> Both narratives seem to turn on the big "recycling is a hoax" twist, which is obviously a big clickbait success but then go in opposite directions with it
Erm, what? On the topic of recycling, your two "sides" seem wholly compatible - you've just ascribed different group identity caricatures. Which says little about people, and is mostly a reflection of how the political parties work to divide us.
Disagreeing about whether to outsource a problem to China or deal with it locally is ultimately a separate topic.
I believe these articles are being driven by a backlog of stuff at recycling centers because gasp the abstraction where you just put your stuff in a separate bin and your consumption-waste is magically absolved has been shattered. We've already been inundated with a message telling individuals to "use less" for decades, so any effect has basically already been realized (meanwhile every other advertising message and economic signal continues to say "use more").
One side is clearly favoring landfill over recycling and the other is horrified that stuff they thought was recycled is going to landfill.
One is suggesting avoiding nearly all plastics, while they other has studies showing that replacing plastic bags with organic cotton bags is 20,000x worse for the planet and will probably give you salmonella.
One complains that recycling is too hard, because you have all the different boxes and people only do it to punish themselves out of some puritan impulse and the other thinks it's too easy and people do it to make themselves feel better about their consumption.
These are not the same thing, they only seem to agree that recycling is bad, but for opposite reasons.
The answer almost certainly involves more (genuine) recycling but that seems to be the only thing people are united against, so it's not likely to end well.
Each of these "sides" is a simplistic half-idea rooted in using only half of a brain - deductive/inductive right/left etc.
The dichotomies are better seen as thesis-antithesis, with the goal of synthesis. It's only the political machine that emphasizes and exacerbates each half-idea, pits them against one another, to ultimately foster commercial expedience winning out.
> The answer almost certainly involves more (genuine) recycling
The converse here is retuning the economy to produce less stuff in general, as well as dismantling the economic treadmill that causes us to value "convenience" above all else. Which even fewer people want to hear.
Probably the best solution would be a “waste tax” i’m not that old and i still remember the days when you had to bring an empty glass container for beer or soda those where replaced for plastic because it’s cheaper than having to transport/ process/ clean/ refill empty ones.
I agree with you. It seems to me that we have two choices to address "sustainability":
- Give up the convenience of modern life, permanently, for everyone (don't allow any more industrialization than already exists)
- Drastically reduce population
Erm, what? On the topic of recycling, your two "sides" seem wholly compatible - you've just ascribed different group identity caricatures. Which says little about people, and is mostly a reflection of how the political parties work to divide us.
Disagreeing about whether to outsource a problem to China or deal with it locally is ultimately a separate topic.
I believe these articles are being driven by a backlog of stuff at recycling centers because gasp the abstraction where you just put your stuff in a separate bin and your consumption-waste is magically absolved has been shattered. We've already been inundated with a message telling individuals to "use less" for decades, so any effect has basically already been realized (meanwhile every other advertising message and economic signal continues to say "use more").