• Home
  • Reviews
  • Articles
  • News
  • Tools
  • GamingHeaven
  • Forums
  • Network
 

Go Back   DriverHeaven.net > Forums > DriverHeaven's Heaven > Political and Religious Debate

Notices

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old Sep 9, 2007, 03:34 PM   #1
DriverHeaven Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8
JOEBIALEK is on a distinguished road

Recycling

According to Wikipedia {the free encyclopedia} "recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production." The recent discussion concerning global warming has focused primarily on alternative sources of fuel for the purpose of transportation. However, another very important pro-environment tool is recycling. The effort needs to involve more than the consumer and the government. It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.
JOEBIALEK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2007, 11:12 AM   #2
VETUS INFLATIO
 
Falstaff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Lodge UK
Posts: 15,698
Falstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura about

Well, its like paying council tax to have your rubbish dumped after its already sorted by you, then pay an addtional tax on top of that to cover the proper disposal of the same rubbish your taxes just paid for. The consumer gets it in the keester every single time, but we love the packaging so we must bear some responsibility for the waste we create because we use those products. Now intelligient packaging is the way to go, but I just dont see it yet, not until all the coast lines of all the countries are choked with styrofoam cooler fragments and wooden pallets and Avia water bottles. Killing off all the marine life and disrupting the food chain with plastic filth is what will happen. It takes a hell of alot of oil and trees to make the packaging we take for granted.
I wonder what the total carbon emmisions we pump into the air daily because of computer manufacturing, etc. Just so we can sit on our loathesome spotty behinds sipping bottled water or beer and eating potato crisps, and not give a tinkers cuss about polution or global warming, we are all whining hypocritical toadies and non creative garbage if we continue to point fingers at the problem and blame it all on a political administration or a policy of excess. We are killing our planet and the assholes that careless far out number the hypocrites that want everyone to think they do and the tiny minority of people who are actually picking up the garbage and wiping the ass of consumers all over the world. Free world, free trade, and free commerce? How about a license to pollute, and a license to kill the planet. People think it will be industrial waste...ah hell know...its going to start with the gum under our shoes and the cigarette butts outside our hospital doors.
All of mans greatest works and the monuments to his Gods of wealth and leisure will topple over on him when the last remaining bit of clean air is sucked into the engine of a diesel or a car or a motorcycle. All of the stop gap fixes and temporary measures will be for naught, and we shall have to sit in the middle of the festering pit of offal we have created for ourselves. Floating like a crumpled piece of aluminum in the puddle of a dirty ashtray in some bar in China while techno music and ecstacy pump through the veins of the next generation.
Have we mortaged the future of our children....
yes we have.
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2007, 09:04 PM   #3
DriverHeaven Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 217
Dowaco is on a distinguished road

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK View Post
It needs to involve those who sell {and profit} from those products that can be recycled. For example, the manufactures of bottles and cans along with the producers of what's sold inside them as well as the grocery stores that distribute them must take on a greater economic role in the process of recycling. The voluntary "blue bag at the curb" approach is a good start but it relies primarily on the altruism of the consumer.

Companies already make recyclable containers, some stores already discount for using your own bags. So as I see it, they are already bearing a highly significant economic role. What more do you want them to do? Charging the consumer more for the privilege of using a recycled container is not the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JOEBIALEK View Post
The question is: does the consumer bear sole responsibility for what happens to a can or bottle that contains the product used? or should some of that responsibility be borne by those who profit from its' use? Are these responsibilities being borne already and are they equitable? Some time ago bottlers would charge a five-cent "deposit" on a bottle to be "refunded" when the consumer returned the bottle. It would seem that this concept could be reoperationalized for a whole host of products. The consumer could clean the bottle or can, return it to the grocery story for a "refund" and the grocery store would return it to the producer then to the manufacturer etcetera each receiving a "refund" along the way. When all parties involved have an economic incentive to participate, recycling will make a much larger contribution towards preserving the environment.
Yes, the consumer has 100% of the responsibility for what happens to a container once he buys it and whatever it contains. Companies do make an effort to conserve since it impacts their bottom line.
Consumers cleaning a bottle wastes energy since the bottler will have to re-clean and sterilize it anyway. Some containers are not reused but are melted down to be reformed into any number of recycled products. The only party not "forced" to participate is the consumer, and you want to in effect "tax" him into compliance by raising prices to encourage recycling. I am not convinced that is the right thing to do.
Dowaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2007, 05:55 AM   #4
VETUS INFLATIO
 
Falstaff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Lodge UK
Posts: 15,698
Falstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura about

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowaco View Post
Companies already make recyclable containers, some stores already discount for using your own bags. So as I see it, they are already bearing a highly significant economic role. What more do you want them to do? Charging the consumer more for the privilege of using a recycled container is not the answer.



Yes, the consumer has 100% of the responsibility for what happens to a container once he buys it and whatever it contains. Companies do make an effort to conserve since it impacts their bottom line.
Consumers cleaning a bottle wastes energy since the bottler will have to re-clean and sterilize it anyway. Some containers are not reused but are melted down to be reformed into any number of recycled products. The only party not "forced" to participate is the consumer, and you want to in effect "tax" him into compliance by raising prices to encourage recycling. I am not convinced that is the right thing to do.
the cosumer will bear the cost of any changes improvements or otherwise to packaging, and environmentally sound alternatives is very very expensive for some consumer items. We as consumers pay and pay and pay for convenience. Like I said before, in light of whether the cost is borne by the consumer or otherwise, the issue is moot, we are choking our planet with crap

Last edited by Falstaff; Sep 12, 2007 at 06:06 AM.
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2007, 07:23 AM   #5
DH Team Leader
 
temeteus82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 5,552
temeteus82 is a name known to alltemeteus82 is a name known to alltemeteus82 is a name known to alltemeteus82 is a name known to alltemeteus82 is a name known to alltemeteus82 is a name known to all
System Specs

Hmm... back here we got container deposit system working well so majority of glass and PET bottles are recycled or re-filled. And we got bins for biodegradable waste, paper waste, cardboard waste and the normal landfill bin. And I think we are good at recycling things. But Germany and other EU members are away ahead of us not forgetting Japan. They do bricks from the sewer waste...

[EDIT] Consumer has the responsibility to use recyclable product containers and the government must support the use of recyclable containers.
temeteus82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2007, 11:58 AM   #6
VETUS INFLATIO
 
Falstaff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Lodge UK
Posts: 15,698
Falstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura aboutFalstaff has a spectacular aura about

I remember collecting bottles and cans for beer money when I was younger...ah those days on Kipling rd...it was good money.
Falstaff is offline   Reply With Quote
 

 
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Artwork by Allan 'Zardon' Campbell, vBulletin implementation by Craig '5320' Humphreys based on original artwork by Ratchet.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 AM. Copyright ©2008 HeavenMedia.net