Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Californians love to recycle, but it's no longer doing any good (latimes.com)
23 points by lnguyen 77 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 14 comments



> There’s a stick in a bill by Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). It would require all beverage containers sold in California to contain a minimum amount of recycled material. CalRecycle would establish the minimum.

This would appear to disadvantage biodegradable beverage containers. Why not just tax the non-recycled portions instead of establishing a minimum, using the tax proceeds to buy recycling scrap?


Reduce, reuse, recycle.

We are still at stage three.


That site is region locked. Mirror please.


In these cases, try archive.is

That article was previously archived: http://archive.is/rzzhg


I can't read it. Is this the same that what has been happening since 2016?

Snipped from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/californi...


Looks like the same story as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17368168.


A few additional details from an interview with a local recycler ...

> One big problem, he says, is mixed paper — newsprint, magazines, junk mail. China no longer wants it. So it’s being sold to smaller markets in India, Vietnam and other Southeast Asian countries. The issue is compounded because, unlike with Chinese vessels, there are fewer ships making round trips from Southeast Asia to California.

> “A year ago,” Potashner says, “we were getting $100 a ton for newsprint. Now we’re getting an average $5…. Revenue has fallen off the cliff.”


> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

Bye.


I'm not sure how much legal protection such silliness buys them. I'm sitting in an airport lounge in Frankfurt and just flipped on a VPN to access the article. I can't imagine that whether or not I access the website via the IP the airport lounge gave me or via my VPN IP in the US makes much difference in the real world as to whether or not they would have obligations under the GDPR.


I can't imagine that whether or not I access the website via the IP the airport lounge gave me or via my VPN IP in the US makes much difference in the real world as to whether or not they would have obligations under the GDPR.

The GDPR only applies to foreign companies if "it is apparent that the controller or processor envisages offering services to data subjects in one or more Member States in the Union." (Recital 23). Blocking the whole EU makes it hard to argue that they do so.


Exactly. Bye. You don't need my personal information to show me a story in a paper.


Why "most"?


GDPR?


> GDPR

I can’t imagine the LA Times has enough subscribers nor advertisers in the EU to make establishing a compliance regime worth it. They may be respecting users’ privacy. But complying with the spirit of a law and each of a union’s twenty-eight national regulators are night and day.

That said, everyone I know in China and the Middle East has a VPN.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: