No, my name's Dan.
Madison420
joined 1 year ago
That is the definition....., they're used a single time and dumped into the environment. That's what single use plastics are, I've legit never heard of anyone aside from you refer to glass as single use.
They say glass new and recycled but accept that a large amount of glass bottles still end up in the ecosystem.
I didn't say it defined single use glass, that's just a you thing. It defines sickle use for the article in which it is used solely to describe items that are used once and dumped into the ecosystem. It is specifically never referred to in reference to glass in the article.
That's exactly what it says.
But as these bottles are largely single-use, many of them are discarded and dumped in the earth’s ecosystems, where they constitute a significant portion of all environmental waste.
They only counted recyclable bottles as single use if discarded anywhere but a recycling center assuming they may or may not be recycled so they assume it's trash until it's recycled or degraded.
They're only single use if they aren't recycled, the article states that as well.
I know, what I'm saying is no glass bottle is explicitly non recyclable there's just a lack of ability to recycle in the us for whatever dumb business monster reasoning.
As I understand it yes, there were a couple articles about it maybe a month ago.
Already sorta sold, some records aren't public because of some agreement with a private companies proprietary code.
It's mostly just the us that no longer have recycling for bottles. Most modern countries have automated collection machines.
You think it's just Biden that has hands in this? Israel would never have been so bold if the USA didn't move it's embassy to Jerusalem and that choice was not Bidens.
We have a top secret base there, just like Korea and Vietnam early troops usually come in and break shit you can't let go.
No it's because Russia is preoccupied and we're testing near peer weapons from 3+decades ago there with little to no risk to mainland usa. It's morally wrong sure but it does at least make sense.
I mean sorta but not really, we're selling most stuff at a loss. The benefit is really seeing how well our stuff works against the enemy or was designed to fight. Don't get me wrong people are getting rich but that's from buying more weapons to replace the ones we sold.
view more: next ›
Washington is a bad example, the people wanted to king him, his salary was huge, and if he wanted to do so something all he had to do was ask.