Remember, of the three things we're all supposed to be doing, recycling is the absolute worst.
Followed by reuse, then reduce.
It could be argued that making a device reusable is actually better than making it recyclable.
The consumers of this world seem to be caught up in this "recycle it" craze. Somehow it's fine to churn through 30 plastic water bottles a week, because they are going in the recycling.
In reality, the water bottles should be gone entirely.
And if we were limited to choosing between reducing, reusing or recycling, then perhaps we would want to scrap recycling all together. But we're not. I would argue that making a device that can be reused and recycled is better than both.
I'm not saying there is a problem with having items that are reusable (on the contrary, its great. The longer the lifecycle of an object, the less overall objects we produce). I'm just saying that while we are trying to limit the amount of "product" that is produced (the net effect of reusing and recycling), we also need to keep an eye on how to get rid of all this "product" once we are done with it.
Besides recycling is just another form of reusing, is it not?
>And if we were limited to choosing between reducing, reusing or recycling, then perhaps we would want to scrap recycling all together. But we're not.
We're not "limited" to doing any of those three things. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is all about choices. What we "should" be doing. What's "best". We should "aim" to reuse rather than recycle.
> Besides recycling is just another form of reusing, is it not?
Recycling uses exponentially more energy, especially when you're talking about glass and aluminum.
I don't see why this is a XOR situation. Ideally, we would be reducing production, and what we do produce would be readily reusable AND (eventually, when we have gotten past the useful lifecycle of an object, and every object has one) recyclable.
Comments
> Don't confuse recyclable with reusable.
Remember, of the three things we're all supposed to be doing, recycling is the absolute worst.
Followed by reuse, then reduce.
It could be argued that making a device reusable is actually better than making it recyclable.
The consumers of this world seem to be caught up in this "recycle it" craze. Somehow it's fine to churn through 30 plastic water bottles a week, because they are going in the recycling.
In reality, the water bottles should be gone entirely.
And if we were limited to choosing between reducing, reusing or recycling, then perhaps we would want to scrap recycling all together. But we're not. I would argue that making a device that can be reused and recycled is better than both.
I'm not saying there is a problem with having items that are reusable (on the contrary, its great. The longer the lifecycle of an object, the less overall objects we produce). I'm just saying that while we are trying to limit the amount of "product" that is produced (the net effect of reusing and recycling), we also need to keep an eye on how to get rid of all this "product" once we are done with it.
Besides recycling is just another form of reusing, is it not?
>And if we were limited to choosing between reducing, reusing or recycling, then perhaps we would want to scrap recycling all together. But we're not.
We're not "limited" to doing any of those three things. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is all about choices. What we "should" be doing. What's "best". We should "aim" to reuse rather than recycle.
> Besides recycling is just another form of reusing, is it not?
Recycling uses exponentially more energy, especially when you're talking about glass and aluminum.
> We should "aim" to reuse rather than recycle.
I don't see why this is a XOR situation. Ideally, we would be reducing production, and what we do produce would be readily reusable AND (eventually, when we have gotten past the useful lifecycle of an object, and every object has one) recyclable.