from the world's big
Why American towns are more selective than ever about what they recycle
An ecological silver bullet is missing the target altogether.
- The seeming success of worldwide recycling depended on China's now abandoned role.
- Municipalities are starting to limit the materials they'll recycle, and landfills are growing.
- The real solution to our waste problem may lie in our past.
The "father of recycling" is a man from Woodbury, New Jersey, named Donald Sanderson. In the 1970s, his local landfill was nearing capacity and costing locals thousands of dollars in fees. Sanderson had an idea, made some calls and found that some of that trash consisted of materials that could be sold instead of dumped. At his urging, Woodbury instituted the first U.S. mandatory curbside recycling program, with separate bins for glass, metal, and paper. (Plastic trash remained simply trash.) In not too long, it became clear that the project was bringing in revenue for the town. Other municipalities around the country soon followed suit.
At this scale, things worked well enough, but the explosion of plastic packaging that began in the 1980s and continues today introduced a new problem that wasn't so simple to solve: Plastic. And there was lots of it. According to Financial Times, the world has produced some "6.3 billion tonnes of plastic waste since the 1950s." [our emphasis]
Fortunately, China's manufacturing and export sectors were booming, and that provided a solution. Cargo ships full of Chinese products were arriving at U.S ports and returning home empty, a perfect means of transporting recycled plastic back home for use in the manufacture of even more goods. Great timing for the growing recycling industry.
On the other hand, for consumers, separating out the various recyclables required some effort and time, as well as household space for multiple bins. To bring more citizens into the process, towns began offering "single-stream" recycling. With single-stream, one bin holds all recyclables, and the municipalities or the recyclers with whom they contract are responsible for sorting out the separate materials. Shifting that burden away made recycling less of a hassle for individuals.
The history of recycling
While the tactic worked at getting people to recycle, the single-stream bins have become something of a disaster. People dump pretty much anything into their recycling bins: food-contaminated stuff and other non-reusable items, some of which clogs and breaks recyclers' sorting apparatus. There are tales of toilet bowls, bowling balls, and, yes, even kitchen sinks being found in our blue bins. The bottom line is that facilities receiving single-stream recycling confront a massive, expensive, and sometimes impossible job of sorting everything out. These days, they find themselves confronted with tons and tons of irrevocably contaminated materials that can't be readily sold.
Nonetheless, China remained willing to take this stuff off the hands of U.S recyclers and municipalities. (Still, even at the best of times, only 10 percent of our plastics were actually getting recycled.) China's Operation Green Fence in 2013 served notice that they were getting tired of dealing with all the dirty materials, but the country's patience ended altogether in July 2017, when the Chinese government announced Operation National Sword.
Image source: Larina Marina / Shutterstock
Operation National Sword
China now produces all of the recycled materials it needs domestically. Operation National Sword lays down the law on importing contaminated materials, resulting in a list of 24 types of scrap that China will no longer accept. (Chinese-produced recyclables are now seen as resources, while the same items arriving from overseas are considered yang laji, which translates to "foreign trash.") As Zoe Heller of the California state recycling agency CalRecycle says, China's new policy "challenges us to admit that recycling isn't free."
China's exit from the international recycling stage had the immediate result of prompting other Southeast Asian countries to come forward to take its place, but that trend is already reversing. Malaysia and Thailand have quickly became inundated, and now India has announced they're done with taking plastics.
Particularly hard-hit are Japan — "Now all this trash is building up in Japan and there's nothing to do with it; the incinerators are working at full capacity," says Eric Kawabata of U.S.-based company TerraCycle — and Western countries. The G7 nations account for more that 2/3 of exported paper scrap and the majority of plastic.
Left holding the bag in the U.S. are the many local governments who've enjoyed an easy source of income and now face the prospect of paying for recyclables' removal. Where plastics once sold for in the neighborhood of $300 a ton, municipalities are now facing having to pay to get rid of it. The upshot is that increased landfilling — the problem that led to recycling in the first place — is once again on the rise, and local authorities are now limiting the materials they'll accept to those they can still sell. Vox spoke to environmental expert Kate O'Neill, of UC Berkeley, who succinctly summarizes the current situation, "Oh, the shit's hitting the fan."
Image source: MOHAMED ABDULRAHEEM / Shutterstock
How do we fix this?
Really, this is story about our wasteful habits. If the most difficult material to deal with is plastic, then the thing that most makes recycling not work after 40 years is single-use plastic. It's a habit we've decisively not broken.
While some plastic could be eliminated from packaging and replaced with, say, paper, the real solution lies in adopting more of a "zero waste" mindset. Recology's Robert Reed says, "One of the most important lessons we've learnt from zero waste is that a lot of the solutions are in the past. Just ask yourself, what was it like when your grandparents were alive? They didn't have single-use coffee cups, didn't have water bottles. And yet they survived — thrived, in fact."
While recycling is clearly a sensible idea in broad strokes, maybe China's done us a favor: It's as if we're suddenly waking from a lovely dream in which all the waste we produce can simply be sold and reused.
It's not a panacea. There's simply no substitute for more seriously working to reduce our waste stream.
Image source: Spiroview Inc. / Shutterstock
Join Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and best-selling author Charles Duhigg as he interviews Victoria Montgomery Brown, co-founder and CEO of Big Think, live at 1pm EDT tomorrow.
A physics paper proposes neither you nor the world around you are real.
- A new hypothesis says the universe self-simulates itself in a "strange loop".
- A paper from the Quantum Gravity Research institute proposes there is an underlying panconsciousness.
- The work looks to unify insight from quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic perspective.
More on the hypothesis and the backstory of the Quantum Gravity Research institute —<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3d6209cb3564afd37b078404e383a2a2"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xWEErQ_LNXY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Reaching beyond the stereotypes of meditation and embracing the science of mindfulness.
- There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to what mindfulness is and what meditation can do for those who practice it. In this video, professors, neuroscientists, psychologists, composers, authors, and a former Buddhist monk share their experiences, explain the science behind meditation, and discuss the benefits of learning to be in the moment.
- "Mindfulness allows us to shift our relationship to our experience," explains psychologist Daniel Goleman. The science shows that long-term meditators have higher levels of gamma waves in their brains even when they are not meditating. The effect of this altered response is yet unknown, though it shows that there are lasting cognitive effects.
- "I think we're looking at meditation as the next big public health revolution," says ABC News anchor Dan Harris. "Meditation is going to join the pantheon of no-brainers like exercise, brushing your teeth and taking the meds that your doctor prescribes to you." Closing out the video is a guided meditation experience led by author Damien Echols that can be practiced anywhere and repeated as many times as you'd like.
A study looks at the performance benefits delivered by asthma drugs when they're taken by athletes who don't have asthma.
- One on hand, the most common health condition among Olympic athletes is asthma. On the other, asthmatic athletes regularly outperform their non-asthmatic counterparts.
- A new study assesses the performance-enhancement effects of asthma medication for non-asthmatics.
- The analysis looks at the effects of both allowed and banned asthma medications.
WADA uncertainty<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDc4NjUwN30.fFTvRR0yJDLtFhaYiixh5Fa7NK1t1T4CzUM0Yh6KYiA/img.jpg?width=980" id="01b1b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2fd91a47d91e4d5083449b258a2fd63f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="urine sample for drug test" />
Image source: joel bubble ben/Shutterstock<p>When inhaled β-agonists first came out just before the 1972 Olympics, they were immediately banned altogether by the WADA as possible doping substances. Over the years, the WADA has reexamined their use and refined the organization's stance, evidence of the thorniness of finding an equitable position regarding their use. As of January 2020, only three β-agonists are allowed — salbutamol, formoterol, and salmeterol —and only in inhaled form. Oral consumption appears to have a greater effect on performance.</p>
The study<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTIzMDQyMX0.Gk4v-7PCA7NohvJjw12L15p7SumPCY0tLdsSlMrLlGs/img.jpg?width=980" id="d3141" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ebe7b30a315aeffcb4fe739095cf0767" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="runner at starting position on track" />
Image source: MinDof/Shutterstock<p>Of primary interest to the authors of the study is confirming and measuring the performance improvement to be gained from β-agonists when they're ingested by athletes who don't have asthma.</p><p>The researchers performed a meta-analysis of 34 existing studies documenting 44 randomized trials reporting on 472 participants. The pool of individuals included was broad, encompassing both untrained and elite athletes. In addition, lab tests, as opposed to actual competitions, tracked performance. The authors of the study therefore recommend taking its conclusions with just a grain of salt.</p><p>The effects of both WADA-banned and approved β-agonists were assessed.</p>
Approved β-agonists and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzkxODk0M30.3RssFwk_tWkHRkEl_tIee02rdq2tLuAePifnngqcIr8/img.jpg?width=980" id="39a99" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1fe4a580c6d4f8a0fd021d7d6570e2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="vaulter clearing pole" />
Image source: Andrey Yurlov/Shutterstock<p>What the meta-analysis showed is that the currently approved β-agonists didn't significantly improve athletic performance among those without asthma — what very slight benefit they <em>may</em> produce is just enough to prompt the study's authors to write that "it is still uncertain whether approved doses improve anaerobic performance." They note that the tiny effect did increase slightly over multiple weeks of β-agonist intake.</p>
Banned β-agonist and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjI3ODU5Mn0.vyoxSE5EYjPGc2ZEbBN8d5F79nSEIiC6TUzTt0ycVqc/img.jpg?width=980" id="de095" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="02fdd42dfda8e3665a7b547bb88007ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="swimmer mid stroke" />
Image source: Nejron Photo/Shutterstock<p>The study found that for athletes without asthma, however, the use of currently banned β-agonists did indeed result in enhanced performance. The authors write, "Our meta-analysis shows that β2-agonists improve anaerobic performance by 5%, an improvement that would change the outcome of most athletic competitions."</p><p>That 5 percent is an average: 70-meter sprint performance was improved by 3 percent, while strength performance, MVC (maximal voluntary contraction), was improved by 6 percent.</p><p>The analysis also revealed that different results were produced by different methods of ingestion. The percentages cited above were seen when a β-agonist was ingested orally. The effect was less pronounced when the banned substances were inhaled.</p><p>Given the difference between the results for allowed and banned β-agonists, the study's conclusions suggest that the WADA has it about right, at least in terms of selection of allowable β-agonists, as well as the allowable dosage method.</p>