I’d argue this point is nullified given recycling and trash live next to each other for pick-up (at least in the US). If your bins don’t seal to keep scent away, they’ll be targeting the trash cans anyways.
In parts of the world where clean drinking water is at a premium and increasingly more so, (like the western half and soon 2/3 of the US) it definitely matters to conserve the water we need to live whenever possible.
This brings up another good point though, packaging design should be changed to ensure the maximum amount of purchased product can be removed for use as easily as possible. So many containers today are designed to be sold as “this has 20oz in it!” and only 18oz is accessible. They then have tiny necks or convoluted lips or shapes to make reaching into the container with tools to remove the rest of the product difficult. The companies don’t care about the loss of product as the extra 2oz costs them essentially nothing. Even though that added weight is wasting energy being transported at every single stage of the supply chain to be thrown away at the end, they got the sale because it said 20 instead of 18 on the bottle and they could mark up the price accordingly!
tl;dr on the last paragraph: If the container is designed to start its recycling journey as devoid of product as possible, the whole process will have less cleanup and energy/water use, whatever the process is.
I’d argue this point is nullified given recycling and trash live next to each other for pick-up (at least in the US). If your bins don’t seal to keep scent away, they’ll be targeting the trash cans anyways.
I’m Canadian, and in my municipality, we have recycling (cardboard, plastic, glass), compost (food matter), and garbage (pretty much anything that can’t be recycled.
The compost bins are sealed, so pests are never a concern. I don’t have issues without open recycling bins, but did before I learned how to actually recycle stuff. My garbage bags never have issues, since they don’t have food in them.
I can see issues in places that don’t offer such a robust garbage/recycling program.
In parts of the world where clean drinking water is at a premium and increasingly more so, (like the western half and soon 2/3 of the US) it definitely matters to conserve the water we need to live whenever possible.
100% agree. It frustrates me to have to clean something that’s going to be thrown out, but if you’re strategic about it, you can find ways to do this with very minimal impact on water use.
Not to go off track, but I found that since I’ve been cooking my own beans, making my own non-dairy milk, and relying less on packaged good, my recycling bins are nearly empty every week. Reducing or reusing is often much better for everyone than recycling.
I agree, but rinsing at home addresses multiple concerns.
I think the issue is that some people throw out containers with their lids on and completely covered in food matter.
a) it makes it difficult/impossible to actually recycle when it finally gets there. b) it attracts wildlife to your recycling bins.
It’s just best practice, really.
I’d argue this point is nullified given recycling and trash live next to each other for pick-up (at least in the US). If your bins don’t seal to keep scent away, they’ll be targeting the trash cans anyways.
In parts of the world where clean drinking water is at a premium and increasingly more so, (like the western half and soon 2/3 of the US) it definitely matters to conserve the water we need to live whenever possible.
This brings up another good point though, packaging design should be changed to ensure the maximum amount of purchased product can be removed for use as easily as possible. So many containers today are designed to be sold as “this has 20oz in it!” and only 18oz is accessible. They then have tiny necks or convoluted lips or shapes to make reaching into the container with tools to remove the rest of the product difficult. The companies don’t care about the loss of product as the extra 2oz costs them essentially nothing. Even though that added weight is wasting energy being transported at every single stage of the supply chain to be thrown away at the end, they got the sale because it said 20 instead of 18 on the bottle and they could mark up the price accordingly!
tl;dr on the last paragraph: If the container is designed to start its recycling journey as devoid of product as possible, the whole process will have less cleanup and energy/water use, whatever the process is.
I’m Canadian, and in my municipality, we have recycling (cardboard, plastic, glass), compost (food matter), and garbage (pretty much anything that can’t be recycled.
The compost bins are sealed, so pests are never a concern. I don’t have issues without open recycling bins, but did before I learned how to actually recycle stuff. My garbage bags never have issues, since they don’t have food in them.
I can see issues in places that don’t offer such a robust garbage/recycling program.
100% agree. It frustrates me to have to clean something that’s going to be thrown out, but if you’re strategic about it, you can find ways to do this with very minimal impact on water use.
Not to go off track, but I found that since I’ve been cooking my own beans, making my own non-dairy milk, and relying less on packaged good, my recycling bins are nearly empty every week. Reducing or reusing is often much better for everyone than recycling.
A bottle is hard to rinse lid or not.
Wouldn’t you just rough chop the material and then rinse it?
I don’t even know if that’s feasible, but if there’s a municipality that already does this, I’d love to know how it’s been going for them.
It wouldn’t prevent the problem of wildlife/pests getting into dirty recycling items, though.