Recycling; One of the Progressives Great Achievements

It’s hard anymore to avoid recycling.  It has been mandated in industry, in food service, and in our homes by the community collection of Garbage seperated (by us, without recompense) from “Recyclables.”

Like most of the left’s seminal achievements it’s a damn lie.

The facts are that Recycling is neither environmentally significant nor economical.  Yet still the popular delusion holds that “Recycling” is a societal net good.

John Tierny writing at Instapundit today (and linking to his piece in the tired gray crone of Gotham) notes:

RECYCLING IS STILL GARBAGE: I was curious to see the reaction to my piece in today’s New York Times on the follies of recycling. It’s a sequel to a 1996 article that set a record for hate mail at the New York Times Magazine, and I wondered if green-minded readers would be any more receptive this time. A few of the commenters have offered counter-arguments and raised other issues, like the supposed blight of plastic garbage in our oceans — a myth that was masterfully debunked in Katherine Mangu-Ward’s recent article, “Plastic Bags Are Good For You.” But the typical reaction is nicely summarized by Carl V. Phillips, who posted a reflection on his fellow commenters:

It is quite remarkable how at least 80% of the comments so far consist of someone saying, in effect, “but I just know it is right” (without responding to Tierney’s cogent analysis), picking fights with straw man points, or pontificating about grand ideas that do not change the simple economics of the real world. I have not seen any substantive bit of analysis that finds fault with Tierney’s core points, and yet there are numerous conclusions that he is wrong. I would guess that that recycling enthusiasts fancy themselves to be more open-minded and scientifically literate than average. Apparently such “open mindedness” is reserved for criticisms of other special interests, and they dig in their heals when it is their own rites that are being questioned.

I realize that true believers don’t need rational reasons for their religion, but it would be nice to see a little soul-searching in regard to some stats in the article: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in the front of the plane, it’s more like 100,000 bottles — and you have to make sure not to rinse any of them with hot water, because that little extra energy could more than cancel out any greenhouse benefit of your labors.

I presume Al Gore and his fellow preachers are too busy to deal with all those bottles, so will they stay home? Or at least start flying coach?

This is hardly a new revelation.  Penn and Teller quite properly pointed out it was Bullshit years ago.  Nor is this an isolated matter.  Bullshit is all the Left/ Progressives have.  All of their grand solutions make the problems they claim to remediate worse.

The bottom line is that you’ve been misled.  A lot of you have.  Fool you once, shame on them.  If you allow them to keep fooling you, the shame is on you.

Come to the dark side, we have cookies.



Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners October 2, 2015
The argument for a good conscience
  • jim_m

    As he says in the NYT article, recycling is a religious practice of the left because it is more founded in belief tban in pirical evidence tbat it does any good. And the left, unlike most other religions, wants to force their religious practices on everyone else. No wonder the left has such an affinity for radical islamists, they both want to force your conversion to their bogus religion.

    • Brett Buck

      It’s more deeply founded on the left’s belief that success is bad and even deeper, mankind is intrinsically guilty for merely becoming the highest form of life on the planet. It’s the left’s equivalent of “original sin” – you can only succeed, even as a species, by “sinning”. It’s every bit as absurd as “original sin” in the religious sense.

  • Paul Hooson

    There’s something known as “work hardening” which takes place each time you recycle steel where the molecules become weaker each time virgin steel is reused. This is why many of those Chinese made handtools quickly break under use. The metal is usually not even tempered steel as well as recycled and weaker than normal first time use steel.

    • Stick to what you know (whatever that might be).

      • Paul Hooson

        I have a background in metallurgy as well as welding. Most American-made tools are both tempered steel in addition to virgin steel, which have a heavy strength under use such as Sears Craftsman and other quality brands. For tool or engine parts use, components should never be produced from recycled steel because the molecules lose strength each time they are used. Some Chinese-made motorcycle engines will wear out in as little as 4,000 miles because they are not made from tempered or forged metals, in addition to recycled steel which is weaker than normal steel.

        In the 1940’s and 50’s Hudson had a reputation for extremely durable engines because of using extremely strong strength virgin steel known as “green metal”. Hudson engineers were masters in producing extremely tough steel, first using some of the best ore around. Rolls Royce also knew a great deal about producing tough engines, making some of the finest WWII aircraft engines for the Spitfires with extremely close and precise tolerances as well as high quality steel and temper. A good racecar builder knows that balancing and blueprinting an engine can pull extreme horsepower from a normal engine. For 1981 PPG, the auto paint company produced one single version of a 1981 AMC AMX where PPG was able to pull 450 horsepower out AMC’s 258 six, which normally has just 100hp.

        The 1950’s Hudson engines were a real masterpiece of both metallurgy as well engineering knowhow.

        • jim_m

          You have a background in lying. If you had a background in metallurgy you wouldn’t be calling metals molecular. It’s impossible for you to really know anything about metallurgy if your fundamental knowledge of metals is so poor.

          • Paul Hooson

            I’m not a chemist or scientist, but my metallurgy study was related to welding related skills. One example is when you weld on galvanized metals if will create poisonous gases, so you drink milk before you work on galvanized metals such as welding on some American Motors products which were treated to prevent rust with a zinc bath or other methods.

          • That (welding galvanized steel with a milk prophylaxis) explains a lot.

            Recycled metals are re-smelted, and thus “new” in terms of hardening.

          • jim_m

            Welding galvanized metal produces gases that will cause flu like symptoms. It isn’t poisonous per se. Welders do claim that drinking milk before and/or after can reduce those symptoms.

            Or they could wear a welding hood designed to avoid exposure.

          • jim_m

            You don’t know jack about metal.

          • You could shorten that…

        • Constitution First

          Twin superchargers? What was that engine called?
          Split windshield, it must have been late 1940’s, early 1950’s.

    • jim_m

      Sigh. NO!!!!

      If you recycle steel it ill have to be melted down and recast or reforged into a new product. When steel is melted down the bonds are broken and a new product is created without the issues of the component product that was melted down to make it (unless those were related to impurities and those impurities are not removed). When the metal recrystalizes it is a new object and has the features of a new product.

      Work hardening is hardening of he steel through ‘working’ it such as squeezing, bending, drawing, and shearing the metal.

      I would repeat Rodney and tell you to stick with what you know but I suspect that is why nearly every post you write is about yourself. You know little to nothing beyond that subject.

      • Paul Hooson

        No, the molecules of steel get weaker after each reuse. You can use recycled steel for noncritical uses, but not for aircraft, auto engine or tool applications, because recycled metal grows softer with each reuse.

        • jim_m

          Idiot. Metals become weaker not because they are reused but because they become progressively more and more contaminated.

          Metals are not molecules you dumbass! Metals are elements or are alloys of elements thus they do not form molecular bonds. They form crystalline structures based on the packing structure of the elements present.

          Paul, it’s not that you are stupid or uninformed… What am I saying?! You are both stupid and uninformed on this subject.

      • Indeed, as I alluded earlier…

  • Constitution First

    My town, like many other towns, report after 30 years of recycling, it is still a money loser and likely to remain so for the distant future. Like wetting your pants; it feels good at first.