Did "Big Oil" Sell Us on a Recycling Scam?
daily.jstor.org
daily.jstor.org
While recycling is last in that mantra, it is overemphasized more than the other two. It shifts the onus of stewarding our environment to the individual rather than the corporations and militaries, which wreck our planet more than any individual can. They'd rather you not look at what they're doing to the environment, and instead look at the individual.
Moreover, companies don't want you to reduce your consumption, they want you to keep buying their products. Reuse? Nah, here are products that are obsolete, buy the new model.
You can fit 2 of them under the bathroom door at the same time stacked, (DONT ASK)
They pause for breaks to sell you things and the pauses are unashamedly called “commercials”
cancer is copypasta - incorrectly copied life. Ultimately self-defeating.
Both are limited by finite resources (and time is a resource).
I think minimalism/no buy movements are big though.
Also labor costs to repair in the developed world is another factor.
It's a crime from a criminal to scam the bank. Instead of the bank being held accountable for mistaking the identity (or don't do enough due diligent), the concept shifts the blame to the account owner, saying it's their fault for having their identity "stolen", despite them was not involved in the scam process.
An individual couldn’t pull that in any other transaction.
To add:
“They knew your mom’s maiden name!”
And now for some reason using an SMS as verification is the standard. (And often required).
So then we bolt-on these solutions to try to get it to work. The issue is we have multiple costs here - we have to balance security, but we also need to make sure customers can get their money most of the time they need to.
I recently signed up for Apple Enhanced Data Security or whatever it was called. It made it very clear that if I lose my password, my data can never be recovered. Ever. No email address can help, no recovery mechanisms. It's sealed and done for good. I'm tech-savvy and I can live with this. Can Nana? For my money, no.
We do things like security questions because they're easy and people understand them, and people use them all the time to recover accounts. Same reason we do SMS - everyone has a phone. These are imperfect solutions because perfect solutions have other issues. How many people will be locked permanently out of their bank account? How will the bank deal with those lawsuits?
A good resource for anyone dealing with credit issues due to identity theft. If I recall correctly, the advice boils down to notifying the bank that the transaction was fraudulent and then notifying credit unions that the bank has been notified that the transaction is fraudulent. Of course, doing all this through proper channels. It’s still bullshit how banks sabotaged public knowledge of it but at least the law favors the consumer.
That seems like a very odd view to me. The article points out the rising tide of traffic accidents that led to these laws being passed. As automobiles became ubiquitous it was more and more dangerous for pedestrians to walk on roads. So the laws followed this. That auto companies were involved in the lobbying process is a non-factor; even if we had increased criminal liability for traffic fatalities, the fundamental problem is that law is downstream of culture, and that we would reach a breaking point where juries would simply not convict drivers, as it became more and more common wisdom to be wary of automobiles when crossing streets.
No grand conspiracy is necessary here, this is just technology changing society and laws adapting to that reality.
I practically guarantee that for each idea you will be able to find a municipality that tried it and found that it didn't work for what in retrospect were very obvious reasons.
The fact of the matter is that society was changing, and that was it. Places where cars go are not compatible with places that people go and cars were getting cheaper and more common and more necessary all the time.
Really? Because the humanity's track record about anything that's brand new is horrible. Lead in gasoline? Seems to help a lot with engine function, let's deploy it planet-wide before making sure it's safe. Nothing can possibly go wrong!
> what are some ways that the laws could have evolved in this direction?
As for laws themselves, in the event of a driver hitting a pedestrian, the driver is found automatically at fault. If it turns out the pedestrian was at fault, the driver still remains liable for 50% of the damages. (Suprised? Think, which party is the source of the danger? Can the pedestrian ever harm the driver in any way? Then how can the responsibility ever not lay on the driver?)
But really, it's not laws that are needed here, but well designed infrastructure. Infrastructure that clearly communicates to everyone how to behave.
Speed limits are a great example. How exactly is putting up a sign saying "pls no speederino" supposed to affect a vehicle moving at 100mph through a residental street? Is the threat of potential consequences down the line in the unlikely scenario of getting caught supposed to do that? That'd require humans to be rational actors.
Now, if we put a bump on the road that will damage the vehicle if gone over at speeds of >50mph, then the speedster has only two choices: 1) go over it and immediately feel the consequences 2) slow down.
Some other such measures:
- raised crosswalks (The crosswalk simply continues, it's the road surface that comes up. That way it's the vehicle that intrudes on the space of the pedestrians, not the other way around. Note that this is the opposite of how it's almost always done.)
- roundabouts
- narrowing roads
- curb extensions
- chicanes
- changing the road surface to be less pleasant to drive on at speed
- adding and increasing curves in general
Prior to the invention of the automobile, if a pedestrian walked onto a public street and was struck and killed by a vehicle, the pedestrian was 100% at fault unless the driver was negligent. Merely operating a vehicle in a normal manner was not negligence.
It has been understood since the construction of Pompeii at the latest, that pedestrians belong on sidewalks and vehicles in the road.
Pont Neuf, the oldest bridge in Paris was built in the 1600s with sidewalks.
All of the oldest photos from the 1800s of major cities show a separation of vehicles and pedestrians.
If you have access to a newspaper archive like I do you can run a search for jaywalking and sort by oldest result.
Most of the pushback to jaywalking laws was because they required crossing at corners, not the middle of the street.
People instinctively (wrongly) believed that crossing in the middle was safer. Statisticians know that corners are safer.
Fun fact: you were more likely to die being run over by a horse in New York City prior to the invention of the automobile than you are to be struck and killed by an automobile today.
Much MUCH more likely.
>Horses killed in other, more direct ways as well. As difficult as it may be to believe given their low speeds, horse-drawn vehicles were far deadlier than their modern counterparts. In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.
https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/20...
344 is a lot. In 2024, there were 252 auto-related fatalities (drivers, occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians) in NYC.
I once saw an article that in the 1800s there were over 150 fatalities per year in San Francisco due to street cars alone so I wager the increasing value of human life in the early 1900s also contributed to jaywalking laws.
Everyone just used to accept people dying left and right due to horses and trains.
But again, it WAS NOT a conspiracy to steal the streets from pedestrians.
I refuse to believe this without attribution. Sure, "jaywalking" might be more dangerous than crossing at corners, but I'm highly confident that controlled zebra crossings in the middle of the street are safer.
#925: A Mob Boss, A Garbage Boat and Why We Recycle
Recycling aluminum cans is fantastic. Clear glass bottles and corrugated cardboard are also great for recycling.
So, something like preciousplastic doesn't occur wide spread because it's more expensive and therefore worse under a capitalistic model. You'd need to add a tax to new plastic to change that fact.
In fancy office buildings and residential buildings around NYC I've seen inappropriate junk in the recycling all the time, practically every time I put in my recycling. Plastic wraps and plastic milk cartons in the paper. Paper and food in the bottles/cans. It's always unclear about toys and household plastic objects that very likely have additives that make them not recyclable. Nobody ever emphasizes recycling correctly, but in any documentary where they look inside recycling centers you see them dealing with machines clogged with inappropriate materials, huge bales of negative-value mixed materials, etc. This is the stuff that was getting secretly shipped to Asia for dubious handling because it was too low-value for actual processing/usage in the US.
I don't blame oil companies, or manufacturers, really everyone has been in on this collective delusion: teachers, politicians, community organizers, everyone I see is all about more recycling, recycling good. While actually we've been trashing the recycling systems/processes for decades, while cheering it on. And I'm some weird nerd engineer type who cares if thing work or not.
My desk was near a kitchen area. Every day, without fail, the cleaner would come and empty the separate bins into one large bin when taking out the trash.
Still, it is probably good to remove it from other places.
It's also very easy to underestimate the costs of landfilling, because you have to keep them up basically forever. Having one person look after it for ten thousand years is higher than having ten thousand people look after it for one year, because wages rise faster than inflation.
In places with functional government they actually implemented it at the cost of the producers.
"Extended producer responsibility"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_producer_responsibili...
It's not perfect but it's okay, and better than the alternatives.
In the US they pretended they were going to do it then never did anything to put it into practice.
When people realised this they didn't get angry at the corporations or the politicians they bought. They just decided that the thing that all the relevant experts recommended was a scam that they were too smart to fall for.
See recent YouTube video "Does recycling even do anything?" by Simon Clark for some more realistic takes on recycling.
Seems like your initial answer would actually be 'yes?' Specifically because the "non-functional governments were unable to implement this as a cost to the producers."
Plastics producers are absolutely trying to shift the blame of these failed programs onto "personal responsibility."
Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
And as you can see by the reactions around you, no one is angry that the recycling isn't being done. They're angry at the recycling. A process that directly completes with big oil's product. That's the scam.
At scale if every (or even 90% of them) solar company were pretending to get solar energy, I would absolutely consider it a scam
Also, for the most part, my understanding of plastics recycling is that it doesn't really exist in practice. Glass Recycling, and Paper Recycling are actually able to reclaim most of the product, but plastic recycling is actually only downcycling where it can be used for a different purpose.
The objectively correct answer is yes. Some entities running a recycling scam does not mean that all recycling is a scam. Doesn't even mean all plastic recycling is a scam. But all the same, a scam is being run to charge people for a service that isn't being performed as advertised, knowingly and intentionally and in a significant way.
> Just as a company promising to use solar energy and not doing so doesn't discredit solar energy.
Just because someone successfully dupes people with a scam doesn't suddenly make it not a scam, just as people acquiescing to the hypernormalization of enshittification in the real for lack of a sense of agency in the face of megacorps with megabucks and congress in their back pocket does not mean that what people are apathetic towards isn't a problem or that there aren't people justifiably upset about it.
There are second order discussion points on this topic that you're trying to dig at that are worth discussing, but it's hard to engage in those in good faith when your answer to the fundamental question "Do you think this scam that is objectively a scam, is a scam?" is "No."
It is the most common mineral.
The energy difference cannot be that much different.
What worries me is transporting the glass form my place to the recycler might negate all the benefit.
But yeah, it's nasty when you look in the big recycle dumpsters we have here and see the things people throw in there.
There's no real punishment for missorting recycling, but I guess it's hard to prove who did what when trash collection is the way it is.
> contributed to the reduction of 125.2 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) being released into the atmosphere
(presumably from decomposition?)
Genuinely asking, is that particular example a scam?
Whereas this carbon you see coming out of the tailpipe of this car is colored ominously darkly, is clearly wearing an angry expression, and for some reason, is substantially "spikier" carbon than the stuff coming out of our environmentally-responsible incinerator. Much more dangerous stuff. You wouldn't want to meet this carbon in a dark alley at night!
It's all quite simple, really.
By the definition, 75% seems very good. I'm not sure if that definition is a legally sanctioned term or if your municipality has some screwy definition of 'recovered'. But if it really translates to "If this service didn't exist, we would 4x our production of plastic" - then that does not seem like a scam at all.
With that definition, a plausible extreme is they take 75% of waste plastic to create one single plastic cup. Meaning the production of plastic would not change if this program did not exist. If that's the case - then yes scam.
TL;DR not enough info
> Plastic
> Plastic containers were sold and shipped to a recycler in Canada to their facilities in British Columbia and Alberta. The commodity is cleaned and pelletized to become FDA-approved new raw material for manufacturers of various plastic products including new containers, strapping material and fibres.
> Recovery: 78.50%
We should use less plastic! But it's not true that "it just ends up in the landfill" or "it just gets burned", at least not everywhere.
The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
> The existence of plastic being used in new products doesn't help anyone - it's only beneficial if it helps reduce the production of new plastic
I can't follow your logic. It's legal to produce plastic containers. This system here collects them and turns ~80% of it into a new product. You're saying this system shouldn't be in place because we're not changing anything about the amount of plastic we produce?
Less plastic is the goal. Not reusing it.
Recycling plastic makes people use more plastic because they think it's being reused.
Any reduction in new plastic is offset by people using more plastic because they think it's recycled.
Again, the goal is to remove plastic entirely from the ecosystem. Recycling encourages more plastic use. That is the entire reason that plastic manufacturers and petrocompanies pushed for plastic recycling so hard, people use more plastic if they think it's recycled. The only real solution are plastic bans in consumer goods/spaces.
Yes, exactly. I'm not accusing them per se, I'm just saying the info you provided does not declare itself to not be a scam. It's like if you asked if killed someone and I replied "I don't own a gun" - it does not sufficiently answer the question
"We recover 80% of plastics" does not mean "We reduce the generation of new plastics by 80%", and the second one is the one that matters.
The headline is a question.
I thought it had been long accepted and known for years that plastic recycling is often owned by packaging companies that want you to feel good about the infinite plastic they spew into the world.
I don’t believe in plastic recycling. I don’t put plastic in the recycle bin I put it in the garbage so it can go to the landfill.
Landfill is not a demon landfill is the best place for toxic waste.
We are obsessed with “keeping plastic out of landfill”, like disaster will ensue if we do it.
And as a result we make terrible decisions like putting plastic into roads and calling that “recycling”, so the microplastic get ground out by cars and trucks into waterways, air, ground, food, kids, schools, homes and you.
All in the name of the desperate need to keep plastics out of landfill, like it’s precious environment that needs protecting.
I see two outcomes here. One, we destroy the planet and ourselves. Two, violent global revolution that results in a world government that enforces more sustainable living.
Unfortunately three, the overlords come and save us with their advanced tech, probably won't happen.
A lot more solar/wind/nuclear and geoengineering.
Consumers often accept less convenient options because it is the right thing to do. Humans are a collective species and we make sacrifices for each other all the time. Quick examples at this level plastic bag ban, electric vehicles, disabled parking etc.
The groups who are kicking and screaming to try and avoid change is capitalist corporations. They will literally do anything to prevent a hit to their bottom line (they are perfectly happy to murder people for profit) and frankly should have no decision making power.
Plastic bag ban: no one wants to pay for each plastic bag and its also not much of an inconvenience. Unlike having to take 20 glass bottles to get shampoo, milk, drain cleaner, dish soap refilled every month
Electric cars: mostly done for virtue signalling and status
Disabled parking: not sure what you mean here.
Sure some people are asseholes, but the vast majority are not.
also the inconvenience of having to walk a bit further to get to the store isn't much really is it. compared to not buying that new plastic phone, new plastic tv, having to take 20 bottles to get refilled with shampoo, shower gel, milk, coffee, cooking oil, etc every month, taking your own container to the take out restaurant (and then cleaning it!!)... no one will do this unless forced to
Your examples don't prove anything. Infact, I'd say they do the opposite. Bag bans are always met with tons of opposition. Electric vehicles are 50 years too late. Idk what disabled parking has to do with anything, people ignore those all the time.
People will nearly always choose the easiest and most instantly gratifying option. This is usually selfish.
And the "save the planet" faction (which we might think are left-leaning) overlap with the mostly non-violent faction? Whole the conservative drill-baby-drill faction overlap with the gun-loving, govt overthrowing militant types?
So your second possibility doesn't pass the smell test.
And of course we won't destroy the planet. At worst we'll make it unsuitable for human life. The planet itself will be just fine, and life will thrive after-people just like it does everywhere people have left.
Yes, I think the planet will change. And those people unable to adapt will perish. But plenty of people will survive, just perhaps not with current US lifestyles...
In the pacific northwest we have Ridwell where people go out of their way (and pay an extra monthly fee!) to separate their garbage so it has a better chance of being properly recycled/downcycled.
You'll see entire neighborhoods where everyone's got a Ridwell box on their porch.
I don't believe most people give a shit about "doing good" if it means effort or cost on their part. Its all virtue signalling.
How many people are doing things that actually make a difference but which are hard, like giving up eating meat?
A damning indictment of the alternatives
5he alternatives tell you are racist, sexist, and a failure
We have solved this in the EU by having politicians in the commission that nobody has elected.
The cleaning service at the end of the day took all of the cans and put them in the same bag before putting it into the dumpster. Where presumably they then filtered the trash and recycling in some capacity (I forget the name). But regardless stage 1 was quite useless. However people were still aghast if I threw the trash in whatever bucket, because recycling is good.
> “Big oil” sold us on a recycling scam
Arrrr
I guess for a certain subset of "we", probably pretty true. They're aren't exactly a silver bullet that magically solve the problem without any drawbacks for lots of other people though.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-its-so-hard-t...
That seems like it might be implying there is a pricing disconnect. It shouldn't cost more to recycle, especially since people provide the used plastic for basically free.
Sure there is, the raw materials have to be mined and transported across the country and such, it's ridiculous that it's cheaper to do that than to shred existing material and melt it back down. Even if you're downcycling from something like soda bottles to something like fence posts or plastic bricks or whatever, it should definitely be cheaper to recycle.
There is IMO, because we don't factor the cost of disposal and it's management into just about any product. Except maybe nuclear reactors.
The reason plastic is so cheap is that you're free to make it and let it go where ever the fuck it does. The taypayer pays for cleanup in the long run, not you. You're externalizing a lot of costs.
It was common to return glass jugs or containers to stores so they can be reused. It was typical to buy goods in-store, which required significantly less wrapping than something like Amazon. And, in general, most goods were designed for longer-term use.
Now, some fields need that disposability, like medical supplies. But we really overdo it as a whole. There's a lot of plastic that we come in contact with on the orders of seconds, that we then immediately throw away. It's improving, though. Most people I know don't use plastic bottles anymore, they use reusable bottles they can refill.
It is definitely not free. It requires another completely separate set of trucks to go around in addition to all the regular trash-collecting trucks.
Which means vehicle maintenance, crew salaries and general administration.
The reason it's not cost effective is because the negative externalities aren't built into the price of making the new items.
That could be true, or not. It might be the case that recycling isn't cost effective even assuming negative externalities are properly costed.
But there is a financial incentive to do so, so that's what's happening.
Plastics generally use less resources than any other equivalent; that is why they win the cost-effectiveness battle with other materials.
The financial incentive is because plastics are cheaper and more efficient than anything else.
I don't understand, why trash incineration is not a thing in the US. How many years has the landfill fire next to Los Angeles been burning now?
Now, the air pollution thing is easier to deal with than the ash as the resulting ash is roughly 20% of the original trash volume; however it is LOADED with heavy metals and other toxins which are not removed during the burn. This ash then ends up in not only landfills, but SPECIALIZED landfills which are equipped to handle the environmental issues associated. This obviously lowers the volume in traditional landfills, but at much higher concentration of toxic materials that raise permanent storage costs, (simplistically) doubling+ the costs (incineration cost + toxic storage cost).
---
That said, of those trash incinerators active in the US today, many (most?) are heading for the end of their operational lifespan and the high costs associated with meeting modern environmental standards to bring new ones online are generally seen as a serious negative, especially with NIMBYs driving their eradication. This leaves the only other option: trucking the trash somewhere that is just 'hidden' or 'not here'.
What, exactly, is the scam? It looks like the article is saying that companies involved in plastic production pushed for more recycling, while knowing that current plastic recycling capacity was not up to the task. What is the scam, exactly?
It feels like the closest thing to a scam is that companies claiming to be plastic recyclers get all sorts of incentives from the government, and we as consumers are forced under threat of fine to recycle, but the plastic just ends up in landfills. I don't see the oil companies involved in this part of the equation at all.