Replies

As usual, recycling has a degree or part of it that has value/utility. Recycling gold, silver, copper, and aluminium for example.

But then politicians and government buerocracy got involved. Today you have economically non-viable (essentially subsidized) programs that are in some cases even counter productive to the environmental cause!

When you recycle, you often as with paper use more water than if you just make new paper. With glass you have a 20% loss, lower grade end product, and use more power. But a few less trees (that were planted for the purpose of being harvested for wood) didn’t need cut down when you recycled the paper. You did save some sand, because we all know this planet has a dire sand shortage when you recycled the glass.

***Some of these recycling programs accomplish little to nothing “in the sum of all factors.”***

As usual again, it was the private sector that started recycling. Then it became political, and now much of it is stupid. Politicians dream up stupid shit like in Germany:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_(symbol). Basically a massive tax on everything because “gubbermint” is in the business of redistribution, that’s all they do. Some may “feel good” about themselves, politicians sold themselves, and a few businesses are making money off it, but did they really help the environment? No. Why?

Because most of the time, the most cost effective answer is also the environmental one. When you add costs, it’s because you’re adding logistics, resources and labor beyond the worth of the recycled product. You are building in MORE use of a resource elsewhere.

The media likes to use the exception to show that the interests of business and the environment are exclusive, but that is simply not true. Sure, it’s cheaper to throw old batteries in a lake than to dispose of them properly, but those are the exceptions. Where you work, unless it’s the government which actually promotes waste (example: end of fiscal year shopping sprees), is your business looking to save or waste every penny on electricity, fuel, water uses, paper uses, miles driven, packaging materials used, cost on freight??? Money itself in most cases is the tool which will logically create an outcome, but the 10% exceptions and ideology drive things in the environmental camp today because those making these idiotic rules don’t have to pay for it. Others do and usually they are hidden to the consumer. Why do you think they like to build these costs into a supply chain and not actually come out with a fee collected from everyone like a sales tax? How popular do you think these would be?

The simplified version-

Some recycling efforts are not worth it economically (they only exist because of permanent subsides), and if you calculate all the energy as well as resource expenditures, you realize it’s not worth it.

This is a very old article, but it explains it well and nothing has changed specific to glass recycling:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/5703.pdf

In the meantime, recyclers also advertise and of course want to ensure the government gravy keeps flowing (because many of these recycling programs need tax money infused month after month). So you read about 0 loss in glass recycling, 0 quality loss in glass recycling... All these new websites popped up magically when people began asking questions a few years ago if this even made any sense...

These claims are all based on shifty definitions and excluding all the variables. In some cases, recycling adds new energy or water needs not required when using virgin materials. There are claims of saving 1/3 of the power when recycling glass, when it’s more like 13% and that is under favorable conditions.