sometimes i wonder why i break down bunches and bunches of cardboard boxes when i could just as easily trudge back and forth between the house and the jeep to load them in their original shape.
i do remember the sign at the cardboard recycling container saying put them in flat and i guess by the same logic, i do know they occupy a lot less space and are easier to handle with the air taken out of them.
i figure if i'd put every box i'd taken apart into the back of the jeep whole, they would probably take up all the space behind the back seat. as it is now, they almost all fit in the space of the box for the rachael ray saute pan we got from brad and his wife.
most people, i think, just crush them, but i don't think this makes them any easier to handle. they're deformed and still difficult to stack or carry. i prefer the order conferred by breaking the attachment points and unfolding. taking them apart is something of a marvel.
when you think about designers and engineers, you normally think about machines and buildings. but looking at the glue points and other parts of adhesion, you can see some thought and work went into creating appropriately strong storage structures that require an elegance and economy of folds, interlocking slots and a minimum of costly adhesives.
there was this wonderful profusion of folds and tucking that, once fully disassembled, revealed a box held together by one piece of adhesive tape. from attached lid down to the cut-out in which the ipod was nestled, it was punched, cut and creased out of one piece of cardboard. it was an impressive job.
the glass bottles and plastic containers and cans were easy enough to just toss into a bag or box.
i don't feel so bad about the plastics or cans and especially the cardboard, since they all re-use the material without the amount of energy spent originally forming them; glass, though, i've heard requires as much heat to melt down as sand -- which we have plenty of on earth. not so with trees or petroleum.
i do wish the city had a better way of getting rid of styrofoam and other lesser plastics, like the clear packages for batteries. i know the postnet packing and shipping store in town takes foam peanuts and other forms of polystyrene-like materials.
plastic bags are another such iffy proposition. i toss in bread bags and zip-locks. i'm not so sure all the bags i take to the kroger store actually get recycled. kris said she saw an employee sorting out the non-kroger bags.
it's kind of a pity, you know, that the work some hireling in the developing world welded together with whatever modicum of skill the job entailed was now consigned to the scrap heap.
it may have been put together in a factory, but it seems like a lot of work to have a machine designed for. and i bet having a semi-skilled laborer would be cheaper for the manufacturer than investing in a one-use device.
mass-produced as it may have been, the thought that it started on someone's drawing board as a piece of functional art, a work of someone's imagination, and is now on its way to be melted down as a piece of unwanted clutter sort of bums me out.
but i suppose returning it to some kind of use beats having it take up space in an attic or basement where it would serve no purpose at all.
i guess that is a form of conservation, too, where uselessness is rededicated and converted back to usefulness. i suppose i'll call it this year's earth day lesson.