I really wanted to talk about recycling today. I've been obsessing over this for a while. Do we burn more energy RECYCLING the item than we do harvesting the virgin resource
( Read more... )
It's been documented in many cases that it takes more energy to recycle certain things than it does to simply produce new ones. Very true.
What gets left out, though, is that the energy used to recycle can be used from natural, renewable sources (solar, wind, water, etc.) while the materials being recycled (most notably metal) are non-renewable and have a finite amount. In many cases, it makes sense to spend more energy to recycle things, because once they've been used up and thrown away, we don't get any more.
When was the last time Mother Earth made my aluminum for us? I think we only get the one batch. Just saying. ;)
I agree with this one. I'm all for using recycled paper instead of clear-cutting down more forest--if only because clear-cut areas look so darned ugly.
What I think is more ridiculous is this whole Blue Bag business going on in Chicago. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, which is pretty environmentally conscious as a whole (and growing up with so much natural beauty around you, it's kind of hard not to be somewhat swayed by environmentalist sentiment), and I was immediately suspicious of the Blue Bag program when I moved here. Do we honestly think that they're paying people to sort through thousands of pounds of garbage looking for those stupid Blue Bags, and then, once they find them, sorting through the recyclables that are inside them? Sounds fishy to me. I think I read a piece on it in the Trib a couple of years ago, but I can't find it now, for the life of me.
It's just crazy! First you've got to figure it out using macroecon clues, then try to see if that's got any relevant hidden costs -- and on TOP of that, figure in sustainability (or life cycle economics).
For example, zombiegoat's aluminum cans. Every industrial process is a yield calculation, i.e. you might only get 98% of that can back after the process is done. AND, EACH time you go through the loop, you're investing energy. It'd make for an f-ed up ecosystem if you just looked at that cycle... Now, where's that orange soda?
Comments 3
What gets left out, though, is that the energy used to recycle can be used from natural, renewable sources (solar, wind, water, etc.) while the materials being recycled (most notably metal) are non-renewable and have a finite amount. In many cases, it makes sense to spend more energy to recycle things, because once they've been used up and thrown away, we don't get any more.
When was the last time Mother Earth made my aluminum for us? I think we only get the one batch. Just saying. ;)
Reply
What I think is more ridiculous is this whole Blue Bag business going on in Chicago. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, which is pretty environmentally conscious as a whole (and growing up with so much natural beauty around you, it's kind of hard not to be somewhat swayed by environmentalist sentiment), and I was immediately suspicious of the Blue Bag program when I moved here. Do we honestly think that they're paying people to sort through thousands of pounds of garbage looking for those stupid Blue Bags, and then, once they find them, sorting through the recyclables that are inside them? Sounds fishy to me. I think I read a piece on it in the Trib a couple of years ago, but I can't find it now, for the life of me.
Reply
For example, zombiegoat's aluminum cans. Every industrial process is a yield calculation, i.e. you might only get 98% of that can back after the process is done. AND, EACH time you go through the loop, you're investing energy. It'd make for an f-ed up ecosystem if you just looked at that cycle... Now, where's that orange soda?
Reply
Leave a comment