Thread: The Environment
View Single Post
Unread 31 Jan 2007, 19:01   #33
Tactitus
Klaatu barada nikto
 
Tactitus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
Tactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldTactitus spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Exclamation Re: The Environment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
On recycling, I find a good number of the arguments on this (and related fields) miss the point. It might be that some resources aren't worth recylcing at present but this might depend on market prices and will presumably change in time when such processes become more efficient.
Presumably recycling policies could be amended when that happens though (and in a free market that happens automatically ). Most metals are worth recycling today because it's currently cheaper to re-use them then it is to dig up more ore and refine it. In my city, recycling is mandated by law. Obviously, this is difficult if not impossible to enforce; the city estimates that about 45% of all recyclable material is actually being recycled (which, if true, is well above the national average of about 35%). The recycling company (essentially a government monopoly) comes around once a week to collect paper, cardboard, metal, glass and some plastics. They actually make a profit on the metal (particularly aluminum cans), break even on the glass and lose money on the rest. Because there's so much more paper than metal (by both weight and volume) they end up losing money overall and require subsidies and manditory fees to cover costs. The more people recycle the more money they lose and the more taxes have to be collected to pay for it; so there's actually a slight economic disincentive to recycle.

So many people were "stealing" the metal that was put on the curb for recycling that the city had to make stealing trash a crime. This leads me to believe that there's enough of a market for metal recycling to actually pay for itself. Enough to throw a few coins at people who recycle plus pick it up for free and maybe even take the glass too. But by mandating paper recycling the city has effectively poisoned the well and ensured that recycling remains undercapitalized and marginalized. I doubt they will get above 50% compliance without massive indroctrination and/or draconian enforcement.
Quote:
Also, even if we could prove that paper was always going to be impractical to recycle then the response would hardly be to do nothing.
But sometimes doing something doesn't help or actually makes things worse. Good intentions aren't sufficient.
Quote:
I am a public transport zealot and despise many of the more wasteful aspects of modern consumerism, but I am also a deeply lazy man and as such have some empathy for all the fat bastards out there who want to drive everywhere or can't be bothered to reduce their use of air travel, etc. If someone is using their car, they're not doing it out of spite, they're doing it because it's cost effective, easier, etc. Why not adjust the cost-benefit analysis so it's not rather than railing against them like it's some moral point?
I thought making a moral point was what environmentalism was all about? But yes, it's always better to let people act in their own interests. However, if by "adjust the cost-benefit analysis" you mean "raise taxes on things you find morally objectionable" then I don't see the difference.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
Tactitus is offline   Reply With Quote