Dear Olagoke,

I also say yes! In Europe we have a recycling quote of actual about 40 % with the aim of 50 % untill 2020. In Austria now adays 63 %, in Germeny 62 % momentarily. But f.e. in Hamburg, Germany they recycle about only 30 % but in Trier, a little town in Germany,90 %.

This shows the width of possibilities. Recycling has to be brought into the heads of the consumers. Each step to reach this goal is a right step.

Above I wrote: Not the plasic is bad,sometimes it realy is, but the users are uneducatetd. And the users are we!

Peter

Yes Ola, they should. A UN mandate on plastics recycling will stop certain countries from indiscriminate production of plastics without remediation. If not the intellectuals, then who?

Dear Olagoke,

I also say yes! In Europe we have a recycling quote of actual about 40 % with the aim of 50 % untill 2020. In Austria now adays 63 %, in Germeny 62 % momentarily. But f.e. in Hamburg, Germany they recycle about only 30 % but in Trier, a little town in Germany,90 %.

This shows the width of possibilities. Recycling has to be brought into the heads of the consumers. Each step to reach this goal is a right step.

Above I wrote: Not the plasic is bad,sometimes it realy is, but the users are uneducatetd. And the users are we!

Peter

Dear Peter,

Dear All,

Considering that plastics are strongly represented maybe overrepresented in practically almost each field of production, recycling of plastics is vital. Another question would be education of consumers because of unreasonable and silly use of plastics. However, I think the pollution will increase quicker than the reaction of human’s sober mind.

 Recycling-yes;  but with a humble suggestion:

Scientists- plz.  make another effort to invent a new class of biodegradable polymers to save the environment.

Yes , recycling is an expensive process , needed else landfills are really going to be scary !!!!! As far as I see, plastic is a everyday material used by individuals & business on all scales , so funding for recycling needs to come from their pockets .

PS: Intellectuals in the same bracket  . Price for caring vs convenience ...

Developing techniques and ways to recycle or invent bio-degradable material is a necessity , wonder if cost for paper recycling is comparable ??

Dear Manohar,

yes agree. Bur the demand is easily written dow. It is an extrem difficult work for Sysyphus. Scientists are on this Job since the last 20 years. But you are right: we have to strengthen our effords and politicians have to offer money. This issue really has prioirity, more than buying weapons!

Peter

dear Aparna,

Recycling in a closed Loop balance  can be economocally be done! F.e. in Germany we have closed our landfills 20 years ago.

Peter

 Aparna

 Honestly; I wanted to write to my friends:

 The  game will be very costly; better make an other  effort for  a new kind of plastic- not of polythene family

I think that plastic recycling is good for both sustainability and the environment.  It has cause jobs in the US and helped save the environment.  I have added some interesting facts of recycling plastics in the US. 

http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefits-of-plastics-recycling.htm

http://recycleacrossamerica.org/recycling-facts

Technology transfer is a need , where is the initiation or is it being done !!!

 DEar all,

Yes, indeed. Is a priority. Plastic trash threatens oceans.

Thanks

Dear Khan,

yes, agree! But it is easily to require a new better plastic.Scienitsts try it for the last 20 years. It is the work of Sysyphus.If you develope a new plastic, mostly you Need a new Recycling strategy also! So we need money for both.Tell this our politicians. Some of them prefere to send it for weapons. Sorry I am a bad Boy!

F.e.: for vehicle tires we use crosslinked elastomers. The material is expensive, not to recycle but very stable in usage. We customer like it. An alternative would be a thermoplastic elastomer (Copolymers) which ist cheaper, meltable and therefore recycable, but nobody will buy it. you need 5 pairs of tire for one crosslinked. The closed loop answer is: the environmental solution is worse because we customer vote by market aspects.

In deed we need more regularities. I fear their is no other way.

Peter

I , humbly,  differ from the views of  some  of my learner ed RG colleagues and will summarize as[lest it comes under plagiarism law, the idea is taken from:]

Plastic waste recycling from MSW

 [1]Plastic regeneration can be done by Incineration, gascification, hydrogenation, pyrolysis and de polymerization; the last one being comparatively easier.

[2]The major problem still facing viable recycling of plastic wastes is their chemical multiplicity  which are mutually incompatible and  may make reprocessing practically impossible.

[3]The high cost involved in the treatment and separation of plastics wastes from other municipal solid waste is another factor hindering the efficiency of plastic waste recycling.

Carbon cycle is a problematic complex connecting natural events and human activities, that contain photosynthesis, respiration, sedimentation, burning fossil fuels and oil, deforestation, land-use change... Problematic of plastic recycling is one part of carbon cycle, because plastic molecules are from carbon atomes. Carbon footprint reduction interferes the industry with plastics and the plastics recycling.

A highlighting of the global plastics recycling at political level is very important. Intelectual community should be in the first line, should lead by example.

I think are still far from this point 

Dear prof Ishag Adam, yes, you're probably right, but unfortunately it's wrong.

I say yes, but we need more than just a recycling initiative. We need to reduce the amount of plastics that we use starting with product packaging. When you have something like 390 sq. cm of clear hard plastic that is used to enclose a product less than 20 sq. cm in size then something is terribly wrong.

I do think the educated community needs to stand up for doing the correct actions that help protect our planet (our home) and preserve for the future some of the raw materials that are used in plastic production.  It is a shame that we land-fill so much usable plastics and also organic matter.  We need to add composting to our list of need-to-do!

Very interesting article.

Best wishes

Rudolf Midriak

Yes it requires intellectual inputs as it is strategic on the prevention and recycling of waste, clearly demonstrating the use and its best efforts in large to address the issue of plastic waste management, along with lasting proposals or in its evaluation, clearance and implementation.

Where we live, recycling of plastics, paper products, and metal products, has gotten to be so good that at home, we now create far more recycling trash than regular trash. I'd say, comparing weekly trash volume, recycling has become at least four times greater than the regular trash.

The most important aspect of this has to be on the criteria the trash/recycling company uses, when they inform their customers how to dispose of their refuse. In our case, from the early days when we were expected to consolidate paper, plastic, and metal trash in separate bags, a lot has changed, not the least of which is that many more plastic products are being accepted for recycling now. Making the job easier for the customers is key.

Dear all,

I also say that recycling is very important and needed for preserving our world (land, sea, air)

Have a nice time

Helena

Plastics recycling is an important problem from the view of the global environment and resources (see for example "Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edward_Kosior/publication/26293584_Plastics_recycling_challenges_and_opportunities/links/0f3175304ee62a23c7000000.pdf), and United Nation is doing good advocacy for this problem (see for example "CONVERTING WASTE PLASTICS INTO A RESOURCE" http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/WastePlasticsEST_AssessmentGuidelines.pdf). However, efforts at the levels of nations, industries, and individuals are not yet enough. Thus, I believe that the intellectual community now spearhead the advocacy of this problem as the present question nicely points out.

Article Plastics Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities

Yes, they should. Otherwise the plastic will take over the world and they will be nothing left for our grandchildren..recyclable materials such as plastic made of cassava root should be emphasised on to replace plastic made of petroleum by-product.

Dear Olagoke, Until and unless we  find a substitute for plastic there is no way we can reduce its usage. Another way is to find a source or an organism or a method to biodegrade plastic which will make a significant change.  Recycling of plastic can help only if the production of plastic is stopped; but in no way this can be done; we recycle and produce simultaneously only to increase the volume of plastics and reduce our fossil fuels.  UN has implemented several mandates in climate change, but very few follow; oil usage has grown in multiplies in these few years and that's just because of the greed for growth, power and money which can never be stopped.  

We should ban strong glues to paste the tags and those plastic bottles with metallic neck ring and cap. It's almost impossible to recycle them properly.

We should start in university campuses if we were to change the hearts and souls of the intellectuals

Chapter Complexity of Campus Sustainability Discourse

Very good sense idea. I am totally in. Much more can be done for this recycling, especially in Romania. I would recommend corporate pro-active action and responsability, with market environmental policies and instruments since experience shows weak state policies and enforcement . Thanks God there are multinational companies who have brought their practice and experience in collecting and recycling, starting to work ...and kids can get involved and interested as well...

The process of recycling used plastic from used products is a good means to reprocess the material into useful products. I believe that the intellectual community should  spearhead the advocacy for global plastics recycling.

Dear Olagoke, these articles seems to be interesting to answer your question

http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/sites/default/files/vital_signs_trend_plastic_full_pdf.pdf

http://www.pvc.org/upload/documents/ACRRReport.pdf

dear Eteri,

yes in deed a helpful statistical survey

Best

Peter

Dear George,

You must have joked obviously: „this moral duty very clearly imbedded in their genetic code”. This may be mostly result of thorough education. By the way, if only you were right.

The plastics recycling rate has stagnated at a low level, and plastic recycling quantities and rates remain lower than other materials such as steel, aluminum, glass, and paper. Plastics “bottle-to-bottle” recycling historically has been miniscule compared to other secondary material closed-loop recycling. Closed-loop recycling means that the specific material recycled is used to manufacture the same product again.

www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/.../Plastics%5C43203008.doc

Recycling is a strategy that should be used with plastic and other contaminating materials, in particular, closed loop recycling that converts used plastic to new plastic that can be used again.

Plastic is one of the most popular and useful materials of modern times. Its popularity is part of the problem: we now use about 20 times more plastic than we did 50 years ago. However, we can optimise the lifespan of plastics by reusing and recycling items as many times as possible.

How is it recycled?

Plastics are:

--sorted

--shredded

--washed

--melted

--pelletised.

It is a two-stage process:

--sorting is mainly done automatically with a manual sort to ensure all contaminates have been removed

--plastic is either melted down directly and moulded into a new shape, or shredded into flakes then melted down before being processed into granulates.

https://www.recyclenow.com/facts-figures/how-it-recycled/plastics

dear Subhash,

also think on molecularising by solvents, pyrolysis , aqua solve, scwo and others.

Peter

Dear Subhash,...

there might be promising opportunities for recycling of polymers and reusing their structural components by applying special cracking reactions. The hydrothermal method allows the degradation of macromolecules, which contains hazardous components like bromine flame-retardants and others. It is possible to convert all components into innoxious substances. These substances then are available for further reactions creating new materials.

…. Coming back to your original question. ---Yes it is absolutely necessary that the intellectual community take over the lead,… showing all the encouraging opportunities we have

With best regards

Michael

https://books.google.de/books?id=bD5UCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA414&lpg=PA414&dq=hydrothermal+degradation+of+materials&source=bl&ots=Tu_IHXesPH&sig=tExzA91Mq5qQwiAWxCuq0uDSne0&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim9JDEu9HMAhVFOBoKHUQDDl4Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=hydrothermal%20degradation%20of%20materials&f=false

Of course. Although the response is slow and warm in reality.

Hi,

Our economy is a linear economy we “buy- use-throw it away- buy”; never think where this stuff goes after we throw it away. Think about all computers, TV sets, hair dryers, printers, etec. Is there a heaven for them to go?  If you believe there is no heaven on earth for them you need to think differently.

An alternative to this economy is the circular economy, in which we think about regeneration and recovery before producing. Resources are kept in service to extract the maximum benefit, then the material is recovered at the end of the service life. No need for a heaven, but resurrection is the primary belief system.

I distrust those  who play the role of intellectuals and think of themselves above others; this word must be banished- here you are, full disclosure. If the “intellectuals” has a role to play, then that role is to bring the idea of circular economy to everybody’s attention (being a catalysts) , seek for ways to make it possible; participate in creating a culture that re-use is its corner stone and so on and so forth. I don’t believe being everybody’s big daddy (or mummy) by telling them what they ought to do would take us we far. We need the designers/produces on board by making them comprehend to have the “end” in mind. 

 Yes, we are a "throw away society". We have been made that way buy corporations who discovered that consumers want cheap merchandise and will choose low cost over good quality. Some of the most popular products in history failed because they were built so good that the company when bankrupt due to the lack of a secondary market repairing those products.

When the brought in a charge for plastic bags in shops here I began to think this is my cue to be proactive. People little realise the dangers or impact of plastic bags it can choke an animal smother a child and yet we never say no to one when we buy items in the supermarket. How did people do years ago when it was brown paper bags yes you may say also not very environmentally friendly but look at the number of uses for that simple brown paper bag. Lining the cake tin for your christmas cake. children could draw pictures on it. Lining your kitchen drawers with it. The paper bag had many uses and could also be burned. Not cool I hear you say but plastic bags melt emitting toxic gases that are not good for the environment or our health. When the plastic bag charge came in I started using cardboard boxes for my grocery shop and have been doing the same for the last 15 or more years. We have electrical products that last only 8 years and then we need a new one nothing is built to last and if it does and James says bang goes the company shop and manufacturers profit margins. If we had less waste from broken down electrical good or more recyclable parts in them we could make ourselves a small fortune. Plastic bags are everywhere on our roadsides caught in electrical wires in our trees and bushes causing havoc to wildlife floating in our rivers and drains and contributing to our flooding problems need I say more. Ban the Bag

Hi Sirous,

Your comments about “intellectuals” interests me.  But couldn't  "designers/producers" be "intellectuals" too?

Olagoke

Hi Olagoke

Behind   almost any damaging public-policy, you will find the idea is rooted in the imagination of some “intellectual”. I associate intellectualism   with narcissism; people who think of highly of themselves with no reason. Their way or no way.

If you dig deep into their background you will find they have only half-baked ideas; all untested and cannot be substantiated. According to my definition doctors, engineers, producer or designer are not “intellectuals” (in quotation mark) in the first place, but they can be. They are firmly rooted on the ground and they understand the consequence of their action. Intellectuals are a different breed.

Take education or housing as an example in any country. Why do we have a lot of failed young men and women or unsafe housing in some of largest cities? That did not simply emerged—the idea for such projects came from “Progressive” intellectuals who were certain their thoughts would make life immense difference – no ill intention, juts ignorance.

Thomas Sowell in his book “ Intellectuals and Society”  delivers a devastating assessment of the role that intellectuals play in modern life. Their impact, he argues, is overwhelmingly detrimental and stems from their ability to use their primary skill ( he calls it “verbal virtuosity,”) to get those in power to reorganize the world in accordance with their theories about how society should function. Those theories usually entail government coercion euphemistically called “planning” or “regulation.”

When it’s good ( but not always), this book is magnificent. Here is one of many excellent, quotable passages: “Intellectuals are often extraordinary within their own specialties—but so are chess grandmasters, musical prodigies and many others. The difference is that these other exceptional people seldom imagine that their talents . . . entitle them to judge, pontificate to, and direct a whole society.” That sums up the problem with intellectuals very nicely.

Thomas Sowell is an intellectual (you have been warned), but he might not know himself. Anything he dislikes (generally on the left of politic) is the fault of intellectuals (and I agree with him). However, his is totally forgiving or blind of intellectuals damage on the right of politics- either he doesn't mention, promises to come back to it in the future or  these are the collateral damage according to him.

Though I calls Sowell an “intellectual”, his analysis of intellectuals on the left is not half bad. But he doesn't have anything to say about the intellectuals on the right. He is full of excuses for them.  Read this book but don’t believe everything he says.

Every nation has its own intellectuals and Thomas Sowell who criticizes some and excuses the the rest.  Beware of these people. 

I fully concur with Sirous' somewhat cynical (realistic) view, even if I never labeled that type of individual "intellectual." More like, "formula thinker." People who spout some fashionable party line du jour, with no proof or justification. It just is.

In spite of this, I think it makes sense that recycling products to the extent feasible is beneficial, even if it costs more than just dumping in a land fill. Recycling is much like "frugality." Make do with the least impact on the environment. If nothing else, it won't do harm.

PS. Even plastic grocery bags can be recycled. No need to paint everything with a broad brush. And where we live, grocery stores have been selling reusable cloth bags for many years. As always, making the job easier for the consumer is key.

Dear Albert,

Thank you for agreeing with me.  Even in USA  which is more open to different opinion you will see the damage inflicted by "intellectuals".  Take the USA' educational system and its success.  Look into any American university or your own company,  what is the ratio of foreign educated  (high school and BS) to the USA' educated. Who makes possible that talents to go waste. 

I won't allow "intellectuals" to take over anything that matters. Anybody but "intellectuals". 

Hi Sirous,

Thank you for your detailed response about yourinterpretation of intellectualism.  I do understand and accept your assessment of narcissistic intellectuals.  However, don’t you think that abandoning a well-meaning word “intellectual” is akin to abandoning “apples” because of some rotten apples? Why not simply call them what they are, namely: “narcissistic intellectuals”? Would it be correct to assume that all “intellectuals” are “narcissistic”? If the word “intellectual” is abandoned because of the bad ones, what shall we now call the good ones

There are “narcissistic Presidents”, “narcissistic writers”, “narcissistic Professors”, etc. etc. A “narcissistic someone” should simply be called“narcissistic someone” regardless of the “mask”.

Best regards

Olagoke

Hello Peter,

The theme of your contribution appears to be: education! education!!, and education!!! “Plastics users are uneducated… And the users are we!” Drawing on the German experience you cited, Hamburg recycles only about 30% whereas Trier, a little town in Germany, recycles 90%. Could a difference in education be credited for this difference? Is it perhaps due to differences in affluence? For instance, recycling in developing countries is practically nonexistent, due largely to their relative level of poverty.

Olagoke

Hello Manohar,

I agree with your clarion call: “Scientists- plz.  make another effort to invent a new class of biodegradable polymers to save the environment”

The good news is that scientists did listen and there are many biodegradable polymers around these days. The other side of the coin is reflected by the following quote: "The industry has worked long and hard to develop products capable of withstanding extreme and/or aggressive conditions and having a long life. The rapid proliferation of thermoplastics in an impressive array of applications is evidence of the success of the thermoplastics industry, but this very success implies that many thermoplastics, discarded after they have fulfilled their purposes, will pose a formidable disposal challenge." (the quoted sentence is from: Handbook of Thermoplastics, First Edition, Publisher: Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y., Editor: O. Olabisi, January 1997, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1399. 1365: ISBN: 0-8247-9797-3)  

Olagoke

Sirous, I am somewhat disturbed by your portrayal of intellectualism.  I believe you and Thomas Sowell have accepted self proclaimed intellectuals as being actually having a high intellect.  I think the question beginning this thread was not trying to ask intellectualists to contribute to solving problems, as those with the '-ism' are completely incapable of truly being of any help to the real world.  I believe the question is trying to get those of us who have scientific knowledge and an ethical base to step up our contributions (scientific, educational and political) to help the real world.  By the way, your first paragraph you necessitate the inclusion of Donald Trump as an intellectual. 

Dear  Khan,

In your comments you said: “Is the budget required for recycling mora than developing an alternate of plastic? See the following website:

·          http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefits-of-plastics-recycling.htm

·         Plastics recycling conserves natural resources, saves energy, and contributes to the economy. Recycled plastics is heavily used in manufacturing.

·         Five plastic bottles (PET) recycled provides enough fiber to create one square feet of carpet or enough fiber fill to fill one ski jacket.

·         Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour.

·         Recycling one ton of plastic bottles saves the equivalent energy usage of a two person household for one year.

 Hello Boneza, your contribution is commendable as it seamlessly interlinks the plastics recycling problem with that of carbon footprint reduction and "climate change".

Hello Pierlorenzo, the thrust of your contribution is for people to reduce the use of plastics by substituting other materials. However, the other materials of choice must be biodegradable. The problem is that current industry demand is for plastics that are capable of withstanding extreme and/or aggressive conditions and having a long life. These are generally not biodegradable. They could however be environmentally friendly, but still have to be re-cycled. So it might end up being a circular proposition.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with World Economic Forum and McKinsey and Company, released a vision of a world where plastics never become waste. 

“The New Plastic Economy” is a visionary report that defines a plan to empower plastic in a sense, by using circular economy principles. Applying circular economy principles to global plastic packaging flows could transform the plastics economy and drastically reduce negative externalities such as leakage into oceans,

http://biomimicry.net/featured/2016/the-new-plastic-economy-report-sets-vision-for-a-world-without-plastic-waste/

Hello Krishnan,

Your contribution has provided a conclusive answer to this forum. The intellectual community is presently spearheading, not only the advocacy, but also the building of a road-map, as well as a vehicle, for progressing towards a global plastics recycling paradigm through a circular plastics economy. “The New Plastics Economy” represents an achievable vision of a world without plastics waste by the year 2030.

This is premised on “a set of universally applicable Sustainable Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all 193 members of the United Nations in September 2015”, anchored on “a common determination to take bold and transformative steps towards a better future for all”. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics

I thank you for your contribution.

Olagoke

Dear all

Intellectual communities have been spearheading the advocacy for global plastics recycling wholeheartedly throughout. But plastics recycling rate has stagnated at a low level. Many facts are hampering plastics recycling, for example, economical facts; a plastic recycling has low benefits. Who will do it? Whether a government will do it? It is political problem.

Dear Olagoke, I think yes. these articles are very interesting and may be helpful to answer the question.

http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/italy/Italian%20NSDS.pdf

http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Namias_Thesis_07-08-13.pdf

Dear Albert, Olagoke and Robert John

I am sorry to offend your sensitivities. I was distancing myself from the word “intellectual” as commonly understood in outside of academic communities. The greatest damage from “intellectual” is in the sphere of social and cultural issues. Perhaps they can divert the physical science policy, but not the physics. The term has been abused in every country for a long time. Hence it is better to revise our understanding of what this word actually used..

I feel as if I am hijacking the question and pushing it in a different direction, which is far from my intention. As my reaction to the word “intellectual” varies from most of my learned friends, I feel I need to explain myself better. I hasten to add I have no intention to divert the attention from the noble cause of the question.

Working hard to be smart is noble cause. I think everyone should work hard to develop his/he intellects. However, there are some social mistakes that are mainly made by people who identify themselves as being intellectuals. Please note that I differentiate between being intelligent and being intellectual

This behaviours originate from the definition of intelligence that some people learn as they grow to become adult. If you continually tell a child that he/she is gifted and special, he/she would base his/her self-worth around that his/her intelligence that makes him/her better than other people. No argument here.

There's also a loose culture among people who think of themselves as smarter than average.  These people are usually pretty harmless until they find themselves in a position of influence.  These self-appointed intellectuals (who are also smart) have a lot of random information in their heads and they have an urge to share it with everyone. But as they are smart they offer a plausible argument.  It is difficult for others to find holes in their argument. You look at them in admiration and the only thing you can utter is "Uh... Okay... Thanks...”

My point is: the word “intellectual” has been used in everywhere for this type of people and you can’t reclaim the word to put in a different context.  I suggest you abandon this word and coin another one which serves your purpose better.  I have heard “concerned scientist” in a similar context.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Japan streets ahead in global plastic recycling race

Japan is one of the most successful countries in the world for recycling plastics. In 2010, 77% of plastic waste was recycled, up from 73% in 2006 and 39% in 1996, according to the nation's Plastic Waste Management Institute.

The country has passed several recycling laws to address the disposal and treatment of plastic waste since 1997, when businesses and consumers were obliged to separate plastic waste for the first time.

That measure, along with better awareness off the benefits of separating out plastic, is what has had the impact.

The list of plastic items that can be recycled has grown to include boxes and cases, wrappings, cups and containers, plates and trays, tube-shaped containers, lids and caps. Most is processed together, with plastic bottles and other containers treated separately.

In 2006, according to the institute, Japan recycled 2.1m tonnes of plastic waste, while 4.8m tonnes undergoes so-called "thermal recycling" which includes conversion into useful chemicals and burning to generate energy.

The number and types of plastic waste separation differ among municipalities, but most households are required to separate plastic wrappers and packages from polyethylene terephthalate [PET] bottles, whose labels must be torn off before they are thrown away."

Please, see the link for rest of the article...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/29/japan-leads-field-plastic-recycling

I only feel angry when I see waste. When I see people throwing away things we could use. – Mother Teresa

Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without. – New England proverb

See ...