mises.org — this is common government logic: it is "energy saving" simply because government does not count the time and energy used by nine million people cleaning and sorting their trash. Government authorities and researchers have reached the conclusion that the cost of (a) the water and electricity used for cleaning household trash, (b) transportation
Feb 4, 2008 View in Crawl 4
digghasnoethicsFeb 5, 2008
Recycling is an obvious example of a poor management mindset, rather than an approach focused on the benefits you want. All the action, all the attention, goes on cleaning, separating, collecting, sifting, reengineering waste - rather than the other end of the process.The real aim, the benefit desired, is to use less resources and fill less holes in the ground. In order, the best approaches to this are:- don't use as much packaging in the first place- reuse the container again- use less energy/environmental degrading materials- recycleSo why do we never see the supermarkets and major manufacturers hauled over the coals for their packaging? Its a fairly good bet that if they were forced/taxed to take packaging seriously we could reduce packaging by 50% through a collection of methods. That's action at a very few number of points, no big new government collection apparatus, and much more in the way of useful results.Forget worrying about flimsy carrier bags, concentrate on what's filling them out.
encumbentFeb 6, 2008
There are too many problems with recycling at the moment - most of these are going to take a long time to properly sort out. Recycled products are second rate and used in low demand applications. More important for us is the environment, this model is not environmentally friendly - it's about the government doing something perceived as green to turn a buck..
rossmcdFeb 6, 2008
@OC73:"What "chores" have you ever not done that resulted in fines and possible jail time?"But my point was that we are obliged by law to do certain things that society deems work towards the greater good, even if it is slightly inconvenient for the individual. Some common examples include not dumping motor oil down the sewer, keeping the pathway to your front door shoveled in the winter, scooping up your dog's poop, and so on. Yeah, we could all save a little time and effort if we weren't obligated to do these things - but they contribute to a better living environment for all."Recycling is a farce and the only reason people do it is because their government threatens them with legal action."Do you speak for everybody? I would suspect that lots of people out there recycle for different reasons. Some believe that is is energy efficient, other may do it for a vague sense of feel-goodness, and still others might do it to avoid punishment. Ultimately though, if we're talking about policy decisions on a large scale then what matters isn't why individuals might do it, but what the real-world consequences are. Most rigorous studies of life-cycle analysis have found that recycling actually does save energy relative to production of new materials. <a class="user" href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id">http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id</a> ...
carrtoonistFeb 6, 2008
Indeed, aluminum and other metals are easy to recycle but that isn't why we get money back for them. The money we get back is the deposit we paid when we purchased the can. Thats why its only beverage containers that we get money for, funny how P and T missed that. I wonder what else they missed?
apocryphaFeb 6, 2008
Buried for being ignorant, simplistic and irresponsible.
recycleraccoonFeb 6, 2008
Recycling aluminum, for example, saves not only the natural resource bauxite but 95% of the energy used to create aluminum in the first place. Also, using energy (in many areas) uses natural resources that belch carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Recycling is kinda a two for the price of one situation.
zeitgueistFeb 8, 2008
Jesus christ anyone who knows anything about aluminum knows that is true.
childeroland420Feb 15, 2008
Sponeil, are you really stupid enough to believe that paper in any industrialized country comes from the Amazon?
ufoninjaJun 24, 2008
when ever a douchebag libertian cant rationalise thier their arguement coherently they always resort to 'soviet-style' something. yes this is 'soviet-style' recycling. californa energy crisis was not a failure of free market orgiastic ideology is was 'soviet-style' deregulation. f**king economics students, bet you get all the girls... right? ha ha thats one 'free market trade' you'll have to be paying for with you inflated fiat currency soon... enjoy
uglybunnyAug 17, 2008
Yes but your argument is totally stupid and irrelevant because there is no willfully ignorant attitude that believes cost is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the thing you are arguing for is done. Not only is it done once, but its done every year.
kellypawlakMar 2, 2010
canada has huge desserts that are currently being mined for solid oil. ding. put it there.