>

I guess there can be 7...
/u/fantasy53 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The problem is that the vast majority of recycling is a huge scam. Right now recycling is more symbolic, and just a political talking point. We take the time to separate everything into bins to make everyone feel like they’re doing something, but ultimately it all ends up in the landfill, and only something like 5% is actually recycled. Obviously reducing our consumption, and reusing things are key. But if we actually focused on recycling properly, it would make a difference, we choose ignorance though. >

You're telling me people in the waste management field are of questionable ethics? I'm shocked. >

You're telling me people ~~in the waste management field~~ are of questionable ethics? I'm shocked.
Fixed it for you >

Which popular culture do you participate in? In the UK, the order of the three Rs is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; recycling is last. >

While I appreciate that, I don’t think reduce and reuse get nearly enough attention as compared to recycle >

But they are literally the first two in the mnemonic before recycle. What kind of attention do you mean? What culture are you talking about? >

I get what you mean about the mneumonic- but people's actions skip to the 'recycle' part. There has been a better social movement to reuse with charity shops especially... still 'reduce'-ing a footprint is done last. >

The OP is about popular culture focus, not about people's actions. Reducing via less fast fashion, repairing what you own etc is popular, as is reusing and repurposing rather than throwing away. Charity/thrift is mre reuse than recycle, recycle is like melting down to core elements and then restructuring. >

Peoples actions are reflected by popular culture, and sometimes popular culture informs people actions.
A lot of people jump straight to recycling rather than considering reducing the amount they purchase or reusing what they have already. >

You still haven't specified which culture. People DO reduce consumption and reuse what they have, there are social movements behind both. >

What on earth don’t you understand here? You are being deliberately obtuse. How in the world does the order of the slogan have anything to do with what most people actually do? OP is exactly right that far more attention is given to recycling and recycling programs. And corporate sponsored ads have historically promoted recycling. 
Humans are creatures of convenience. It’s easy to throw a soda can into a different colored bin. It’s quite a bit less practical (impossible in most stores) to bring reusable containers to buy bulk nuts or dried herbs or pasta. It’s also a lot easier to get people to throw something in a separate bin than it is to get them to buy less shit. Thems just the facts of the matter. >

Action is not the same as focus >

The biggest things in culture are social media, movies, TV shows
Across those it seems that recycling is talked about more frequently than the other two IMO >

Isn't it far more useful to say that there is insufficient focus on recycling as well as on reuse and reduction?  Why are we focusing on a relative focus level of recycling rather than the absolutes here?  We need to be recycling more than we do and that should be fine to say, and we should also be saying we need to reduce consumption. >

The problem with focusing so heavily on recycling is that companies will pump out tons of useless rubbish with the excuse that it can be theoretically recycled, whereas if we encourage people to reduce what they buy, on the whole the  overallamount of rubbish will decrease. >

yes, we should encourage people to reuse and reduce.  we should also encourage recycling.  and...we should encourage companies that produce goods to use recycled materials and to use reusable packaging/materials.  All of these things are true, but you're pushing a negative position against something we should do more of. >

Δ I think it’s fair to say that we can both encourage reduction and reuse and also suggest recycling as a third option, but I do think most recycling at the moment is a bit of a scam and  encouraging waste management companies and take it more seriously could benefit the environment in the long run. >

I agree with that.  I consider this to be within the envelope of "focus on recycling".  We consumer side has made massive strides, but the post-disposal side has a long way to go. >


It’s far more important, if we want to be more eco-friendly, to reduce consumption and then reuse what we already have, and then recycle as a last resort.

Reducing consumption is more important than recycling, but there are far more meaningful things you can do to than focus on your personal footprint. Look at the graph – policy changes absolutely dwarf the magnitude of even the most impactful personal footprint change. 
The market failure is the biggest issue. That's why the single most impactful climate mitigation policy is a price on carbon, and the most impact you as an individual can have is to volunteer to create the political will to get it passed.
And returning the revenue from a carbon tax as an equitable dividend would help a little bit with inequality, while creating jobs and growing the economy. 
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and the IPCC makes clear carbon pricing is necessary. 

The purpose of the carbon tax is achieved as well, with carbon dioxide pollution projected to decline 33% after only 10 years, and 52% after 20 years, relative to baseline emissions.

To go from ~5,300,000,000 metric tons to ~2,600,000,000 metric tons would take at least 100 active volunteers in at least 2/3^rds of Congressional districts contacting Congress to take this specific action on climate change. 
That's a savings of over 90,000 metric tons per person over 20 years, or over 4,500 metric tons per person per year. And that's not even taking into account that a carbon tax is expected to spur innovation.
Meanwhile the savings from having one fewer kid is less than 60 tons/year. Even if it takes 2-3 times more people lobbying to pass a carbon tax than expected, it's still orders of magnitude more impact than having one less kid, and that's even more true once effective policies are in place. >

Even if you advocate for policy changes it doesn't diminish your personal responsibility to cutting emissions; life isn't a zero-sum game. Also, it's unclear how much tangible impact an individual could really have without resorting to extreme measures. As long as republicans control any branch of government, they will do everything in their power to block climate legislation. >

Time and energy are limited resources, though. Here are some things I've done, you can decide for yourself whether you think they're "extreme":


Used MIT's climate policy simulator to order its climate policies from least impactful to most impactful. You can see the results here.


Talked with friends and family about a carbon tax. I've convinced several that a carbon tax is a good idea. I've convinced a few to start volunteering for carbon taxes. 34% of Americans would be willing to volunteer for an organization to convince elected officials to act on climate change. If you feel like you're up against a wall in your own political conversations, here's some short trainings on how to have better political conversations. The IPCC has been clear that carbon pricing is necessary, and talking about climate change has been scientifically shown to be effective at increasing policy support. 


It took a few tries, but I published a Letter to the Editor to the largest local paper in my area espousing the need for and benefits of a carbon tax. Maybe you don't read LTEs, but Congress does. 


Joined several organized call-in days asking Congress to take climate change seriously and pass Carbon Fee & Dividend before joining the monthly call campaign. These phone calls work, but it will take at least 100 of us per district to pass a U.S. bill. 


Wrote to my favorite podcast about carbon taxes asking them to talk about the scientific and economic consensus on their show. When nothing happened, I asked some fellow listeners to write, too. Eventually they released this episode (and this blog post) lauding the benefits of carbon taxes.  


Written literally dozens of letters to my Rep and Senators over the last few years asking them to support Carbon Fee & Dividend. I've seen their responses change over the years, too, so I suspect it's working (in fairness, I'm not the only one, of course). Over 90% of members of Congress are swayed by contact from constituents. 


Hosted or co-hosted 4 letter-writing parties so that I could invite people I know to take meaningful and effective action on climate change.


At my request, 5 businesses and 2 non-profits have signed Influencer's Letters to Congress calling for Carbon Fee & Dividend. 


Recruited a friend to help me write a municipal Resolution for our municipality to publicly support Carbon Fee & Dividend. It took a lot of hard work recruiting volunteers from all over the city, sometimes meeting 2-3 times with the same Council member, but eventually it passed unanimously. Over 100 municipalities have passed similar Resolutions in support of Carbon Fee & Dividend that call on Congress to pass the legislation. 


Tabled at several events, usually collecting letters from constituents to their members of Congress


Started a Meetup in my area to help recruit and train more volunteers who are interested in making this dream a reality. The group now has hundreds of members. I've invited on several new co-leaders who are doing all the work at this point. 


It may sound silly, but I invited all my Facebook friends to "like" (and by default, follow) CCL on Facebook. Research shows 55% of those who engage with a cause on social media also take additional action.


Gave two presentations to groups of ~20 or so on Carbon Fee & Dividend and why it's a good idea that we should all be advocating for. I arranged these presentations myself. 


Co-hosted two screenings of Season 2, Episode 7 of Years of Living Dangerously "Safe Passage"


Attended two meetings in my Representatives' home office to discuss Carbon Fee & Dividend and try to get their support. 


Created cool charts to show how our lobbying is progressing, how our recruiting is progressing, and where we still need the most help


Created a wiki to help Redditors get involved and find their niche. 


Recruited thousands of Redditors to join me


It may be that at least some of these things are having an impact. Just eight years ago, only 30% of Americans supported a carbon tax. Now, it's an overwhelming majority -- and that does actually matter for passing a bill. The difference is showing up in lawmakers, too, with a growing number cosponsoring meaningful legislation. Personally, I think we're close to passing a bill here. And having more volunteers does help. 
A growing proportion of global emissions are covered by a carbon price, including at rates that actually matter. We need more volunteers around the world acting to increase the magnitude, breadth, and likelihood of passage of carbon pricing. The evidence clearly shows that lobbying works, and you don't need to outspend the opposition to be effective. >

I mean this earnestly, good job and you should keep it up.
But again it's unclear what these actions actually tangibly do to reduce carbon emissions. Given that every democrat voted for the inflation reduction act, they are already in favor of climate regulations. I am not at all convinced any republican congressperson would be convinced by lobbying to support climate regulation. Going forward, republicans control the house in 2022, and they will in all likelihood gain control of the senate in 2024 so it is highly unlikely substantial climate regulations will be passed for multiple years.
Furthermore, the supreme court can do literally whatever they want to neuter climate regulations and there's not a damn thing you can do about it

Time and energy are limited resources, though

All of those actions you listed take tons of time and energy. But I fail to see why reducing your consumption, cutting out meat, or not having kids takes any time or energy. >


“You’d be hard-pressed to find G.O.P. members who would be on board with approving these Democrat priorities,” Senator John Boozman, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement.
He described the climate provisions as “a far-left agenda” that is “opposed by every Republican in the Senate.”
...
And many of the clean-energy tax credits in Build Back Better have been backed by Republican lawmakers in the past and even written by them.

Yeah I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to agree. They don't stand for anything beyond obstructionism >

Again, it's already working. >

Recycled aluminum requires something at least 75% less emission compared to utilizing prime aluminum( aluminum that is made from ore). It is usually going to be a lot more due to sourcing the energy need to make pure aluminum from hydrocarbons. 
Recycle your aluminum. It has many applications beyond  container stock. 75% of the aluminum that has ever been created is still in use today.
“Production of primary aluminium through the Hall Heroult electrolysis process is energy intensive. The carbon footprint of primary aluminium is thus highly dependent on the source of electricity used. As a result, the carbon footprint of primary aluminium varies between less than 4 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in hydropower-based regions to more than 20 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium in coal power-based regions. The recycling process of aluminium, however, requires a lot less energy than primary aluminium production, and thus emits less CO2 - approximately 0.5 tons CO2-equivalents per ton aluminium.” >

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
We have to work in the paradigm we are living in while trying to make the next one better. Changing the paradigm takes money, which ultimately has to come from either the private or the public sector (or both!). 
Reducing consumption is important, but we all still have to eat, bathe, wear clothes, and live our lives. So we have to find the best ways to deal with inevitable waste. Lots of big companies are making big changes (I work in packaging and product sustainability), but those changes take way longer and way more money than you’d probably guess. I’d love to see a returnable packaging economy in the States, but that takes a huge effort, tons of stakeholders with divergent priorities, and LOTS of money. So while I work on that, the best thing I can do TODAY is make current packaging recyclable and encourage consumers to recycle responsibly. Lots of companies have joined The Recycling Partnership, which helps fix issues in American recycling to make it better and more efficient. Conscious Container is another great group working in making returnable glass bottles a reality (like it is in essentially every other country), but it’s slow going. Yes, returning, washing, and re-using glass bottles is best and I’m happy to support the initiative. But the best thing I can do TODAY is encourage everyone who uses glass bottles to find a way to recycle. 
Changing consumer behavior is HARD and there are many people who will never change: they will buy water bottles and other convenience items and messages to reduce consumption will be lost on them. But we can make it easier for them to recycle.
Perfect is the enemy of good, especially in a messy field like sustainability. Strive for perfect (reduced consumption, reusable packaging) in the future, but do good with what’s available today. >

I'm going to use PBS kids as representative popular culture here.
Sesame street had a show about recycling. Why did they not talk about reduce?
Because the show was talking about trash and litter - which is notorious for being generally useless. The goal of the show was to speak to cleaning up areas and there was a bit of talk about what was trash vs recyclable. The emphasis on recycle was what to do about other people's stuff as a child. And kids cannot reuse or reduce stuff as easily as adults. Hence why it was important to show recycling.
Additional pop culture shows that feature re-using are shows like American picker and the antique shows. They often don't talk about recycling at all! Just what can be reused and sold and everything else is trash.
As for reducing, and popular culture show for that is Marie Kondo's show about what sparks joy. She talks a lot about paring down ownership of stuff to what sparks joy. >

I agree with what you are saying, but allow me to shift your view even further. Reducing, reusing, and recycling are all well and good, but by far the biggest contributors to your carbon footprint are air travel, having kids, and eating meat.
So really, if we have to prioritize something, those are the things we should focus on. >

Δ you certainly have shifted my view, I think there are fundamentally more important things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint, compare to reducing and reusing. >

Why Delta? Those are all synonymous with reduce. >

China did it. I actually see more backlash if the gov merely asked people to give up meat. Let alone banned it as the tough effort that is required to stop climate change. Among many other hard things.   
FWIW I love meat. >

The most important thing we can do to reduce carbon footprint is advocate for nuclear power development. This specifically means the authorization, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants.
Asking the world to reduce consumption is not going to work. Petroleum products feed the world, and our best bet is to use nuclear power to create synthetic fuels. Yes they are energy inefficient, but that’s why the nuclear power is so important. We need to make electricity about 100x cheaper than it is now. >

I know this looks like a good idea on paper, but unfortunately it's not. It's far cheaper and quicker to scale up solar, wind, and renewable energy storage. 
Nuclear takes too long to get to market and it ends up being quite expensive. >

The time to market could change with economies of scale, if we decide to produce 100x our current electricity supply. >

Yeh, and nuclear fusion could be a major contributor to energy too in the future.
But... Right now the most economical, technologically available, and politically palatable solution is upscaling renewable and storage. If we have any chance to tackle global warming this is what it's going to be done with. >

Bill Burr said it. We are just to many people on this planet.
One Kid policy world wide would be te most efficient way to save the planet >

eUgEnIcS tho >

The issue is not consumption, the issue is production.  Petroleum based products are so cheap to make, that it is cheaper for companies to over-produce and just blanket the world with their products than to try to modulate production and risk not having their product available to sell.
The real solution is holding the manufacturers responsible for clean up and removal of their crap from the environment.
There is more petroleum based stuff produced every day than the world will ever be able to consume. >

Don’t forget that decreasing your carbon footprint is just a marketing thing from the biggest carbon emitters, so don’t think that not using a plastic fork is going to make some huge difference.
But yea, we as a society need to seriously look at our throw away culture and start making better decisions.
I shouldn’t be able to walk into a dollar store and buy some cheap $1 toy. Think of everything that went into that:

They had to extract the oil from the ground
They had to refine that oil
They had to ship that oil to China
They had to make the toy
They had to load a container ship and ship it across the Pacific
They had to unload that ship and store the containers
They had to load up a truck to ship the products to a distribution warehouse
They had to load another truck to take the product to the store
They had to pay someone to stock the shelf
They had to pay someone to be a cashier to let you buy it

That piece of crap hunk of plastic is not worth $1. >

I've seen far more focus on repairing and repurposing items and clothing now, compared perhaps ever in my lifetime. >

Because of burning trash for energy and recycling the leftover scrap metal is a growing industry, the cost of not recycling is decreasing a little; filling landfills is the more popular method of waste disposal . 
Energy reclamation is more expensive than landfills, but are less damaging to the environment. Landfills produce methane; methane capture produces less energy and causes more environmental damage, because methane is bad for the ozone layer.
A company like Amazon can pride itself in sending it's waste to energy reclamation sites when donation and reselling aren't an option. Of course Amazon wants their customers to feel good about excessive consumption.
There's a problem called wishcycling. Some people put things in the bin that aren't recyclable at all or recyclable by their waste management company. This gums up the works and can contaminate actual recyclables.
So recycling is important, but it's one leg of an environmental barstool, along with reduce and reuse. Composting can help too. In France, they've outlawed wasting perfectly good groceries. There's also public transportation and eating less meat. >

Recycling has been a huge boom to the income of waste management companies, many of whom had to rely ventures of questionable legality for their incomes previously. >

Think even broader- our answer to almost everything is “do more, make more, consume more”.  Travel more, eat out more, work harder to make more money, be more creative, make more art, read more books, buy more organics, buy a Tesla.  It’s rarely do less, make less, consume less”.  Being happier is almost always associated with adding something, and rarely associated with subtracting something from our lives. Recycling enables us to continue doing more.  “Reduce” goes against our habit of more, more, more. >

Reducing consumption is the most important thing >

Bottom line is that post-consumer recycling is not nearly as significant as what big corporations could and should be doing. They pass the buck and make us feel like we are both the problem and solution. It’s like multi-billion dollar companies asking us to round up for charity instead of giving to those same charities from their huge profits. People are poor and starving, and it’s because some people won’t kick in a few pennies. 
I’m all for recycling, but I want (demand) the biggest environmental criminals to start doing the right thing. >

I think we have a bit of a chicken egg situation though, corporations and companies produce what people want, and if there is a big market for a product someone will produce it and sell it.
But if we can reduce our own spending on  these products, the companies will no longer manufacture so much of it and reduce their own footprint in turn. >

How convenient for you >

I think recycle (as well as reduce and reuse) are nice in concept, and play some roll in helping, so yay the 3 R’s. But at the end of the day, our individual carbon footprints mean very little. 
They’re even hyped up by fossil fuel interests to distract us from the real issue - meaningful global wide reduction in our reliance on fossil fuels and comprehensive government legislation.
Just a thought, I guess >

People love to preach about recycling but nobody wants to talk about how little actually gets recycled and how inefficient the process is. We should be finding alternatives to plastic. >

Aluminum is worth recycling.  Almost nothing else is.
Plastic going into a landfill is carbon sequestration...  I see no issue with it at all.  Better a landfill than the ocean. >

I was listening to an NPR show about ten years ago on recycling.  A caller had brought up that studies had shown that post consumer recycling used more energy than it saved.  The guest expert stated that paper recycling is very close to neutral, but serves as a great way to create awareness of the larger issues. >

What’s “too much attention” for something that is positive? I think you’ve lost the forest for the trees.
If you’re saying we should focus on other things more than recycling, then your argument should be “not enough attention is given to x, y, and z. The argument you’re using doesn’t make sense if you agree recycling is positive, unless literally everyone is recycling everything perfectly. 
A good thing is a good thing and you can’t have too much of a good thing because that would make it a bad thing. If it’s good and you agree it’s good, any argument against it is illogical. >

You seen to be ignoring that can't just reuse everything without recycling to begin with. It takes energy to make new shit too dude. At least with recycling that energy saves additional resources. Especially when a ton of it isn't truly biodegradable and kills all sorts of shit including people.
The other thing is you have a very black and white mindset. As if you can't encourage both. You act as if the idea of telling folks to recycle things that can't be reused safely or rationally in a given context is malicious. How dare you recycle those computer parts instead of throwing away or opening up your own factory to be able to reuse it with money, time, resources, and know-how you don't have whatsoever. 
How dare you all keep buying things you need to live. Starve more often. Things are often packaged Ina way that makes things affordable as well. These packages aren't typically even able or suitable to be re-used on tons of shit. The fact remains that recycling can help reduce waste and the limited resources we have. You missing that point alone should change your view to some extent at minimum. >

I think you’re reading a lot into my initial comment that Isn’t there.
As I say, recycling is incredibly important but it should be treated as a last resort, not the immediate first step when it comes to dealing with waste. >

I'm reading into everything you said and what your entire post claimed and missed. Recycling doesn't need to be a last resort at all and can be part of the process of maximizing the resources we have. You didn't even address the fact that not everything can just be reused without going through a recycling process to begin with dude. That in and of itself is already a huge hole in your claims. >

Reduce is the best strategy.  Many recycling takes more energy than new, so it requires government subsidies (usually a big sign of bad technology or poor efficiency when it's government subsidized) to survive.
On top of that, recycled products are never as good as the original if keeping the energy and new material consumption (such as chloride and other nasty chemical) low.
Reduce and reuse is far better than recycle, although all should be pursued to preserve land and oceans. >

I mean, in the American popular culture I rarely see recycling discussed at all. When it is discussed, I certainly never hear people talking about climate change with regards to it. Recycling is about reducing waste and resource use, not lowering greenhouse gas emissions. >

People forget about the 2 extra R's in the 3 R's, refuse and rot... >

I thought it was rethink and repair.