Recycling Myths

[KittenKoder]

An honest and balanced view on recycling.

[CoDfilms12]

all of you are retards. we have 1000 years worth of garbage in our landfills, and it takes more energy to recycle a bottle than to make a new one from scratch.

[cinndave]

so to review.

bad to recycle:

paper

plastic

glass (depending on markets)

Good to recycle:

construction materials

batteries

any metals. Lead, copper, steel, you name it.

toxic waste or anything that cannot go in landfills

[Bananafishmontreal]

recycling paper may be less efficient than making new paper, but the fact that an ecosystem doesn't get destroyed in the process makes recycling a much better option.

[56243G]

@Bananafishmontreal

What ecosystem gets destroyed by making paper? Tree farms? Pulp trees are farmed. In my area fields of trees are grown right alongside corn and beans. Everyone thinks old growth forests are chopped down to make paper. What a joke!

[pizzahelper100]

SOMETIMES? u mean all the time except for aluminum cans

[idontcare80]

ROFL!!! We have 18 years of landfill capacity left!!! WOW 18 years!!!! What the hell do we do after that??? By that time my son will be graduating HS, I guess it's his problem then? WTF is wrong with the people that made this video???

[cinndave]

@idontcare80 That was several years ago. Today, we now have 20 years of landfill capacity left. More is being made. We're not running out. There are many pressing environmental problems these days. Trash isn't one of them.

[idontcare80]

@cinndave Wow, 20 years??? That's amazing! So what does my son do when he's my age and there hasn't been any landfill capacity for 5 years?

[1stephbaker]

you are comparing burying trash to recycling costs but not thinking of replacing the resources. If plastic is buried, than new plastic has to be made. Do you know what that involves?? Talk about major oil dependency, major expenses in manufacturing and distributing and not to mention all the harmful environmental elements of virgin production. Also, recyclers PAY for the scrap. So the haulers or collectors actually recoup their costs.

[earthcorporation]

THIS IS NONSENSE.

[ChefFlick]

I think your missing the big picture

[aav72]

About the plastic bags I can tell you that is not truth, that can not be recycled.

It can be to made plastic pipes for farms as instance.

[idontcare80]

70% of all the plastic bags that are recycled in the US end up as Trex.

[PRussell303]

0:50 ~80% of all paper is grown on tree farms. I've been looking for that statistic for awhile but can't find it. Does anyone know a reliable (perhaps government) website that backs up this fact?

[Truthiness231]

watch?v=b0mq9skLurY&NR=1 mentions the same statistic at about 8:40 into this video.

It's reliable: this was first aired by two very famous skeptics (Penn and Teller) years ago without any dispute since (that was either popular or logical). It also wouldn't hurt to watch the whole thing and perhaps a few more of their videos, as they cleaned up a lot of bullshit with that show (aptly titled "Bullshit").

[PRussell303]

Yeah that's where i first heard it, then i found it here. However those are the only two sources I have seen that support this fact. I do enjoy and agree with all of their shows except for a select few.

[scottypaul266]

which came first the consumer or the recyclers

pretty basic stuff to me folks

stop making it no need to clean up after

[bergumz]

sarcasm is such a fun tool! great job- you almost had me going there for a second.

[jmrios1984]

Wow! A whole 18 years. WHAT THE FUCK DO WE DO IN 19 YEARS?!?!

[dexxter7]

That is the current Land field space, we aren't running out of space (Decomposition). Land fields create methane that can be used for energy. Look up the methane power plants. Also recycling paper creates a toxic ink sludge that is horrible for the environment.

[jmrios1984]

Dude, if you don't think we're running out of space, then you must have a big empty space between your ears. Simple math, the rate of decomp is much, much less than the rate of influx. Hence, the landfills are growing at a rate much higher than they are disappearing.  If you don't believe me, visit Staten Island and tell me that decomp is making the mountains of garbage smaller.

[cinndave]

@jmrios1984 It goes in a landfill and stays there. Decomposing is beside the point. It produces CH4 which is a greenhouse gas 20x worse than CO2.

If we were truly running out of landfill space, the price of land acceptable for it would rise to the point where alternatives like recycling and incinerating would be more cost-efficient without the damn subsidies. At the rate we're going it'll take 2000 years to cover Connecticut. There are ways to conserve land; recycling isn't one of them.

[DMsubs]

Pretty pictures but no real hard facts. If producer of undertook real research and checked out facts, they would find out energy used in collecting and transporting recyclables is far out-weighed by energy saving when reprocessed. OK not all recycling has benefits but most does have big benefits and is worthwhile, but we shouldn't forget waste reduction will always be better.

[JimmyLick1]

They said that most recycling is good. But the process that is used with paper requires huge amounts of energy and produces a lot of waste.

[pandymoose]

bullshit

[sabey8]

Best thing to do is REDUCE consumption. Do I really need what I expect to buy? Is this food is good and nessary to my body? Do I depend on something? Through my conciousness can I put it in action? I beleive we can make a difference.

[ericvonh]

Also the message at the end "Recycling is not necessary, but if you want to go ahead" is asinine. Many things are not necessary but contribute to a greater good.

[ericvonh]

Since what year has America's forests grown 7 million acres a year? "The nation's forest land area is still about two-thirds the size it was in the year 1600, in spite of the conversion of 370 million acres of forest land to other uses, principally to agriculture."- University of Georgia School of Forestry

[JimmyLick1]

That would be, I think, since 1920, when deforestation was recognized as a serious issue. We've been chopping down trees ever since we settled in America, and only recently have we been repairing our damage, but it is working.

[AUBURNPROUD7]

have you ever studied what our forest systems were like back when we first came here? Or, let's say, 1800? The country wasn't covered in trees like most people think. We aren't just now repairing the land...it's been going on for years. Go to Nashville, TN and look at the landscape now...then go compare it to pix from the 1800's.

[SOLDIERF1]

recycling is bull***t see penn and teller and find out how we are all being conned!!

[aluraparr]

This video is bullshit.

[fusion451]

100 million gallons not enuf?

Canada grows the the rape seed plant its a weed low water low soil necesities Canola is derived from it ...theres ur supplement

have u ever made biodiesal ? the methanol used is one gallon to 40 gallons of biodiesal

the motor used to seperate the glycerin can be run on biodiesal

houses built on landfills often suffer from heavy metal an radon contamination belive me i lived on one

[fusion451]

Only 18 years? so my son will be sitting in garbage in college...

If all diesal trucks would run on biodiesal (recycled cooking oil) 100 million gallons would be saved from going into land fills every year while reducing emmisions by 80%

but lets just throw more oil products in landfills its not toxic lol

[MrGuileful]

they pave over the stuff when they are done and build houses, or they could pave over it

and make more land fills

just a thought

[117wolf]

The problem with bio-diesel is that

1) there isn't enough cooking oil to do this in a practical manner

2) it isn't cleaner on the environment it actually takes 1.18gal of oil to make 1 gal of bio-fuel

3) it drives the food prices up because farmers plant what they can make the most money from.

[JimmyLick1]

Sure cooking oil is better if you use is on one car, but there is simply not enough cooking oil to replace all of the gasoline that we use.

[picturethief]

Thanks for this video, it tells it like it is.

[Mags1999]

charge people per garbage bag you will see how quickly they throw shit out...this guy must be paid for by the mining and logging industry...it may not be 100% that global warming is PEOPLES fault but does that mean we should just throw crap away ...doesnt mean we should be good stewards of the planet

[gibsonsrecycling]

The Sunshine Coast Regional District oppeartes a collection center at the Gibsons Park Plaza Mall in Gibsons British Coulumbia. In a little over 4 years, they have transported their recycling over 260,000 kilometres, before it has even left Gibsons to be taken to the processors in vancouver BC. Who polutes to recycle? The Sunshine Coast Regional District in British Columbia does! And they waste tax payers dollars to do so!

[Griffencph]

So they should have done... what?

Is ALL their recycling transported to the same place? Could they build a facility closer to the population making the trash?

And - if you choose to buy new products, how many kilometres are they transported before you buy them?

Is the production of new products better to the environment and to our future than reusing old produckts?

[gibsonsrecycling]

We have a private, ethical depot, one block from their site. All recycling from Gibsons, has to be taken on the ferry, to Vancouver. They take their recycling to Sechelt first, then back through Gibsons, on its way to Vancouver. That is 1200 kilometeres per week. 260,000 kilometeres to date, just moving recycling around. We take 3 times as many recyclable items. We also have a "reuse" program. We have a manned depot. Theirs is unmanned, causing massive amounts of contamination. Thanks

[Griffencph]

At danish transfers there's people throwing things in the wrong containers too, and those places are always manned. The containers have big signs telling what to put in which container etc, but people just assume "this is for bulky combustible, so the next must be for small combustible" (No, jerk, the next is for cardboard, the danish word for cardboard is "PAP" and it's written with 30*50 cm letters across the opening of the compactor! It is NOT hard to read, even with medium dyslexia...)

[gibsonsrecycling]

We are lucky. Our customers give a crap. We have many more products that we accept. We give away many items that are still usable. Our local government, get $31,000 a month, to drive recycling up and down the highway. Sometimes, the truck is empty. We get no assistance. We are self funded. So, if our recyclables are super clean, we get more money back for them. There is the insentive to do a better job.The governemnt, get paid no mater what. There is no insentive to be ethical & do it right.

[Griffencph]

Note that not all government / municipal / other public owned business has that who-gives-a-fuck way of thinking.

When I haul waste for the municipalities of Copenhagen or Frederiksberg, they say "if it's larger than a cellphone, don't haul the container" when it comes to electric items which should be separated. If there are large amounts of paper or cardboard several times, we should contact the office, and they'd send out someone to look at it and see if a paper or cardboard bin is suitable.

[natemoore]

Our county here in NW Florida looses over a half million dollars per year on these stupid recyling programs! Steel and aluminum: good. Batteries, oil, etc, necessary. Plastics, paper, and glass: completely assinine.

[gibsonsrecycling]

Hi Nate. In many ways, I agree with you. In our case, we are a small community. We also are ferry access only. We only have one small landfill and it is getting full fast. The cost of a new landfill (if possible) is much more than our rec ycling program. Our depot is 5 minutes from the ferry and the recyclables go to processors in Vancouver. Our regional district collects recycling, one block from us, and truck it to Sechelt 4 times a day. That is 1200 kilometres per week. Then off to the ferry

[natemoore]

You are a unique case.

Interesting fact: you could give the entire population of the U.S.--both legal and illegal--a half-acre in Texas and there would be room left over. Certainly not a land crisis in North America. Garbage collection services and landfills are profitable businesses. We won't have to worry about what to do with our gargage for a thousand years!

[gibsonsrecycling]

Hey Nate. You make a good point. We just heard a week or two ago about a "leaching" problem with drinking water in many communities down there.ith medications found in drinking water. Is that true? There is the problem. I think a bigger business is reclaiming the natural resources from the garbage. Polystyrene! Paper products! Metal! Glass! Whether we like it or not, we are running out of the stuff that makes the stuff we consume. There is more profit to be made, by recapturing the resources.

[natemoore]

The meds in the water are from people flushing them--either directly or via human waste products...what I heard on the news. Water treatment plants don't filter out medications.

My only gripe about recycling now is that they are mostly "feel good" activities subsidized by taxpayers and promoted by propaganda. When economic conditions make it profitable to recycle and it's not't a money loser, then I'll be all for it.

Nice chatting with you, though.

[161803]

We're not even remotely running out of trees. And as the video points out, most trees pulped into paper come from tree farms. Glass is made of sand, so not many worries there. Iron and Aluminum are among the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, though copper is more scarce. In other words, your examples suck.

[rambo26]

recycling isnt about the environment, its about feeling good!

;)

[revoindustries]

parts of this film is so daft its a joke they think people will believe this. It cost more money to do this and that..recycle the direct. of this

[cogt22]

continued... would have to be planted, inturn this uses up more carbon dioxide. However it is not gauranteed that paper is not coming from old-growth forests. Recycling is a complex issue with many variables however it is improving with time.

[cogt22]

I imagine that more land would be released for landfill. The 18 years is just what is in reserve at the moment. What we are told is that the less paper we recycle, the more of it will go into land fill. Therefore more plantations

[MastaRikta]

Not necessary? This video is pretty damn contradictory. What happens after that landfill space is used up in 18 years?!

[jaseharris2112]

simple! if industy decide to use recycled stuff in ( cost consideration at same retail / profit mark ups )instead of new stuff then recycling will be viable but at moment it isnt its propped up with grants.

[cinndave]

Precisely! Many industries already recycle their own byproducts by themselves, so there's no waste, and they can resell it.

[TheBrainKP]

If it wont make sense to recycle paper why do recycling companies pay lots of money for it to get things like old magazines and newspapers???

[viehe69]

Please get the latest numbers for a ton of used paper from a recycling company. If there was money in it people would be getting it out of the garbage, as say they do with cans, which have an intrinsic value in the metal. The government usually has to pay companies to take the old stuff actually.

[CITAFROMAN]

So whats the general attitude on incineration? If its not viable to recycle, extract heat energy from it. I think its more beneficial than simple land fills.

[climb2bhigh]

The primary difficulty is controlling what comes out of the smokestack. In simpified terms, when items made using chlorine (many plastics) are burned with carbon (food, paper) then toxins, including dioxins and furans result. There are other polutants as well but these are amongst the most dangerous. Scrubbers and regulations have helped but still allow toxic emissions. Limit what's being burned to paper & you'd be emitting CO2.

[cinndave]

While landfill dumping in the US costs only about $60 per ton, incineration costs closer to $125. That's still better than recycling for $150 per ton. Incinerators have to combine the trash with other fossil fuel to really burn it, and generate power at the same time.

[CITAFROMAN]

$125 a ton is quite expensive! Ireland is getting its first large municipal incinerator soon, despite massive opposition, people need to be educated more about the options, there is still a lot of people out there that dont know what happens their waste once its collected!

[cinndave]

Right. In Japan, they always incinerate it to reduce its volume 80% which may be viable for them since land is more expensive. Incinerating is much worse for the environment than landfilling.

[Griffencph]

I've never heard that incinerators need fossil fuel?

Incinerating and landfilling should let out the same toxins - the difference is that the incinerator does it quickly into a filter, while the landfill does it over anything from a day to a thousand years into the air, unfiltered.

Besides modern incinerators should produce both heating and electricity, this way saving on the economical and environmental costs and aftermath of mining for coal, oil of uranium.

[climb2bhigh]

Search Recycling LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)and discover this video is misinformation. In most products the majority of energy used and pollution created is in extracting/harvesting the raw materials. LCA looks at everything: extraction, manufacturing, transportation, use patterns, disposal/recycling, reprocessing, remanufacturing, etc. In categories such as energy use, resource consumption, waste generation, toxicity and wastewater recycling is consistantly proven the better option.

[holyjesus]

I didnt find that article anywhere... can you message me the link?

[alexoidztube]

The mantra is REDUCE, RE-USE, RECYCLE- RECYCLING is the third option! Stop making much artificial and poisonous crap first. Re use as much as possible, thereby negating further carbon/energy use, finally, recycle- but make this efficient and as clean as possible. If you believe otherwise- please go suck on the exhaust of your 4 by 4!

[viehe69]

Your words are so tired. Please back up your statements with some actual facts.

[Link600900]

I personally don't agree with the majority of recycling for a number of reasons, and for those of you looking for legitimacy to back up your claims I recommend reading "Eight Great Myths of Recycling" edited by Jane S. Shaw. This book contains some great in depth research and cites many sources for further research. I am doing a persuasive speech on the cons of recycling and would appreciate any user input on credible and scholarly articles I could use. Thanks!

[Link600900]

Recycling is indeed a highly controversial and debatable topic. Personally I believe it is tough to say the extremes of either argument, being: We need to recycle EVERYTHING and Recycling is entirely useless. I think a good consensus to come to is that some things should be recycled, but the majority of things should be dealt with in other ways.

[cinndave]

Right. Anything that is too toxic for a landfill might as well be recycled. All metals are good. Compost is good on a large scale. Plastic and paper are bad. You just have to look at it from an economist's point of view and look at the energy consumed and the impact it has.

[shepardh1]

Its funny how some of the comments here sound so serious. It is interesting that some SIGs and the government can support something non-sensical for awhile, and suddenly it appears to be factual. Examine what researchers (non-government-subsidized) say about recycling. The truth is, the free market works things out! Recycling aluminum cans makes sense, and there is an economic reward. Paper? Nope. Let us think.

[alexoidztube]

The market only sorts out money- it doesn't sort out the environment- that's what legislation is for! The free market has failed time and time again.

[viehe69]

You are incorrect. Give an example of failure of the free market and I will wager there is a government intervention policy that caused the problem in the first place, not the free market.

[Spocko000]

I'm not surprised that it was an American speaking in this video.

He forgot to start the video with: "I personally believe, that US Americans..."

[SOLDIERF1]

See Penn & Tellers Video about recycling, I've seen this and backed it up with research.

Its all true, Recycling generally is BULL!

There can only be 3 states of mind one can be in.

1. You're ignorant of the facts & really believe that recycling is good for our environment

2. You know the facts but are 'in denial'

3. You're a businessman or politician making money or political kudos.

You must decide.

Post Consumer Recycling is the biggest con of our time!

[quasispill79]

As far as recycling paper, it creates more pollution because you have to bleach off the ink and what does the mixture of ink and bleach create? Well something far more harmful than its worth.

Landfills are very safe and in a lot of cases when we are finished with one we turn it into a park or nature preserve. You people may find that hard to believe but it is very true.

[quasispill79]

Recycling has no economic rewards especially for local governments. Not only do you have to pay for regular garbage trucks and landfills you also have to pay for a whole separate fleet of trucks for recycling plus recycling centers and all the employees who sort and operate them. Recycling laws make it so local governments have to cut spending in other way such as schools.

[chriso728]

This was made by the Landfill Association Of America.  ;)

[canadianrainbow]

Why should I believe this?

[BryanMorton]

Recycling is a waste. To learn more, go to Mises*dot*org and type "recycling" into the search field.

[1stephbaker]

You've GOT to be kidding-right?? There's the obvious environmental rewards from recycling but also economic ones. Reprocessed materials mean lower packaging costs and therefore lower costs for consumers. Recycling means money for municipalities not to mention saving the expense of of landfill tipping costs. Title 4 landfills are EXTREMELY expensive and we, the taxpayers, are the ones that incur that. This is really an irresponsible video.

[viehe69]

You need to research your facts more carefully...

It's about 15% more expensive to recycle than bury most trash. The government wastes 8 billion a year on recycling programs. It doesn't lower costs, go to the store and check the prices of recycled toilet paper vs. new. In many cases it's worse for the environment than using new materials, paper being the most obvious since many chemicals are used to pulp and bleach the old products. Just do some research before posting your OPINIONS.

[henriav]

It is an interesting video, pointing out that some materials are too expensive to recycle with the present technology that we have when it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Instead of subsiding the recycling of these unprofitable materials, we should allocate the money to Research and Development of new technologies that could make the environment a better place.

[jenwin23]

The information in this video is ridiculous. What about the cost of shipping & processing all the new materials? What about the cost of extracting those materials from the earth? How much water is used to mine metals? How much pollution is created from these processes? What about the cost of maintaining a safe landfill for the next 1000 years? Recycling conserves energy, water & natural resources & produces less pollution than creating products from new materials--recycle all you can

[Hairysteed]

Ýes, it is cheaper to melt cans than to mine bauxite. That's why people are alredy going through garbage to get aluminum cans. There's money in it!

However, just as it's said in the video, some things like paper are not worth recycling!

[jenwin23]

I grew it up lumber country with lots of trees--there's a way to log sustainibly, and most logging in the US is not sustainable. It's bad for the workers and bad for the environment. Recycling peper and using the resources we have is better--it uses less water, less energy, and creates less pollution.

[jenwin23]

Just because something is "cheaper" on paper (no pun intended) doesn't mean it is better. Besides most of our products are priced incorrectly--you don't see the costs of the pollution or the habitat damage in the store. It's a government subsidized cost in many cases.

[snuffydoug]

Where did you get this sidewinder.

[Sidewinder77]

I downloaded it from Google Video. I'm not sure who made it.