This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Recycling is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Recycling at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
In the supply section of the article 2nd paragraph
(Container deposit legislation involves offering a refund for the return of certain containers, typically glass, plastic, and metal. When a product in such a container is purchased, a small surcharge is added to the price. This surcharge can be reclaimed by the consumer if the container is returned to a collection point. These programs have been very successful, often resulting in an 80 percent recycling rate. Despite such good results, the shift in collection costs from local government to industry and consumers has created strong opposition to the creation of such programs in some areas.)
the last line states that
1. there is a shift in collection costs
2. the industry and consumers are now paying for the collection costs.
I believe this is just a misunderstanding of the concept that the money you receive when returning the packaging is actually additional money that you spent when purchasing the item. this forces the consumer to return the packaging if they do not want to be the one paying for the disposal of the item.
I edited the part about the Shawn Burn study to say that personal contact is more effective than impersonal contact at increasing recycling rates in a community. It originally said that the study had determined that personal contact was "the most effective" method. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
the two questions a) whether recycling results in net job creation and b) whether net creation of low paid, hazardous jobs is a good thing, are worth discussing. However, the following statement is meaningless:
It is said that dumping 10,000 tons of waste in a landfill creates six jobs, while recycling 10,000 tons of waste can create over 36 jobs.
Someone who has knowledge of the subject should replace this with a meaningful discussion of this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Job creation is distinct from, and usually counter to, economic efficiency. If recycling requires 36 jobs vs. only 6 for landfilling, this implies that recycling is significantly more expensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors. I didnt realize this page was protected - so I didnt finish my new paragraph before submitting it. For the edit I made -- quoting the fact that there are 7 resin identification codes in the US - please add the following reference. http://www.plasticsindustry.org/AboutPlastics/content.cfm?ItemNumber=823 There seems to be some confusion about this on the recycling code page - and I am pretty sure ABS does not have its own ID in the U.S. Thanks --Filicias (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)