Over at Catallaxy (www.catallaxyfiles.com) a brief thread on recycling was prompted by the posting of an item from a show called Penn and Teller which questions whether most types of recycling make economic or environmental sense. Their approach is profane but their points are not trivial.
Unfortunately the folks at Catallaxy have short attention spans and prefer to discuss theory more than practice. Hence the debate died quickly. I have therefore picked up the issue here in the hope of prompting more considered discussion.
While recycling is widely regarded as good for the environment and to make econonomic sense by reducing the use of “virgin” materials, is that true? It certainly makes people feel as if they are doing the right thing, but are they really?
The item can be found at this link: http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com/2006/11/recycling-is-grigri-just-plain.html
In Australia there is no doubt that some materials are recycled. Aluminium is used to make more aluminium. Glass bottles are used to make more glass bottles. Steel is used to make more steel. I’m not so sure about paper and plastic. Recycled paper and plastic products exist but they are different from the original stuff.
The first question is, are these markets that would be viable without government support? We certainly know that kerbside recycling costs local councils a fortune. The second one is, does recycling help the environment? Penn and Teller say no to both, apart from aluminium.
What do you think?
November 28, 2006 at 2:59 am |
From Gerard Jackson:
http://www.brookesnews.com/062711resources.html
He quotes that:
” …natural resources are literally infinite and “resource depletion” is just a green fiction. In 1970s the Commodities Research Unit in London estimated that the quantity of key metals in the top mile of the earth’s crust were about a million times greater then known reserves. It has also been estimated that there is “100 million years supply of sulfur, borax and potassium chloride; more than one million years’ supply of molybdenum, uranium, tin, cobalt…” (Professor Wilfred Beckerman Two Cheers for the Affluent Society: A Spirited Defense of Economic Growth, Saint Martin’s Press New York, 1975).”
Recycling assumes a constant level of demand for resources. There is no need to recycle to “conserve minerals” etc. Recycling should be done if it efficient and uses less land or energy inputs. The only way to be efficient is to have a market based system with freely decided prices.
Free market recycling can reduce pollution and lower the price of commodities. Imposed recycling and price floors reduces the accumulation of useful resources and misprices resources, wasting inputs such as energy and forces accumulation low value inputs. Energy efficient production is ultimately the system with the lowest environmental impact, as long as there are strong and widespread private property rights.
In short: recycling yes, subsidies and compulsion, no.
December 2, 2006 at 2:10 pm |
This is where the LDP can make some early-on baby-steps.
Because if we got into power just in local government it would be super-cool to be able to bring the tyranny or personal rubbish sorting to an end for just those people in just that one council.
And that brings up the possibility of capitalising on a bunch of free publicity.
Set the people free in a single local council. And cut costs. And shamelessly push for world-wide publicity of this moral, practical and financial victory.
The cause of freedom might in this way be given a confidence boost.
And there is the possibility, domestically of gaining respect, supporters and sponsorship for the party.
December 3, 2006 at 10:37 pm |
The idea of attracting publicity based on a controversial issue is certainly on the agenda. Smoking, traffic laws, immigration, taxes etc are possibilities. Recycling is also an option, although it is not really feasible to get control of a council. That requires state party registration plus a serious campaign. Labor and Liberal generally dominate local elections just as they do state and federal.
I like the idea though.