time Calgary... one step at a time.

Thoughts?

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Obviously there's a cost associated with this, but the government is already paying us 5 or 10 cents for these items. This way they keep their money and landfills get a much needed break.

Thoughts?

Isn't that money technically ours? Because we pay a bottle deposit fee everytime.

And we're supposed to have a curbside recycling program in within a year or so. I can't remember what the time period they said it would come into effect.

[Save Us Sutter]

Yes, you're right.

But by giving the bottles back to them for free (leaving them on the curb instead of going to the depot) than the government is keeping that 5 or 10 cents instead of paying it back.

That's what I was trying to get at. Would cover some of the cost of picking it up, I would expect.

And as I said, forgive my ignorance. It's good to hear something is in the works. We've had it out east since I can remember so I was a little shocked to learn that the rest of the country wasn't the same.

[Caged Great]

I just watched a documentary on Recycling, and it turns out that recycling paper and plastic is actually bad for the environment.

The paper mills plant two trees for every one that they cut down, therefore if you are using less paper, less trees are needed to be planted. In addition, it's also bad for the environment due to the fact the holding costs, fuel costs to move the stuff, shredding it, removing ink, etc.

Recycling plastic and glass unfortunately are much in the same boat, they can't really make much stuff out of it and other than the road paint, all the products are inferior than if they made it from scratch, and it's also harder on the environement for the same reason as the paper.

Also, 40% of what's recycled goes to landfills anyway because they have no need for the excess material.

The only thing that's good is Aluminium cans, just because it's actually cost effective, and easier on the environment.

That's why they have a deposit for cans.

All in all, recycling cost the Americans 8 billion dollars last year (and about the same every year).


Ps, I've been recycling for years, but I will stop recycling paper starting today.

[Caged Great]

Here's the 3 links to the documentary. Just a warning though, it does have some/lots of swearing (Name of the show is Bulls...! and they swear to avoid lawsuits because those words are "safe") and is NSFW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oloM_dSoW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnoj9MPpi54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnoj9MPpi54

[Save Us Sutter]

Ok, I can understand you saying it's bad if you're only talking about dollars spent.

But it's going to take more than a documentary to convince me that throwing my glass/plastic bottle in a landfill is better for the environment than turning it into another bottle.

I also don't see how they can plant two trees for everyone they cut down. Are they doubling their area every year? And that's not even getting into the fact that these new trees being planted take years to reach the same level as the one cut down, nor the fact that when they do reach this level they are just getting cut down again to make more paper. Or is that justified because they'll plant four more trees to replace those??

edit: I will watch the documentary when I get home from the river as I do not have time now. But I am skeptical about a show called Bull**** convincing me.

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

Yes, you're right.

But by giving the bottles back to them for free (leaving them on the curb instead of going to the depot) than the government is keeping that 5 or 10 cents instead of paying it back.

That's what I was trying to get at. Would cover some of the cost of picking it up, I would expect.

Oh sorry, I must have read that last part wrong.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The paper mills plant two trees for every one that they cut down, therefore if you are using less paper, less trees are needed to be planted.

Ha ha.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I just watched a documentary on Recycling, and it turns out that recycling paper and plastic is actually bad for the environment.

I like Penn and Tellers show, but I was pretty disappointed with the recycling show. They had about 3 experts supporting recycling and only one against recycling. And every fact that discredited recycling was told by that one guy and his one study. It's even more disappointing that they believe that tree companies are planting more trees than they are cutting down. Heck, it maybe true, but trees aren't growing as fast as they are cutting them down (20 years to mature typically). Also they focused on the money issue far too much. Recycling isn't about saving money, it's about saving the environment. While the Penn and Teller show is interesting and does raise interesting points, they are pretty biased.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by NSFL

Oh sorry, I must have read that last part wrong.

Nope, I think I just picked the worst possible wording to get my point across!

Before I head off for a swim, I just wanted to post this article I found about the successes of Nova Scotia's waste management campaign. It will at least paritally put to rest the idea that recylcing is costing us something...

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2004/09/64900

While recycling programs cost more than dumping trash into a big hole, a new study finds that the sparsely populated Canadian province is actually saving money by reducing its waste. When all the costs and benefits of those programs are measured, and depending on what factors are taken into account, the report says that Nova Scotia saves anywhere from $25 million to $125 million every year.

You can read the entire report (by GPI Atlantic) at http://www.gpiatlantic.org/publicati...dwastesumm.pdf

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I like Penn and Tellers show, but I was pretty disappointed with the recycling show. They had about 3 experts supporting recycling and only one against recycling. And every fact that discredited recycling was told by that one guy and his one study. It's even more disappointing that they believe that tree companies are planting more trees than they are cutting down. Heck, it maybe true, but trees aren't growing as fast as they are cutting them down (20 years to mature typically). Also they focused on the money issue far too much. Recycling isn't about saving money, it's about saving the environment. While the Penn and Teller show is interesting and does raise interesting points, they are pretty biased.

I agree and I see the bias, but I also watched a different episode that said there are 3X as many trees now as there were in 1920, which leads me to believe their claims a little more than not. I still recycle plastic and glass as well as aluminium, so I didn't exactly buy that one. Plus it was the New York times that said that Recycling was the most wasteful and draining thing on the environment (or something to that effect, I can't remember the exact wording)

[SeeGeeWhy]

Recycling has its place in terms of helping us conserve potentially non-renewable, or dfficult to re-produce, resources. That said, it is not very energy efficient and doesn't help the environment as many people would like to think it does.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

I just watched a documentary on Recycling, and it turns out that recycling paper and plastic is actually bad for the environment.
...
Ps, I've been recycling for years, but I will stop recycling paper starting today.

Can I guess that the documentary didn't include the difference between cutting down old and fully grown trees and planting small saplings (assuming that none of them die after being planted)?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ha ha.

If they didn't replant trees that they used for paper, then they would've run out of trees a long time ago.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I like Penn and Tellers show, but I was pretty disappointed with the recycling show. They had about 3 experts supporting recycling and only one against recycling. And every fact that discredited recycling was told by that one guy and his one study. It's even more disappointing that they believe that tree companies are planting more trees than they are cutting down. Heck, it maybe true, but trees aren't growing as fast as they are cutting them down (20 years to mature typically). Also they focused on the money issue far too much. Recycling isn't about saving money, it's about saving the environment. While the Penn and Teller show is interesting and does raise interesting points, they are pretty biased.

in the same episode that caged linked, they stated that we have 3 times as many trees today as we did in 1920. also it wasn't just about money, they showed that due to the transportation and energy required to transform used material back into new stuff that recycling is WORSE for the environment. and how about the fact that 40% of all that stuff you recycle just goes into the same landfill as the rest of your garbage?

and it wasn't just one expert, they showed that the man behind the recycling movement flat out lied about landfill space to get people to believe in his viewpoints (not to mention the lady they had who showed just how much landfill space the US would need for 1000 years). they also proved that a modern landfill that conforms to environmental regulations is quite good for the environment in that it generates it's own electricity and becomes normal looking, usuable land within a few years of being finished

but sadly it doesn't matter how many people see this show or read any of the reports proving how useless recycling is, our society is in such a "save the Earth" state right now that recycling will never go away, it's only probably gonna get bigger and waste more money and create more harmful biproducts

[Winsor_Pilates]

The one benefit to Vancouver large homeless popluation is that you never have to go to the bottle depot. Just put it in the alley and it's got within 5 min.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The one benefit to Vancouver large homeless popluation is that you never have to go to the bottle depot. Just put it in the alley and it's got within 5 min.

that's actually one of the things i miss most about living in Inglewood. never had to worry about beer bottles stacking up in my place, i'd just put em outside beside the garbage and they'd be snapped up instantly

[badnarik]

http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustai...bleForests.pdf

pages 25-27 show some interesting stats, but i guess you have to read the whole report to put it into context.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

If they didn't replant trees that they used for paper, then they would've run out of trees a long time ago.

Thanks for the forestry lesson.

Have you considered any other factors that go into turning a tree into that nice white sheet of paper?

[West Karma]

nm