Enough, Already. ‘Recyclable’ is Not Recycling
by Warren McLaren, Sydney 
on 01.24.08
Mostly this writer steers away from the negative aspect of a story because there are plenty of others already on that bandwagon. But some things just annoy me to the point of distraction. A case in point being companies selling products by proclaiming their materials are easily recyclable. Especially when their own product does not include any of these very same materials.
To my mind this is hypocrisy. It is “do as I say, not do as I do.” Recycling is a complete loop. A joined circle. You are only recycling when you are buying recycled. For example, it is a cop-out for Apple to claim as part of the green credentials for their new MacBook Air that its enclosure is “highly recyclable” aluminium.
If they really wanted to make a definitive stand on recycling then all they had to do, as one of our commenters observed, was ensure that it is made from post-consumer recycled drink cans. Or pre-loved laptops.
Consider these stats from Recycle: the Essential Guide. Recycling aluminium saves 95% of the energy, and 95% in carbon dioxide emissions, compared to virgin production. Four tons of bauxite are required to produce one ton of aluminium. Worldwide, the aluminium industry uses as much electric power as the entire continent of Africa. Recycling one aluminium can save enough energy to run a TV for 3 hours or a 100 watt light bulb for 20 hours.
Now it may be that the MacBook Air does contain a percentage of recycled content, but they don’t say. Saying so would lead others to follow suite and the market for recycled aluminium consumer products would expand, as would our efficiency at recovering aluminium before it was buried in landfills.
Companies like Patagonia, Nau, Mountainsmith, Osprey and Voltaic lack the $15 billion that Apple has stashed in the bank. So it might've been easily justified for these businesses to have simply used the ‘highly recyclable’ phrase too, for the polyester in their products. But they didn’t. [And nor did Humanscale, who use 100% recycled aluminium in their line of office products.] These companies went out and sourced recycled materials for their product. They closed the loop. They truly recycled. They showed courage. They said “do as I do.” They led.
Products touting ‘recyclable’ materials are eco-poseurs, unless those materials are also already recycled.
[This is not to decry the other worthy effort that Apple expended, to get the MacBook Air as free as possible of mercury, arsenic and PVC. Credit where due.]
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Planet Bike
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Is the Cash for Clunkers Program Right for You?
- Mister Miyagi's Guide to Going Green: 5 Questions to Always Ask to Think Green and Be Green
- Green Glossary: Ingeo
- 5 Reuses for CDs: Turn Old CDs into New Geek Gear
we have to stop promoting recycling as green, it isn't, compared to reuse or repurposing. something only needs to be recycled if it wasn't built to last or was designed to be disposable, neither of which we can afford anymore.
Just another reason why we shouldn't even try. I mean my family and I are all for sustainable living but I swear every other year the thing that was great and saving the planet is now evil and people can't believe you were doing it.
Like plastic bags, there was a time where that was the 'Tree hugger' (sorry) way of doing things. Paper was the evil empire killing the ozone. Now plastic is evil. Then there's the fruit thing, at first having fruit year round was the best thing to happen to the world, now news reports are saying that that's evil. AND NOW....cans are evil...makes a person just stop caring...
I agree with Lloyd. Recycling is the worst of the 3 Rs. It is better to reduce and reuse before recycling.
Recycling is okay, but if a product is difficult to disassemble and/or must be shipped to specialized recyclers, it will just be tossed.
The problem with recycling is that it's not only the original material that gets recycled - it's all the things that go into the recycling process with that material. So if an aluminum can has paint on it, that goes into the process and the paint degrades the quality of the recycled metal. Therefore, recycling is not a loop, because it can only be recycled a finite amount of times. This means that recycling is really just putting off how long the thing waits to go to the landfill.
That's weird I posted a comment to this about three hours ago...it wasn't disrespectful...
Of course Reduce and Reuse are superior to Recycling. My daylight job for most of the past 6 years was co-managing a community-based Reuse Centre.
But that wasn't my point. To claim something as 'recyclable' is simply disingenuous. If the product's material can be recycled, why doesn't it already contain that recycled material? Lack of will on behalf of the designer/manufacturer.
Although not the best of the three R', recycling is better than the alternative: being sent to landfill.
For example, glass bottles can be sold, collected, washed and reused about 30 times before they eventually develop cracks, chips, breaks, etc that make them dangerous to continue using. Is the suggestion that we just send them to the dump, when they could be easily recycled into a new bottle (without needing to expand that sand mine)?
Should that Model T Ford or Hummer be left to rust in the field, or should its valuable steel be recycled in useful roof girders and surgical instruments?
Should I buy virgin tree pulp toilet paper derived from a monoculture plantation. or old growth forest, in preference to one made from recycled stock?
Recycling is certainly not the answer to our woes. But nor is Reuse (what do you reuse the leaves of a cauliflower for?)
Look to nature to find examples of reuse and you'll come up short. A dead caribou isn't reused. Reuse being where a material remains in its original form.] It's recycled as food for others, including the soil into which its hide will decompose to form humus. [
Even if humankind were to overnight invent a society based entirely on biodegradable materials, we still have millenia of non-compostable mineral-based artefacts cluttered around us that need to be put to productive use. Recycling allows for that.
I agree that products should not only be recyl
Is polyester fleece recyclable? If not (and I think not) then companies like Patagonia that manufacture fleece clothing are just providing a pit stop for plastic on its way to the landfill. I think that's called down-cycling. If plastic downgrades when it is recycled it is not a sustainable material at all, and rather than finding ways to use it (things like fleece) we (society, companies, government regulators) should find ways to improve it or eliminate it.
Like you said, "Recycling is a complete loop." Bottle into bottle, can into can. Otherwise virgin materials need to be used to make more of the original product.
As for examples of reuse in Nature - nature reuses at the micro-nutrient level. Everything can turn into something else in the food chain, it doesn't need to stay in its
I agree that products should not only be recyclable, but made of recycled materials. One is not a substitute for the other.
So lets not let companies like Patagonia off the hook.
Fleece clothing just provides a pit stop for plastic on its way to the landfill, because polyester fleece isn't recyclable. I think that's called down-cycling. If plastic downgrades when it is re-processed, it is not a sustainable material at all, and rather than finding ways to use it (things like fleece), we (society, companies, government regulators) should find ways to improve it or eliminate it.
Like you said, "Recycling is a complete loop." Bottle into bottle, can into can. But a fleece jacket can't be made into a new fleece jacket, or anything else.
As for examples of reuse in Nature: nature reuses at the micro-nutrient level. Everything organic can become something else in the food chain, it doesn't need to stay in its original form.
Rejin, Patagonia make many of their garments (fleece bodywear, and shells) from recycled polyester. Plus they also take them back for recycling into new garments via their Common Threads program.
Recycling is when the material is converted into its raw state and a new product is made from this. Reuse is where the material remains in its original form. If we pulp waste paper to make new office paper or cardboard that is recycling. If we turn a sheet paper over and write on the reverse side, that is reuse. Composting or biodegradation is really a form of recycling, not so much reuse.
Thanks for the info on Patagonia. I wonder how many people know about this. Too bad they don't take back all fleece wear, and most other manufacturers don't either.
as a designer and manufacturer of products myself, yes, it makes me crazy that companies out their proudly proclaim their products to be recyclable. it's such a cop out. that said, the cost of using a recycled part is often times so prohibitive, that it impossible to make money off the product. i can attest to this as i have tried several different items that have ended in frustration and disappointment.. there needs to be a government incentive for factories or companies to make or sell recycled parts or products. mainstream consumers are nowhere near savvy or frankly, motivated, enough to demand this from companies.
Saying something is recyclable is as good as saying something is edible. You can't tell whether it is good for you or the world, should be done, or is done.
For every pound of product you recycle many more pounds of materials are wasted during the production of the product you just recycled.
Recycling has turned into a want-to-believe-solution that allows us to think that we can continue consuming as we have.
Aluminum foil is recycled while much heavier, unlabeled chunks or pieces of aluminum (e.g. bicycle parts) are not accepted and are land-filled.
And, post-consumer recycling results in mixing of materials that then cannot be made into equal quality products. You have heard the term "down-cycling". Not all steel is created equal and can be used for equal products. Same with aluminum. Really bad considering plastic. Glass (if sorted by color) works pretty well. How many plastic park benches do we really need? And what to do with them in a few thousand years? If recycling results in a deterioration of quality every time, does it not just turn into a longer, energy consuming, pollution creating trip to the land-fill?
Stop it at the source: Don't let stuff enter your life you do not want to keep for the rest of your life (and know your children will be happy to keep it even longer). As good as possible.
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less
I just want to say comparing computer manufacturing to clothes manufacturing really isn't equivalent. And this computer is an improvement not just for Apple but for the industry as well. They've also quite using PVC in all of their products, which is a huge improvement in my book since, one, this is a difficult thing to do as PVC seems to be in almost everything, and two, I grew up next to a PVC plant and saw exactly what the production of this plastic does to the environment.
Are there other computer companies doing anything better? I'm genuinely curious if people know of a more "green" computer.
I think we should continue to ask for improvement in environmental responsibility from corporations but making Apple sound evil because they tried (whether for principle or for profit) is just irresponsible. Continue to ask for more, but don't completely exclude a product, service, etc. because it isn't perfect. It just makes enviromentalists sound more like elitists.
Claiming to be recyclable is fine. It would be BETTER by many viewpoints if the origin of the item was from reclaimed materials. Label: From Recycled: Recyclable versus Label: Recyclable. And this is all much better than just Disposable, like those little plastic razors or lighters that just get tossed. It's better to do something, than to do nothing, when it comes to recycling, reusing and reducing. Any and all of these things can happen at lesser degrees than someone's desire.