I hate that they added more shit. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” was perfect.
“refuse” is literally the same thing as “reduce”
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
What the fuck is it nowadays with wanting to tack on more useless shit to perfect mnemonics? Especially for a mnemonic whose entire point is to prevent wastefulness.
Repurpose is reuse, just for a different use than originally intended.
Your point about reduce, reuse, recycle being enough is absolutely correct and all I ever hear about is the recycle part which is counterproductive when it is used to justify mass consumption and disposable products.
I’d think ‘repurpose’ is part of ‘reuse’ rather than recycle. Doesn’t recycle mean that you’re going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas ‘reuse’ just means that you are going to use it again. I’d say ‘repurpose’ means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.
In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.
It is also important to mention that most plastic recycling still ends up in landfills. Plastic recycling was sold as myth by big oil and plastics companies to make consumers think the waste problems magically disappeared.
Okay, let’s look at it again:
refuse - not buying it at all
reduce - buy less
reuse - use a thing multiple times for the same purpose
repurpose - use a thing for a different purpose
recycle - recovering (parts) of things
Why is buying less, without even specifying how much, automatically better than recycling (more of) the mountain of stuff anyone uses to live? (Note the indirect impact too, just because someone is rich and can outsource their impact does not make the net impact lower)
Also, many would see reuse and repurpose as forms of recycling. Like making trash bags from recycled plastic.
This is a complex topic and everything but simple.
Why is buying less automatically better than recycling the mountain of stuff anyone uses to live?
Why is it better to make a smaller mountain of trash rather than figure out what to do with that trash?
The point is that dealing with trash takes time and energy, and if you want to be efficient about it you’d try to make as little trash as possible so you don’t need to deal with it later. You might not see much of a benefit on an individual scale, but across an entire city it can make a huge difference.
If you’re still not getting it, just compare the EPA’s website for Reduce and Reuse versus Recycle
The most effective way to reduce waste is to not create it in the first place. Making a new product emits greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change and requires a lot of materials and energy - raw materials must be extracted from the earth, and the product must be fabricated then transported to wherever it will be sold. As a result, reduction and reuse are the most effective ways you can save natural resources, protect the environment and save money.
Recycling is the process of collecting and processing materials that would otherwise be thrown away as trash and turning them into new products. Recycling can benefit your community, the economy, and the environment. Products should only be recycled if they cannot be reduced or reused. EPA promotes the waste management hierarchy, which ranks various waste management strategies from most to least environmentally preferred. The hierarchy prioritizes source reduction and the reuse of waste materials over recycling.
Recycling your glass bottles won’t negate the effect of a private jet taxing or a yacht sailing for 20 seconds even.
Always recycle. But don’t compare it to the incredible environmental impact the rich has on the planet. Everyone has equal rights of polluting. Some polluting is just necessary as a human life require energy to sustain. The rich and poor have the same quota.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem. Some more, some less, some far more. 1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem.
Yeah, except it would be more accurate to say that the richest one percent have their 48 shares each.
1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot
So because each rich person isn’t responsible for a MILLION times as much, you want to pretend that they’re no worse at all? Fuck off with that nonsense!
Hahaha, that is not what I said. I said everyone is responsible for driving less, looking at what they are buying, flying less, … Instead of just throwing their arms in the air and saying the rich are to blame for everything. And note that probably all of us here are part of the world’s top 10 %, given how poor most of the world is.
I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn’t worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.
[edit]
Obviously if everyone did what I’m suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But that’s not happening. If it was, then we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. All I’m suggesting is a rough heuristic for what’s reasonable for an individual to do on their own.
You are right, we should all do something. That’s why I solemnly pledge never to take a private jet and to not engage in Space tourism. I dare any billionaire to follow my lead.
Wow, way to not care about the environment. If you’re suggesting systemic change that can work, then I’m just saying you should make half-assed unilateral sacrifices that aren’t working. Or else you’re a dirty hypocrite!
Hmm…one of these seems more important to do than the others…
Recycling right?
Recycling is literally the least important thing you can do (despite still being important).
The phrase “refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle” is listed in order of importance.
I hate that they added more shit. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” was perfect.
“refuse” is literally the same thing as “reduce”
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
What the fuck is it nowadays with wanting to tack on more useless shit to perfect mnemonics? Especially for a mnemonic whose entire point is to prevent wastefulness.
Repurpose is reuse, just for a different use than originally intended.
Your point about reduce, reuse, recycle being enough is absolutely correct and all I ever hear about is the recycle part which is counterproductive when it is used to justify mass consumption and disposable products.
Cause people often misunderstand the meaning of words.
I’d think ‘repurpose’ is part of ‘reuse’ rather than recycle. Doesn’t recycle mean that you’re going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas ‘reuse’ just means that you are going to use it again. I’d say ‘repurpose’ means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.
In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.
Repurpose is also similar to recycle though.
Because recycling’s entire point is to repurpose it into something else…
Which might be why people also want repurpose… but I’m old and RRR is better than RRRRR. A mnemonics entire point is ease of memory.
Recycle reuse damnit!
It is also important to mention that most plastic recycling still ends up in landfills. Plastic recycling was sold as myth by big oil and plastics companies to make consumers think the waste problems magically disappeared.
Just missing “revolution” in that list
I should have known that my comment needed a “/s” at the end…
Based on what do you say that? Any sources?
https://sustainability.uconn.edu/2020/04/07/the-three-rs-order-is-important/
https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/before-you-recycle-choose-to-reuse
Hm, those are just saying it too, without data to back that up.
I mean, it’s really more of an intuitive kind of thing: recycling takes more than zero energy, while refusing or reducing take less than zero.
Okay, let’s look at it again: refuse - not buying it at all reduce - buy less reuse - use a thing multiple times for the same purpose repurpose - use a thing for a different purpose recycle - recovering (parts) of things
Why is buying less, without even specifying how much, automatically better than recycling (more of) the mountain of stuff anyone uses to live? (Note the indirect impact too, just because someone is rich and can outsource their impact does not make the net impact lower)
Also, many would see reuse and repurpose as forms of recycling. Like making trash bags from recycled plastic.
This is a complex topic and everything but simple.
Why is it better to make a smaller mountain of trash rather than figure out what to do with that trash?
The point is that dealing with trash takes time and energy, and if you want to be efficient about it you’d try to make as little trash as possible so you don’t need to deal with it later. You might not see much of a benefit on an individual scale, but across an entire city it can make a huge difference.
If you’re still not getting it, just compare the EPA’s website for Reduce and Reuse versus Recycle
EU Waste Framework Directive
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en
Recycling is not at the bottom there and generally it is not the same argument (not showing the different impacts of these things).
The bottom is disposal, and recovery is energy recovery - as in, burning it. Part of the disposal process.
Yes, recycling is the bottom for what individuals can do.
Recycling your glass bottles won’t negate the effect of a private jet taxing or a yacht sailing for 20 seconds even.
Always recycle. But don’t compare it to the incredible environmental impact the rich has on the planet. Everyone has equal rights of polluting. Some polluting is just necessary as a human life require energy to sustain. The rich and poor have the same quota.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem. Some more, some less, some far more. 1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot.
Yeah, except it would be more accurate to say that the richest one percent have their 48 shares each.
So because each rich person isn’t responsible for a MILLION times as much, you want to pretend that they’re no worse at all? Fuck off with that nonsense!
Hahaha, that is not what I said. I said everyone is responsible for driving less, looking at what they are buying, flying less, … Instead of just throwing their arms in the air and saying the rich are to blame for everything. And note that probably all of us here are part of the world’s top 10 %, given how poor most of the world is.
Removed by mod
You only need 100k net worth to be in the richest 10 % of the world. Wiki: Distribution of wealth
Maybe stop talking about me personally and instead discuss the topic.
You call that “only”? Must be nice…
I’ll stop talking about you personally when you personally stop being confidently wrong about everything.
I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn’t worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.
[edit] Obviously if everyone did what I’m suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But that’s not happening. If it was, then we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. All I’m suggesting is a rough heuristic for what’s reasonable for an individual to do on their own.
You are right, we should all do something. That’s why I solemnly pledge never to take a private jet and to not engage in Space tourism. I dare any billionaire to follow my lead.
Installing solar panels?
Wow, way to not care about the environment. If you’re suggesting systemic change that can work, then I’m just saying you should make half-assed unilateral sacrifices that aren’t working. Or else you’re a dirty hypocrite!
/s