You are correct, it is technically 100% recyclable. I personally dislike this article because it muddles the message. The whole explanation from the article is that if less than 30% of the material is recycled (in the US), it is not recyclable. I find this a stupid argument, because the material IS recyclable. But for a whole host of reasons in the US, it isn’t consistently recycled.
Most PET doesn’t make it back into the loop. There can even be more demand for rPET than there is supply, which will definitely affect places like AU that mandate rPET use. There is also the problem of maintaining the needed quality of the material throughout the loop, as some PET products require higher standards, so some rPet drops out eventually. Even here there isn’t a perfect system. I’d guess that aluminum, a similar “endlessly recyclable” material, has the same issues.
The real problem is that the first “R”, “Reduce (consumption)” was quickly forgotten in a consumer world. Add to that planned obsolescence and it’s no wonder how we got here.
The real problem is that the first “R”, “Reduce (consumption)” was quickly forgotten in a consumer world.
As long as the rich continue to have nice things, a message of “don’t have nice things” will win few hearts and minds. We humans are jealous creatures, and for good reason: it’s how we protect ourselves from others taking advantage of us.
The problem being: how many people have access to recycling their plastic waste? And how much of that ‘recycled’ plastic waste actually gets recycled, as opposed to shipped to Thailand (or where-ever) and dumped in landfills?
I’m in the uk and while we’re technically all big on recycling here, many households don’t have access to it (as there’s no room on the streets for the extra bins) and lot of people here also don’t drive, and aren’t living near recycling collection/disposal facilities, so won’t be recycling that way either.
Genuinely confused.
I thought PET was endlessly recyclable. In Australia all drink bottles will be 100% recycled PET soon.
I know the rest is shit but let’s focus on the real problems here.
You are correct, it is technically 100% recyclable. I personally dislike this article because it muddles the message. The whole explanation from the article is that if less than 30% of the material is recycled (in the US), it is not recyclable. I find this a stupid argument, because the material IS recyclable. But for a whole host of reasons in the US, it isn’t consistently recycled.
Most PET doesn’t make it back into the loop. There can even be more demand for rPET than there is supply, which will definitely affect places like AU that mandate rPET use. There is also the problem of maintaining the needed quality of the material throughout the loop, as some PET products require higher standards, so some rPet drops out eventually. Even here there isn’t a perfect system. I’d guess that aluminum, a similar “endlessly recyclable” material, has the same issues.
The real problem is that the first “R”, “Reduce (consumption)” was quickly forgotten in a consumer world. Add to that planned obsolescence and it’s no wonder how we got here.
As long as the rich continue to have nice things, a message of “don’t have nice things” will win few hearts and minds. We humans are jealous creatures, and for good reason: it’s how we protect ourselves from others taking advantage of us.
Agreed.
The problem being: how many people have access to recycling their plastic waste? And how much of that ‘recycled’ plastic waste actually gets recycled, as opposed to shipped to Thailand (or where-ever) and dumped in landfills?
I’m in the uk and while we’re technically all big on recycling here, many households don’t have access to it (as there’s no room on the streets for the extra bins) and lot of people here also don’t drive, and aren’t living near recycling collection/disposal facilities, so won’t be recycling that way either.
We have a return scheme, $0.10 for each plastic bottle.
By all reports it’s a pretty good set up. It’s the other types of plastic that are the problem.