>If you are running any kind of business, say house insulation, you take money to fully insulate a house, don't insulate 90% of the house, and then attempt to mislead the customer into thinking the job is done, you have commited fraud or embezzlement.

Okay, but even in your example of insulating a house, there are areas that can't be insulated. For instance, it'll be insanely expensive to insulate the studs themselves, because they're load-bearing. A reasonable consumer would understand that you can't replace the entire surface of a house with insulation, just like a reasonable consumer would understand that not everything they put in recycling is going to be recycled.

>If these companies are paid to recycle but recycling is not happening, then someone has commited fraud. Also the contract does not say 'you can dump unresycleable stuff into the ocean' - they are suppose to dispose of it properly.

Without specifics it's hard to argue either way. I'm not aware of recycling contracts that stipulate x% must be recycled. Can you provide some references here? Here in the US counties/cities only does recycling as a money-making measure. If they market rate for recycled outputs drops too much, some jurisdictions end up landfilling the recycling.

>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brothers-sentenced-for-14...

Looking at the story it seems like it's less "taking e-waste and dumping it in a river somewhere" and more "submitting fraudulent invoices".

>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/18/uk-recyc...

>The exporters make millions by charging retailers and manufacturers a fluctuating tonnage rate for plastic waste recovery notes – currently £60 a tonne. Retailers buy these plastic export recovery notes – Perns – to satisfy the government they are contributing something to recycling plastic packaging waste.

This seems like an issue with a government program intended to curb plastic waste, rather than consumers being misled. Prior to your comment I wasn't even aware of the existence of such a program. That's not to say the fraudulent behavior is acceptable, but it's slightly different than what we were originally discussing which is consumers being somehow deceived that what they put in recycling actually ended up in a river somewhere.

> Okay, but even in your example of insulating a house, there are areas that can't be insulated.

Then thats what you have to tell that to the client, and the client is free to look for a different proffeshional if he is not happy.

However if you lie, and client thinks thay you have insulated things that are impossible to insulate, thats fraud. And that's happening.

> I'm not aware of recycling contracts that stipulate x% must be recycled

Think about, whats the point of a recycling contract that says 'you could recycle only 0.1% if you feel like it'?

> we were originally discussing ... consumers being somehow deceived

that happens too. I have taken my old electronic goods to a commercial recycler. You have to pay to dispose of large appliances.

Now I realise there is about 60% chance that they took out and sold the valuable copper, and the rest is sitting in a river somewhere, leaching heavy metals and poisonong children

>However if you lie, and client thinks thay you have insulated things that are impossible to insulate, thats fraud. And that's happening.

I agree fraud is happening in the UK, because the government specifically set up a market for recycling credits. However, I doubt consumers are thinking of that when they're chucking their appliances in the garbage bin. I myself were not aware of such a program, and unless such a program is widespread that example has limited applicability.

>Think about, whats the point of a recycling contract that says 'you could recycle only 0.1% if you feel like it'?

That's... basically how I treat most public recycling bins. They're some hopelessly contaminated with non-recyclables that I assume they're collected as trash. It's entirely unreasonable to expect that just because someone put something in the recycle bin, that the city would bend over backwards to ensure it's recycled. Again, I'm also not saying that there aren't people who actually believe that ("wishcycling" is a thing), but what I'm saying is that anyone who has given the topic a bit of thought would realize that:

1. not everything can be recycled

2. even something that could theoretically be recycled, can be contaminated so that it can't be recycled

3. recyclers are subject to economic constraints

4. therefore, it's entirely unreasonable to expect that everything that you throw in recycling ends up recycled

Applied to the original topic of appliances/electronics, this means that I expect they recycle the bits that are economically feasible to recycle, and toss the rest.

>that happens too. I have taken my old electronic goods to a commercial recycler. You have to pay to dispose of large appliances.

Right, but is the service you're paying for "getting rid of the electronics in a way that complies with local laws" or "getting rid of the electronics in a way that complies with local laws, and ensure that it gets properly recycled"?

> I expect they recycle the bits that are economically feasible to recycle, and toss the rest.

So last year I had a lot of old electronics, I spesifically looked for a recycler, not a landfill.

I spesifically asked if they can recycle the old motherboard before handing it over. If they said no, I would go to someone else. I was prepared to pay a reasonable fee.

Maybe there is someone in Uk that does actually recycle 95% of the motherboard and charges £2 for their service, but they can't get any business because of all the fraudsters that pretend to recycle for free and actually don't

There is no way to distinguish between the 0.001% recycler and 100% recycler.

> Okay, but even in your example of insulating a house, there are areas that can't be insulated. For instance, it'll be insanely expensive to insulate the studs themselves, because they're load-bearing

ignoring for a second that modern insulation is just blown onto whatever surface you want, and obviously doesn't affect load bearing properties,

the analogy is about doing 90% of your job and acting like you did 100% of it

even if you personally think that extra 10% is hard

even if you personally think that extra 10% shouldn't be your responsibility

you still have to do it for it to not be fraudulent