I have to play devil's advocate...mellikittenJanuary 15 2006, 17:32:15 UTC
You're right that some recycling requires more energy than creating a new product from scratch (for example, trying to recyle computer parts) but many companies have redesigned material so that it's easier to recycle later (paper companies, for example) and it's actually making them money by creating new products (cardboard, the paper in phonebooks, etc.) Plastic is aways tough to recycle, which is why there are deposits in a lot of states. Some recycling can increase profit margins--which was the case with Kodak. They redesigned their disposable cameras to be reconditioned (the hard case) and recycled. They kept the price relatively the same, but saved a lot of money.
Still, it's better to reuse that recycle. And I'm a bad hippie because I don't recycle too much.
Re: I have to play devil's advocate...mellikittenJanuary 15 2006, 20:49:33 UTC
A bad hippie, but a good American who isn't wasting time and resources to feel good about doing nothing. :)
I don't consider a company being able to recondition a product being part of "recycling." More like reusing. It makes good economic sense. Having to sort and separate recyclable from garbage by individuals and then transport it and take it through processes to make it reusable again seems like it doesn't make economic sense.
And I haven't seen any recycled plastic products worth buying. Paper products, yes, but they're always more expensive. I'm not paying for that. Especially since we're not running out of trees in our tree farms.
Re: I have to play devil's advocate...mellikittenJanuary 15 2006, 21:15:15 UTC
Ha, well, don't forget that a lot of companies recycle internally, and alot of paper has been redesigned to more easily and cheaply be recycled, including the paper found in mass-marketed books and paper stock.
And reconditioning is much like recycling because they had to put forth the effort to collect the cameras, retool them, and put them back out there.
more propoganda from the rightlife_with_algerJanuary 19 2006, 19:15:58 UTC
Just because we have a lot of land isn't a good argument for filling it up with garbage and pollutants. Have you ever lived near a landfill? Yeah, it sucks big time.
Comments 21
Still, it's better to reuse that recycle. And I'm a bad hippie because I don't recycle too much.
Reply
I don't consider a company being able to recondition a product being part of "recycling." More like reusing. It makes good economic sense. Having to sort and separate recyclable from garbage by individuals and then transport it and take it through processes to make it reusable again seems like it doesn't make economic sense.
And I haven't seen any recycled plastic products worth buying. Paper products, yes, but they're always more expensive. I'm not paying for that. Especially since we're not running out of trees in our tree farms.
Reply
Reply
And reconditioning is much like recycling because they had to put forth the effort to collect the cameras, retool them, and put them back out there.
So there. ;-)
Reply
Reply
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/611_ACF17F.htm
Where do you get your information from? This article was found straight off the EPA website.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment