Jump to content

Talk:Recycling/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Cleaning up Criticism

I have completed the Merge from Criticism of recycling. In fact, there was little to merge because that article and the criticism section of this one here were highly redundant.

Now, let's start to clean up the messy criticism section. As far as I can see, there are a number of issues:

  • too long
  • the given examples are very specific and too detailed
  • some given examples miss the point of 'criticism'
  • very U.S. centric
  • partly outdated (sources from as early as 1994)
  • poor choice of sources: it's either Heartland Institute or Friends of the Earth

Please keep in mind that recycling is a very broad topic and this is just an overview article. This should be reflected in the criticism section, also. I would like to discuss proposed changes here first, to get some feedback. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So, let's start:

The lead

The whole first section on sustainability is completely missing the point. Sustainability is not a criticism of recycling. Sustainability may help to reduce the need to recycle. But that is not a criticism of it. Rather the opposite is the case. Both Sustainability and recycling aim at reducing the environmental footprint of civilization. Therefore I propose to remove that bit from the criticism section. I do think that sustainability deserves to be mentioned in the article, but not as criticism of recycling. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Toilet paper

This section should be removed altogether. Nothing in here is an actual criticism of recycling. Instead it dicusses that unbleached paper is environmental friendlier and that Greenpeace divided toilet paper in categories of soft and hard. Finally a stock analyst discusses the sales of premium toilet paper. Hello??? This is the Criticism of Recycling section not Current trends in the Toilet Paper Industry. I suggest to delete the section here and move relevant content to Toilet paper. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally started the Criticism article as a necessary counter to the Recycling article that felt like it was written entirely by Green Peace. I'm glad you've taken the initiative on this Splette, and I am happy the article has evolved into its current form. Now that both articles are one (which I support), I would advise caution on the road ahead. Lets make sure the Recycling article remains balanced and the Criticism section does not become diluted as an afterthought to an otherwise pro-Recycling pamphlet.
An example of this would be the toilet paper section. Obviously no one is going to add that type of section to Criticism of recycling. Likely what happened it started out with a short excerpt of Criticism and got completely diluted into what it is now. This should be removed. Joshua4 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support cleanup

Your driving (Splette) is exemplar in my opinion, and I would very much appreciate if you visited my (very simple) page and tell me if you see anything I can do to help here. Way to go, Thamus (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not a native speaker of English. If I should rewrite some parts of the article, some proofreading might be useful. Thanks. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

criticisms is US-centric

A lot of the points in the criticisms section is very US centric, especially regarding cost of landfills being cheap in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.104 (talk) 04:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Upcycling

I propose adding a link to upcycling in the See Also section. Also, perhaps referencing it in the explanation for recycling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmf5 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Diminishing returns from recycling?

I propose that Steven Landsburg's arguments be either removed or shown to be refuted by the below logic. I personally think that the argument below, no matter how logical, would be too large to include. Similarly, Landsburg's arguments are provably illogical, and should not be included.

"Economist Steven Landsburg has claimed that paper recycling actually reduces tree populations. He argues that because paper companies have incentives to replenish the forests they own, large demands for paper lead to large forests. Conversely, reduced demand for paper leads to fewer "farmed" forests.[34] Similar arguments were expressed in a 1995 article for The Free Market.[35]"

If the variable of incentive to plant new trees is taken to be proportionate to the number of trees required for paper, as this scenario suggests, then the only way that the scenario is true is if it not only assumes that the paper companies are planting fewer trees than they cut, but that more trees are cut down than exist.

The simplest refutation of the scenario is the model where lumber companies plant as many trees as they cut down. In this case, the number of trees not cut down, due to less paper being required, is immaterial, as the lumber companies would simply plant a number equal to what had been cut. In addition, more old trees would stand.

However, let us pursue the other, and in my opinion more likely, scenario. Companies cut down more trees than they plant. For the sake of simplicity, consider this hypothetical starting state. Forestry companies cut down half existing trees, and replant half of the difference between what stood and and what has been felled, or 25%, for a total of 75% of the original number, if not the original quality, the new trees being young growth. Let us say recycled paper amounts to one half of the trees cut, 12.5%, which would bring the total in terms of usable resource to 87.5%. If it were not added, the next cycle would see the 75% cut, literally, in half, for 37.5%; half is replanted, for a total of 56.25%. If it were added, the 87.5% would be halved to 43.75%, and the company replanting half of that would make a total of 65.625%, almost 10% more trees.

It does not matter whether the companies plant as many as were cut, if they are induced by the remaining forest amount, or a percentage, or induced by the paper supply, or a percentage; it always ends up with less forest cut down. If Landsburg is a notable economist, it speaks ill of economists; he has not exhibited logical reasoning or the capacity of simple mathematics in this matter. Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It may also be noted that nowhere in the article on Stephen Landsburg is it mentioned that he has opined on this subject; although it may have escaped the notice of the writers of that article, it seems possible that, his speciality being in other subjects, that his opinion on it is not within the threshold of notability for Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point of his statement. His argument is economic in nature, not mathematical. Farmed forests are preserved for the specific purpose of growing forests over a period of decades by the private interests that own the property. A reduction in demand for lumber would result in the property becoming a liability to the interest rather than an asset by way of taxes. They would then try to sell the land, which would likely then be developed for profit. If they didn't or couldn't sell it, they'd simply develop it themselves. In either case the forest and all of its biodiversity are destroyed and will never come back. The other alternative in an instance of reduced demand for lumber is the scenario that you suggest: the planting of a fewer number of saplings than the number of full-grown trees that are harvested to balance supply with demand. Both scenarios are bad for forests. He's making a very economically logical argument: companies purchase property for the purpose of making profit. The production of new paper makes forests profitable. Companies will preserve forests as farms as long as they are profitable. Recycling paper reduces the demand for new paper, which makes forests less profitable and puts them at risk of being developed and forever destroyed. Also, your speculation that lumber companies plant fewer trees than they cut down is as illogical as a farmer planting fewer carrots than he or she sells - it simply isn't profitable. Since not all of the saplings will survive into maturity it is in their best business interests to plant more than they cut down. 99.89.88.239 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Controversy section is too long. It consists of seven subsections. The consensus is that recycling is beneficial.98.18.156.16 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the beginning? All of this is undue weight.

"Critics dispute the net economic and environmental benefits of recycling over its costs, and suggest that proponents of recycling often make matters worse and suffer from confirmation bias [Probably the other way around as for the confirmation bias]. Specifically, critics argue that the costs and energy used in collection and transportation detract from (and outweigh) the costs and energy saved in the production process; also that the jobs produced by the recycling industry can be a poor trade for the jobs lost in logging, mining, and other industries associated with virgin production [Good excuse to be wasteful]; and that materials such as paper pulp can only be recycled a few times before material degradation prevents further recycling. Proponents of recycling dispute each of these claims, and the validity of arguments from both sides has led to enduring controversy."98.18.156.16 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to have the criticisms summarized in this article, and then create a second article discussing them? -- NK.

I agree that it is better to have the critics in a separate article. Langbein Rise (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Half of the US criticisms make no sense anyway. Tree farmers plant more trees than they cut down? So? Also modern incinerators are cleaner than old ones? Bill Gates is poorer than the Sultan of Brunei but he's not exactly short of change is he? Cls14 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This article, in general, is very slanted as fore mentioned--an objective, non philosophical read should be the goal of this article. Encyclopedias are supposed to be objective and present hard facts. This article needs to show more hard facts rather than soft facts, and have a more neutral point of view.--the preceding comment added by 199.216.216.1, 11:29, 5 March 2008

As a more recent criticism of this article, I've noticed several statements that are clearly biased as well. Note under the battery recycling section.

"Unfortunately, this mandate has been difficult to enforce."

Please avoid use of emphatics when writing articles. "unfortunately" represents an opinion. Unfortunate as it may be to you or me, for someone else (let's say the people who don't recycle batteries because they're lazy) this may not be unfortunate. --68.144.151.198 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis -

"Without more recycling, zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium could run out by 2017, and terbium could be gone before 2012.[16] Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies to internalize externalities, businesses will ignore them despite the costs imposed on society."

This is illogical. A business that depends on a resource for its existence will do everything in its power to maintain access to that resource. In addition, other businesses will arise to supply the demand for such critical resources to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.53.192 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a major overhaul by someone without an agenda

I came to this article genuinely curious about recycling and the processes and history that I would find, and instead I found a diatribe that looks mostly written by a few people pressing their view on the world. May I suggest a good start might be eliminating the section on the effect of recycling on poor recyclers? The sources that are listed do not in fact reference the said section. A non-opinionated section describing the recycling activities of the poor in the developing world without attempting to bring in ideology would be most interesting and welcome, but this article is not readable as it is written. 99.225.126.93 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article seems balanced and well referenced except for that section. I have tagged it as original research. One of the references makes a case that recycling is wasteful, and the text should probably focus on that. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing that whole section deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Recycling expired medications / drugs

Is it possible? I've skimmed the article, and it seems that there's no mention of it. I've also paid a visit to this article, and there's no mention of it in that article as well. 93.86.142.186 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Steel

Added a section on steel, as it seemed (oddly to me as the worlds most recycled material) not to get a mention at all. --Andy 22/8

I agree!--86.16.11.222 (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

I have disabled pending changes on this article. Too many constructive edits from anons make too much more work for reviewers. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Process

The Process section seems to end prematurely. Perhaps it should briefly discuss or at least direct readers to the rest of the recycling process. Collection is only the first step in transforming waste materials into a usable form. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws16 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section integration template

I removed the template that suggested the criticism section should be integrated into the rest of the article. The criticism section is a mess, and, in my opinion, the last thing that the article needs is to spread that mess throughout the rest of the article. Perhaps once the section is fixed up, such a template would be appropriate. If people want a cleanup notice on the top of the article instead of just on top of the criticism section, I suggest that either a general cleanup template or a template that specifies which section needs cleanup be used, if the latter template exists. -- Kjkolb (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism > In the United States

'Tierney's article received a referenced critique from the Environmental Defense Fund, which noted that "the article relied heavily on quotes and information supplied by a group of consultants and think tanks that have strong ideological objections to recycling"' isn't a critique, nor is it informative. It does not present any counter-arguments to Tierney's article, or in any way attempt to disprove the factual accuracy of those with alleged "strong ideological objections to recycling."

Criticism is outdated

The original research tag should be removed. The real point is, that the critique is outdated by one and a half decades. Times and technologies have changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.230.140 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

POV?

The criticism section was American orrentated and the article was a bit too oro-USA in general. The EU, Russia and Japan are largely pro-recycling and I added some UK and EU stuff to make it less USA-centric.--86.16.11.222 (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The imagery is all EU, UK or USA. Is there anything about the rest of the world? I added some text mentions of Japan, but Australia has only 1 image to it's credit and neiter Africa, the Indian sub-continent, the CIS or Latin America are even mentioned in any form!--86.16.11.222 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I cured the image POV with the below pics and added some Japanese, UK and EU text to.--86.16.11.222 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Drywall and all!

I've finished, drywall and all!--82.11.111.103 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

--86.16.11.222 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Technological vs. ecological

I think this article should be moved to Recycling (technological). There are fundamental differences between industrial technological recycling and the recycling that takes place in nature. The term is used in both contexts - but they do not refer to the same thing.Thompsma (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see recycling (ecological) to see the distinction.Thompsma (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticisms

Recently I have noticed that criticisms are criticized and may be given a greater scrutiny than pro-recycling information. A while ago there use to be a separate article called Criticisms of Recycling or the like that made several points and was fairly long if I remember. After several attempt to keep the Criticism article separate, that article was eventually merged into the Recycling article. Sure enough there was a "merge and purge" resulting in a smaller critical section with less information (AKA editing ;-)). Over the months I have noticed the criticisms section is slowly being whittled away and becoming less informative. I have noticed this same technique on other articles in which the Pro/Con section over time become PRO/con and in time PRO/pro and visa versa. I believe we should be more mindful of this slow process that if done in a single step would be considered blatant biasing. Taking one side of an issue and turning it into a Straw man argument or diminishing it in a debate is seen as being insincere to the truthfulness of a position and may make the whole article suspect.Septagram (talk) 05:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree Septagram. I noticed that there are a bunch of flags in the critical section, despite the use of appropriate citations. There is an inherent tendency for people to accept recycling because it is the 'right thing to do'. However, as an ecologist I can find many problems with recycling and many of my colleagues will agree. There are publications that are critical of many of the steps. While we recognize the need for managing and reducing our waste, technological recycling is not always (hardly) doing the stellar job it purports to do. It is an industrial shunt that streams small percentages of technological waste often after single use into new technological materials. Energy efficient or not, the steps do use energy and matter to construct and operate the technological niche that is needed to recycle these products. In contrast to natural cycling, which is nearly closed and employs many species, our technological methods are inherently leaky, toxic, and geared toward the employment of one species at the expense of others. The constructed technological niche displaces natural recycling systems and it remains open to question if it is indeed sustainable. There are many benefits that I can see in recycling, but many credible, objective, and well-deserved critiques are out there and should not be ignored because people find them distasteful.Thompsma (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lock the page

Can we put a lock on this page, the government is actively modifying it. Look at the ip lookups of some of these people, straight from Washington DC deleting well referenced criticisms of the recycling process. 173.181.70.147 (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support your assertions.
Furthermore, requests to protect pages should be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not here. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Surcharges

In the supply section of the article 2nd paragraph

(Container deposit legislation involves offering a refund for the return of certain containers, typically glass, plastic, and metal. When a product in such a container is purchased, a small surcharge is added to the price. This surcharge can be reclaimed by the consumer if the container is returned to a collection point. These programs have been very successful, often resulting in an 80 percent recycling rate. Despite such good results, the shift in collection costs from local government to industry and consumers has created strong opposition to the creation of such programs in some areas.)

the last line states that

  • 1. there is a shift in collection costs
  • 2. the industry and consumers are now paying for the collection costs.

I believe this is just a misunderstanding of the concept that the money you receive when returning the packaging is actually additional money that you spent when purchasing the item. this forces the consumer to return the packaging if they do not want to be the one paying for the disposal of the item.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.172.126 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Recycling in China

Could someone please delete the 'Recycling in China' part from this article! It is clearly propaganda. Painting China as a recycling wonderland while tons of chemical and nuclear waste are simply dumped into rivers and lakes in poorer parts of the country is a slap in the face of the spirit of recycling and green conscience. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.226.181 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the compete section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You should instead, copy and paste the contents into this section and request sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The text was a very poor treatment of the topic and was not worth salvaging. There is definite need for a Recycling in China article given that it is the most populous country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, the text was a real pig. I should have put more effort into it. As for systemic bias, I always thought that was about representing the underrepresented and vice versa. Anyway, this could turn into something good, like a new article on an important topic. I would be happy to supply photos. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The actual facts were pretty interesting, though. Those slop wagons are all over the place. Barrels of the most horrible stuff leaving the city for the suburban pig farms. They're the only vehicles on the road everybody clears a space for. Trust me, you don't want one of those things tipping over onto your car. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We cannot write content that is based largely on personal experience. There is a lot of govt. NGO and academic literature out there from which info can be gleaned for an article. I am sure photos would be most welcome on Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR or not, it is sourceable fact. And I think Viriditas is right. Aren't we supposed to take what's here and make best efforts to make it worthy. In this case, a source or two, and a bit of rephrasing. Deleting the whole section was a bit extreme. This is a wiki, after all. Our first option is to improve, not remove. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It was a judgement call in delete it. On balance it was best to not have it and there was nothing that was salvageable in the content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Recycling in China, I've just dug for govt. sources and went round in circles finding no good content. http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/about/ is a blog with a bunch or pretty good links. It may be a good place to start. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said there is reliable info out there and I have some info that I have gathered, but a major topic such as Recycling in China cannot be treated in a cursory manner. Also, have a read of WP:BLOGS. We cannot use the blog itself but there may be useful links as you said. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources, if anyone's interested:

Lots more out there. Plenty enough for an article, I think. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tags on criticisms

I have been adding some text in the criticism section and making adjustments. I think that there has been sufficient referencing and work done to warrant removal of the annoying tags at the top of this section. It creates a false sense that nobody can launch criticism against recycling. A science without objective inquiry into its limits is not a science at all.Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

The "Costs" sub-section of this article details the criticism that large-scale recycling programs are too cost-inefficient to be ultimately beneficial to society. This information was, when I came across it, accompanied by a picture of a man dumpster diving. I removed that image, commenting that I didn't see the relevance, and it was quickly replaced by a picture of a Vietnamese scrap collector on a boat. This struck me as equally inappropriate, and taking a step back, I realised that images like this have been scattered apparently at random across the entire article.

The first four pictures are fine, but then there's a photo of a sign in India, devoid of context, alongside the section on industrial waste. In the section about the international trade in recyclates, there's a picture of a bunch of computers in a parking lot. Maybe the computers are about to be shipped to China, but again, no context, so I don't know. Two photos of recycling logos on packaging - might make sense higher up, with the bit about product labeling in "Government-mandated demand", but not in the introduction to "Criticisms and responses". Next is the aforementioned Vietnamese scrap collector, then people collecting recyclables from a mountain of garbage in Brazil; neither are relevant to the "Costs" section. Nor are they relevant to "Working conditions", because that's about workers in industrial recycling facilities, not freelance collectors. Christmas trees gathered for recycling? The section it accompanies does talk about trees, but in a completely different context. And finally, brilliantly complementing the information about the possible income loss and social costs of recycling, we have a picture of sorted waste containers in the Czech Republic.

In short, this article has too many irrelevant images. I propose they be pruned with extreme prejudice. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove Opinions

I was quickly reading the section on cost-benefit analysis and ran across the following line: "Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies to internalize externalities, businesses will ignore them despite the costs imposed on society." This sounds more like an opinion than a fact, especially as more and more businesses are choosing to go green on their own accord without being forced to. I suggest either removing it, or rewording it and providing a link to some study verifying that businesses are unwilling to recycle unless forced to with taxes or subsidies. David Mitchell (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cost Benefit Analysis

The article states "recycling materials has been proven to be beneficial to the economy as it can create jobs for people in the US." Creating jobs alone is not enough to prove that it is beneficial to the economy. Your local Walmart could hire 50 more employees (creating jobs) but hiring those 50 people would require them to increase prices. That is not beneficial to the economy. Similarly, the fact that recycling "creates jobs" does not alone mean that it is beneficial to the economy when those jobs could be increasing the cost of goods. I recommended editing or deleting it. Dskirsa (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Jobs are only created when the activity is profitable. Your Walmart analogy makes no sense. And again, the jobs would only be created if the jobs were profitable, meaning the cost of the goods would definitely not rise, and in many cases would fall. Furious Style (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe Dskira is implying in the analogy that the government has required Walmart to hire the extra employees without need. As a matter of fact this would not necessarily be bad for the economy, but the mathematical models of economics assume that it would be. Whether this is a fair comparison with public recycling programs given the possible longterm economic benefits of the recycling itself is another question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.47.193 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You proved my point. If jobs are only created when the activity is profitable, then how can one state that recycling is beneficial to the economy without first proving that it is always profitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dskirsa (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reduse

What does it mean exactly?

I wanna make sure I have the right thing for something I have to do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.85.49 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Johan Vennik's recycling process

Appearantly, Johan Vennik developed a way to to process 96% of the domestic waste, without incorporating incineration. Vennik plans to set up a pilot factory in Breda (the Netherlands).[3]

Perhaps mention in article KVDP (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Recycling method for neodymium and samarium

Perhaps mention in article, see Recycling of neodymium and samarium KVDP (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Cities at the forefront of recycling

Perhaps a list is useful ? ie Quan Do, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.150.170 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Constraints

A major constraint in the optimal recyling of materials is that at civic amenity sites, products are not disassembled by hand and have each individual part sorted into a bin, but instead have the entire product sorted into a certain bin.

This makes that extracting of rare earths and other materials is uneconomical (at recycling sites, products typically get crushed after which the materials are extracted by means of magnets, chemicals, special sorting methods, ...) and optimal recycling of for example metals is impossible (an optimal recycling method for metals would require to sort all similar alloys together rather than mixing plain iron with alloys).

Obviously, disassembling products is not feasible at civic amenity sites, and a better method would be to sent back the broken products to the manufacturer, so that the manufacturer can disassemble the product, for example for making new products or atleast to have the components sent seperatly to recycling sites (for proper recyling, by the exact type of material). At present though, no laws are put in place in any country to oblige manufacturers of taking back their products for disassembly, nor are there even such obligations for manufacturers of cradle-to-cradle products.

add in article KVDP (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Shawn Burn study

I edited the part about the Shawn Burn study to say that personal contact is more effective than impersonal contact at increasing recycling rates in a community. It originally said that the study had determined that personal contact was "the most effective" method. 69.251.37.117 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

jobs creation

the two questions a) whether recycling results in net job creation and b) whether net creation of low paid, hazardous jobs is a good thing, are worth discussing. However, the following statement is meaningless:

It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs, while recycling 10,000 tons of waste can create over 36 jobs.

Someone who has knowledge of the subject should replace this with a meaningful discussion of this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.27.180 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


I agree. Job creation is distinct from, and usually counter to, economic efficiency. If recycling requires 36 jobs vs. only 6 for landfilling, this implies that recycling is significantly more expensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.52.207.75 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

recycling products is good for the earth. Extinction could be led to by throwing things into land fills, so recycle everything. Maier 331 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Recycling is good, but this wasn't a valid semi-protected edit request. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

semi producted edit request 5-16

Dear editors. I didnt realize this page was protected - so I didnt finish my new paragraph before submitting it. For the edit I made -- quoting the fact that there are 7 resin identification codes in the US - please add the following reference. http://www.plasticsindustry.org/AboutPlastics/content.cfm?ItemNumber=823 There seems to be some confusion about this on the recycling code page - and I am pretty sure ABS does not have its own ID in the U.S. Thanks --Filicias (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding link: Superuse.org

I was wondering whether a link to either Superuse.org or directly to the Superuse.org map can be put in to the article ? Xovady (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Recycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Recycling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"certain" or "a certain" with plural nouns

I have globally replaced "certain" with "a certain", but I've checked every case. For example "a certain countries" is precise wording, and means "particular countries but not yet named or described". By contrast, the phrase "certain countries" is ambiguous; it can also mean countries that you can rely on. If you don't want to use "a certain" with a plural noun, you can use the phrase "some countries". The English language is very ambiguous, but we should do our best to eliminate ambiguity, at least here - in an encyclopedia. Let's be precise. 85.193.232.244 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I challenge you to find examples of correct usage of "a certain" to modify a plural noun. I would say that if such usage exists, it is rare, and an encyclopedia should use commonly understood English wherever possible. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, however "certain" is ambiguous. So how about "some", e.g. "some countries"? 85.193.232.244 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

More information on source separation?

I wonder if we could add more information on source separation, possibly even create a sub-article for it? Note that I have just created this disambiguation page: Source separation (disambiguation). The current page on source separation should be renamed to "source separation problems" or something different. EMsmile (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Energy recycling

Although we have a separate article on energy recycling on Wikipedia, all common "recycling" definitions that I found in the literature include it. So we should also include it in our definition, e.g. in the way I proposed in my edit. Independent from this, it might be worthwhile considering merging the two articles and have material and energy recycling as different subsections, including a short discussion on their relationship in the waste hierarchy. Ajr1990 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Trees cut

Trees are cut down: We are cuting down many trees,We cut them down for wood for fire ect...But this is not good for our Green World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.49.47 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible Deletion of the "Rinsing" subheading under "Recycling consumer waste"

I found this section confusing, don't think it added much to the article, and its sources don't back up what it does add. It's central claim seems to be that all food packaging in contact with organic matter must be rinsed, which may be typically true, but this section implies it is always true. Also, the two sources are a blog post about "Trench Composting Your Kitchen Waste" and a political cartoon with commentary discussing the question "Is it passe to care about the environment?" neither of which addresses the rinsing of food packaging. I am unsure what the second sentence is trying to say, and think it is worded in a confusing manner. Consequently, I think it would be appropriate to remove the "Rinsing" subheading Anomalistic (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 April 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katborneman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ykang123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

types of curbside sorting

The curbside collection section had detailed description of types of sorting but no definition of what curbside collection is. I move the description of different categories and as well as analysis to Kerbside collection (already identified as the main article for this section) and added a basic definition in its place. This was reverted by User:TL The Legend with the sole explanation that it was not discussed. This is so tiresome. -- 212.251.181.252 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to define a word, just put the definition in the paragraph. There's no reason to delete two perfectly fine paragraphs just to define curbside collection. And a section that has its own article should still contain information from the article, not just a paragraph basically stating "curbside collection is collecting recycling from the curb." TL | The Legend talk 00:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I moved it into the "Public participation rates" section because they were paragraphs about how to get people to recycle more. But I'm not quite sure I put 'em in the right place. And now the art section is pretty small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absurdmike (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Platonic recycling :)

I spent quite a bit of time trying to find a citation for this: "Recycling has been a common practice for most of human history with recorded advocates as far back as Plato in the fourth century BC.[citation needed]" I think it's problematic for various reasons. First, obviously, is the term "recycling" (which is basically a 20th century concept). So this is an anachronism. Second, there's a suggestion that Plato (or the ancient Greeks) did something radically different that allows us to date "recycling" back to them, rather than wisely reuse materials as people (and probably other species--aren't earthworms recyclers?) probably always have. I find it hard to justify this statement. At best, I think it should say something like "Reusing materials has been a common practice for most/all of human history..." - but I'd be keen to hear other views. 45154james (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Outside the Midwest

In the sentence "though much of this glass is sent to be recycled, outside the American Midwest there is not enough wine production to use all of the reprocessed material," "outside the American Midwest" doesn't seem to make any sense. California produces more wine than the rest of the US combined. The entire Midwest produces less than a tenth of what California produces. The quoted sentence implies that Midwestern wine production is greater than that of California. This is clearly false. Citizen127 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristinaAllen (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by KristinaAllen (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ EPA "", EPA, May 05, 2010, accessed December 5, 2010.
  2. ^ Khopkar, S. M. (2004). Environmental Pollution Monitoring And Control. New Delhi: New Age International. p. 299. ISBN 8122415075. Retrieved 2009-06-28. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ EOS magazine, april 2013
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recycling/Archive_2&oldid=1252643772"