So, I am interested, what do you guys here think about the fire in Brijest?
A plastics recycling factory in Brijest caught fire. And it is considered to be an ecological catastrophy because of all the air pollution that fire has caused. In addition to causing life-threatening injuries to one firefighter.
Media is talking a lot about how regulations weren't followed by the factory. Among other things, regulations say that the piles of plastics must be at most 3 meters tall, whereas, in the backyard of that factory, they were 20 meters tall. Some even speculate that fire is intentional.
However, I think this ecological catastrophy arguably wouldn't have happened if only there were no government policies making recycling plastics profitable. In a free market, recycling plastics wouldn't be profitable, so that fire wouldn't have happened.

Your stupidity seems to have no limits.

-Free market plastics recycling IS profitable. Massively so.

-The fire happened not because of government regulation, but because those regulations were not being adhered to.

-The fumes from burning plastic, while clearly dangerous to human health, are much less damaging - long term - than the only other options, which include the unrestricted dumping of plastic waste and the manufacturing of new plastics.

Boru

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Free market plastics recycling IS profitable. Massively so.

Then how it is that there are no people driving the streets with tractors and asking you to give them old plastics? You know, like there are people driving the streets with tractors asking you to give them old iron? An obvious answer seems to be: because recycling iron is profitable, while recycling plastics is not.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:The fire happened not because of government regulation, but because those regulations were not being adhered to.

I am not saying it happened because of the regulation, I am saying it happened because of the EU policies making recycling plastics profitable.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:The fumes from burning plastic, while clearly dangerous to human health, are much less damaging - long term - than the only other options, which include the unrestricted dumping of plastic waste and the manufacturing of new plastics.

But the problem is that only around 20% of plastics even can be recycled with modern technology, and only 5% actually is. So having factories recycling plastics decreases the problem by 5%, while massively increasing the chances of plastics catching fire.
https://youtu.be/_riGg2BW8Jw?si=6OAFAFqPjU09LXm4

(October 8, 2023 at 12:12 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: In a free market, recycling plastics wouldn't be profitable, so that fire wouldn't have happened.

You should demonstrate this with sound science and economics. What kind of plastics are you recycling, what is the cost per pound to recycle, and what is the price per pound for resale? What if new-plastics manufacturers are also buying recycled plastic, thereby lowering their production costs; and they don't have to buy as much petrochemicals at current market value for new production, alleviating dependence on unpredictable oil prices somewhat? So support this general claim with specific data, please.

Once you've done that, then we can get into the valuation of money of the valuation of not polluting the only planet we have.

It'd be alot easier to keep the piles under x meters tall if there were a market for the product, but there isn't. We still prefer new plastic even when we could use recycled plastic. I know that's not what we say, but that's what we do. Trouble is, that greenwashing lobbies have sold recycling so hard.. This isn't even something that happened to the recycling industry, it was the literal point of it's creation. To cast corporate waste as the consumers problem and greenwash their charging us to take out their trash.

There aren't any government programs that make plastic recycling profitable in the way that you're discussing. Recycling as we do it is profitable -as a service-. As the product itself. As your story notes, it's pretty easy for them to get the shit, it's hard to get rid of it. Piles up.

(October 8, 2023 at 12:57 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Free market plastics recycling IS profitable. Massively so.

Then how it is that there are no people driving the streets with tractors and asking you to give them old plastics? You know, like there are people driving the streets with tractors asking you to give them old iron? An obvious answer seems to be: because recycling iron is profitable, while recycling plastics is not.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:The fire happened not because of government regulation, but because those regulations were not being adhered to.

I am not saying it happened because of the regulation, I am saying it happened because of the EU policies making recycling plastics profitable.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:The fumes from burning plastic, while clearly dangerous to human health, are much less damaging - long term - than the only other options, which include the unrestricted dumping of plastic waste and the manufacturing of new plastics.

But the problem is that only around 20% of plastics even can be recycled with modern technology, and only 5% actually is. So having factories recycling plastics decreases the problem by 5%, while massively increasing the chances of plastics catching fire.
https://youtu.be/_riGg2BW8Jw?si=6OAFAFqPjU09LXm4

-Because the plastics to be recycled are brought to collection points. At least, that’s how it works in countries that are lucky enough to not be Croatia.

-You said the fire wouldn’t have happened if there were no regulations on plastics recycling. It comes to the same thing - you’re blaming government regulation for causing the fire. People are frequently injured in meat processing facilities. Should food regulations be abolished?

-‘Massively’? Can you provide a list of plastic recycling plants that have caught fire?

Boru

They'd be piled up somewhere if they weren't piled up there. The problem is the pile, not it's address. If we wanted to talk about regulations that would make it profitable to recycle as input - recyclables as the product, rather than a service (the product there is feeling better about ourselves, rightly or wrongly), then we'd be talking about laws that said you absolutely had to use x amount of recycled plastics even if they were more expensive than new plastics and even if the new plastic was better for your application.

-and then aggressively enforce that...

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Because the plastics to be recycled are brought to collection points.

But why does it take the government to do that? Why are there are no private companies doing that?

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:You said the fire wouldn’t have happened if there were no regulations on plastics recycling.

Please try to understand it: regulation is different from a subsidy. Subsidy is trying to make something more profitable, regulation usually (if not always) makes something less profitable.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Should food regulations be abolished?

Well, there is some sensible regulation. Probably any regulation that reduces the massive use of antibiotics in the egg industry is a sensible regulation. However, most regulation is not like that, and most regulation should be abolished.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Can you provide a list of plastic recycling plants that have caught fire?

Well, no, but I assume that's common. The only plastic recycling plant that I know about (the one in Brijest) has caught fire. Not only once, but three times in the past 10 years: now, in 2015 and in 2016. https://sib.net.hr/vijesti/osijek/439239...16-godine/

(October 8, 2023 at 2:05 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Because the plastics to be recycled are brought to collection points.

But why does it take the government to do that? Why are there are no private companies doing that?

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:You said the fire wouldn’t have happened if there were no regulations on plastics recycling.

Please try to understand it: regulation is different from a subsidy. Subsidy is trying to make something more profitable, regulation usually (if not always) makes something less profitable.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Should food regulations be abolished?

Well, there is some sensible regulation. Probably any regulation that reduces the massive use of antibiotics in the egg industry is a sensible regulation. However, most regulation is not like that, and most regulation should be abolished.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Can you provide a list of plastic recycling plants that have caught fire?

Well, no, but I assume that's common. The only plastic recycling plant that I know about (the one in Brijest) has caught fire. Not only once, but three times in the past 10 years: now, in 2015 and in 2016. https://sib.net.hr/vijesti/osijek/439239...16-godine/

-There ARE private companies doing that. Globally, private recycling is a $50 billion industry.

-Don't try to shoehorn in subsidies. You said 'regulation' more than once. And you seem to be having trouble keeping your fantasies straight. You said earlier that it is government regulation that allows plastic recycling to be profitable.

-Eggs again. Haven't you had enough of Nudger beating you up about this?

-That sounds like a problem with the plant.

Boru

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Globally, private recycling is a $50 billion industry.

And I assume the vast majority of that money comes from recycling metal, and maybe some from recycling glass. Recycling glass, while probably not profitable in a free market, is still not as ridiculous as recycling plastics.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:You said earlier that it is government regulation that allows plastic recycling to be profitable.

If so, that was via mistake. I meant that government policies (of forcing people to sort through their household trash) make them profitable.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Eggs again. Haven't you had enough of Nudger beating you up about this?

It is difficult to imagine how eggs might not be the biggest contributor to antibiotic resistance in humans. Sure, vineyards (where 0.5% of antibiotics goes to) probably have some effect (via horizontal gene transfer from bacteria that attack plants to bacteria that attack humans), but, Jesus Christ, the use of antibiotics in the egg industry is by more than two orders of magnitude more massive (around 70% of antibiotics are used in the egg industry) and it causes antibiotic resistance in humans directly.

BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:That sounds like a problem with the plant.

Then I assume the problem with North Korea is Kim Jong Un and that, if somebody else was on power, he would do it much better.