The case for recycling

[ConstantineX]

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.

[Roland32]

[ 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?

[BuddyQ]

[ 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

[Dan.]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[ConstantineX]

[ 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.

[Roland32]

[ 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

[adanthar]

[ 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.