Recycling vs Garbage

[tylerdurden]

So what? If you can pick between two forms of something you need, one in condition A and one in condition B, and the cost of condition A material + cost to prepare it for use is greater than cost of condition B material + cost to prepare it for use, which one are you going to buy?

[Borodog]

Anyone interested in this issue needs to watch the Penn & Teller Bullsh-t! episode on recycling. They utterly debunk all of the rationales given for recycling, explain how the modern recycling cult came to power, and show exactly why people fall for it so willingly. With the exception of aluminum cans, there is absolutely no argument for the recycling of household goods (industrial recycling of steel and other refined metals, for example from wrecked automobiles, does pay, and they do not address it) that is not fallacious.

Household recycling is wasteful and bad for the environment (except for aluminum cans; always have to except the cans).

[purnell]

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=179

"Eight Great Myths of Recycling" from PERC.org

It's a quick read, and quite enlightening.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
So what? If you can pick between two forms of something you need, one in condition A and one in condition B, and the cost of condition A material + cost to prepare it for use is greater than cost of condition B material + cost to prepare it for use, which one are you going to buy?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

But i'm no expert on recycling, maybe in many cases it's not possible to fulfill my requirements of being beneficiary for the environment. I do have the feeling there are cases where it is, though.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be implying that some people get together and set pricing such that some things become feasable and others infeasable by decree. That seems "somewhat out of whack with reality."

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that sometimes the economic values we put on stuff is a bit weird. The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's just that your understanding of recycling is out of whack with the real world. Not that I'm trying to insult you; almost everyone's understanding of recycling is out of whack with the real world. There has been an extremely effective propaganda campaign going on for almost two decades now to promote the recycling cult.

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming recycling is possible, is it more costly to the environment to throw waste in the garbage, or to recycle it? Does the answer depend on what kind of recyclable waste it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it depends. It depends not only on the type of waste, but also on the methods for disposal.

Example:
Aluminum is the perfect thing to recylce. Takes no more engery to recycle, and no loss in product quality, than to mine it.

However, plastic degrades as you recycle it. And, it takes more energy to recycle than to make fresh from petroleum. Particularly while petroleum is relatively inexpensive. Someday this will change.

But, there are different ways to dispose of things, too. The current landfill method does not allow things to biodegrade, thus, it uses space/land that cannot be reused. And it also tends to pollute such space/land/air/water.

Composting is more efficient. The trouble is regulating what goes into the compost pile since people tend to throw away hazardous materials (batteries, diapers, oil) that polute and destroy composts.

Edit:
Consider this hypothetical. Would you rather have 1000 pounds of plastic crunched up and burried in a hole or turned into a park bench? Is the park bench recycling or creative waste disposal?

[Il_Mostro]

This may be true. Where can one find that Penn&Teller thingy you where talking about?

[Il_Mostro]

No I don't. This has nothing to do with pricing within the current system of economics, you have to dig deeper than that, something I don't have time or enough knowledge to do at present time.

[tylerdurden]

It has everything to do with pricing. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that recycling, in the case it can be done in a matter that is beneficiary for the environment and involves raw material for which there is an limited resource base, is not economically feasible suggests to me that our economy is somewhat out of whack with the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The *fact* that recycling is not economically feasable IS the real world.