
Plastics Pile Up as China Refuses to Take the West’s Recycling - tenkabuto
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/china-recyclables-ban.html
======
fyfy18
Does anyone know why more countries haven’t taken a stance like Germany with
glass bottles? For those who aren’t aware, in Germany there are standard glass
bottle shapes that are used for beer and soft drinks. Instead of being
recycled, the bottle is cleaned, refilled and relabelled - most likely by a
different producer. The bottles can be reused up to 50 times.

A lot of countries have the infrastructure of refunding a deposit when a
bottle is returned, but it sounds like most of those are just going to end up
in a landfill.

~~~
siberianbear
The United States used to have this for soft drinks. I remember taking my
father's empty Dr. Pepper bottles back to the supermarket for gas money as a
teenager. The rebate (just a refund of what you paid for it when you bought
it) was about $1 per eight-pack of bottles... this was around 1990 or so. I
remember how heavy and sturdy these re-usable bottles were.

This was phased out sometime in the 1990s. I guess it was just too costly for
the bottlers.

~~~
JeanMarcS
Same in France where when I was young (late 70’s until mid 80’s) you could
return your glass bottles and exchange for money.

But then PET bottles start to rise and the returnable policies eventually
disappeared in most country.

~~~
dagw
Here in Sweden at least you can return PET bottles for money (about
0.10-0.20€).

~~~
yeezul
Same in Quebec. I believe other provinces in Canada have similar policies.

$ 0.05 on all non-refillable single-fill containers that are 450 ml or less in
size

$ 0.10 on all single-fill and glass containers up to 450 ml size

$ 0.20 on all single-fill containers larger than 450 ml

$ 0.05 for each soft drink container sold

------
RyanShook
I think this is a sign of things to come. The developed world has become so
used to benefitting from China’s willingness to take our trash, dangerous
labor and low paying work that we’re outraged and shocked when they decide
they no longer have to.

~~~
mc32
> that we’re outraged and shocked when they decide they no longer have to.

Who's outraged? Maybe some places were caught by surprise at the change in
policy (perh no fair warning), but I don't recall any outrage. It's their
right to refuse. I mean, its a bit different from say OPEC in the 70s suddenly
artificially constraining supply --no one would like the US to constrain wheat
or corn exports for example.

But this is altogether different. It's probably a good thing as people may be
forced to think more in a cradle-to-grave product life-cycle and thus make
things with that built-in.

Given the added costs, it may well bring a few jobs back home to boot.

~~~
dao-
> no one would like the US to constrain wheat or corn exports for example.

Are you sure? I don't know much about US agriculture exports, but the
aggressively subsidised exports from the EU are known to cripple agriculture
in Africa.

~~~
mc32
Pretty sure constraining supply would have a ripple effect on food prices
everywhere because those two grains are the basis for much of "processed"
foods as well as feed for meat producers, etc.

What poor African counties arguably don't need is "dumped" donated aid which
undercuts their farmers and weakens their agriculture and makes them
increasingly dependent on foreign aid as well as enriches and strengthens the
position of those in charge of distributing this largesse (i.e. corrupt local
officials)

~~~
AstralStorm
Depends on the country in question and whether there is a humanitarian crisis.
Moist of these are avoidable, such as droughts and desertification of
pastures, but African farmers cannot afford measures to do it and the minor
change from doing direct aid will not help.

------
gumby
> Every year, Britain sends China enough recyclables to fill up 10,000
> Olympic-size swimming pools, according to Greenpeace U.K. The United States
> exports more than 13.2 million tons of scrap paper and 1.42 m...

Wait, so is it volume or weight? Aren’t editors supposed to catch this stuff?

At least the Olympic swimming pool and short ton are official units in some
jurisdictions: [https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-
conv...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/page/reg-standards-
converter.html)

~~~
dao-
Trash has both volume and weight. It's not either-or in the cited sentences,
and the two numbers aren't supposed to be directly comparable nor convertible.

~~~
mc32
Ok, sure, but why have the reader try to do the conversion when they, the
writers, should "standardize" for the reader so as to let them read on without
interrupting their thought processing.

~~~
dao-
Like I said, it wasn't supposed to be directly convertible. The point of these
sentences was that the UK and the US produce gigantic amounts of waste. That's
it. Who of the two is worse is besides the point, and absolute numbers would
only tell part of the story anyway. Since the US is much bigger, we already
know it produces more waste.

Edited to add: The sentences also talk about different kinds of waste. Apples
to oranges really. There's no point in converting.

------
j_s
Another article on this topic was discussed last month; I look forward to
further updates on this issue:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15888827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15888827)

 _Recycling Chaos in U.S. As China Bans 'Foreign Waste' (npr.org) 318 points
by srameshc 39 days ago | 233 comments_

It sounds like recycling will be going to the dump until someone is willing to
process it for slightly less money.

~~~
ISL
Until environmentalists sue on the grounds that our "Recycle bin" should be
getting recycled (as it should).

I've been grazing for US and non-Chinese recyclers in which to invest, but
haven't yet found any good values.

------
drdrey
Is it weird that we take throwing stuff away in the trash for granted? We know
that whatever we throw in there (for free) will end up in a landfill or
incinerated, and somehow that's okay? I find it hard to tell that to my kids
with a straight face

~~~
guelo
for free? In all USA cities I have lived there is a fee for residential trash
pickup.

~~~
drdrey
Yeah 'for free' is a bit of a stretch, I was thinking more about public trash
cans than residential. Still, the idea is you can throw away pretty much
whatever, no questions asked, and someone will put it away so you don't have
to think about what happens to it

------
ggm
The relationship between this article, and the one on the end of cheap clothes
in charity/goodwill shops into the supply chain for "shoddy" comes to mind

~~~
jngreenlee
Can you link to the Goodwill article please?

~~~
grzm
I believe they're referring to "No One Wants Used Clothes Anymore"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16168410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16168410)

~~~
ggm
Yes. Different economy, different drivers, but a similar global economic
decision logic consequence I suspect.

------
Simulacra
Perhaps this will spur American innovation to recycle reduce plastic
domestically.

~~~
siquick
The American innovators are too busy figuring out ways to make people click
more ads or to blow people up. /s (kind of)

~~~
adventured
Or, you know, building numerous space launch and transport systems (Boeing,
SpaceX, Blue Origin) to go to the moon again and Mars.

Figuring out how to cure disease with CRISPR. Editas, Intellia, Crispr
Therapeutics, and The Broad Institute, all just in Boston.

Leading the world in artificial intelligence, with only China as a close
competitor, and everyone else _dramatically_ far behind.

Leading the world in cloud computing and cloud software broadly, with only
China as a close competitor, and everyone else _dramatically_ far behind.

What are Europe's ten largest technology companies again? I really can't
recall.

Leading the world, along with China, on everything mobile. There are no close
competitors anywhere except for Samsung.

Leading the world in electric vehicles and driverless vehicle technology.

Leading the world in biotech, basically across the board. There are one or two
major competitors in Europe doing interesting things in biotech (using US
technology purchased from the likes of Genentech, InterMune, Genzyme, etc),
and that's it.

Dominating pretty much every segment of technology in every country that isn't
named China. In fact, dominating to such a hilarious degree, the world has to
aggressively try to curb the US tech hegemony because it's too overwhelming.

Or you know, sure, figuring out ad clicking. Yeah, that's it.

~~~
mping
You forgot leading the world in inequality and healthcare costs. For me, far
far more important than going to the moon or making a car drive itself.

~~~
tengbretson
> You forgot leading the world in inequality

I'm not even going to say citation needed. This is just false.

~~~
siquick
Leading the world is a big stretch but "The income inequality in the United
States, according to the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality where 0 is
perfectly equal and 1 is perfectly unequal) is about 0.45, which is awful..."

[http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-
america/](http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/wealth-gap-america/)

[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html)

But for the worlds richest and most technologically innovative country that's
a terrible charge to have on your record.

------
fouc
I feel that the first person to automate recycling and "mining" of trash at a
large scale will make a lot of money. And do the world a huge favour.

------
Analemma_
I think this can only be a good thing. A depressing percentage of people have
no idea that "recycling" is, for the most part, a lie, and that up until now
most things you "recycled" just went in a dump like everything else, except it
was a dump in China. A wake-up call as to the reality of the situation should
encourage better practices.

~~~
quotemstr
"Recycling is largely ineffective for substances that aren't aluminum" is just
the tip of the iceberg as far as truths we never mention in polite company.
I'm looking forward to a phase change into a society that's more honest with
itself.

~~~
QAPereo
And glass. And steel. And precious metals.

As for an honest society, do you have some historical reference point, or are
you just aiming for utopia?

~~~
ars
Not glass. Yes metal.

Glass is so worthless for recycling, all they do with it is crush it and use
it to cover landfill each night to keep down rodents and dust. That's
considered "recycled".

> As for an honest society, do you have some historical reference point, or
> are you just aiming for utopia?

For some reason greenwashing is really prevalent among people who should know
better (policy makers, scientists, environmentalists). And regular people
desperately want recycling to be a real thing so that they feel better about
themself.

It's a perfect match, leading to the situation we have now.

~~~
yorwba
Broken glass may be essentially worthless, but intact bottles can be cleaned
and refilled. Since that actually happens, I imagine the logistics involved to
be somewhat cost-effective compared to making new glass (or maybe it's all
fueled by subsidies).

~~~
ars
> but intact bottles can be cleaned and refilled

Only a very small percent of them. You are probably thinking of soda bottles,
and yes, they used to do that. But today it's plastic bottles (and I'm glad
for it!). Milk in glass bottles is all but dead.

Most glass these days is jars for olives, and salsa, and tomato sauce, and
other random things, where there is just not scale to collect them. It's not
anymore all uniform, every jar is a difference size.

Beer from the very largest companies might still work, although I think it's
mostly cans now. But there are a lot of small producers, and routing the glass
back to them would be too expensive.

We haven't even touched on how there is basically no point in doing it anyway.
The entire crust of the planet is basically made of glass. We can't run out
without dismantling (discrusting? :) the planet. It's also harmless to dispose
of, just crush it first.

Recycle metal, burn plastic and paper (for energy!! not for disposal!!), crush
and landfill glass and other organics. Those are the most environmentally
friendly options.

~~~
QAPereo
It takes far more energy to make new glass than to clean and reuse old glass.
Even melting existing glass is valuable, as it lowers the melting point of the
raw materials and therefore energy expenditure. Until glass manufacture uses
solar or wind or something similar, it’s an issue.

The problem isn’t a lack of silica, it’s yet more waste of energy and
pollution purely screwing is over.

------
rinka_singh
Classic example of Whataboutism: Is plastic waste from overseas “the reason
why you can’t see blue skies in China?” he asked. “I don’t think so. Go fight
the big battles, not the small battles.”

Way to go China!!! We - all of us need to optimize our manufacturing and
consumption systems to reduce and eliminate waste.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
It probably plays a role in soil pollution and ground water contamination,
china has more than just air pollution problems. China should have put a stop
to this a long time ago, they also drove more expensive but more responsible
options out of business. Eventually, the WTO is going to have a consider
environmental impact as a reason to restrict trade.

------
ktta
List of what is being banned for import is here:

[https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename...](https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/TBTN17/CHN1211.pdf)

Plastic seems to be the important part, and 'unsorted paper' is a bit vague.
So I'm thinking bulk of the paper/cardboard products atleast are unaffected.

~~~
emj
You sort out newspaper and officepaper which is pretty ok to recycle by
themselves. A mix of those and e.g. glossy magazines is pretty hard to
recycle, more or less like plastic you need one type of clean plastic to get
good recycled plastic.

------
blondie9x
We need to get off plastic. Gotta stop using plastic bags. And all plastic
disposables that aren't biodegradable.

Reusable bottles and storage containers are absolutely essential.

~~~
AstralStorm
Plastic bags are perfectly fine, as long as they are sturdy and can be used
multiple times. Mandate minimum thickness and price perhaps? Only fabric bags
are better.

Paper bags are about as bad as single use plastic ones. They take a lot of
water to produce and energy to mill. The only difference is they are more
biodegradable in a landfill.

This id's similar to situation with plastic vs glass bottles. Sturdy plastic
ones are better, but since three is no mandate to standardize and make them
sturdy, they get recycled instead of reused. That costs a lot of energy.
(Though less than recycling glass.)

------
lobo_tuerto
I think a more appropriate title would read something like: "... China refuses
to take the West's trash anymore"

------
tmaly
I would love to see packaging switch to corn based plastics or maybe some
other type where the plastic would decompose faster.

~~~
bob_theslob646
Unfortunately most likely not going to happen because of how cheap plastic is.

Fortunately though there is some interesting research in how to break it down.

"From garbage to gold: How advances in plastic recycling can help save the
environment"[[https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/06/advances-
recyclin...](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/06/advances-recycling-
save-environment/)]

([https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/27/ibm-research-
scientis...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/27/ibm-research-scientists-
in-san-jose-find-new-way-to-recycle-plastic/))

>On Monday, IBM Research said that scientists from the Almaden lab found a way
to transform polycarbonates into a stronger type of plastic that doesn’t leach
BPA, a chemical that has sparked health concerns in recent years.

------
fullstackwebdev
there is a technology available called thermal depolymerization that can
convert some of this into energy. I could never figure out if it was not net
positive for the only reason it isn't done. Even if it isn't net positive, if
they placed the recycling center near an area with surplus electricity, and
melt it down into some fuel on low peaks, I think that would be a positive.
Would somebody please tell me if its feasible?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)

~~~
AstralStorm
Yes, but produces nasty pollution, often chemical and hard to scrub. Consider
it a version 2 of usual burning.

