Recycling

[cjsmith]

My office building has recyclables containers for a variety of things: glass, white paper, mixed paper, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and maybe more I'm forgetting. But we don't recycle all of it. Glass, in particular, we just throw away. The glass recyclables container gets emptied straight into the trash. The janitor explained that this was because unlike plastics or aluminum, glass for recycle brought very little money per pound, so it wasn't worth the effort.

The ironic thing is that we are five minutes' WALK from the recycling center at the dump. Here we are throwing away big bags of glass every day because we can't be bothered to bring it less than a block.

I am equally lazy, I suspect. I collect a lot of empty glass bottles in my cube because I drink Calistoga fizzy-water. I have set up a box in my office where I put these bottles so the janitor won't collect them from me. Do I bring them half a block to the dump? No, I bring them eight miles home for curbside pickup. That way I make no extra left turns.

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

So the purpose of recycling isn't to recycle but to get cash back?

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Apparently. :-/

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, recycling in the US is more about getting people into habits, than about actual resource recovery -- for many materials, the energy costs of recycling exceeds the costs of new materials. One might hope that technological advances will bring down such costs over time, and when it does, there will be an available stream of materials to feed it; one might also hope that increased awareness gets people to choose packaging and materials that are less wasteful, or more reusable.

Related case: photovoltaic cells apparently consume more resources to produce than they ever extract from light. Sigh. _Mark_

[yoak.livejournal.com]

No doubt recycling methods will become better technologically, but simultaneously
the means of producing new materials will become more efficient. I've never
understood why people are concerned about recycling or why getting people into the
habit of recycling should be considered "good."

It is easy to convince people to, and they are already in the habit of, doing what
is most cost effective and cheapest. The problem resolves itself. If it is ever
more cost-effective to recycle, we will, naturally. As long as it isn't, we won't
and shouldn't.

Hmmm... arguments about externalities are a little more complex, but I'll save that
for if you bring it up. ;-)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

"externalities" = ?

One potential argument for getting in the habit of recycling before it's the cheapest thing to do is that the point at which it becomes the cheapest thing to do may be a sudden cliff, and the transition may thus be eased. (shrug).

[yoak.livejournal.com]

By "externalities," I mean impact upon individuals not part of the exchange. It is very simple economics that as long as producing new goods is more efficient than producing recycled ones, that's what people will do, and as soon as it is more cost effective to recycle, including people's perceived inconvienance, companies will find profit in incenting people to recycle and then producing recycled goods. Markets can be relied upon to make sure this happens as long as everyone is a relatively free agent.

But when making arguments of this sort, one has to consider whether the parties involved in the market constitute the whole picture, or if there is some other impacted party that should legitimately be considered. For instance, if producing new goods caused billowing, cancinogenic smoke to billow out over the countryside, while recycling was squeeky clean (not true in either case, but for an example...) the market between producers of the good and consumers doesn't take the residual effect upon people outside of the transaction into consideration. There would have to be some universal compensation that balanced such things.

I think the vast majority of externality arguments are silly... and I certainly don't think any apply here. I just felt what I said was pretty conclusive barring this type of argument.

As to the sudden cliff idea, is there any evidense that it might look like that? History doesn't really show us such sudden traumas. I guess the closest would be the depletion of whale oil which happened pretty quickly, but if anything that is testimony that markets will very quickly find alternatives and function well. Though I'm quite sure that this couldn't apply to you, I think most environmental arguments, particularly those about sudden but undefined doom, are loosely veiled hatred for humanity and human accomplishment. The worst part about such animals is that they convince many honest and benevolent people that cooperating with their ends is somehow good and in human interest.