Talk:Waste hierarchy

Bronze?

If you agree, please bronze - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Silver? This article iz gud. ħuman 13:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's of a pair with Sunday school environmentalism, which is more about pseudoscience. They probably wouldn't merge well, though. - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to merge, two separate stories. I think close to silver though. ħuman 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunday School Environmentalism is less pseudoscience and more about people misunderstanding how everything works; so being easily distracted by dramatic changes that are only superficially environmental friendly. The waste hierarchy is a legitimate piece of procedure used when trying make processes more environmentally benign. So they are two separate issues, although the former isn't a real term, I just coined it while reading through some old lecture notes on clean technology and green chemistry. Both do go hand in hand, however, particularly on the point of recycling - and what I'd like to term "psuedorecycling" but I don't really want to stick my neck out on them. I still haven't got around to doing bloody life-cycle assessment yet, which has been on my personal To Do List for about 2 years... ^sshole 10:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Silver or more? What is missing?

Apart from not being very snarky, this article is short enough while informative. It would be nice to make it more visible. What is missing to bump it to silver or more? How could one help?--dx (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There is the newly revised waste hierarchy from the EU Waste Framework Directive. It might warrant including, but it's sort of similar to the slightly older version described in this article. I like it better because it's a reverse pyramid, showing where focus should lie. I'll try to see where I can help when I have time. Nullahnung (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a personal fan of the glass milk bottles example - as glass can be shattered, giving them an expected life-span. I did this as an exercise in environmental chemistry some years ago; if you crunch the numbers down it works out more efficient to make disposable plastic cartons than glass bottles. Bottles require cleaning, heat and detergents as part of their reuse, which consumes energy and produces waste - so if you add the reuse cost to the production cost over an expected life-span (say, 12 re-uses) and compare it to 12 plastic bottles, the bottles work out better (you can do the same for re-usable plastic bottles, but that's complicated by the fact you'd have to manufacture them very differently). But that's something more for the LCA article than this one. As a first approximation the glass bottles re-use ideas gets the concept of waste reduction through re-use across quite well. ^{Don't click here} 12:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)