Not sure about burning recyclables, but burning trash in general is more environmentally friendly than it seems. Sure it releases CO2 (which isn't really an issue if that energy would otherwise come from fossil fuels) but it's possible to scrub out most other contaminants, and it prevents the burnable materials from languishing in a landfill producing methane. It's not recycling, but it is reusing.
I'm kind of skeptical about the benefits of recycling certain materials that are so cheap that the operational costs of recycling are much greater than the value saved. This seems to be happening in the article where people are increasingly subsidizing unprofitable recycling programs. As far as I know, it's not an environmental disaster to just dump aluminum, glass, and plastic in a landfill, and it seems cheaper to just produce more of those products from their original materials than to recycle the used materials. Maybe we should take a step back and ask ourselves whether it's worth our time to recycle certain materials.
High temperature burning is a bit better environmentally than people just burning garbage at home. The extremely high temp is the key.
There is a demand for aluminum and metal, many people make a bit of a living collecting these for money.
The problem with glass is that it has food residue on it. This causes leaching in the landfills.
Farmers need COMPOST! Soil around the world is nearly depleted. We need an efficient way of cleaning out the food particles from food containers, before disposing or recycle, and having those particles end up on farms.
When I first moved to the UK I was frustrated about the fact that I had to separate my food waste from my general garbage, or my glass from my general recycling. I can see now why it's a better system because the potential to reuse these materials is higher when they are separated at the source.
Not to mention the fact that cities have landfill/recycling centers you can drive to and get rid of anything and everything for free.
Wouldn’t it be better in terms of co2 production for plastics to stay in a landfill rather than being burned? seems like they would sequester carbon for a very long time
In this context no, burning is not reusing. The point of reduce-reuse-recycle is to reuse in its original form. For example: reuse a yogurt cup as leftovers storage, or a shoebox as a storage box.
I'm kind of skeptical about the benefits of recycling certain materials that are so cheap that the operational costs of recycling are much greater than the value saved. This seems to be happening in the article where people are increasingly subsidizing unprofitable recycling programs. As far as I know, it's not an environmental disaster to just dump aluminum, glass, and plastic in a landfill, and it seems cheaper to just produce more of those products from their original materials than to recycle the used materials. Maybe we should take a step back and ask ourselves whether it's worth our time to recycle certain materials.