Talk:Recycling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Towards FA status Partial 'To Do' list for article

I came upon the AID post and dropped in, and I wanted to just jot down a couple of comments after skimming. I'm NOT writing this in lieu of working on the article or in order to criticise, please take it in the spirit in which it is given; sincere wish to support the article's improvement.

• The info on history seems too detailed in some places and filled with minutae; for instance, we don't need to know what colours the bins are in Ontario.

Agree--Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• OTOH, I think it's way too US- and NA-centric. What about recycling in the rest of the world? Maybe do comparisons of comparable economies/cultures with different recycling programmes. What about the developing/third world? Do we have something to teach them about recycling, or are they teaching us? Or maybe they're just starting to pick up our bad habits?

Agree--Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with 'reduce/reuse isn't recycling'. I think there's so much more about recycling we could have in the article, we don't need to dilute it. There should be reduce and reuse articles, or maybe an article on the 3Rs.

See waste hierarchy article along with waste reduction (reduce) and reuse - also need improving--Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about the mechanics of recycling (I know that's already on the to do list)? What products are made from recycled materials? How does recycling affect economies? Is it more expensive in every jurisdiction (the NY one is mentioned). How does it affect micro-economies (dumpster divers, overseas processors)? How has it affected the producers of first-generation products (the products that are recycled)? How have they adapted? Are they cashing in on the recycling craze, or are they in competition with the products?

Agree but must not be confused with separation. Kerbside collection and materials recovery facilities are not methods of recycling they are methods of sorting recyclates prior to being recycled. --Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• What is the future of recycling? I know speculation isn't encyclopedic, but quoting projections and plans can be.

Rationale required to look at energy requirements for recycling and pollution caused by methods of collection of materials for recycling. Must be integrally linked to climate change. --Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• What are some recycling technologies? How are they being utilised? Who is responsible for them? Is this a good career to get into? What are the job prospects?

Plastic extrusion & thermal depolymerisation, crushing of glass into aggregate, aluminium smelting are some off the top of my head. Also anaerobic digestion &composting are sometimes considered recycling of biodegradable waste.

• Need some better pictures. There are so many things we could depict, it's tough to come up with a list.

Agree--Alex 09:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about recycling legislation? How do municipalities/regions/countries differ? What does the UN and WHO etc have to say about it?

See waste legislation for articles covered in this rough area, there is room to specialise more focused on recycling. In the UK we have council recycling targets but they arent statuatory unlike landfill allowances

• Another addition IMO should be 'the dark side of recycling'; the practice - all the examples I know of are by the first world - of sending large-scale materials that would be too expensive to reclaim in our economy to developing and third-world economies for reclamation, often without the environmental and occupational protocols that protect us. The oceanfront city in India whose primary (sole?) economic contributor is ship dismantlement, with (IIRC) a death rate among workers of one per day,[3] and the practice of sending computers to China for reclamation of precious metals etc,[4] to the huge detriment of the local environment, are two examples I can think of offhand.--Anchoress 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If I think of anything else, and/or when I have time to work on some of these ideas, I'll be back.--Anchoress 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree most the information in the overview and history section consists of numerous quite disjointed statements pertaining to the recycling approach in very specific areas (i.e. cities and US states). What would be better is more generalised information and statistics stating what is the "general recycling plan" in countries and regions. Canderra 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, much too much detail on US recycling policies -- how much a bottle is worth in each state is hardly noteworth material. Zorath 03:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Round two

After watching the article evolve and contributing a bit myself, I am beginning to wrap my brain a bit around the shape of the article and what it is missing/how we can provide it.

I have an idea for a section, it may be a slight re-working of some existing material, but I think it would work well as a unit. I imagine a section containing the following:

• Overview of regional, government-run recycling programmes (household recycling programmes).
  • Why are they implemented? We know about the NY example (although the reference is an Op-Ed piece and IIRC it's a few years old), attributing the enthusiasm for recycling to PC thuggery, but for instance here in Vancouver, British Columbia, where we are running out of landfill, the GVRD is very serious about recycling irrespective of the cost.
  • What are the statistics on compliance? For this and the preceding bullet, I am not suggesting we do a city-by-city comparison, but (if we can find the statistics) an overview showing ranges. For instance in Vancouver, we recycle all but 10% of recyclable paper.
  • Are there municipalities where recycling is break-even or profitable? Why is that? We could write a lot about the reasons why municipalities enact recycling programmes: in some cases 'me too-ism', in some cases running out of landfill, the cost of paying other principalities to take their garbage being too high, 'training' citizens so they'll be compliant when recycling does become profitable, or just caving in to public opinion.
• What about privately-run recycling programmes, as in corporate initatives, or governments that recycle.
  • First, there is the issue of companies that have chosen recycling within their manufacturing stream, like that carpet company, don't remember the name offhand, that has committed to (and achieved) reducing its environmental footprint by completely closing its resource circuit.
  • Then there are institutional 'deskside' recycling programmes. Are businesses ahead of the curve, or are they behind? What prompts businesses to embark upon them? Does it cost them money, or do they save money? How does it help their PR and employee relations? Are there a couple of examples of companies? Maybe a couple of success stories, and maybe a couple who initiated recycling programmes and then abandoned them.
• A more comprehensive (not necessarily longer, just more complete) overview of the economics of recycling; the tension between the cost and availability of raw materials, the cost of landfill, the cost of collection, sorting and re-processing, the cost of bad publicity, the (environmental and economic) costs of unrecycled recyclables (acid in paper, chemicals in electronics and batteries), etc.

--Anchoress 14:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, not necessarily in the same section, we could talk a bit about a) how technology has evolved as a result of recycling, for instance: window envelopes with pressed paper instead of mylar windows; watertight containers made out of pressed cardboard; biodegradable coffins; padded envelopes cushioned with shredded paper rather than bubble wrap; products with the 'non-recyclable' portions easily removed, etc, and b) how technology has hindered recycling, such as: various amalgam products such as juice boxes; plastic and wax coatings on paper products; items printed with 'recyclable' symbols and instructions when they aren't actually recyclable, etc. Anchoress 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cost of recycling

The following statement was not be entirely NPOV:

State support for recycling can be more expensive than alternatives such as landfill; recycling efforts in New York City in the USA cost $57 million per year.1

While it may be true that recycling plants are more expensive to operate then landfills it the statement ignores the possible costs of not recycling due enviromental issues with landfills. I have changed it to try and be more NPOV. --Cab88 15:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Energy benefits from recycling

Has anyone got any figures as to the energy benefits of recycling. I've read somewhere that recycling aluminium uses 20 times less electricity that extracting it from bauxite, whereas the benefit of recycling glass is much less. Can anyone produce a table for plastics, metals, paper, card, etc? 85.210.8.21 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

>> I've heard that except for Aluminum, most materials require more energy to recycle than to create from raw materials. I was trying to verify or refute this using this article, and found that reference link #3 is no longer available.

Added a "recycling methods" section

I have added a section titled "Recycling Methods" which is presently a list of links to articles which detail the main processes used to recycle commonly recycled materials. I know that most of these articles are available under the "See Also" section, but the processes used to recycle materials are surely of central importance to an article on recycling and are not just a 'related topic' which is what "See Also" links generally refer to on Wikipedia.

Preferably, I think the section should maybe provide some sort of short description on each material's recycling method rather than just linking to each relevant article, however I do not know enough about all the methods to write this. Unfortunatly, many of the pages currently contain little information about the actual method(s) used in the recycling of that material, but I still think they should be linked as they will surely improve over time and I will try add some information myself. Canderra 01:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In the UK the mantra is Reduce Reuse Recycle. The "reuse" section is a good start but there should also be something to say that even though the general public are most aware of recycling in actual fact it's the lowest and least desirable form of waste reduction. I'd like to see something of this form in the intro. Waste reduction and excess packaging could probably be a whole article in it's self but should also have a section here. Are the 3R's a uniquely UK thing?

If we want pictures of reused items I can get some as we have horse shaped swing made from an old tyre and my Eco-School is growing carrots in old wellies at the moment. Sophia 09:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's Canada-wide, but in Vancouver our motto is also Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: it's emphasised that we should be focusing on them in that order, reduction being the most important element and recycling the 'last ditch'. But I want to make the comment that I don't know if the 3Rs should have much place in this article; it is the recycling article, not the article on all elements of waste reduction. I think a) there is more than enough material just on recycling to make a FA, and b) it is a misuse of Wikipedia to turn this into a how-to manual on waste reduction. Let us define recycling , its history, its present and where it's going, and leave the education to external links, and the big picture to an article on the big picture. My CAN$.02.--Anchoress 17:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Israel

Israel recycles a lot of materials because of their constant shortages of various things. I think we should include them. . Mkaycomputer 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I work closely with Israel in the field of recycling and waste management technology and I spent 3 months working at Hiriya last month. I have to say unfortunately Israel is very bad at recycling and does not recycle anywhere near as much as it could. Israel is very good however at inventing new innovative technologies for waste treatment such as the ArrowBioProcess (Mechanical Biological Treatment). Unfortunately there are not the political drivers in Israel at present to make optimal use of the resourcese Israelis have. --Alex 09:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is recycling worth it? /Environmental impact of recycling

Does anyone know, or could they find out about what it takes to process certain metals/glass/paper, etc., in order to recycle them compared to processing the raw resource? For example, processing aluminum generates toxic substances, like flouride, which must then be disposed of somehow. It would be especially interesting to also link this with the recycling vs. landfill part. (perhaps this might go as a criticism, or way to address criticisms?) - Doubleg 18:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well here is a start, or perhaps just a suggestion. Not sure if it is worthy to include..

Environmental benefits of recycling, comparison with natural extraction

Aluminium	Recycling one kilogram of aluminium saves up to 8 kilograms of bauxite, four kilograms of chemical products and 14 kilowatt hours of electricity.	It takes 20 times more energy to make aluminum from bauxite ore than using recycled aluminum.
Glass	A 20% reduction in emissions from glass furnaces and up to 32% reduction in energy usage.	For every ton of recycled glass used, approx 315 kilos of Carbon dioxide and 1.2 ton of raw materials are spared.
Paper	A ton of paper from recycled material conserves about 7,000 gallons of water, 17-31 trees, 60 lb of air pollutants and 4,000 KWh of electricity.	Milling paper from recycled paper uses 20% less energy then it does to make paper from fresh lumber.

Mceder 15:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great and we need more stuff like it. Put it in!--Anchoress 22:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Will try to add some more quick facts on the other recyclable matters. Mceder 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

I've put up proposals to merge both concrete and glass recycling into the Methods section of the article. Both of those pages are quite short yet don't need to be expanded much further, one of the critisms of this article is that it is too short and should be expanded. I think that once the other areas of the methods section are also expanded, they will each have approximately as much content as the concrete and glass pages. jwanders Talk 09:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. This article has a lot of problems, but recycling is a huge topic and we can't cover everything here; it's great that certain types of recycling already have their own articles cuz they need them. I think it would be better to work on cleaning up the concrete article (which needs a lot of work) and expanding the glass article, which is a huge topic on its own without being merged.--Anchoress 10:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree was well. There is a lot more on recycling in general that should be included in this article- if we merged in the individual types of recycling it would be too long. Of course those individual articles need work and expansion as well! Petros471 10:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort to get something done here, cause it is in dire needs of getting done, I disagree as well with merging. I think expanding is the better way to go. There are a ton of resources out there that just needs to be combed through for essential facts, link to sources and added to the glass and concrete article. This should beef them up well enough to deserve their own article. In regards to the article being short, I agree with an earlier comment that this page is very US & UK centric, and that it allows for great expansion. What are goverments legislating around the world in regards to recycling? What happens with aluminum cans in Botswana? Mceder 14:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with the disagreements above. Thanks for the input! --jwanders^Talk 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary table

I compiled the table below from the information sheets at [5], as I wondered if the article could benefit from something like this.

Material	Energy savings	CO2 savings	% of household waste	% recycled	% secondary production
Aluminium	95%	95%	3%	42%	33%
Concrete
E-waste	4-88%1
Glass		315kg/tonne	7%	75%
Organic			38%
Paper	28-70%	95%	18%
Plastic	66%	40%	7%	7%
Textiles			3%	25%

¹Depending on type of appliance.

Obviously there are problems:

• It's incomplete (though I've only sourced one website).
• It's currently only for the UK; I'm not sure how we generalise, as every country will be significantly different and we can't include them all.
• Some materials are also difficult to generalise. The different types of E-waste, for example, would all have different statistics.

Overall, though, I think this type of data should be in the article, and some sort of table is probably the best way to present it. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is great information, go ahead and put it in the article (my humble POV opinion). The problems you list are very real, but not great - we have to have a starting point that we can build upon. The major challenge is to put aside POV (I tend to be a fan of recycling and should really not add to the article because of it :) ) and find the deep dark sides of recycling as well. Mceder 05:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Some additions:

The Dutch wikipedia article on paper ("Papier") reports that in the EU, over 50% of paper is recycled. In the Netherlands itself, the recycled amount in 2005 was up to 2.5 million tonnes, which is 75% of annual consumption. The article on organic waste ("GFT") reports the separated organic fraction to be 50% of household waste, or 1500 kilotonnes (2003). Mark well, this is the separately gathered part, so the actual organic fraction of household waste should be higher. Recycling: This is processed to 600 kilotonnes of compost, and the end-product partially exported while over annual national consumption. The following article (2006) reports the involvement of the Dutch in the reform of UK recycling industry:[6].

For example, Dutch landfills are used for around 10% of all waste, which is 75% in the UK (excluding exported waste). Dutch household waste recycling averages to 60%, and UK household waste recycling to 17% (2006). Dialecticator 11:30 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Online sources

I sourced these links from a book at my local library, but haven't gotten around to checking them out yet; figured they'd do more good being posted here than sitting on a neglected note on my desk. Hopefully at least one or two will provide a global perspective; recycling coverage, like everything else in the UK, tends not to acknowledge that anything but the UK is worth mentioning.

• http://www.ciwm.co.uk
• http://www.defra.gov.uk
• http://www.encam.org
• http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
• http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk
• http://www.letsrecycle.com
• http://www.recycle-more.co.uk
• http://www.wastewatch.org.uk
• http://www.recyclezone.org.uk

Actual books on the subject seem to be a little thin on the ground. Except children's books; oddly there seem to be a ton of those. Don't think they'd make the best references, unfortunately... --jwanders^Talk 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Recycling optical lenses / glasses

Perhaps something to add here, normally done by charities collecting old glasses and re-distributing to people who can't afford it or where it's not as available. Mceder 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically that's re-using, not recycling.--Anchoress 12:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ergh. Of course you are right. Mceder 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste disposal incident in New York linked to recycling increase

I have removed the following section from the recycling article. It really isn't relevant to the key article but would perhaps be useful in its own article.--Alex 10:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In 1987, a barge called the Mobro 4000, containing over 3,000 tons of waste departed from Islip, New York to deposit its load in Morehead City, North Carolina. Before it reached its destination, rumors that it contained medical waste caused officials at Morehead City to deny the barge permission to unload its cargo. As a result, the barge traveled down the East Coast of the United States searching for a place to unload, eventually being denied entry into Mexico and Belize. The barge finally returned to Islip, where the waste was incinerated after a brief legal battle. The barge's journey became a small media event. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston , Kelly Ferguson (editor of a pulp and paper industry newsletter) and conservative columnist John Tierney , media coverage of the Mobro 4000 led to the false public perception that American landfills were nearly out of space. They say that this perception led to increased public interest in programs to recycle household goods. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Expansion, Expert tags

I am personally passionate about recycling, but this topic as a WP project really overwhelms me. We've made a good start to the article, and IMO it could be great, not only a FA but also a great intro to the waste management portal, but I think we need a few more experienced, maybe expert editors to help the shepherding process. I'm not tagging to make the article look bad, but to add it to the lists of articles that would benefit from attention so hopefully we'll get some input from more editors. Anchoress 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New section: Electronics disassembly and reclamation

I added a new section, Electronics disassembly and reclamation. I added the tag myself because I know it's unprofitable, but I just can't find a source for the info. I also don't know how to do the proper citations, so if someone could help with that I'd appreciate it. If anyone has any better/other sources for the info, that would be great too. Anchoress 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anchoress nice addition. I have helped you out with the referencing as you requested. --Alex 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Vortexrealm. I'm going to make some small edits to the section myself if you're done? Also, v/v cel/mobile? Since the new section is ahead of 'electronics', should I change 'cell' to 'mobile', wikilink it and delink the subsequent entry? Anchoress 09:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anchoress its all yours. I reworked the electronic waste article as there is possibility for confusion between the US and EU. Electronic waste is deemed to be WEEE in the UK/EU and it seems to be e-waste elsewhere. The electronic waste title seems to be more correct and discriptive and encyclopedic to me. I have no preference as to cell or mobile as I dont think there is a cross boarder neutral term for this.--Alex 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, no probs. I asked about cell/mobile because in the electronics section there's an annotation stating that it should be kept as 'mobile' per some other article and I thought that since you've edited this article a lot it was your annotation. I don't care myself, just want to keep the convention of wikilinking only the first instance of each word or phrase to be wikilinked. I'll change it to mobile since that's what's already in the article. It doesn't matter to me either. Also, I really appreciate the help with the citations; maybe one of these days I'll learn how to do them myself. Per the style guide I changed the ones in the new section to have the punct before; I'll go through the whole article and fix it to that standard. Anchoress 10:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To reference directly enter the wording to be referenced into the main body. Then use the <ref></ref>function around it. Ie: Reference text <ref>[http://www.example.com Example Title] Additional Information</ref>. Make sure that in the references section at the bottom you enter <references/> . This will automatically enter any references at the bottom of the page. Alex 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd kinda figured that from looking at them but it's useful to see it spelled out. So if I interpret your example correctly, the url part is the same, with the text part being the display name for the url, and the text following it is a further descriptor? So, the example might be <ref>[http://www.seabuckthorn.com SBT International] Commercial seabuckthorn site. Accessed August 29, 2006</ref>? What if the ref has wikilink brackets? What purpose do those serve? Anchoress 10:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Anchoress, basically anything you put between the reference brackets will be the reference. It will appear as normal wikipedia text at the bottom of the page. Wikibrackets will still function and link to wikipedia articles normally. If you are referencing from a scientific text book it often wont be available online. I use the Havard referencing system for scientific references, however I must confess I havent checked the MOS to see if this is strictly correct for wikipedia! Alex 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bins

One thing annoys me slightly about the whole recycling thing is represented by the pictures on this article. The common representation for recycling are bins in many colours. Segregation of recyclable elements into different bins is not in itself recycling and does not guarantee clean waste streams that are easier to reprocess. I think the more this article focuses on the processes of recycling and their environmental benefits the better.

A whole article could be written on the reasons for collection of segregated recyclables and the arguements against it --Alex 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about that, but I agree. I also have a problem with the pictures - there are too many of them. I think that at least, one of the two german litter bins and one of the two england and wales bins should go. - Drstuey

I agree about the pics. Although I don't think the article needs fewer pics overall, I definitely think we could do with way fewer pics of bins. Alex, I don't know if I understand your comment above, although if you're indicating an over-emphasis on the binning etc, I agree. Anchoress 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a criticism of the article more the public perception of recycling. I believe wikipedia should aim to provide a true picture of the subject and dispell some of the broader issues. I agree the article should have as many pictures as possible but be a little more balanced. I think taking out some of the lower quality images once they can be replaced with others. Cheers.--Alex 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK yeah, I understand what you mean. There is so much about the big picture we haven't even touched on, the tiny patch between the kitchen and the blue box doesn't need too much coverage. I've added a couple of ideas to the big section at the top. It depends on the availability of info, and of course whether or not it is appropriate in the article. Anchoress 14:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the pictures, added new ones from other sections and increased their size. I think a historical picture would be much better for the history section and the US picture is pretty poor related to recycling.--Alex 10:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I note another picture has been posted on the article, which is good but again relates to the collection of recyclables and not the process of recycling!Alex 10:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

References

I added names and titles for all the references, and combined two duplicates, so there is only 1 ref and it has a and b links back up the page. There was a lot of unpredictable odd duplication of the refs happening - this was not shown on preview but it was happeniong once page was published - turns out after all that messing around that the real culprit was that the {{waste}} template had been blanked and that was what caused the refs to be stuffed up.

I also deleted the first ref, which went to the reduce reuse recycle website - I didn't think a ref was necessary at this point. I also deleted a ref to http://www.waste-management-information.org.uk/ this is not a good source - this appears to be search engine link spamming site, cheers - Drstuey 13:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the {{waste}} template to {{waste management}} as part of my overall work on categorising and improving the waste section. There was some problem distinguishing what was related to waste and what was waste management. Someone later removed my redirect. My end thought was that the overarching topic is waste management. Waste should relate to different waste types. I haven't yet completed this but I intend to transfer articles in Category:Waste types into Category:Waste. Comments are welcome on my work in this category as it was largely neglected till I started. Cheers Alex 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The International Tidy Man

Do not litter!

How is the picture of the The International Tidy Man related to recycling? He does not seem to be recycling, ie. sorting his waste. The picture just shows he is not littering. -- Petri Krohn 08:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it shlould be removed. - Drstuey 09:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No problems with me --Alex 09:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. Anchoress 09:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Needs Expert Attention" Tag

Can anyone explain why the "Needs Expert Attention" tag has appeared at the top of this article. I do not think the article appears to be in particular need of an expert in the matter. The vast majority of information present is properly sourced and presented in a factual, encyclopedic way. Furthermore, the tag implies it has been intiated due to discussion on this talk page, yet I can find no such discussion. Canderra 13:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the tag, and I explained it about four sections up. Anchoress 15:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

that would be : Talk:Recycling#Expansion.2C_Expert_tags - I agree that the article could do with some experts, but this is true of nearly all articles on wikipedia. I feel that adding such templates to the page just makes the article look bad. - Drstuey 01:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but we're not here to make articles look good, we're here to make them good. The thing is, this article really needs work. A few months ago it was identified as a project to bring it to FA status; I don't even think it would make GA status as it is right now. And no-one who is active on the article right now has either the skills, the time or the will to do what's needed. I'm not meaning to insult anybody or make waves, and I include myself in the description. But just because lots of articles on WP need improvement and don't have expert tags isn't a reason to take this one off. Also, sometimes people check the expert needed categories and that's how they find articles that need work. I'm also not disparaging the huge steps the article's taken since the flag (was it in June?). Several dedicated editors have improved this article greatly. Now it needs expert attention to take it the final steps. I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in saying so. Anchoress 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because an article could do with more contribution does not qualify for an "In need of an expert" tag. That tag is for use when specific points need clarity etc. Although improvement would be great, as with any article, the article is already 25kB in size and not in obvious desperate need of attention. If a specific point which needs expert attention cannot be found than I'm afraid the tag should be removed. Canderra 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarity or expansion. The fact that it's 25kb doesn't reflect on whether or not it needs expert attention. The article is not well-referenced, there are a heap of 'citation needed' tags. The article needs serious expansion in the areas of:

• History

  Recycling in the rest of the world (outside the US and UK)

  The impact of recycling

And (better) summaries of some of the related subjects such as:

• Waste legislation

  Kerbside collection

And also, note that Drstuey above agreed that the article needs experts. However, having said that, I have a policy of not reverting when people good faith change stuff I've done, so you won't get a fight from me if you remove the tag. I think it's a mistake (unless you are willing to do the work needed yourself), but if for whatever reason it is so important to you that you feel you need to revert the addition of a good faith editor who feels strongly that it's needed, you'll get no argument from me. Anchoress 23:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unles someone feels strongly against it, I am going to remove the "expert required" tag. It have been up there for several months now and seems to be on the verge of becmoing a permanent feature of the article. As it stands, the article - while not perfect (if this is even possible) - is surely above the standard of the average wikipedia article. What it needs now to fix the above stated problems is simply general contribution (which will come over time) rather than an a specific expert. Canderra 13:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do object, but I'm pretty tired of defending my choice. I disagree with your reasons for removal, but I've come up against editors with your feelings before and I'm not up for the fight for my side. Anchoress 18:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feelings and I am not trying to be provocative in my removal of it. I just think that it can't stay up there forever, particularly when the article definatly isn't terrible. Maybe there is another tag which could be used to request more general contribution as it doesn't appear an "expert" is planning on stopping by. I guess it is probably too early to request another contribution drive? Canderra 19:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bffling Vndlism

I can't believe someone actually removed all the a's from the entire article! Based on the fact that a couple were missed, it appears to have been done manually. Some people have way, way too much time on their hands. Canderra 20:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

New article on criticism

A new article Recycling criticism has just been created. I'd like people involved here to take a look: I'm not sure there's a point in having a separate page as it will turn into a POV fork. The article has decent citations but on the other hand I'm concerned about due weight here. Pascal.Tesson 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of these blatent POV articles popping up on Wikipedia. I guess some politically minded editors see them as a loophole through which they can insert their POV into Wikipedia; something along the lines of "if I can't put my POV into an article, I'll create an article which is inherently POV and then justify biased comments as being necessary to the article's subject matter".

I'm pretty sure that over time the Wikipedia founders will deem baiscally all the "Criticism of X" articles (and their "support for X" counter-parts) as simply POV (which is fundamentally what they are) and they will eventually be removed as unencyclopedic. Canderra 09:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the contribution of everyone is needed in all areas of Wikipedia, especially those with strong POVs. In order to achieve neutrality, an article will need help from everyone on the subject so the article can accurately project the views of all areas. If an article is only contributed to by a small group of people that have relatively similar views on the subject (even with debate), such as... environmentalists, you enter into systemic bias and exactly that has actually been a big criticism of Wikipedia. If you ask me, some of you are being pretty hypocritical in rejecting specific POVs as bad, namely those which aren't your own. --Joshua4 05:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But in my experience, having two POV contributions - one from each side of an argument - doen't improve an article, it just make the article both contradictory and biased. Much better to have all contribution from people who are aiming to write quality material than push an agenda. Eventually all significant points will be covered, but they are much more likely to be presented in a fair manner.

I must say I find it slightly ironic that you warn that this pretty NPOV article could suffer from systemic bias in a talk section about an offspring article which will always almost certainly suffer from systemic bias. The very name of the article states a political viewpoint. Canderra 21:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, the criticism should be contained in THIS article and not be forced to a different article which makes it seem like an extremist view. This article should elaborate on the benefits and drawbacks of recycling. It seems to already mention many benefit, though, but not so many of the drawbacks. jhhays 13:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is the "criticism" article mature enough to now be incorporated into this article? Student7 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article restructuring

This article is becoming a bit unweildy. I suggest details on recycling programmes in different countries such as "recycling in the US" and "recycling in Canada" should be made new articles in their own right.--Alex 08:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the listcruft structure of some of those sections are unencyclopedic (although a good start). Anchoress 08:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they will act as a good skeleton of an article.--Alex 08:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC) I suggest a new section "recycling by region" with the paragraphs on the US and Canada moved out into new articles. Both these sections aren't fully up to scratch yet and I think it would enable people to concentrated on expanding them properly.

Has this article ever been peer reviewed?

As per the above question, I would like to see editors concentrate on this article that needs polishing off. If its not been peer reviewed maybe its time, this would attract other editors to helping sort this one out.--Alex 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller on recycling

Not exactly a cite-worthy source, but interesting nonetheless: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&hl=en-CA Timbatron 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

odd (meaningless?) word under "history"

I am not familiar with the word "shiza," and apparently neither are any dictionaries I've consulted. It's under the History section:

One effect of this ban was to raise the shiza of management —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.51.249 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

history related to landfills

What significance is there to the fear of running out of landfill space, stemming from the "Adgenda for action" paper from the EPA? Was that a cause of the recycling movement? Should it be included in the history section? Fresheneesz 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I think the use of American English is better for the article. As such, words like fibre, coulor, and centre should be: Fiber, color, and center.

Discuss... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.220.10 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

whichever, just keep it consistent. Fresheneesz 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Random comments

--75.35.120.155 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[[ == well my thoughts are that recycling is the most valubal thing that this earth has right now because sooner or later we will run out of fosil fuels and then what are we going to do about it?? well recycling will help our economy so much by just cleaning and helping to unpolute the air this to me is the most wonderful thing ever to happen or to be discovered so REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE!!!!!!!!!!! posted by samantha rogers age 14 harlingen texas ==]]

I'm not sure what this was doing between the templates at the top of the page, but I didn't like it there, so...--Hjal 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unintended Humor

Some wag wrote that the page needs "cleanup" - maybe we should recycle it, too. Carrionluggage 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawbacks Section needs work

I think the ideas here belong under Criticisms, and need to be sharper and sourced. I'm new to this, but I think we should stay away from short, sweeping statements that try to draw a bottom line before a topic has been unfolded. (an example from Drawbacks (as of 3/4/07): "Another negative aspect of publicly funded recycling is that it causes a net increase in the amount of resources used." This treats all resources as equivalent, and asserts its point categorically, not in relation to the circumstances of different kinds of program.) Recycling attracts uncritical support and opposition, both. This article shouldn't content itself with that, but should sketch the issues more than Drawbacks or Criticisms now does. I suppose, though, it's just waiting for someone to stop commenting and start writing. Greener72 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed from main page

I think this might be worth keeping and not deleting completely.Alex 15:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another negative aspect of publicly funded recycling is that it causes a net increase in the amount of resources used. For example, while recycling paper results in a reduction of the total number of trees consumed per unit of paper, it increases the amount of labor and energy required per unit of paper. If recycling programs were not subsidized by the government, paper mills would have a larger overhead to acquire the materials needed to create the end product. The notable exception to this drawback is aluminium recycling because the cost of creating aluminium from ore is significant enough that recycling aluminum results in a net savings. Note that this aspect uses an economic analysis of the problem. The different processes involved in initial creation and recycling have different impacts on the environment and are not included in this analysis.

It needs to be sourced. Then it can stay. --Eyrian 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated International codes list: help needed

I just updated the international codes list. This was drawn from both http://www.recycling.com/ and various pamphlets I receive at the airports in different countries. If anyone has, or knows where to get a full listing, please pass it on to me so I can finish this completely. --Lostinlodos 11:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --jwanders^Talk 17:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --jwanders^Talk 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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--jwanders^Talk 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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? --jwanders^Talk 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Merge Recyclable waste

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

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.--jwanders^Talk 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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.--jwanders^Talk 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Criticisms

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

The discussion of economists' (or free-market proponents) criticisms of recycling are applied too broadly on this page. Most of those criticisms cited by this page imply that the critic's findings that a given type of recycling (e.g., paper) is inefficient, does not mean they are against other recycling (e.g., aluminum). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.111.226 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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 [[7]]. Fbfree (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

That is not true, demand is the result of consumer preferences, product availability and prices, the last two being (to some degree) shaped by government intervention in markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.111.226 (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

The criticism section uses dubious editorial sources. Best to go to the science, which I'll be doing here fairly soon, I think. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I "removed" the criticisms section back in February, but tried to work the referenced point naturally into the rest of the article. That's a better way to do it than having a separate section. If there are referenced criticisms missing from the article, try to add them to the appropriate section. --jwanders^Talk 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the rest of the article is pro-recycling, I think a seperate section for criticism is justified. But since there's now a seperate article for that topic, I put most of the stuff in the seperate article. At this point in time, the criticism section in this main article contains only the best information, and is an excellent, and brief, section. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I did that during my revamp of this article back in Feb. There's a TOC code you can use to control how many sub-levels appear. With the huge number of sub-sections in the materials section, the standard TOC is too long.--jwanders^Talk 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

metro flog belen1212 www.metroflog.com/belen12 pasensen plis belÇ************************** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.64.178.250 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Substantial weight and RS problems in this article

Recycling is a subject which can, and has, been studied in a systematic, scientific manner. The results from these studies will be published in peer-reviewed journals (I've added one). They will not be published on Econlib or the NYT. We can mention the NYT article, but it should be not given such a huge amount of weight in this article. I'm surprised that this article has been around so long and yet there appears to be just 1 peer-reviewed study -- and I just added another one. The Econlib article is not a journal or a newspaper. His article is essentially self-published, and Michael Munger doesn't appear to have previously published in the field. Tierney's paper is VERY heavy on rhetoric, with an obviously biased title. He talks about some studies when you get to the 7th page, but we need to go to the source for those. II | (t - c) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remove Munger entirely. So, let's hear others' opinions on this ... II | (t - c) 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. I totally agree with you, that this article should be based on scientific studies, not opinion pieces. Another example: The reference of the Heartland Institute. Why do we use a political think-tank as source for recycling issues? The entire article is a pov-fork in my opinion and this is why I would also like to see it merged back with the main article. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 11:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a legitimate source, and that article is considered by many to be the best article on that subject that has ever been written. I don't erase things that I disagree with, and you shouldn't either. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction cites a pro-recycling website called letsrecycle.com. How can you object to The New York Times aritcle, but be OK with a source like that? I'm not erasing the source, but I am pointing out your hypocrisy. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take that out that letsrecycle.com reference. I certainly don't mind the sentence that you added to the lead. Tierney's article is a poorly referenced polemic. Its astounding problems were pointed out succinctly by the EDF, which referenced articles to support its points. I'm not opposed to you adding more from Tierney, but each point should be qualified for NPOV with the rebuttal by EDF. What existed was excessive. We're striving to some degree of accuracy here. II | (t - c) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote is an accurate summary of Tierney's article, which I have read in its entirely twice. The section should explain what Tierney's article said. It should explain the specific criticisms that Tierney raised. For you to erase those specific details is censorship. Then you replaced it with a mere statement that Tierney said recycling was "inefficient." No. That's not what Tierney said. What Tierney did was to explain vewry specific reasons why he believed that recycling wastes more resources than it saves. He gave very specific reasons, and those very specific reasons should be included. To replace those specific details with a comment about "inefficiency" is to deny the very existence of an alternate point of view. Why are you afraid of people being exposed to an alternative point of view? The article is supposed to be balanced. You have the entire rest of the aritcle to defend recycling. But this one section is for criticism. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources on recycling

I've come across a few articles, which I will list here. Some may not be relevant, but I'll see what I can find first.

• Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling potential in building materials
• Networking possibilities for waste recycling in Miyagi prefecture, Japan
• Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries

Looking for a good monograph. II | (t - c) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The League of Women Voters (1993)

My ISBN search for this title failed. Can anyone point me to a working internet profile for this book?--Kozuch (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

POV tag - Tierney's article in the criticism section

I added the POV tag.

The criticism section is supposed to summarize Tierney's article, not defend recycling. The entire rest of the article is about defending recycling. This section is supposed to criticize recycling. Tierney's article is the best article ever written on this topic, and it deserves to be accurately summarized in this section. The section is supposed to criticize recycling, not defend it.

What I wrote is an accurate summary of Tierney's article, which I have read in its entirely twice. The section should explain what Tierney's article said. It should explain the specific criticisms that Tierney raised. For you to erase those specific details is censorship. Then you replaced it with a mere statement that Tierney said recycling was "inefficient." No. That's not what Tierney said. What Tierney did was to explain very specific reasons why he believed that recycling wastes more resources than it saves. He gave very specific reasons, and those very specific reasons should be included. To replace those specific details with a comment about "inefficiency" is to deny the very existence of an alternate point of view. Why are you afraid of people being exposed to an alternative point of view? The article is supposed to be balanced. You have the entire rest of the aritcle to defend recycling. But this one section is for criticism.

The entire rest of the article says that recycling saves resources, water, trees, energy, landfill space, money, etc. This one section provides an alternative point of view. The main points of Tierney's article should be pointed out in this section. The entire rest of the article is for the pro-recycling point of view. All I'm asking for is this one small section to offer an alternative points of view.

It's bad enough that the pro-recycling side has passed laws that force people to practice wasteful recycling. But now they are trying to censor criticism of such harmful policies.

Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced.

Please stop censoring the alternative point of view.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You erased all the points that I said about Tierney's article.

Then you replaced it with the single sentence:

"In a 1996 article entitled 'Recycling is Garbage', John Tierney claimed that recycling is usually inefficient."

That's censorship. It's also closed minded. And it denies the existence of an alternatate point of view.

Then you added the following:

"His article received a referenced critique from the Environmental Defense Fund, which noted that 'the article relied heavily on quotes and information supplied by a group of consultants and think tanks that have strong ideological objections to recycling'"

So even though this is the criticism section, you want the defense of recycling in this section to actually be longer than the criticism.

Also, simply dismissing Tierney's article as saying that recycling is "inefficient" is to ignore what the article is about. He said far more than that. He gave many examples of how recycling wastes more resources than it saves. These examples should be in the article.

Why are you so afraid of people reading a summary of Tierney's main points?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long I should leave the POV tag up for. It seems that only a very small number of people are opposed to summarizing the Tierney article, so I may remove the tag within a few more days. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Even if it is a New York Times article, we shouldn't base our entire criticism section (not even half, as it is now) on the opinion of a single person. Otherwise we could as well rename the section to John Tierney's criticism of recycling. Another issue I have with it is, that the entire criticism section is very US centric. Recycling is a very general topic and so should be the the criticism (Example: While it may be cheaper to put garbage into landfills rather than to recycle in the US, this might not be the case in more densly populated countries where noone wants a landfill next to a residential area and land might be more expensive) As a minor note, it is poor style to have the criticism as a list without further explanation. Some of the points are completely out of context ('Tree farmers plant more trees than they cut down.' - what is the relation to criticism of recycling? Any proof of that statement? Is it also true for the Amazon rain forrest? ...)Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, the criticism section is U.S. centric. I live in the U.S., so that's the media that I read. If anyone else wishes to add criticism from another country, please go ahead and add it. The reason the summary of Tierney's article makes up such a large percentage of the criticism section is because the article is such a long, detailed article, with many interesting points. The reason I mentioned about how tree farmers plant more trees than they cut down, is because supporters of recycling claim that it saves tree - they don't seem to understand the concept of tree farming. A tree is a crop, just like corn is a crop. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any more criticism of Tierney's article. I am removing the POV tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, when I did a massive restructuring of the article in Feb '08, I made these two subpages: Talk:Recycling/Fact farm, Talk:Recycling/Criticisms. No promises that they're up-to-date for the current article, but feel free to use 'em (and edit 'em) if you'd like. If you're ever interested in pushing this article towards a milestone or need help, drop me an email :-) --jwanders^Talk 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion and would lyke to contribute the following: 1. An encyclopaedia is an encyclopaedia, that is, a work of reference where users expect to find RELYABLE information on a scope of subjects as universal as possible. It is not a magazine for the airing of controversy; if controversy exists about a subject, users of the encyclopaedia should be informed of the different points of view in a NEUTRAL way along with the FACTS that VALIDATE each point of view. OPINION without supporting facts shouldn´t be allowed a single line. The internet is full of places were opinions can be vented. 2. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia being a project that everyone can edit means that each person will contribute what they can, so we must condescend a little to a number of bias (like US centrism) hoping that other contributions may balance them. 3. Of course Imperfectly Informed is right in that we should be able to have an article on recycling that is based on the abundant scientific literature on the subject (just like every article on WP), but who is to write it? And how much of it can be used here without violating the rules? 4. I do not mean to launch a personal attack by the following point, I mean it in a very impersonal way, in what I judge to be the best interests of WP: I object to Grundle2600's editing priviliges on this article. In my analysis of the present discussion I find elements more than sufficient to conclude that this person suffers from a severely limiting bias, one that falls out of the scope of tolerance mencioned above. I refrain from further details, but you may ask. Thank you Thamus (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 201.224.33.227 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavnoid (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kryo- recycling/ cryogenic recycling

Kryo recycling or cryogenic recycling for plastics an e- waste is an idea of a German scientic group. I have writen the lecture- text of the anual congress in 2008 into the internet. You can inform here, to gain some more information about waste economy and recycling: http://www.buendnis-zukunft.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=174 . I have linked this text with many wikipedia- articles to give the readers more background- information. This can also be useful for wikipedia- writers. With greatings from Germany to the englisch wiki- community, Felix Staratschek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.48.176.38 (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aluminum recycling

The Aluminum Recycling section has a few misstatements and misconceptions. Molten cans and other scrap are most certainly distinguishable from virgin aluminum! Can bodies are typically 3004 alloy, solid-solution strengthened with manganese. Ends and tabs are typically 5182 alloy, solid-solution strengthened with magnesium. Cans are always made from registered alloys, not pure aluminum. A melt containing multiple alloys in random quantities is useless and must be diluted to the point of not being cost-effective. Most remelters do as much as they can to separate canstock from endstock and tabstock before the scrap goes into a furnace. Both melts are diluted with virgin aluminum or fortified with Mn briquets, Mg ingots, etc., as needed to adjust the chemistry. The canmakers all have strict quality control standards, and will not accept an off-grade coil of sheet aluminum. One of the drawbacks of beverage can recycling is that the cans are lined with epoxy or similar organic coating that must be burned off during remelt. The ink on the outside and the beverage residue also burn, resulting in emissions of volatile organic compounds. In short, aluminum recycling is much more complicated than the article suggests. The aluminum can age began at Coors Brewing Co. in 1959, with closed-loop recycling as part of the original plan. His Manliness (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad to see that you have some expertise in this topic. Feel free to add sourced content to the article -- in fact, you could probably add what you wrote above to the aluminum recycling section. Unfortunately, this article is mainly edited by conservatives who think recycling is a scam with a few environmentalists who think it isn't. It'd be nice if a professional could work on it. II | (t - c) 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Recycling Myths Debunked - National Recycling Week - Interesting Recycling Facts - Popular Mechanics

• Recycling Myths Debunked - National Recycling Week - Interesting Recycling Facts - Popular Mechanics -- Wavelength (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

History

When was this invented? And who came up with the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.207.132 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC) can it be done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.45.33 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

edit semi-protected suggestion

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the recycling clothing section, someone should include that clothing can get recycled into other products, like stuffed animals. Source:

http://www.inhabitots.com/2009/06/09/new-limited-edition-barnyard-animal-softies-from-maggies-functional-organics/

^ Irregular socks get recycled into stuffed animals by Maggie's Organics

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. Can you come up with a source that talks about using recycled clothing for other products, rather than a site that has a product that appears to be made of recycled clothing? I think the supplied source would be considered original research, which is not allowed. Sorry, Celestra (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcycling

Hi,

I'd like to add Upcycle as a link in this article and Upcycle as a subcategory of recycle.

If possible, also an external link to an Upcycling portal:

http://www.manyone.net/upcycling/

The Recycle page is locked.

Thanks, Gil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilnyc (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please add Upcycle. The link above is good -- http://www.manyone.net/upcycling/

Not only that the link above is good. Upcycling is a tendency in recycling that has a particular role and has practicioners and supporters around the world. How many? Where are they? What are they upcycling? is it Working for them? I wouldn't think the impact in the environment is very much, or even significant, but what is it? I will be back here later with what positive info I can find, but it crossed my mind that cutting edge topics like this might give rise to a more pro-active role of wikipedia in the gathering of information: how about creating an empty section, a stub as I think it's called here, with just a definition and a couple of examples like this site, AND then send out an open invitation, using the Wikimedia mediatic power? So that Wikipedia stub might turn out to be an initial hub for the sector (if one doesn't exist yet) anyone? Saludos, Thamus (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe http://www.terracycle.net/index.htm - they're in walmart, even.

Thanks -- Rivermusic (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This text in the introduction: "(consuming 4 litres of gasoline to deliver 3 plastic milk containers to a recycling depot, a common Saturday activity, for example)"

is just plain silly. Who would drive that far to drop of 3 items? a common activity for whom? It's a grossly exaggerated example which detracts from an otherwise valid point. I would delete it myself but I can't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpwiki (talk • contribs)

Done. It was a fairly recent edit that introduced that material; I've reverted most of it, and cleaned up other bits. Mindmatrix 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Postwar Recycling History

In 1971, Citizens for Environmental Improvement started the first volunteer run recycling center in the U.S. in Lincoln, Nebraska. Paper, cardboard, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and glass were recycled from that center.Citeimp (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Recycling criticisms

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Recycling. -- SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

---

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. --jwanders^Talk 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?--jwanders^Talk 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. --jwanders^Talk 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). --jwanders^Talk 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)

Support Merger This is important information which should be presented with the main body. Hiding the criticisms in a different page makes people less likely to notice them and helps balance the main article. --86.31.152.121 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support merger. This is a textbook WP:POVFORK, and is strongly recommended in WP policy to be merged into prose of the parent article. In point of fact, editors are discouraged even from relegating criticisms to a separate section within the same article, but rather these criticisms and their counter points should be incorporated into the main body of the article for a more balanced, neutral view. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they should not be merged for one is basically advantages and the other is dis advantages and keeping them seperate will keep it more organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.224.76 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased!

In my understanding of the workings of WP, some types of bias are unavoidable in many articles, at least temporarily. Other types should not be tolerated at all. In the present example, here we have an article that desperately wants the universality of coverage a subject matter of such universal concern should have. Take the section on legislation; it can’t possibly apply to most of the countries on this planet. Please note that in wikipedian terms, this kind of bias is not so much the fault of the person or persons who wrote the article as of the ones who didn’t. I mean, whoever wrote it contributed what knowledge they had at hand, and if they declined further investigation we must at least thank them for what they did already. My contention is that for articles of such vital, immediate, and again, universal importance as this one, WP might find some active mechanism to engage qualified people around the planet to contribute to them. Now, one type of bias WP must seek to avoid at all cost and more immediately is a bias PRO or AGAINST the subject at hand. I see a bias against recycling, and I dare say against environmentalism in general, in the criticism section – specifically in the remainder left there of Mr. John Tierney’s article “Recycling is garbage”. And I see the same bias in the person of Grundle2600, which pains me very much to say, for his/her bias is clearly of a much more sincere nature than Mr. Tierney’s; but I feel it must be said because it is hurting Wikipedia in this particular spot. It’s no crime to have a negative opinion of environmentalism, and no crime to publish it, only please not in the encyclopaedia.

Recycling is garbage is garbage.

After reading the article and the discussion here, I went and dug up John Tierney’s NYT article. And I had a jolly good time reading through it. It is very well written and very witty, and an exemplar piece of rhetoric. It is also ever such a simple and transparent device of sensationalism that I wonder anyone could not see it for what it is. Just go against the current of general feeling, and hey presto! You are at the centre of a vortex of attention; that feels nice and newspapers sell. Newspapermen have careers to foster. Of course majorities are often wrong and Tierney’s article might have constituted a legitimate criticism of recycling, but instead of raising the one valid argument against the whole concept of recycling, which is that it is no more than a palliative to the problem of waste, he dedicates to point out several aspects of economic inefficacy, but does so supported mostly by fallacies. His text is so thickly littered with them that even in the residual form it’s taken lately in our section I may point out two at least:

“Tree farmers plant more trees than they cut down.”

We don’t know that this is true, but let’s assume it is. So much the worse for the environment, because tree farmers, in their view that a tree is a crop just like corn, don’t worry about biodiversity, a key natural concept on which our survival depends.

“Some small towns with landfills are happy to import garbage from other cities and states because it provides jobs and tax revenue. “

Ever been to a happy town? What does it look like? We need to ask ourselves how many people in those towns were happy to import garbage into their landfills. Who were they? And how many towns are we talking about? For how long did they remain “happy”?

However improper in the encyclopaedia, statements like these were very successful in Mr. Tierney’s scheme, as he received an avalanche of responses to his article, some humorous, some angry, many providing him with FACTS that directly contradicted his assertions. If none of this is sufficient to induce you to remove any mention of Tierney altogether from this article, then please consider this: even if his criticisms were to the point, were accurate and substantiated by facts, the article was published in 1996. Yes, that’s 14 years ago. And recycling went on after his article, without so much as a bump, and technology and processes were developed anew, others improved. If our criticism section is to dwell on the temporary glitches that are typical in the evolution of a new sector, the least we can ask is that such criticism refers to the glitches that exist now. And if it isn’t too much to ask, let them come from someone who is genuinely concerned, and provides relevant facts to support their views. To conclude, allow me to salvage one sentence from Mr. Tierney’s article that I believe is a profound and truthful observation:

“Just as the third graders believed that their litter run was helping the planet, Americans have embraced recycling as a transcendental experience, an act of moral redemption. We're not just reusing our garbage; we're performing a rite of atonement for the sin of excess.”

The sin is real, for the US, for other developed countries and for many of the underdeveloped. Therefore the need for atonement. The truth in it does not invalidate the fact that we need practical solutions to a practical problem. Thamus (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)201.224.33.227 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the criticism section is the longest section in the article which is likely, in part, due to refutations of the criticisms made within the criticism section. i agree this is an example of a poor article. your comment on this talk page is also quite long. maybe in the future, be bold and edit the article instead? Some thing (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)