The case for recycling
 

So my office just "went green" which includes taking away the plastic cups for our coffee vending machine and paper towels from the toilet. Now most of my info on recycling comes from the Penn and Teller show but those guys aren't always 100% with the proofs. Obviously I'm skeptical of any government produced report who's reccommendation is more government power so I'm looking for some independant info on the pro's and cons of recycling certain products using electic hand dryers vs paper towels that sort of thing.

My concern is that little stuff like this doesn't actually help the environment much if at all but it makes people feel good for no reason and stops them thinking about actual solutions to environmental issues. Much like welfare hurts the poor and it stops people worrying about the poor and actually finding solutions to poverty.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

Re: The case for recycling
 

I think it has to start _somewhere_. Recycling may not always be the most effective thing yet, but I think the principle is sound enough and we will definitively need it in the future.

Obviously resource management and recycling has much greater scope than environmental issues alone.

Re: The case for recycling
 

I also am limited to the Penn & Teller when it comes to recycling info. However, for those ACist, I would think they would support it as a technological achievement in efficiency for resources. So to recycle would be like being an early adopter, possibly?

Re: The case for recycling
 

Start Here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A960958260

Excerpt: "Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes makes sense -- for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative. Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources."

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also am limited to the Penn & Teller when it comes to recycling info. However, for those ACist, I would think they would support it as a technological achievement in efficiency for resources. So to recycle would be like being an early adopter, possibly?

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that there's acually a "problem" with resources.

The fact that you have to pay someone to come get all these "valuable" plastic and paper resources should tell you that this is actually quite *less* efficient than traditional methods of obtaining those resources.

About the only recyclable anyone will actually pay you for is aluminum.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also am limited to the Penn & Teller when it comes to recycling info. However, for those ACist, I would think they would support it as a technological achievement in efficiency for resources. So to recycle would be like being an early adopter, possibly?

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that there's acually a "problem" with resources.

The fact that you have to pay someone to come get all these "valuable" plastic and paper resources should tell you that this is actually quite *less* efficient than traditional methods of obtaining those resources.

About the only recyclable anyone will actually pay you for is aluminum.

[/ QUOTE ]

copper, certain steels, car batteries, etc are all recyclable, and you can get paid for them. if you are interested look for a scrap metal place near you, and ask what rates are for what, my little brother makes a ton of money just collecting junk in the bed of his old truck and bringing it to the scrap yard a couple times a month. Everything from old aluminum bbq's to car batteries (2$/pc I think)

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I believe that is a concept a bit above your understanding of the principles of human behavior and economics.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this quote. Yes, there is lots of land in the U.S that is currently unused, but there is still a negative effect that comes from dumping garbage there. I don't think the fact that its not imperative to recycle is enough reason to keep us from doing it.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read politics forum much?

Re: The case for recycling
 

The Economist and the economist, Mike Munger , both have really good pieces on the follies of most recycling in the United States. Some recycling, like the recycling of aluminum cans is cost-effective (notice that homeless people and the like get PAID to recycle, albeit for very small amounts). If most recycling were really effective, some company would be knocking our your door to pay you to take your grass clippings. Most analyses by environmentalists fail to take into account costs of transportation and the economies of scale in transporting non-recyclable goods.

That is not to say I disdain advocacy though. This is a very tricky line; just as I nominally support efforts to reduce energy usage, if I were an environmentalist, I would encourage and lobby (NOT to Congress or any law body) companies to look for innovative ways to package their goods, like Walmart is attempting to do right now, because it actually leads to savings to their bottom lines.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also am limited to the Penn & Teller when it comes to recycling info. However, for those ACist, I would think they would support it as a technological achievement in efficiency for resources. So to recycle would be like being an early adopter, possibly?

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumes that there's acually a "problem" with resources.

The fact that you have to pay someone to come get all these "valuable" plastic and paper resources should tell you that this is actually quite *less* efficient than traditional methods of obtaining those resources.

About the only recyclable anyone will actually pay you for is aluminum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perpetual growth is infinite growth, and resources are finite. So wouldn't a "problem" with resources depend on the timeline?

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this quote. Yes, there is lots of land in the U.S that is currently unused, but there is still a negative effect that comes from dumping garbage there. I don't think the fact that its not imperative to recycle is enough reason to keep us from doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Click the link, read the magazine article, it addresses your question head on.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...mp;pagewanted=1

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would encourage and lobby (NOT to Congress or any law body)

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you'd be missing some opportunity. I may not want government to exist, but while it does, it might as well be doing what I want.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
copper, certain steels, car batteries, etc are all recyclable, and you can get paid for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But most residences and white-collar offices don't really throw a lot of copper, steel or car batteries in the trash. Most businesses that do have a lot of scrap of this type are already selling it.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
copper, certain steels, car batteries, etc are all recyclable, and you can get paid for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But most residences and white-collar offices don't really throw a lot of copper, steel or car batteries in the trash. Most businesses that do have a lot of scrap of this type are already selling it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll show you - next time I have a dead car battery for recycling I'm going to put it in the blue bin under my desk.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perpetual growth is infinite growth, and resources are finite. So wouldn't a "problem" with resources depend on the timeline?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. So what do you think the timeline is? The market is signalling, through prices, that recycling is a less efficient way of obtaining these resources. The timeline *does* get factored in - but so does the *present value* of the resources that would be used *now* to recycle.

If you want to pay someone extra to process your trash, and be an "early adopter" that's fine with me. I'm not a big fan, however, of the fact that I am charged extra for my city-provided sanitation services so they can recycle my trash whether I want them to or not.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would encourage and lobby (NOT to Congress or any law body)

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you'd be missing some opportunity. I may not want government to exist, but while it does, it might as well be doing what I want.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, government rarely evaluates the feasibility of its goals whatsoever. It barely can evaluate the feasibility of the simplest, most mundane tasks like budget reduction, let alone the complex technological issues behind something like energy efficiency. We aren't going to all magically drive greener cars - it's going to take some unknowable innovation, sponsored by people who want make alot of money, in an indeterminate period of time. As an environmentalist with ideas and a connection to a community of creative people, you might improve the world. As a fascist with fiat power, all you do is lengthen the time to get there.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perpetual growth is infinite growth, and resources are finite. So wouldn't a "problem" with resources depend on the timeline?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. So what do you think the timeline is? The market is signalling, through prices, that recycling is a less efficient way of obtaining these resources. The timeline *does* get factored in - but so does the *present value* of the resources that would be used *now* to recycle.

If you want to pay someone extra to process your trash, and be an "early adopter" that's fine with me. I'm not a big fan, however, of the fact that I am charged extra for my city-provided sanitation services so they can recycle my trash whether I want them to or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree with that

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I believe that is a concept a bit above your understanding of the principles of human behavior and economics.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like this guy, who was so hurt by welfare that, when it was cut off, he transcended humanity and went to a better place.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Much like welfare hurts the poor

[/ QUOTE ] !?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I believe that is a concept a bit above your understanding of the principles of human behavior and economics.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like this guy, who was so hurt by welfare that, when it was cut off, he transcended humanity and went to a better place.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes? There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics. It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. He wasn't alone and seems to be part of a pattern in Japan.

[ QUOTE ]
There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, boo hoo. The use of anecdotal evidence is discouraged when it comes out of nowhere, flies to the contrary of established facts, or happens to be unprovable. "Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument. "Hey, this society is stingy with their welfare plans and, as a result, they've got people starving to death" is not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you think that's a good way to form policy? Rank anecdotes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the article. He wasn't alone and seems to be part of a pattern in Japan.

[ QUOTE ]
There are alot of intelligent and well-informed liberals that don't have to resort to those tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, boo hoo. The use of anecdotal evidence is discouraged when it comes out of nowhere, flies to the contrary of established facts, or happens to be unprovable. "Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument. "Hey, this society is stingy with their welfare plans and, as a result, they've got people starving to death" is not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a shame that man died. It's also a shame that he wasn't working to support himself, too!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

That article was a great example of the things you anti-AC guys have been talking about, though, wasn't it? I mean, apparently in Japan there isn't a single charitable person to be found. Once you remove welfare, not one single person in Japan cared enough about starving people to help out. They just watched him die. Since this demonstrates, once and for all, that there would be absolutely no charity in an AC world, and that all children would either be abused or left for dead and the invalid and disabled would either be sterilized or eaten, I think we can finally put to rest this whole AC fantasy.

Or maybe this guy just fell through the cracks? There aren't homeless who die in the US, are there? Of course not, since they have places they can go and resources. I'm sure that this guy in Japan scoured the entire country for a place that would shelter and feed him and he was unable to since they cut off welfare.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the same logic that should prove, beyond doubt, that statism is evil, since all we need to do is inline a picture of Hitler. I wonder why its less persuasive in that context than in this one?

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, I was robbed by a fleet footed black man, so..." is a dumb argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose we are arguing about the IQ and desirability of black people within the United States. Why is this argument dumb? It doesn't seem to fail any of your tests. It is both cogent, established and provable (verified). Why can't I conclude that from the actions of a single black man, black men are undesirable?

[ QUOTE ]

A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.


[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously don't care to convince me, since "glorious Libertopia" is both a strawman and has been endlessly eviscerated by pvn and Borodog in the past.

But anyway. If a man's actions lead to a certain outcome, to what extent is society responsible for the result? Starvation instinctively seems abhorrent to many, because it is a basic human need, a primal one, one that civilization should have overcome. I agree with you that there should be an exactly zero percentage of death by starvation. What outcomes should have a non-zero percentage chance of death, that leads to deterrence? Are you suggesting all outcomes should? Do you think that the main problem with welfare in the United States is people not getting enough to eat?

Another question for you: is there an optimal non-zero level of pollution?

Re: The case for recycling
 

And can I PLEASE point out that it was adanthar who started this AC hijack!?!??! ACers get flamed so hard for this type of thing when it is very often just in response to someone dangling bait. This is a clear example.

Re: The case for recycling
 

When people here say that landfilling is "less efficient" than recycling, what they really mean is cheaper. It doesn't account for all of the negative environmental externalities that people here like to pretend don't exist.

Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
When people here say that landfilling is "less efficient" than recycling, what they really mean is cheaper. It doesn't account for all of the negative environmental externalities that people here like to pretend don't exist.

Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely when the oil starts to run out we can access the mountains of plastic gold in landfills across the world.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]


Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time, which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, the problem is that the number of barrels of oil being pumped out of the ground will not change; you just reduce the demand, which depresses the price until people begin using more oil for other things and it balances out.

There are some good arguments for recycling but this isn't one I think.

Recycling paper is just stupid from what I can tell.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think you're shaming me, but you're not. This statement I whole-heartedly agree with. It's called Darwinism.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think you're shaming me, but you're not. This statement I whole-heartedly agree with. It's called Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be social-dawinism, different than natural selection.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, screw that guy. A minimal percentage of death by starvation is perfectly acceptable in glorious Libertopia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard.

This is basically the same "logic" that looks at something like the Enron debacle, sees problems caused by *partial* deregulation, and concludes that deregulation is a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the same logic that should prove, beyond doubt, that statism is evil, since all we need to do is inline a picture of Hitler. I wonder why its less persuasive in that context than in this one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, sort of. I post pictures of hitler (in front of the Eiffel Tower) inline when people claim that an ACish geographical area would vulnerable to some wacko conquering.

When I want to use the "here's a picture that shows statism is evil" argument, it's almost always in response to someone saying "AC is bad, just look at somalia." In those cases, I usualy use Kim Jong-Il, or a picture of the North Korean military marching in the capital.

"Statism is bad, just look at North Korea."

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Recycling paper is just stupid from what I can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may actually be *bad* for the environment, from a greenhouse gas perspective.

Trees are carbon sinks. But young trees suck up a LOT more carbon than old trees. When trees are harvested, new trees are planted. The carbon in those old trees is then "locked up" in wood products (trees in a forrest can still re-release their carbon if they (e.g.) burn in a forrest fire, while things like houses and furniture don't really burn that frequently). And paper in a landfill is pretty dang locked up - it's got a very low probability of burning and re-releasing it's carbon back into the atmosphere.

When you recycle paper, you're reducing the rate at which trees are cut down and replanted. You're slowing down the carbon sinking process.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
When people here say that landfilling is "less efficient" than recycling, what they really mean is cheaper. It doesn't account for all of the negative environmental externalities that people here like to pretend don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborate. Exactly what "negative environmental landfilling externalities" are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
Take plastic recycling. People complaining about "peak oil" aren't exactly wrong: oil is likely to become more scarce over time,

[/ QUOTE ]

The price of oil, which is a direct measure of it's real scarcity, has been (more or less) falling in real terms for 160 years. There is nothing on the horizon that remotely looks like it will change this trend.

[ QUOTE ]
which will impact our current auto driven economy. It would be nice to think ahead to that day and try to cut our petroleum consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

The price system does this automatically. If entrepreneurs believe that prices will increase dramatically in the future, they will buy up supplies now, bidding up the current price and forcing conservation by consumers, smoothing out prices in time, extending the availability of supply into the future, and incentivizing substitution and the development of alternatives. All of this information is *already* built into the current price.

There is a current artificial inflation in the price of oil that will probably collapse within the next few years just like prior collapses, driven by peak-oil type hysteria and the huge market uncertainty created by the US's policy of perpetual Middle Eastern war. Government might be able to prevent this collapse in the price of oil, by things like "excess profit" taxes, artificially limiting supplies, etc. This would be gigantically wasteful, of course. Literally wasteful of tremendous amounts of real, physical resources. How this is supposed to be in the name of "conservation" is never quite made clear.

Re: The case for recycling
 

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

There in lies the answer, Sir.

No ownership = No one cares.

Ownership immediately creates a responsibility for proper maintenance and care, as no one wants a ruined investment.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A brief stint in the coastguard made me see firsthand what uncontrolled corporate behavior can do to the ocean in terms of destroying the foundation for one of the most important food sources this planet has, and one which we in all likelyhood must at one time depend heavily on (destroying seabottom ecology, use of bottom trawls, violation of season rules - and trust me these things are _truly_ dramatic and not some greenpeace save the whales nonsense), you must forgive me if I am more than vary of the market's ability to make proper adjustments. I'm sure it can help, but if that experience is an indicator we definitively need something more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who currently owns the ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force, and forgive me if I don't for one second believe that if that force wasn't there then things would work out anyway - this clearly isn't so when you look at uncontrolled waters.

This isn't an issue which can be trivialized - when there is no control these things happen - and yes, it can destroy one of the worlds's greatest resources.

Re: The case for recycling
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I wasn't clear in my post what I witnessed was violations that had to be stopped by force

[/ QUOTE ]

Violations of what?