What I want to know is this: why the devil does the USA still bury trash in landfills? What a waste: of land, of energy, and of recycling.

Incinerators are a far, far better solution. You generate energy from the trash, you can reclaim almost all metals from the ash, and poisonous chemicals have been destroyed. Finally, the remaining waste is a tiny fraction of it's original size.

Also: Modern incinerators do not pollute, despite hysterical claims to the contrary.

Every time I read something like this, I feel like I must be reading about some third-world country that just doesn't know any better...

Modern incinerators do not pollute, despite hysterical claims to the contrary.

What about CO2?

BTW, not saying the tradeoff might still be worth it. But the positives of incinerators need to be considered in light of their contribution to global warming.

Switzerland has solved this little problem of recycling. They have all sorts of crazy rules (they like rules), but they hit people where it counts--the pocket book.

You pay for your garbage by the bag. A 35 liter sack (about the standard kitchen garbage bag) is about $2.50 US to throw away. Recylables? Free!

Why on earth would you want to not recycle in this situation?

And for people like you, Amy, it's a super bonus because you could probably spend $2.50 for the while month's worth of garbage.

Overall, I think the recycling craze is silly--especially the paper. But at least the Swiss have figured out a way to make the market take care of the incentives.

The main thing about CO2 emission is net CO2 relative to the current balance, in other words, the emission of carbon at a significantly later time than when it was captured.

Most 'waste' emission in things like incinerator output can be described as releasing CO2 that was 'held' in a young source, like a farmed tree, for example (i.e., the vast majority of paper, for instance, is created from farmed, young growth trees, so the net CO2 contribution over time is small).

To the degree that it applies, the issue with CO2 emissions has to do with emissions from geologically stored carbon in oil or coal, such that the net release constitutes a net increase in the current level of carbon (carbon sequestered a million years ago, being released now is a net (current) increase, while carbon sequestered 10 years ago in a tree farm, and then released, can be considered pretty much a wash).

(In this description, I make no argument about the validity of CO2 emissions on global climate change or the actual amount of human induced activity, merely the simple fact of local in time results vs remote in time results).

In regards to the subject of the referenced article, perhaps she should attempt to recycle the entire output of the cat litter process. The cat waste is at least as recyclable (in terms of secondary usefulness) as the paper is, so the state should be fully willing to handle that product.

Now, apart from some particular cases (metals and glass come to mind), recycling is pretty much a mixed bag. Some of those can be reused, but the cost isn't much (if any) better than using raw materials. Its a feel good approach with no real evidence to support it.

"Now, apart from some particular cases (metals and glass come to mind), recycling is pretty much a mixed bag ... Its a feel good approach with no real evidence to support it."

What, you mean recycling only makes sense if it's economical? And all this time I thought it was a sacrament.

By the way, I remember hearing somewhere that glass was quite difficult and expensive to recycle. Any thoughts?

@Christopher: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of the atmosphere.

Burning things like paper and cardboard is as neutral as you can possibly get: a tree-farm harvests; the trees are turned into paper; the paper is used, burned, and turns into CO2; the CO2 is consumed by a tree. It doesn't get any better than that.

For plastics? You are still getting use out of the plastic, and then getting energy out of it when you incinerate it. There's a good chance that this energy is replacing energy from a coal- or oil- or gas-fired plant, all of which also generate CO2.

You are supposed to rinse the cans and bottles before recycling them. Of course everyone uses cold water to do this. It's winter in Syracuse, but we're used to freezing. At least we've got a lot of water to waste on this. Meanwhile, the stuff all gets taken to the same place.

I am polite. I haven't even insulted any of the so-called public interest parasites that come around asking for money. I just tell them no and suggest they hold a bottle drive.

Christopher:

What about CO2?

What about it?

The only things it makes any kind of sense to recycle is plastic and metal. Glass is recyclable only for specialty uses (marbles, industrial blasting media).

Paper recycling is worse for the environment and more expensive (in terms of real money costs and energy costs) than virgin paper. Again, the only real use for it is specialty uses.

BTW, not saying the tradeoff might still be worth it. But the positives of incinerators need to be considered in light of their contribution to global warming.

That's about the same effect as you throwing a huge rock into the Atlantic Ocean: you're not going to cause a tsunami in Europe.

When Al Gore leads a lifestyle that indicates that he believes what he preaches on the environment, then I'll revisit the issue. Until then, not so much.

This has nothing to do with garbage, recycling, CO2, landfills or cats. This is about the government needs more money and they'll take it from you. Your human logic is of no use here.

What about CO2?

Plant more trees. Problem solved.

I recycled newspaper for years, but just stopped a in December.

I put the paper in a tub under the table when I was done reading it, and then dump the tub on my way to the grocery store. I use the tub to get my groceries home.

About 10 years ago the city picked up the blue curbside recycle bins. The recycle bins in the parking lot of the grocery store were removed a few years ago. So I started dumping the paper at a grade school on my way to the store. That bin was removed in December.

There is no place around here for me to dump the newspaper so now I put it in the tub, then dump it in the garbage when I go to the store.

Speaking of recycling, some of my friends have been fined for not cleaning the trash they put in the blue recycle bins well enough. My step-mother was warned recently by the City of Scottsdale because I put pieces of cardboard I'd used as a mask when painting in the blue bin.

A city employee came out and went through her trash. He also told her she had to bag the dog crap, rather than just putting it in the garbage.

I recycle my cans simply because it saves space in my regular trash, and because the city of Portland has mandated that I Must Have A Recycling Bin, and forced the equally mandated monopoly trash hauler to provide one.

A pox on the bloody lot of them.

(They recently kept rates the same but cut trash service to half as often, with the sop of free compost bins. That's right, a slop bin is supposed to make me happy they effectively doubled my per-can trash rate by executive fiat.

Needless to say I have not used the slop bin, and plan to vote for any candidate at all for the city council who will undo that insipid policy.)

"Recycling, however, doesn't really happen unless all that plastic, glass, paper, and metal is turned into new, useful products that are actually in demand in the marketplace. Some of what we put at curbside actually ends up in a landfill or piled to the ceiling in warehouses with no place to go."

Well. in the UK couple of Counties (= US State, CA Provinces?) have taken paper recycling one step further. Unable to sell it to places that actually recycle paper, they have decided to recycle obsolete WWII airfields as storage for the waste paper.

When I was about 10-16 a favorite late night activity was to TP someone's house. We only TP'd people that we liked or had a crush on. I hit Barbara Mann's house 3 nights in a row. Nowdays they'd probably consider it domestic terrorism.

6 fascinating minutes of how toilet paper is made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrg_6dny6Po

Did you know much of the recycled paper gets put on huge container ships to China and Korea, who then make toilet paper and ship it right back to America? I saw a documentary about it- the sanitary conditions are beyond awful. Use only good ole American TP on your special sphincter!

Let's not forget that recycling is the LAST thing to do on the list. The first is "reduce."

Example: I haven't bought any plastic bags that I can remember - sandwich bags, garbage bags, etc. I don't need to. Plenty of dry items come in small or medium bags, and even though I always bring my cloth bag for shopping, I never seem to run out of plastic shopping bags, which I use for garbage - and I don't need to take out the garbage more than 3 times a month.

And it's easy enough to find the right-shaped transparent food containers for the freezer, which can go in the dishwasher when empty.

Oh, and when it comes to paper, I very often use the back of store receipts (cash only) and if I need larger pieces of scrap paper, that can very often be collected from the wastebaskets at your workplace, since it's often blank on one side (of course, you don't want to take anything with sensitive information on it, but that usually gets separated anyway).

Let me get this straight: She used newspapers for cat litter then dumped them in the recycle bin. And she received a fine. At least, in my town, and my understanding of the rules, the "soiled" paper is expected to go into the trash can. Eight times is enough to know these regulations.

Or have I got this completely backward, and you are supposed to recycle the soiled newspaper?

How frustrating our world is becoming! When throwing away trash incorrectly might subject you to fines or jail, expect much, much worse in the future if we don't stop it somehow.

Well, she put cat crap in the recycling. Which, as I understand single-stream recycling, ruins the entire truckload. Crap isn't a recyclable outside of your garden, if she can't get that through her thick skull in 8 tries she deserves a fine.

Not sure what it says about one's life if one's job is to paw through rubbish bins, though.

"But the positives of incinerators need to be considered in light of their contribution to global warming."

However, landfills emit tons of methane, and methane has more of a greenhouse effect than CO2 does. Landfills also pose the danger of ground water contamination, and of spontaneous combustion. (The infamous Centralia, PA mine fire was started by a fire at the town's landfill.)

"By the way, I remember hearing somewhere that glass was quite difficult and expensive to recycle. Any thoughts?"

That's my understanding too. I've seen a million ideas for recycling glass, and none of them ever seem to work out; there's always some hitch that crops up. The big one seems to be the amount of energy that it takes to melt glass; if you have to melt it, then there's no savings vs. making virgin glass. The only ones that have a chance are the ones that don't involve melting the glass. And of those, a lot of them involve sorting the glass by color, which has to be done by hand.

"Let me get this straight: She used newspapers for cat litter then dumped them in the recycle bin. And she received a fine. At least, in my town, and my understanding of the rules, the "soiled" paper is expected to go into the trash can. Eight times is enough to know these regulations." -- Cat

"Well, she put cat crap in the recycling. Which, as I understand single-stream recycling, ruins the entire truckload. Crap isn't a recyclable outside of your garden, if she can't get that through her thick skull in 8 tries she deserves a fine." -- momof4

If I'm reading the article correctly, that's not what's going on.

According to the article, "White says she will continue to fight the citations and continue to dispose of her cat's litter in the trash and not in the recycling bin."

I read that as she's shredding old newspapers and using them as cat litter and then throwing the soiled shredded newspaper in the trash.

The inspector was searching the trash and recycling bins looking for evidence of comingled trash and recyclables (i.e., trash in the recycle bin and recyclables in the trash).

Her only recourse is the start throwing her old newspapers in the recycling bin and buying cat litter from the store since if she throws the soiled newspaper in the recyclable bin, she's comingling; and if she throws the soiled newspaper in the trash, she's comingling.

What if your cat pees on the newspaper, magazine, etc. that you left on the floor?

"Incinerators are a far, far better solution."

Savannah River Site shut theirs down in favor of the SuperCompactor. The volume reduction is better, and no, you don't get enough energy from combustion of the waste. This isn't a fire - it's hotter.