Talk:Recycling - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dskirsa (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 20 March 2013 (Cost/Benefit is not economically sound). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:54, 20 March 2013 by Dskirsa (talk | contribs) (Cost/Benefit is not economically sound)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Recycling article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Environment Top‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages'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. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 2, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 12, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of June 11, 2006.

To-do list for Recycling: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-07-08

Expand history section, esp. war-time efforts
Find information on waste stream breakdown

add to article as graphic

Add info on pay-per-can programs
Define recyclate

Help our planet.

Software: Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Text and/or other creative content from Criticism of recycling was copied or moved into Recycling with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The 'recycling bin' image?

The image on the right certainly doesn't look like a bin at park in northern California. Would anybody replace the image with the correct one, or remove it from the article?

Recycling in China

Could someone please delete the 'Recycling in China' part from this article! It is clearly propaganda. Painting China as a recycling wonderland while tons of chemical and nuclear waste are simply dumped into rivers and lakes in poorer parts of the country is a slap in the face of the spirit of recycling and green conscience. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.4.226.181 (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the compete section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You should instead, copy and paste the contents into this section and request sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The text was a very poor treatment of the topic and was not worth salvaging. There is definite need for a Recycling in China article given that it is the most populous country. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, the text was a real pig. I should have put more effort into it. As for systemic bias, I always thought that was about representing the underrepresented and vice versa. Anyway, this could turn into something good, like a new article on an important topic. I would be happy to supply photos. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual facts were pretty interesting, though. Those slop wagons are all over the place. Barrels of the most horrible stuff leaving the city for the suburban pig farms. They're the only vehicles on the road everybody clears a space for. Trust me, you don't want one of those things tipping over onto your car. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

We cannot write content that is based largely on personal experience. There is a lot of govt. NGO and academic literature out there from which info can be gleaned for an article. I am sure photos would be most welcome on Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR or not, it is sourceable fact. And I think Viriditas is right. Aren't we supposed to take what's here and make best efforts to make it worthy. In this case, a source or two, and a bit of rephrasing. Deleting the whole section was a bit extreme. This is a wiki, after all. Our first option is to improve, not remove. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a judgement call in delete it. On balance it was best to not have it and there was nothing that was salvageable in the content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Recycling in China, I've just dug for govt. sources and went round in circles finding no good content. http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/about/ is a blog with a bunch or pretty good links. It may be a good place to start. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said there is reliable info out there and I have some info that I have gathered, but a major topic such as Recycling in China cannot be treated in a cursory manner. Also, have a read of WP:BLOGS. We cannot use the blog itself but there may be useful links as you said. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources, if anyone's interested:

Beijing introduces recycling banks that pay subway credits for bottles, The Guardian
Market, poverty drive China's recycling, The Southland Times
The prospects for China's recycling industry, China Economic Net
China's recycling industry booms, helps save forests worldwide, Bangor Daily
Recyclers scrapped from Beijing ahead of Olympics, The New York Times
In China, Hard Times at the Scrap Heap, TIME
From east to west, a chain collapses, The Guardian
China: Recycling of Organic Wastes in Agriculture, United Nations
Recycling of Electrical Wastes in China & India: Workplace & Environmental Contamination, Greenpeace
E-waste mounting in developing countries, CBC

Lots more out there. Plenty enough for an article, I think. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Surcharges

In the supply section of the article 2nd paragraph

(Container deposit legislation involves offering a refund for the return of certain containers, typically glass, plastic, and metal. When a product in such a container is purchased, a small surcharge is added to the price. This surcharge can be reclaimed by the consumer if the container is returned to a collection point. These programs have been very successful, often resulting in an 80 percent recycling rate. Despite such good results, the shift in collection costs from local government to industry and consumers has created strong opposition to the creation of such programs in some areas.)

the last line states that

1. there is a shift in collection costs
2. the industry and consumers are now paying for the collection costs.

I believe this is just a misunderstanding of the concept that the money you receive when returning the packaging is actually additional money that you spent when purchasing the item. this forces the consumer to return the packaging if they do not want to be the one paying for the disposal of the item.

02:03, 16 January 2012‎ 206.248.172.126 (Talk)‎

Removal of tags on criticisms

I have been adding some text in the criticism section and making adjustments. I think that there has been sufficient referencing and work done to warrant removal of the annoying tags at the top of this section. It creates a false sense that nobody can launch criticism against recycling. A science without objective inquiry into its limits is not a science at all.Thompsma (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

The "Costs" sub-section of this article details the criticism that large-scale recycling programs are too cost-inefficient to be ultimately beneficial to society. This information was, when I came across it, accompanied by a picture of a man dumpster diving. I removed that image, commenting that I didn't see the relevance, and it was quickly replaced by a picture of a Vietnamese scrap collector on a boat. This struck me as equally inappropriate, and taking a step back, I realised that images like this have been scattered apparently at random across the entire article.

The first four pictures are fine, but then there's a photo of a sign in India, devoid of context, alongside the section on industrial waste. In the section about the international trade in recyclates, there's a picture of a bunch of computers in a parking lot. Maybe the computers are about to be shipped to China, but again, no context, so I don't know. Two photos of recycling logos on packaging - might make sense higher up, with the bit about product labeling in "Government-mandated demand", but not in the introduction to "Criticisms and responses". Next is the aforementioned Vietnamese scrap collector, then people collecting recyclables from a mountain of garbage in Brazil; neither are relevant to the "Costs" section. Nor are they relevant to "Working conditions", because that's about workers in industrial recycling facilities, not freelance collectors. Christmas trees gathered for recycling? The section it accompanies does talk about trees, but in a completely different context. And finally, brilliantly complementing the information about the possible income loss and social costs of recycling, we have a picture of sorted waste containers in the Czech Republic.

In short, this article has too many irrelevant images. I propose they be pruned with extreme prejudice. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove Opinions

I was quickly reading the section on cost-benefit analysis and ran across the following line: "Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies to internalize externalities, businesses will ignore them despite the costs imposed on society." This sounds more like an opinion than a fact, especially as more and more businesses are choosing to go green on their own accord without being forced to. I suggest either removing it, or rewording it and providing a link to some study verifying that businesses are unwilling to recycle unless forced to with taxes or subsidies. David Mitchell (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cost Benefit Analysis

The article states "recycling materials has been proven to be beneficial to the economy as it can create jobs for people in the US." Creating jobs alone is not enough to prove that it is beneficial to the economy. Your local Walmart could hire 50 more employees (creating jobs) but hiring those 50 people would require them to increase prices. That is not beneficial to the economy. Similarly, the fact that recycling "creates jobs" does not alone mean that it is beneficial to the economy when those jobs could be increasing the cost of goods. I recommended editing or deleting it. Dskirsa (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Categories: