I am in charge of my university's research programs funded by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation. Their big interest is in increasing recycling of glass, reducing carbon emissions from processing, and creating new uses for glass waste.
Evidence that this applies across the world? Come on, you live in an alternative universe without any experience of real science.
They receive many tax breaks, free or dirt cheap US land use. It's a combination of direct and indirect subsidy that keeps these boys rich as all get out, but it is estimated in the billions on a quite mature and profitable industry. I think they are compensated well. Easy to search this on the net if you are looking for more. They have alot of money and use it to control Congress and their lawmaking.
It's a good thing they don't subsidize that Iowa corn-to-ethanol production.
In California and some other US states, some plastic drink bottles are assessed a refundable (upon recycling) fee. Many CA municipalities provide curbside recycling of plastic and glass bottles, and metal cans. Glass and metal are not subject to the refundable fees in CA.
Cleaning bottles has its own set of challenges and environmental impact. Ditto re-melting glass cullet; this is a particular problem that my own research focuses on and it is not nearly as easy as it sounds.
Not sure why you are saying this to me??? Of course I am aware of this. I think we should invest in what makes sense for the future, whatever the best ideas are. I don't think oil needs subsidies, at all, and they own too much political sway. Don't know enough about ethanol and corn production, but am thinking it might be a loser long term.
I noted your location.
Farmers used to be rich and poor and in between. Talk about a subsidized trade! They're all rich now from what I can tell and who I know that are farmers. It has changed alot in the years since the 80's and early 90's. I think they are on a bit of a welfare myself.I noted your location.
I used to go to Dewitt weekly and would drive past huge plants in Clinton that emitted a very characteristic aroma.
It's done at a large scale here as well, but the process is fraught with difficulties and needs a LOT of work. Selfishly, this is a good thing because there's a lot of grant money flowing to look at these issues and the chemistry and engineering are incredibly challenging and interesting.
LoL... I was about 19 years old and working washing dishes in a Chinese restaurant and the old old Chinese lady had tuberculosis and she gave it to me because we worked so close together. I went to the doctor and he was chain smoking Rothmans and I was near choking on the 2nd hand smoke. He cared little to nothing about the smoke and sent me on my way with some free Otrivin samples. I was shaking my head in that he had the hospital all smoked up outside his office and in his office it was like fog. That would not occur today. sigh*
Not too much different from the energy companies about climate change and renewable energy.
Consensus is not science.... in fact it is almost the opposite of science. Compared to "real" science which you can use to build a plane there is no "proof" of anything when it comes to climate theories. Any model you came up with that showed rising temperatures would "fit the data" of raising temperatures (which has been going on for centuries) but that does not prove what the cause is and certainly does not prove what the solution is. We are gambling trillions of dollars based on very limited information. Calling skeptics "anti-science" is not really fair. I would call pop science / theory beauty contest science as "anti-science".
Something that comes from the sun for free and gets distributed to the end user at by an existing infrastructure to homes vs something that is limited resource and requires tons of processing and transportation doesn't seem like much of a gamble.
