Money for Recycling

[Sombeech]

We get paid to recycle aluminum cans, copper, steel, and other materials.

But why is there no refund for recycling paper or plastic? Is it because there aren't many private businesses that accept these, or is it something else?

[Udink]

I heard somewhere that recycling paper and plastic is not cost-effective--it's cheaper to create these materials from scratch than to create them from recycled materials. It's probably because they're already losing money on recycling, so they can't afford to pay you to bring in your recyclable materials.

[rockgremlin]

I heard somewhere that recycling paper and plastic is not cost-effective--it's cheaper to create these materials from scratch than to create them from recycled materials. It's probably because they're already losing money on recycling, so they can't afford to pay you to bring in your recyclable materials.

This is true. Recycling plastic is a costly process.

[Sombeech]

I heard somewhere that recycling paper and plastic is not cost-effective--it's cheaper to create these materials from scratch than to create them from recycled materials.

This is true. Recycling plastic is a costly process.

So, it's more expensive to recycle these things? Than why the big push? Why not spend the money instead towards growing more trees?

[stefan]

I heard somewhere that recycling paper and plastic is not cost-effective--it's cheaper to create these materials from scratch than to create them from recycled materials.

This is true. Recycling plastic is a costly process.

So, it's more expensive to recycle these things? Than why the big push? Why not spend the money instead towards growing more trees?

well there are a billion issues at work here.

but without getting to deep into things. i think there are at least two fundamental reasons to recycle paper and pay the extra money.

(1) our forests are being stressed to an alarming extent, increasingly every year as we need wood for so many aspects of our society. if you think about it, the amount of paper we waste is horrifying. i believe in general we need to conserve our forests, and require, by law, more recycled paper, except when necessary.

(2) paper makes up about 1/3 of our waste. so recycling paper diverts a large portion of our waste going to the landfill. this is one of the major goals of recycling ... diverting waste to landfill.


i am a big proponent of conservation in our forests. our current rate of logging is downright scary ... just horrifying. it's truly shocking to realize what the forest of the pacific northwest (california-alaska), arguably the most magnificent forest on the planet, the one with the most biomass and the largest trees ... has been reduced to a shread of what it once was. it is shameful that we gave most of that land away early on.
this pacific northwest forest is one of my favorite places on the planet ... i only wish i could have been around earlier to have seen it as others had over 100 years ago.

[Wasatch Rebel]

As a mailman, I'm appalled at the number of trees that must be cut down daily in order to send out all the junk mail that people don't even want.

[James_B_Wads2000]

So, it's more expensive to recycle these things? Than why the big push? Why not spend the money instead towards growing more trees?

Short answer: If you keep growing the paper recycling infrastructure at some point with rising paper costs, paper recycling will become more profitable.

James

[stefan]

So, it's more expensive to recycle these things? Than why the big push? Why not spend the money instead towards growing more trees?

Short answer: If you keep growing the paper recycling infrastructure at some point with rising paper costs, paper recycling will become more profitable.

James

yeah, true, the only problem with this thinking is that it devastates more forests elsewhere as there is always someone who is willing to cut down their forest for much less than the forest is worth ... like ... CANADA. in my myopic view, we need to curb this problem before it gets to that point. but as it usually is with humans ... we wait till there is a crisis. you know humans would be a lot more interesting if they weren't so damn predictable.

i'd love to go on a forest rant right now, but i'll climb down from my soap box, as it's not precisely related to this thread on recycling ...

[price1869]

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a huge proponent of recycling/conservation, but we need to make sure we have our facts straight.

well there are a billion issues at work here.

but without getting to deep into things. i think there are at least two fundamental reasons to recycle paper and pay the extra money.

(1) our forests are being stressed to an alarming extent, increasingly every year as we need wood for so many aspects of our society. if you think about it, the amount of paper we waste is horrifying. i believe in general we need to conserve our forests, and require, by law, more recycled paper, except when necessary.

(2) paper makes up about 1/3 of our waste. so recycling paper diverts a large portion of our waste going to the landfill. this is one of the major goals of recycling ... diverting waste to landfill.


i am a big proponent of conservation in our forests. our current rate of logging is downright scary ... just horrifying. it's truly shocking to realize what the forest of the pacific northwest (california-alaska), arguably the most magnificent forest on the planet, the one with the most biomass and the largest trees ... has been reduced to a shread of what it once was. it is shameful that we gave most of that land away early on.
this pacific northwest forest is one of my favorite places on the planet ... i only wish i could have been around earlier to have seen it as others had over 100 years ago.

Any facts at all to back this up, or did you just not see any trees last time you went to Washington/Montana? I have relatives who work in the logging industry, and they obviously understand restoration very well. Their livelyhood and that of their children depends on it. Don't bag on the loggers. Without logging we end up with 1988 Yellowstone. Anyone else remember the skies turning red?


BTW, another thing chaffing me is that the only religious group that ever gets ripped on here is the Mormons. Anyone who is not mormon (James, for the spun cut at native americans/book of mormon) care to share their religious views so I can look up some ridiculous beliefs and try to embarrass you, or shall I just wait and see if God takes care of it?

[stefan]

i am a big proponent of conservation in our forests. our current rate of logging is downright scary ... just horrifying. it's truly shocking to realize what the forest of the pacific northwest (california-alaska), arguably the most magnificent forest on the planet, the one with the most biomass and the largest trees ... has been reduced to a shread of what it once was. it is shameful that we gave most of that land away early on.
this pacific northwest forest is one of my favorite places on the planet ... i only wish i could have been around earlier to have seen it as others had over 100 years ago.

Any facts at all to back this up,
or did you just not see any trees last time you went to Washington/Montana? I have relatives who work in the logging industry, and they obviously understand restoration very well. Their livelyhood and that of their children depends on it. Don't bag on the loggers. Without logging we end up with 1988 Yellowstone. Anyone else remember the skies turning red?

facts? if you need facts, i could dig some up for ya, but your sarcasm leaves me less inclined to do so.

and yes, price, this is why i travel to this area ... to see trees, and i have seen many magnificent forests and trees and have seen a lot of logging, and a lot of clear cutting. and if you don't believe that we've logged a significant portion of our forests believe or believe the claims of it by any of the proponents of conservation, you can check it for yourself from the govmint. but a word of advice, when you read large scale statistics, make sure to determine whether or not alaska is being included, as that is where almost all of our remaining ancient forests lie. a perspective is missed, if you don't focus on the lower 48 states.

i have very much enjoyed traveling the back roads and forest trails of california, oregon, washington, british columbia, alaska, idaho and montana. it's a mix of absolutely marvelous forest and logging, continually defragmenting large tracts of the old growth forests. oregon is very blatant. washington fortunately outlawed clearcutting. and wars are being waged in montana and idaho, the last frontier of the forests in the lower 48. canada has a lot of forest, but that forest is being logged at increasing rates. and alaksa, alaska is where we can make a decision about public lands, that is, national forest lands ... southeastern alaska. this, without question, must be preserved.

jobs are a sensitive issue, please don't misunderstand. but i don't think jobs intrinsically justify logging. you may disagree, but in case you hadn't noticed, humans aren't the center of the universe, though we often like to think so [i don't mean this condescendingly]. the way logging companies view restoration, though, is extremely biased. regrowing trees is not necessarily "restoration" ... don't confuse these.



and don't bag on loggers??? sheesh, i can bag on whomever i like! but i am not bagging on loggers, i.e., the ones who actually do the logging ... i am bagging on decision makers. and i'll bag on them all i want. you wanna bag on me for doin' it, go right ahead.

without logging we end up with yellowstone? uhh, tricky issue. not gonna touch it, but i disagree with you here.

truth is ... most (and i REALLY mean almost all) of the original forest of the lower 48 states has been either logged or burnt due to human causes ... and this is undisputed. [and we're not talking about forest that's been burnt from lighting strikes].

here's a wondeful example, but is an imporant case in point ... almost all of the coastal range forests[not cascades/sierras] of california, oregon, and washington, which is arguably the most productive forest on the planet(a characteristic which applies to forests of coastal B.C. too), has been logged or is about to be logged. [this is well known] much of this land is privately owned ... by logging companies. A fair amount of this land was logged unsustainably by logging companies who ultimately stripped their lands and closed down [lots of jobs disappeared]. Logging companies have been logging in this region for a very long time. Much of this land is tree farm. very little old growth/ancient forest is left [well known], some of it is protected ... in what is unprotected, some on public land and some on private land.

for numbers, how 'bout a well established example, of the coastal redwood forest of california and extreme southwest oregon. 96 % of the original old growth forest (that is what existed before the 1600s) has been logged. of the 4 % remaining,a little bit over 1% of this contiunes to lie unprotected in the ownership of logging companies. (by the way, the total remaining was at 5% about 10 years ago ... replaying of history of a rapid stripping of one's land, by a change in ownership of very large company which was built and survived upon the ideas of sustainability.)

though this is a particular case of one tree (not unimportant because it's the most desired/strongest wood on the planet, and perhaps THE most productive forest), it serves as an example of what we continue to see and will continue to see all across the western united states. [reality, not scare tactics]. but you must admit, there is a point where we need to draw the line, at cutting our old growth forests. where each of us draw the line may be different. but surely you don't feel that we have the right to cut it all down. 96% is what i would call more than most if not almost all.

[James_B_Wads2000]

BTW, another thing chaffing me is that the only religious group that ever gets ripped on here is the Mormons. Anyone who is not mormon (James, for the spun cut at native americans/book of mormon) care to share their religious views so I can look up some ridiculous beliefs and try to embarrass you, or shall I just wait and see if God takes care of it?

Chaffing huh, you know they got a cream for that. This could be its own thread. Well price I am so sorry to hear that not everyone is equally offended. Maybe you should go on a hunger strike until every other religion has a jab taken at it, or grow thicker skin. After all it is a Utah outdoor site and last time I checked the Mo-Mo

[price1869]

Okay, so statistics show . . . nothing,

and it's okay to mock that which you know little about because your name is on the list somewhere.

I'll stick to the outdoor forums. Excuse my excursion and my opinions.

[James_B_Wads2000]

it's okay to mock that which you know little about because your name is on the list somewhere.

Believe me I know more than you think. I defiantly know more than I want to.

Excuse my excursion and my opinions.

Apology accepted!



James

[Scott P]

But why is there no refund for recycling paper or plastic?

There is for paper. As far as plastic, some states (OR and CA are two), there are refunds for recycling plastic. Something like five to ten cents a bottle.

[DickHead]

Without getting into the poking and prodding......
Anyone ever seen how big a land fill is from the air? The idea that we keep jamming shit into a hole in the ground and it just 'goes away' is much like believing the earth is flat......
Recycling saves landfill room for much more important things....like Utah's insatiable desire for McMansions.....

[Sombeech]

Utah's insatiable desire for McMansions.....

What's a McMansion? Is it a Super Sized house?

[DickHead]

Utah's insatiable desire for McMansions.....

What's a McMansion? Is it a Super Sized house?

No, it's an oversized suburban house. Think of the gap between luxury spec homes and standard tract housing. Especially here in Utah, where you are sneered upon for having less than 3000sqft....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMansion

.....The foremost characteristic of a McMansion is the impression of its largeness, particularly when compared with smaller, older nearby housing.

This style of house will usually have two stories, although it is common for some ground floor rooms (particularly entranceways) to extend the height of the building. McMansions can also be one-story, but these ones usually feature a facade appearing to be 2-story. Simpler versions will have a standard rectangular footprint, while more complex (and usually more expensive) floorplans will have additional wings or projections. In addition, the roof will usually be voluminous in order to incorporate an additional story of rooms rather than attic space......