Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Recycling Myth

mises.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: The Recycling Myth

#11

Post by nazgulnarsil »

nostrademons wrote: post #9
dublinclontarf wrote: post #2

What is being described here is how the Swedish government is externalising costs. Of coarse it looks good, and profitable on paper because most of the costs (and environmental effects) have been put onto the population. As the article mentions this is bad for the environment.

So, there was basically a glaring hole in the logic of the article, and I was wondering if there's anyone else here that can answer it for me.... Garbage is already a big externality. A positive one. The government takes care of hauling away your trash and disposing of it, somewhere, and you get to benefit from the economies of scale of centralizing this. The truly individualist, libertarian thing to do with your gar…

yes, the government would stop them. just like they go after kids on bikes trying to deliver mail. the monopoly is all they have to legitimize them.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#12

Post by proemeth »

theschwa wrote: post #4

The title really should be "The Myth of Forced Recycling" I guarantee you there are efficient and even profitable ways to recycle, but those not only don't require the use of force but will be made less efficient by its presence. That being said... Why is this on HN? I would prefer to keep more political topics off of here. Mises.org has some really good technology and Intellectual Property right related articles, bu…

This is more economic than politic. The government creates an incentive to sort garbage, which should lead to new businesses creation and better overall management of garbage/recycling.

The article suggests that people have to sort their garbage themselves, but they could pay someone to do it for them. This is similar to carbon taxes philosophy, create an incentive by making consumers bear the cost of inefficiencies, then some company will find a way to improve things, this reducing those costs.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#13

Post by henrikschroder »

m_eiman wrote: post #6

I don't know which part of Sweden the author lives in, but it's apparently not my part. In our trash room here we have bins for glass (white/coloured), paper, batteries and garbage. Card board boxes and other "big" stuff (basically anything that isn't normal consumables) is left at the recycling station (and assuming you do that on your way to work and don't go once per item, the extra energy needed is next to nothin…

I also live in Sweden, and in all the places I've lived, recycling has always been optional. If you don't want to recycle anything, you can just throw everything in the general trash, and noone will know or complain or charge you extra for it.

That said, I read an article many years ago by the head of our environmental protection agency, and he rightfully pointed out the externalizing of the cost of sorting on the population, but most importantly he pointed out that recycling of some materials is completely negative, i.e. it is cheaper and uses less energy to create fresh material than recycle the old.

The materials that did make sense to recycle though was glass, newspaper and aluminium cans. By not recycling milk cartons or plastic containers, you're doing more for the environment than if you recycle them.

The lesson learned is of course that you should always have science to back up your viewpoint, only by making a lifecycle analysis can you find out if a certain activity really is good for the environment, or if it's only good for your conscience.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#14

Post by felipe »

jacquesm wrote: post #7
xcombinator wrote: post #5

Typical american mindset: Everything is money. Use something, throwaway when don't needed, bury it, contaminate the soil, the seas, it's cheaper. Of course they are external cost to recycle, what he doesn't say is that THEY ARE EXTERNAL COST TO NOT RECYCLING. Nature knows that since long long ago, she recycles everything. The Pacific is filled with polymers just because people love to use plastics and don't recycle t…

Fishes dye ? You mean they change colour because they ingest polymers ? Or you mean they die ? My money is on the 'expiry' :) Anyway, you make excellent points, and the article is spouting typical industry grade bs. Resources are finite. A guy called 'Eckart Wintzen' promoted a concept he called 'taxing resources removed', which essentially is the opposite of 'value added tax'. His idea was that you should pay taxes…

Eckart Wintzen is my hero since I worked at his company, Origin, back in the 90s. He actually implemented that concept at Origin: We had to track and estimate the footprint of each project, and then the amount was reinvested in environmental projects.

Recently I have created a methodology inspired by that experience at Origin: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5507536/Sustainable-Software-Engin...

More info about Eckart Wintzen (who passed away recently): http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.11/es_wintzen_pr.html

Re: The Recycling Myth

#15

Post by wisty »

There's an easy solution. Put a deposit (tax) on bottles, that gets refunded when the bottle gets recycled.

If it's worth a 10 cent "sin tax" for me to chuck a Cola bottle away, the that's my choice. If somebody can sort my garbage (because they really need the money, or they have a high-tech robot that can sort trash really well, or whatever else), then they win as well.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#16

Post by jacquesm »

felipe wrote: post #14
jacquesm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fishes dye ? You mean they change colour because they ingest polymers ? Or you mean they die ? My money is on the 'expiry' :) Anyway, you make excellent points, and the article is spouting typical industry grade bs. Resources are finite. A guy called 'Eckart Wintzen' promoted a concept he called 'taxing resources removed', which essentially is the opposite of 'value added tax'. His idea was that you should pay taxes…

Eckart Wintzen is my hero since I worked at his company, Origin, back in the 90s. He actually implemented that concept at Origin: We had to track and estimate the footprint of each project, and then the amount was reinvested in environmental projects. Recently I have created a methodology inspired by that experience at Origin: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5507536/Sustainable-Software-Engin... More info about Eckart Wint…

And here: http://extent.nl/

'Eck's tent' :)

Re: The Recycling Myth

#17

Post by parboman »

wisty wrote: post #15

There's an easy solution. Put a deposit (tax) on bottles, that gets refunded when the bottle gets recycled. If it's worth a 10 cent "sin tax" for me to chuck a Cola bottle away, the that's my choice. If somebody can sort my garbage (because they really need the money, or they have a high-tech robot that can sort trash really well, or whatever else), then they win as well.

this is already done in Sweden.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#18

Post by barrkel »

> The structure works the way all centrally planned structures work: it increases and centralizes power while the attempted (expected) results do not materialize

I find it hard to take people seriously when they mention their ridiculous biases right up front. Central planning has never achieved an expected result? There was never a successful corporation? Nor a military operation? Really?

If you're going to be an ideological shill, at least try to hide it a bit better.

Re: The Recycling Myth

#19

Post by yardie »

unwind wrote: post #10
m_eiman wrote: post #6

I don't know which part of Sweden the author lives in, but it's apparently not my part. In our trash room here we have bins for glass (white/coloured), paper, batteries and garbage. Card board boxes and other "big" stuff (basically anything that isn't normal consumables) is left at the recycling station (and assuming you do that on your way to work and don't go once per item, the extra energy needed is next to nothin…

I live in a (rent-controlled) apartment in Stockholm. Our apartment building does not have a trash room; all storage needs to happen in the apartment. The recycling center is easily reachable on foot though, so there's no driving involved. For people living in the suburbs, the nearest station can easily be a kilometer or so away, which might be further than you're willing to walk, carrying a week or two's worth of re…

I used to live in a suburb. It was still developing so there was no local trash pickup. Not enough residents to pay for a truck to come and the trash company wouldn't provide the service at an agreeable price. Almost everyone through the bag of trash on the trunk (boot) of the car and drove to the dumpster while heading to work.

There was recycling bins but no one used them. Carrying one bag (unrestrained) was tricky enough, adding 3 smaller ones was too much work.

The thing with recycling is it has to be convenient to be effective. Even if there is a small price to pay. And people will do it without even thinking about it. Previously it was only glass and cardboard. Then they added aluminum, plastic, and small appliances. It went from 3 bins to 5. Now there are two, one for recyclables and one for everything else. The center sorts it for us (us being my parents since I moved away).

Re: The Recycling Myth

#20

Post by gaius »

barrkel wrote: post #18

> The structure works the way all centrally planned structures work: it increases and centralizes power while the attempted (expected) results do not materialize I find it hard to take people seriously when they mention their ridiculous biases right up front. Central planning has never achieved an expected result? There was never a successful corporation? Nor a military operation? Really? If you're going to be an ide…

Errm, actually (modern) militaries are highly decentralized. The corporal on the ground has a great deal of latitude and is expected to show initiative and creativity.

Contrast that with the highly centralized militaries of WW1 - the attempted result wasn't "get bogged down for 4 years while our troops are mass-slaughtered".

Post reply on HN