Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[phyllo]

Well, of course there are pro-recycling sites: didn't you read the article? For one thing, the government is behind it; and they have no interest in telling you the truth. They make buckets of money on convincing you to do it, and they gain influence and status by being the ones who claim to do it. What else aren't they going to tell you, though?

Right away, discrediting any site that says recycling has positive results.

Recycling everything could be wonderful -- if it could be done by means that generate at least a break-even, if not a profit, and if it could be done in a way devoid of spinoff environmental costs. Unfortunately, still only one type of plastic can be recycled at a profit, and all recycling programs come with associated environmental damage that makes the programs more environmentally damaging than helpful.

Recycling metal and paper is profitable. Glass is borderline.

But you focus exclusively on plastic, which has had various problems ... contamination, market demand, cheap virgin material, etc.

Solar panels? 90% of them end up in landfills. Sure, they "could" be recycled: they just aren't. It's too expensive and difficult.

Life cycle cost analysis has been done on this and solar comes out ahead of coal and other dirty generation systems.

Population control?

Not a 'green' policy. Just used to smear the environmentalists.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, of course there are pro-recycling sites: didn't you read the article? For one thing, the government is behind it; and they have no interest in telling you the truth. They make buckets of money on convincing you to do it, and they gain influence and status by being the ones who claim to do it. What else aren't they going to tell you, though?

Right away, discrediting any site that says recycling has positive results.

No, just those that hide from you the actual net results.

Recycling metal and paper is profitable.

Yes, it is. But it has other downsides they don't talk about...like the chemicals required to bleach it.

Solar panels? 90% of them end up in landfills. Sure, they "could" be recycled: they just aren't. It's too expensive and difficult.

Life cycle cost analysis has been done on this and solar comes out ahead of coal and other dirty generation systems.

It doesn't actually. It doesn't produce enough energy to meet the need, and takes seas of panels even to produce the little it does.

Population control?

Not a 'green' policy. Just used to smear the environmentalists.

Really? You think so?

"Paul Ehrlich (1932–2026) was a pioneering Stanford University ecologist and a towering, often controversial figure in modern environmentalism. His 1968 book, The Population Bomb, alerted the public to the dangers of overpopulation, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss. While critics often termed him an "alarmist" due to unfulfilled famine predictions, supporters highlight his foundational role in shaping sustainability, conservation biology, and discussions on global environmental crises." (Source: Stanford)

[FlashDangerpants]

What a weird thread. At one end it is argued that there is no such thing as sustainability because the world inevitably changes and all things decay and all the energy in the universe will just spread out into a cold entropic wilderness if you wait a few billion years. At the other end, recycling is impossible in the future because it isn't done today and obviously nothing ever changes. Both positions argued by the same guy...

Solar cells produced today have a 25 to 40 year life expectancy and are designed to be relatively easily recycled with 95 to 99% materials recovery.

[phyllo]

Yes, it is. But it has other downsides they don't talk about...like the chemicals required to bleach it.It doesn't actually.

It doesn't produce enough energy to meet the need, and takes seas of panels even to produce the little it does.

You must think that everyone who does life cycle analysis is really stupid.

[Impenitent]

Yes, it is. But it has other downsides they don't talk about...like the chemicals required to bleach it.It doesn't actually.

It doesn't produce enough energy to meet the need, and takes seas of panels even to produce the little it does.

You must think that everyone who does life cycle analysis is really stupid.

only if they analyze the ones with square wheels

-Imp

[phyllo]

Solar cells produced today have a 25 to 40 year life expectancy and are designed to be relatively easily recycled with 95 to 99% materials recovery.

Admittedly, a lot of solar cells get landfilled because there are not enough recycling facilities to process them.

Same problem with batteries.

[Immanuel Can]

Solar cells produced today have a 25 to 40 year life expectancy and are designed to be relatively easily recycled with 95 to 99% materials recovery.

There's the double-speak, again.

"...designed to be relatively easily recycled..." Yes, they are "designed" to be so. But the truth is that 90% of them are not recycled. That's the statistic they never tell you.

"Approximately 90% of end-of-life solar panels are not recycled, with the majority instead destined for landfills, according to industry estimates. While up to 95% of a panel's materials are technically recyclable, low recycling rates are driven by high costs—roughly $20-$45 per panel—compared to the low value of recovered materials and lack of regulation." (Source: MIT Climate Portal)

[FlashDangerpants]

What a weird thread. At one end it is argued that there is no such thing as sustainability because the world inevitably changes and all things decay and all the energy in the universe will just spread out into a cold entropic wilderness if you wait a few billion years. At the other end, recycling is impossible in the future because it isn't done today and obviously nothing ever changes. Both positions argued by the same guy...

ho hum

[FlashDangerpants]

Solar cells produced today have a 25 to 40 year life expectancy and are designed to be relatively easily recycled with 95 to 99% materials recovery.

Admittedly, a lot of solar cells get landfilled because there are not enough recycling facilities to process them.

Same problem with batteries.

The solar industry has grown exponentially over the last 20 years, doubling every two or three years. There's been very little to recycle so far because those panels last a long time, and thus not much effort or investment in that end of the lifecycle. Older panels coming up for disposal are mostly going to get ground up for use as aggregate in road surfacing projects.

Sending them to landfill in Europe has been illegal for a long time under WEEE. In the US, standards are much lower, they still have lead in their water pipes, asbestos in their car breaks, and no doubt they also fill their landfill with solar panels because they are slovenly about stuff like that in general.

If the concern is for what we ought to do today for a less filthy future, solar panels are a good option and new ones made today are not likely to go to landfill or result in pollution.

[phyllo]

What a weird thread. At one end it is argued that there is no such thing as sustainability because the world inevitably changes and all things decay and all the energy in the universe will just spread out into a cold entropic wilderness if you wait a few billion years. At the other end, recycling is impossible in the future because it isn't done today and obviously nothing ever changes. Both positions argued by the same guy...

ho hum

His position is that recycling and other 'green' efforts are worse than not recycling and no 'green' efforts.

IOW, 'green' entropic decline is faster than then decline from doing nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

What a weird thread. At one end it is argued that there is no such thing as sustainability because the world inevitably changes and all things decay and all the energy in the universe will just spread out into a cold entropic wilderness if you wait a few billion years. At the other end, recycling is impossible in the future because it isn't done today and obviously nothing ever changes. Both positions argued by the same guy...

ho hum

His position is that recycling and other 'green' efforts are worse than not recycling and no 'green' efforts.

Well, yes...if what you mean is what we call "green" efforts -- because they're actually the opposite. And if you're genuinely "green," you'd agree with that, too.

But I'm highly in favour of other "green" efforts, particularly those that stand to make a difference in China, India, etc. Because that's where the problems are much bigger, but also more simple to fix. And if you're genuinely "green," that's what you'll want, too...something that works, and that addresses where they problem is really serious, rather than just virtue-signalling measures in places that can make no real difference at all.

[phyllo]

But I'm highly in favour of other "green" efforts, particularly those that stand to make a difference in China, India, etc. Because that's where the problems are much bigger, but also more simple to fix. And if you're genuinely "green," that's what you'll want, too...something that works, and that addresses where they problem is really serious, rather than just virtue-signalling measures in places that can make no real difference at all.

Both China and India are vigorously pursuing 'green' efforts.

USA going backwards.

[Immanuel Can]

But I'm highly in favour of other "green" efforts, particularly those that stand to make a difference in China, India, etc. Because that's where the problems are much bigger, but also more simple to fix. And if you're genuinely "green," that's what you'll want, too...something that works, and that addresses where they problem is really serious, rather than just virtue-signalling measures in places that can make no real difference at all.

Both China and India are vigorously pursuing 'green' efforts.

You really don't know, do you?

Well, one way or the other, you're going to find out. Both are environmental disaster areas.

Developing countries accounted for roughly 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Emerging economies, driven by rapid industrialization and manufacturing shifts, have driven 95% of the increase in global emissions over the last decade. (Source: Climate Leadership Council)

[Gary Childress]

ho hum

His position is that recycling and other 'green' efforts are worse than not recycling and no 'green' efforts.

Well, yes...if what you mean is what we call "green" efforts -- because they're actually the opposite. And if you're genuinely "green," you'd agree with that, too.

But I'm highly in favour of other "green" efforts, particularly those that stand to make a difference in China, India, etc. Because that's where the problems are much bigger, but also more simple to fix. And if you're genuinely "green," that's what you'll want, too...something that works, and that addresses where they problem is really serious, rather than just virtue-signalling measures in places that can make no real difference at all.

Why would it be bad for the US to pursue green efforts, even if China is still the world's largest polluter and greenhouse gas creator? I mean, I assume that people in the US "green movement" are all for China to reduce its emissions and pollution. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue our own green efforts in order to keep up with technology and try to keep our own air and soil as clean as we can.

Or are you suggesting that green policies are forcing industries to move to countries that aren't as concerned about pollution and emissions as the West is? And, therefore, we should reduce regulations so that industries move back to the West? And if so, should we do away with our own regulations that are designed to keep our air breathable and our water less polluted?

[phyllo]

Well, one way or the other, you're going to find out. Both are environmental disaster areas.

Doesn't mean they are not making efforts to improve the situation.