<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trashonomics: The Garbage Economy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/</link>
	<description>The blog of the free, simple personal finance solution. Track all your spending automatically, find the best deals, save more money. And save the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:28:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61633</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 03:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61633</guid>
		<description>Fun infographic, but what this fails to consider is the next best alternative - that is, what would it cost to recycle all, or a significant chunk of, this garbage?

Arguably it would cost more, except in the case of metals/aluminum.  My understanding is that everything else costs more to recycle than to throw away.

Now that doesn&#039;t make it right to throw it away - there are plenty of other costs, such as passing on all this crap to the next generation - but it does mean that this infographic is a bit dishonest, in that by highlighting dollar figures, it implies that doing something different would cost less. 

The reality is that this is simply the law of large numbers - there are over 300 million people in this country, so that at $10.5 billion/year, means that it costs a whopping $35 per person per year to dispose of our trash.  Actually, that sounds surprisingly not bad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fun infographic, but what this fails to consider is the next best alternative &#8211; that is, what would it cost to recycle all, or a significant chunk of, this garbage?</p>
<p>Arguably it would cost more, except in the case of metals/aluminum.  My understanding is that everything else costs more to recycle than to throw away.</p>
<p>Now that doesn&#8217;t make it right to throw it away &#8211; there are plenty of other costs, such as passing on all this crap to the next generation &#8211; but it does mean that this infographic is a bit dishonest, in that by highlighting dollar figures, it implies that doing something different would cost less. </p>
<p>The reality is that this is simply the law of large numbers &#8211; there are over 300 million people in this country, so that at $10.5 billion/year, means that it costs a whopping $35 per person per year to dispose of our trash.  Actually, that sounds surprisingly not bad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61627</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61627</guid>
		<description>OK, they fixed it so now I look like an idiot.  

The points about per capita production being 37% below average in the &quot;Trashiest City&quot;, and total production being in the bottom half of states in one of the least populated states still stand.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, they fixed it so now I look like an idiot.  </p>
<p>The points about per capita production being 37% below average in the &#8220;Trashiest City&#8221;, and total production being in the bottom half of states in one of the least populated states still stand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61618</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61618</guid>
		<description>Something doesn&#039;t add up.  250m tons/year across 300m americans is 0.833 tons/person/year.  11 tons/day from NYC is 4015 tons/year, across 8m NYers is 0.0005 tons/person/year.  Find it hard to believe average american produces 1600x the trash of the average NYer.  

It&#039;s probably 11,000 tons/day from NYC, which would make it only 0.502 tons/person/year, which is still well below the national average.  It&#039;s been shown several times that urban dwellers have a smaller environmental footprint per capita than suburban/rural residents.  

Also makes it sound silly to call NY the biggest trash producing city in the country.  Maybe that has something to do with it being the biggest city in the country (2x population of LA), ya think??  Also, duh Alaska ranks in the bottom 50% of trash producing states, who the hell lives in Alaska?  No offence to residents of Alaska.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something doesn&#8217;t add up.  250m tons/year across 300m americans is 0.833 tons/person/year.  11 tons/day from NYC is 4015 tons/year, across 8m NYers is 0.0005 tons/person/year.  Find it hard to believe average american produces 1600x the trash of the average NYer.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s probably 11,000 tons/day from NYC, which would make it only 0.502 tons/person/year, which is still well below the national average.  It&#8217;s been shown several times that urban dwellers have a smaller environmental footprint per capita than suburban/rural residents.  </p>
<p>Also makes it sound silly to call NY the biggest trash producing city in the country.  Maybe that has something to do with it being the biggest city in the country (2x population of LA), ya think??  Also, duh Alaska ranks in the bottom 50% of trash producing states, who the hell lives in Alaska?  No offence to residents of Alaska.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61615</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61615</guid>
		<description>http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2008/08/recycling-myth.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2008/08/recycling-myth.html" rel="nofollow">http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2008/08/recycling-myth.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61612</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61612</guid>
		<description>Do these figures take into account the costs of running a recycling center?  (Facilities, salaries to workers, machinery, overhead, transportation, etc.)  It seems to me that with these costs taken into account, the incentives would be to NOT recycle.

Also, recycling facilities are just as much of a contributor to pollution from the dangerous chemicals given off from the energy it takes to run them as any other plant.

Finally, more and more landfills are being equipped with the ability to create, rather than use, energy!  Natural gas is being used to power households and is a good, clean source of energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do these figures take into account the costs of running a recycling center?  (Facilities, salaries to workers, machinery, overhead, transportation, etc.)  It seems to me that with these costs taken into account, the incentives would be to NOT recycle.</p>
<p>Also, recycling facilities are just as much of a contributor to pollution from the dangerous chemicals given off from the energy it takes to run them as any other plant.</p>
<p>Finally, more and more landfills are being equipped with the ability to create, rather than use, energy!  Natural gas is being used to power households and is a good, clean source of energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Casey</title>
		<link>http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/trashonomics-09202010/comment-page-1/#comment-61571</link>
		<dc:creator>Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mint.com/blog/?p=16320#comment-61571</guid>
		<description>&quot;At $.05 per bottle, we could make 1.2 billion&quot;

The money is not &quot;lost&quot; (unlike aluminium) since the 5 cents was a deposit and is going to be spent by the local government.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;At $.05 per bottle, we could make 1.2 billion&#8221;</p>
<p>The money is not &#8220;lost&#8221; (unlike aluminium) since the 5 cents was a deposit and is going to be spent by the local government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
