"Recycled Aluminium" claims possibly greenwashing?

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Imbadatnames said:

I don’t need to because I didn’t make a positive claim? That’s how proof works. The stats they’re using for a start don’t have sources it’s literally just amounts to a poster with no indication of where the numbers are actually from. It also flits between areas every other sentence trying to make the numbers sound more impressive. One minute they’re using examples from Europe then it’s the US and now it’s worldwide, all for different points like every region is the same. Secondly it’s fairly obvious to anyone that just because x amount is still in use it doesn’t mean x amount is the amount that’s recycled. 

When you decide to attack my argument rather than what you think I mean,  and then when you decide to provide some sort of evidence to show how I am "wrong" (which would be hard because they are 99% an opinion based on my observations of how marketing works and the reality of the aluminium market), then you can take the high ground and start talking about all my deficits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IRMacGuyver]

On 11/8/2022 at 4:30 AM, mr moose said:

 

https://recycling.world-aluminium.org/home/

 

 

Don't know about the chemicals,  likely they hardly use many given they don't recycle contaminated aluminium.  But generally speaking 95% less energy to recycle than produce new.

 

If that's true things have changed insanely drastically since I worked at the science museum in the 90s.  A lot of times people will throw out sections of the production in order to make the numbers look better.  We had an exhibit that was really thorough on recycling.  So I don't just trust any little article I see when I know in the past how bad it was.  145% change in total efficiency would be a huge leap so I'm assuming "less energy" is one specific thing and not the entire process.  I'd have to go back to the recycler we worked with and talk to them directly to believe this. 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

If that's true things have changed insanely drastically since I worked at the science museum in the 90s.  A lot of times people will throw out sections of the production in order to make the numbers look better.  We had an exhibit that was really thorough on recycling.  So I don't just trust any little article I see when I know in the past how bad it was.  145% change in total efficiency would be a huge leap so I'm assuming "less energy" is one specific thing and not the entire process.  I'd have to go back to the recycler we worked with and talk to them directly to believe this. 

Both my brothers work high up in two different mining companies making aluminium.  These figures can be obtained from several different organizations not just the mining industry.  I think I linked two in the previous post, but when I was checking to make sure I was spewing shit I found 4 different sources that said the same thing and nothing that said otherwise.

 

As always, if this is not the case I am happy to be shown otherwise, I just don't have the time to go much further than what I did.