undefined | Better HN

0 pointspmorici3y ago0 comments

Seems like the article wants you to accept a very narrow definition of recycling. reusing perfectly good shoes fits the definition of recycling in my book.

0 comments

woodruffw3y ago

The phrase is "reduce, reuse, recycle" because it's intended to be an ordered taxonomy: reduction comes first, following by reusing existing materials, followed by recycling them into new materials.

Reusing perfectly good shoes is a good outcome, and nobody in this thread has suggested otherwise. But it isn't recycling in the way that Dow stated, either literally (since they claimed a polar opposite use) or definitionally (since the shoes aren't turned into new shoes).

qiqitori3y ago

There is no outcome yet.

- The shoes having found their way to a market does not mean that they will be bought and reused.

- If they aren't bought, what will the store owner do with them?

- If they are bought, what will the buyer do with them after they are no longer usable?

(Of course, in this case the reporters presumably bought them. How will they dispose of them now though?)

Maybe the reporters should have sent in shoes that are obviously broken and can't possibly be reused as shoes.

faeriechangling3y ago

It's not considered recycling because reuse is explicitly better than recycling. You aren't supposed to equate the two because it would imply recycling was a viable alternative to reuse.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse