Bin There, Doing That
Posted on | July 9, 2008 at 6:52 pm | 7 Comments
Another way in which N has changed my lifestyle, besides all the food things I mentioned earlier, is that I am now more green than I used to be. Oh, I think I was always pretty good with conserving and recycling, but she is more dedicated than I am.
For a long time, I paid the trash company extra to pick up my recycling as well as the trash. (Here in the suburbs we have to pay for our trash removal, unlike in the city of Denver.) Then when I switched to a new company for trash pickup, the new company didn’t do recycling. So instead I would drop off my recyclables (mostly just newspaper and aluminum cans at that point) at the big recycling bin in the parking lot at work. Then that new company went bankrupt (keeping the money I paid in advance) and I switched back to the old company. But by then, I was used to dropping off my own recycling and didn’t want to pay for it. So I didn’t re-sign up for that part of it. It’s a bit more of a hassle to load the stuff in the car and take it somewhere, but I don’t mind.
Then the recycling bins went to single-stream recycling and started accepting a lot more items, like plastic bottles and cardboard boxes and such. And then the bins multiplied across the city, appearing in many church and retail location parking lots. So there’s really no reason to pay for recycling anymore. Even though the new office doesn’t have a bin nearby, there are plenty on the drive to work. N showed me how I could recycle a lot more than I used to, like all the cereal boxes and stuff like that. She’s also got me using a lot less paper towels, napkins, tissues, etc. So now I have to dump stuff off at the recycling bins more often, but my trash is down to practically nothing. In fact, most weeks I’ve only got three-quarters of a 13-gal kitchen trash bag to put out for pickup, whereas I used to have 2 or 3 full ones a week. Sometimes I even wonder why I still pay for trash pickup, but it does come in handy on those weeks where I have a lot of extra stuff, like tree trimmings and weeds, or the debris leftover from a party.
I’ve noticed that more and more restaurants are getting away from plastic containers for leftovers and are going back to cardboard boxes and other more environmentally-friendly take-away packaging. And now comes word that the local recyclers are starting to accept the dreaded plastics #3 through #7, which previously they stayed away from. We end up saving a lot of cottage cheese and yogurt and butter containers to store leftovers and such in, partly because they can’t be recycled. But if that’s changing, then to the bins they go.
But now and again my mind flashes back to that Penn & Teller episode from a few years ago where they declare that most recycling, with the exception of newspapers and cans, costs more in time, money and resources than it would to just throw the stuff in a landfill (and much of it ends up there anyway). And that we’re never going to run out of landfill space. But I don’t know how much of that still applies, if it ever did, and recycling is one of those things that can make me feel good about myself no matter what my inner skeptic says. How can it be bad for the earth to reuse trash, even if it costs more to do it?
Latre.
Poignant Search Term Of The Day That Led To This Blog: “do i have the right way if i am at the stop sign earlier and i turn left at the two way stops”. (Good question, actually. I alway assume the answer is “no”. I think the person going straight has the right of way no matter what.)
Comments
7 Responses to “Bin There, Doing That”
July 9th, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
But now and again my mind flashes back to that Penn & Teller episode from a few years ago where they declare that most recycling, with the exception of newspapers and cans, costs more in time, money and resources than it would to just throw the stuff in a landfill
To the best of my knowledge and research, this is true.
And that we’re never going to run out of landfill space.
Definitely true, for all our lifetimes and our children’s.
But I don’t know how much of that still applies, if it ever did
If recycling is really worth it, then one can always “mine” all the landfills to get the stuff.
How can it be bad for the earth to reuse trash, even if it costs more to do it?
I doubt the Earth cares much one way or the other. As long as you spend only your own money, I don’t care either. It’s when you (or someone) spends my money to do something pointless that I start to care. Here in California, recycling is required by law whether it makes sense or not (economic or otherwise). Primarily this is done by requiring trash pickup companies/agencies to recycle an ever-increasing percentage of the material they collect. Of course, this is very expensive.
“do i have the right way if i am at the stop sign earlier and i turn left at the two way stops”. (Good question, actually. I alway assume the answer is “no”. I think the person going straight has the right of way no matter what.)
No, the person going straight does not have the right of way no matter what at a stop sign. If the stop is an all-way-stop (that is, every approach to the intersection has a stop sign), then it’s first-come first-go and turning/straight doesn’t enter into it. So, at a two-way stop, the person who reaches the stop sign first has the right of way if there are only two streets leading to the intersection. If there are more than two, then someone going straight has the right of way over someone turning left.
July 10th, 2008 @ 7:03 am
If there are more than two, then someone going straight has the right of way over someone turning left.
I think that’s what the person meant by “two way stops”.
July 10th, 2008 @ 9:24 am
From the Colorado drivers handbook:
“4-WAY STOP: You must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle that reached the intersection first. When more than one vehicle reaches the intersection at the same time the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way and allow the vehicle on the right to go first.”
http://www.revenue.state.co.us/mv_dir/formspdf/2337.pdf
Of course, it then goes on almost immediately to say:
“TURNING LEFT: You must yield to all oncoming traffic.”
July 10th, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
I wouldn’t consider Penn and Teller to be a credible source. They tend to cherry-pick their sources or just use sources that Mickey Mouse wouldn’t consider credible. At this point, I wouldn’t accept their premise that psychic John Edward is the biggest douche in the universe without checking it against three independent sources.
July 10th, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Hmm. First, if there’s such unlimited space for landfill, why do landfills get built downwind from people’s houses? (A nearby suburb had this issue recently.) And while there may technically be room for unlimited landfill, that rather depends where you live. Sure, Tokyo can landfill its trash in the middle of Montana, where there’s plenty of space…but what would be the point?
Phil: “It’s when you (or someone) spends my money to do something pointless that I start to care. Here in California, recycling is required by law whether it makes sense or not (economic or otherwise).”
Okay – then presumably you’d support legislation prohibiting landfills such as the one I described above…since its location does take citizens’ money, in the form of drastically reducing their property values due to the lovely, luxuriant new smells courtesy the wonderful landfill.
Still, I agree that recycling is oversold: people are still often using stuff they don’t need to, particularly packaging. Drives me nuts: I order two CDs from amazon, and they arrive each wrapped in plastic, along with that annoying sticky strip, then secured to cardboard backing wrapped in yet more plastic, then packaged alongside twenty pages of promo crap, and then the whole thing’s placed inside yet another box. If you don’t like landfills (or recycling), use less crap.
July 10th, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
I’ve used the “mine the dumps” line in my litter filled past, but there are a couple of problems with it (although I’m sure we’ll do it where we can when we need that stuff back!)
Most landfills are paved over and built on as soon as they’re filled up (Englewood, CO, and Anchorage, AK are two that I’ve seen this done with in my time). Can’t let a little methane gas buildup prevent the next storage units, Walgreens, or covenant controlled development from going up.
Heck, in Anchorage, they built an airport on the landfill. Yes, the methane caused problems – nothing like random flareups at the municipal airport.
Another option they are using these days is to turn them into open space/nature preserves. Once something becomes home to the endangered yellow-bellied skink or flat-footed flea, they’ll never let us mine it!
July 10th, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
First, if there’s such unlimited space for landfill, why do landfills get built downwind from people’s houses?
Surely you mean “upwind”. Don’t know. Maybe the land there was cheap? Or favorable zoning there?
Okay – then presumably you’d support legislation prohibiting landfills such as the one I described above…since its location does take citizens’ money, in the form of drastically reducing their property values due to the lovely, luxuriant new smells courtesy the wonderful landfill.
Not sure exactly what you mean. I’d support legislation that establishes the maximum permitted emission of various particles, liquids, gases, sound waves, ground vibrations and so forth from a property. Provided the limits are reasonable, precisely defined, tangible, and measurable. If someone allows, in this sort of case, particles in excess of the amount permitted to leave their property (thus causing smells downwind), then they would be responsible for the damages caused. If they can operate a landfill while staying within the limits, then they’d be OK. Or if the landfill can negotiate with surrounding landowners for permission to exceed the limits, that would be OK too (provided the emissions don’t exceed the limits past those properties, of course). And presumably such freely-negotiated permissions could be recorded as a title restriction on the properties, so the landfill could be assured that future property owners would also be bound (and future prospective buyers of the land would be able to factor such agreements into their purchase decisions).
If you don’t like landfills (or recycling), use less crap.
Who doesn’t like landfills? They’re the future of mankind, I say. Millions of tons of already-refined materials, just waiting to be harvested by future generations.