Talk:Recycling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recycling is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
To-do list for Recycling: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Fix {{Environmental technology}} navbox (done)
  • Create fact farm on subpage (done, but can always be further populated)
  • Fit facts into article. Sections: (done)
  • Economics (done)
  • Supply and Demand (done)
  • Collection methods (done)
  • History (mostly anecdotal; need a better source)
  • Sorting process (done)
  • Recycling-minded product/packaging design (done)
  • China's recycling imports (done)
  • Clean-up: (done)
  • History (done)
  • Processing (done)
  • Expand history section, esp. war-time efforts
  • Discuss merger of Recycling criticism into this article with other editors.
  • Add more points from John Tierney's anti-recycling NYT article for balance
  • See if we can find a more recent, similar article
  • Find information on waste stream breakdown
  • add to article as graphic
  • Add info on pay-per-can programs

--Alex 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What is recycling?

There was a common misconception in this first paragraph. Recycling is not the collection of recyclble articles. Recycling is the recovery and reprocessing into a useful form of resources that would commonly be discarded. Collection of recyclable elements of the waste separately is kerbside collection. Although commonly it is commonly politically and publicly accepted it is beneficial to the environment it is not necessarily the case. Extra collection of recyclable waste elements increases the amount of vehicles on the road, traffic pollution and global warming.

It is becoming technically possible to continue collections of unsorted waste and separating the recyclable elements mechanically. This would reduce vehicle movements and carbon release into the atmosphere.

--Alex 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest there should be an extra section entitled "Recovery". This would enable an unbiased view of how the recyclable elements can be collected. This is a more up to date stand point and more technically correct especially in the present onset of global warming. --Alex 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

just a suggestion, if a new section is needed for Recycling, why not try to add Food Waste Recycling? As i knew, Japanese can recycle our daily food waste into organic fertilizer. This technology is new to me, but i dont know about others. For more information on who we can do it in household, please check at www.emamerica.com . i had limited information on this matter and need more contribution.218.111.174.215 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NEW ZEALAND LEADS THE WORLD IN RECYCLing SHOULD WE MENTION IT ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.248 (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Original page contains a misquote "saying that recycling efforts reduced the country's carbon emissions by a net 49 metric tonnes in 2005." where the original quote says 49m tonnes meaning million, not metric, thus putting it a factor of a million out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.23.191.2 (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reuse

Reuse is not recycling and is covered in a separate section according to the waste hierarchy --Alex 09:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a new article on reuse, made from my lecture notes on the subject. reuse Supposed 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Reuse shouldn't link here - it's not the same thing - consider glass bottles: recycling = smash up, melt down, re-form, reuse = clean & refill. Reuse uses much less energy--JBellis 19:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't link here. There is LOADS that could be said about reuse so it should have its own seperate article. Otherwise this article will become huge. It would be ok to mention reuse on here and give a short description but reuse should not redirect hereSupposed 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Recycling does not include reuse where items retain their existing form for other purposes without the need for reproducing. That said it does include regiving where simply ownership changes as items are gifted from one owner to another." Really? I would think that regiving had more to do with reuse than recycling. Any other thoughts? Envirocorrector 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "Reuse" doesn't attract attention as "Recycling" does, even though the concept belongs higher in the hierarchy. Therefore perhaps it is legitimate to let the heading "Recycling" attract readers, but find ways to steer those who might be interested toward "Reuse". Accordingly near the top of the article where the hierarchy is mentioned, the three r's should be spelled out parenthetically.Tokerdesigner 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A note that one of the main sources for the introduction (The Garbage Primer: The League of Women Voters Education Fund) has an incorrect ISBN number or no library or bookseller carries it. I clicked on the ISBN search and nothing came up at all. I did a quick search of Amazon and found http://www.amazon.com/Garbage-Primer-League-Voters-Education/dp/1558212507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206889535&sr=1-1 though I realize that the ISBN number for paperbacks and hardcovers are different but... anyway, it's not an issue if the ISBN number is okay. But, is it? Darkpoet (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV issues

--60.243.51.49 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)This whole article is so not NPOV. It talks about the great wonders of recyclying and how good it is for the environment which is most certainly not true if you do the math. There was never a landfill crisis, recycling doesn't save trees and all it really does is cost us more money and resources. Recycling is bad for the environment. Using less is good. Is anything in the article proven to be true? How about some facts that recycling uses more resources thens its meant to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.234.135 (talk • contribs) --60.243.51.49 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some discussion of criticism of recycling, as it's a widely held view. But the recent addition is quite POV. A good section on criticism should have in-line citations (because it's a controversial topic), and should have neutral wording (see WP:NPOV). I'm not going to revert it right now, in the hopes that someone who knows these arguments well (or the original poster) can work this section into something more useful. --Allen 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be shortened and not in form of essay. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes - they are available in the history here. As the folks above noted, it was written in essay form, failed to cite sources, was short on specifics, and stated a lot of very generalizations and opinions as fact. CDC (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the point of wiki for people to fix up the content, not to remove it if they don't agree with it or the way it is presented? The rest of the recycling article is written in similar essay form and most of it fails to cite sources, how was this different? I'm adding it back in, in the hopes that someone will do the right thing and present it better, rather then be lazy and just remove it. --195.157.84.178 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It's true that there are problems with the rest of the article, but fighting POV essay with more POV essay is not the solution. I'm going to try to remove some of the unsourced, POV material from the article. I'm removing controversial claims that are not attributed to sources. I'm also removing the paragraph attributed to "skeptics", because it makes some detailed arguments that I suspect come from a few particlar recycling opponents and don't represent a consensus view. I'm removing a lot of material here, but for a topic like this, which is controversial both in real life and on Wikipedia, I think it's especially important that claims be attributed to verifiable sources.
Also, I'm adding a "fact" tag to the thing about newspapers in India... I'm not removing it because, while unsourced, I don't know whether it's controversial. I'm leaving the first half of the "history" section alone because, while also unsourced, I expect it is not very controversial. I'm rewording the part about the Mobro 4000 so that opinions are more accurately attributed. --Allen 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I started the opposing viewpoint. It at least deserves a mention. I don't know the facts either. The NYT article is rather persuasive. We do things all the time without thinking about it. Whether recycling is the right thing to do or not, my guess is that most people that recycle couldn't quote a single statistic on recycling. I think the landfill argument is sound (do the math yourself and multiply by 100 for error). I would love to find a source of the amount of energy of recycling v.s. not recycling for various materials. If I find one, I'll make sure to put it up. --jabin1979 01:53 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steel

Added a section on steel, as it seemed (oddly to me as the worlds most recycled material) not to get a mention at all. --Andy 22/8

[edit] Printer ink cartridges & toners

I think this is actually more accurately reuse which is separate to recycling. What are your views?--Alex 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's sometimes called recycling but this is simply for the positive connotations associated with the word recycling. --82.45.118.130 13:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected

Given the high rate of vandalism to this article by unregistered users, I've decided to tentatively semi-protect it. This prevents unregistered and very recently registered users from editing the article. This was a purely unilateral decision on my part, and I welcome any feedback on it: if you don't think it was a good idea, please let me know (or, if you're an admin yourself, just unprotect it). If you have a correction or an improvement you'd like to make to the article, and the semi-protection is preventing you from making it yourself, please post it below so that another editor can make it for you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted criticism

I deleted criticism... but wait! I only did it because it was a smaller version of the section "drawbacks" further up the article. It's just a formatting issue, really, not a change in content. Envirocorrector 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ink Cartridges

In Australia, while toner cartridges are sometimes sent to manufacturers for reuse (as the Wikipedia article implies is the norm for all cartridges), the plastic from most ink-jet cartridges collected is used to produce eWood. It is a composite plastic used in place of wood for applications such as park benches and tables. See http://www.planetark.com/campaignspage.cfm/newsid/42/newsDate/5/story.htm I would add a couple of sentences to the article, but the page is semi-protected.--Carltzau 05:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of techniques

I see that types of recycling (agregates, batteries... to shipbreaking) are in alfabetical order. That makes enough sense, except that it also makes for a wierd looking article. Maybe a more inuitive order would be better: start with metals, paper, plastic and glass, then move to batteries, timber, concrete, and ships. Just a thought. Envirocorrector 10:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shipbreaking

The inclusion of shipbreaking as it's own area here seems odd to me. After all, there are many kinds of recycling not mentioned that are just as valid - tires made into asphault, cars crushed and the steel recovered, demolishion scavange (if you wanted to be inclusive). So, why single out ship breaking? I suspect it was inserted by someone looking to make the whole business of materials recovery sound inhumane (although it would be hard to claim it's much worse than most raw material extraction jobs, diamond mines, anyone?). I would suggest that it be incorporated into a new heading called something like "other types of recycling" which could include anything else not important enough to warrant an entire heading (fabric recycling too, I would think). Envirocorrector 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I did what I suggested. Ship breaking, which has its own article anyway, is now listed here. I tried to be careful to give it its due as the ethical dilemma it is. I also added a bit on tires and a bit on auto and demolishion scavenge. It's not cited, but I'll do that this weekend as long as my stuff is still there to edit. Envirocorrector 00:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticisms is US-centric

A lot of hte points in the criticisms section is very US centric, especially regarding cost of landfills being cheap in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.104 (talk) 04:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for help defining recycling and recovery

I am not finding definitions or explanations on the two terms "recycling" and "recovery" at this page, or the WEEE directive page at wikipedia either. The distinction is made here on the discussion page, thank you: could any references (citations) be added for this? I cannot find pages at the European Commission that provide definitions either, and such webpages would presumably be the crucial reference material, i.e. the source organisation for the directive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Recycling of non-ferrous metals other than aluminium

I don't see any discussion of the recycling of non-ferrous metals other than aluminium. I believe other metals, such as copper, are widely recycled. I am curious about the status of other metals, e.g. zinc and nickel. If anyone knows about this subject, it would be great to add it. 64.61.81.231 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Aase (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) recycling is so cool

The "dark side" of recycling--sending goods that don't pass standards here, is not really recycling. ToTheCircus (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

See my comment at Talk:Recycling criticism#Article rethink. Richard001 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Farm

I'm working on compiling a "fact farm" at Talk:Recycling/Fact farm. It's kind of an experiment; I've been scouring through some books from the local library, and figure I'll mine all the pertinent, source-able information from them, then work on fitting it into a (refactored?) article. --jwandersTalk 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Draft

Decided to refactor/rewrite most of the article. Working on a new draft at Talk:Recycling/Draft. It's still a work in process, but feel free to comment. --jwandersTalk 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

closed down the draft after transferring new content into article. --jwandersTalk 08:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwandersTalk 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ARRG!! It hurts mein eyes!!!

So, I found a table in one of my reference books lists energy and air pollution benefits for the recycling of certain products. Figured it would be great info to include here, with an appropriate reference in the caption. Only problem: it looks horrible!! I'm trying to use class=wikitable as wp:TABLE suggests, but I can find any documentation. My main issues at present are that there's no white space between the main text and the table, and that the caption is coming out bold for no discernible reason. Anyone able to help? --jwandersTalk 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have won. --jwandersTalk 08:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Recyclable waste

Any concerns about merging Recyclable waste into this article? --jwandersTalk 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Recycling criticisms

The following discussion was moved from Talk:Recycling criticism

How would people feel about this article being merged (back) into Recycling? I've been doing a lot of work expanding that article recently, and think it now covers a lot of the points made in this article. --jwandersTalk 04:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE TO THE MERGER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.164.18 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - The Recycling article is already a little environmentalist happy-go-lucky. That is the reason the recycling criticism article was created as a balance. I worry that if the two articles are combined the criticism will eventually be fused in and considerably diluted. I think it is better to keep them separate entities (but always connected through links) to evolve semi-independent of each other. Joshua4 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Recycling article recently? I done an extensive re-write and hope it's a lot more balanced than it was. If you still find it biased, isn't better to fix the bias there than ignore it by having this POV fork?--jwandersTalk 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

AGREE with the proposed merger. There should be one balanced article on recycling. The alternative is two POV articles. The current Recycling article looks pretty balanced. Silverchemist (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that merging can lead to purging. Sometimes when a large subject becomes even larger, editors start to shorten things to make it a readable length by removing information that is useful. IMHO, I think keeping Recycling Criticism as a "see also" is better for both articles.Septagram (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that some information would be taken out, but what you call "purging" others would call "editing". If the strongest, most well argued and best referenced points from both sides are left, I don't see a problem. --jwandersTalk 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"The strongest, most well argued and best referenced" is exactly what has me worried. Likening to the early US constitutional problem with a few States having the largest populations made the smallest States feared being negated or swallowed up. So also do I worry about the small, interesting bits of contrary information from the minority view being tossed when out that information would not easily fit in a "one size fits all" unified article format or length. Combining becomes an unintentional purge of contrary information that "just confuses the reader". I looked at the long, technical, locked, recycling article, but it seems well edited and a nice read for mainly the pro concept of recycling. I feel mixing these two different "colors" will lead to bland brown that will lack the dialectic simplicity of a traditional counter-balance scale. Have fun with my mixed metaphors. In the end, recycling criticism will eventually become but a few ineffective lines with little useful information. This is like the current argument of whether ethanol is really a green alternative to gas. In the rush to be “green” many of the critics will be pushed out or bulldozed over. However, if WP is running out of space on their hard drive, I guess it may be needed ;-). Septagram (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but Recycling criticism is a textbook POVFORK, which are "undesirable on Wikipedia". (As an ironic aside, I initially thought your edit summary of " Mixing colors ultimatly leads to brown" was referring to glass recycling). --jwandersTalk 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Fully agree and support the merge. Splette :) How's my driving? 15:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Joelster (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another angle

@Septagram: Perhaps we can work this from a different angle, as I'm mostly concerned with the Recycling article itself, and initially suggested the merge because I wanted to ensure it had a good balance. I've mined the sourced statements from the criticisms article and have been going through them on a /Criticisms subpage. Perhaps you could take a look at what I've done and help ensure your above concerns are being met.--jwandersTalk 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I AGREE (Janoolian)

There is no point in another page when someone may be looking for criticisms, since the original criticisms of it on the Recycling section are more developed on the Recycling Criticisms page. It uses up a lot more time if you have to go to a separate page.

Janoolian (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I don't think coping the criticisms page into the bottom of this article is the best step forward. I've worked most of the points made there into the main text of the article already (see the subpage /Criticisms). Feel free to add back in any I've missed.--jwandersTalk 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This article, in general, is very slanted as fore mentioned--an objective, non philosophical read should be the goal of this article. Encyclopedias are supposed to be objective and present hard facts. This article needs to show more hard facts rather than soft facts, and have a more neutral point of view.--the preceding comment added by 199.216.216.1, 11:29, 5 March 2008

[edit] Recycling of stranded ships

One solution to help reduce the problem of raw materials shortage is recycling the hundreds of ships which lay at the Aral Sea and at the African coast. perhaps ship recycling companies may do so.

81.246.184.81 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on the inclusion of fact for and against....

I think that as an encyclopedia you are doing the right thing and including the both aspects of the for, and against, you need to always keep an objective view of both sides despite the feedback of your subscribers. I for one are all for any way we can sustain this earth, but it does not matter--all opinions from whatever reliable source is what is important--do not take sides!!!! Stay objective and you will survive the test of time.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DSPGandalf (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-ferrous metals section is incorrect

Most of the energy required for producing new pure aluminum is spent to chemically break the alumina bonding, not due to a higher melting temperature. I cannot edit this as I just got a wiki account. Someone please fix and refer to [[1]]. Fbfree (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a criticism section for balance

I put the criticism section back in the article for balance.

The person who erased it claimed that the criticism section merely duplicated the separate article on criticism. That claim is false. I wrote much of the criticism section, and none of what I wrote was in the separate article.

People who read this article should be exposed to both the pro-recycling and the anti-recycling points of view. The article should be balanced.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I see there's another section about the economics of recycling. I tried to make the criticism section a subsection of that section by putting 3 equals signs in front and after the title of the subsection, but the subsection didn't show up in the menu, so I made it its own section with 2 equals signs instead. There has to be a section with the world "criticism" in the title. Also, my list of points from Tierney's article is necessary for balance. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The section called "Demand"

I changed the section that was called "Demand" to "Government Mandated 'Demand'." A real demand is based on voluntary markets. A government mandated "demand" is not a real demand. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't the subsections show up on the menu?

The menu only shows the main sections. The subsections don't show up. Why is this? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re

you sodmbfiuwebfgwi;gb;iiwrofhkedmefnekqkqjw9rdjoqweur]23-9ruie23jortfkowrhfwejh]tj 34iothjehncvru9ui9e rojertmw 4jotml[wjgr nvgrnighvf titjg[3r'pokporwtopgwrmjihj/gb nekhrftqe"fodjloqme'f kqn23l fmvbfdknhwparjeyhn kgvnjer [wt,p3kpqqr5nkyghpa24hit5f4l1tk3pof,e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.18.205 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)