4 ms·

> But the greenhouse effect is not the main reason to recycle What is the main reason to recycle? I always assumed it was either for greenhouse reasons and/or

> But the greenhouse effect is not the main reason to recycle What is the main reason to recycle? I always assumed it was either for greenhouse reasons and/or landfill space reasons, but I might not really understand the goals. If a goal is less greenhouse emissions, then I think the point of the water bottle / plane trip example is that at a macro level, there are much better ways to reduce greenhouse emissions. Refraining from a single plane trip reduces more emissions than a lifetime of bottle recycling. It seems akin to stating your goal is to save money, which leads you to spend a few hours recovering a handful of coins from your couch and then buying a new car. Yes, the coins you recovered did get you more money, but relative to your other action -- the new car -- it is insignificant.

encoderer 11y ago
Conservation.
- ars 11y ago
  Conserving what exactly? Take glass for example - the planet's crust is made of it. What are you conserving exactly when you reuse it?
xorcist 11y ago
> What is the main reason to recycle? It saves resources. But it's also economically efficient, which is the main reason societies do it. Landfills are completely dysfunctional in every way. Worst case, burn it and make use of the energy. The ashes are then much easier to take care of than what's seeping out of landfills. > Refraining from a single plane trip reduces more emissions than a lifetime of bottle recycling. Even if that was the goal, nobody ever said "Shall I take a plane trip today? No, I think I will recycle plastic bottles instead!". It's completely orthogonal. I like the parable about how saving a handful of coins is insignificant to buying a new car. In practice you pick up the dropped the coins from your couch, independent if you plan to buy that car or not. It works both ways. To frame the problem the way as in the article, no one pours spare coins out the window because you just decided not to buy a new car next week.
- crazy1van 11y ago
  > It saves resources. But it's also economically efficient, which is the main reason societies do it. I don't really think I agree that economic reasons are the only reasons to recycle. Some things like green house gas emissions are economic externalities that we should take into account even though they don't directly affect the economic bottom line. From that logic if recycling was ever proven to not be economically efficient, then we should stop doing it. I think the article was basically saying that in many ways it isn't economically efficient. > Landfills are completely dysfunctional in every way. Not sure if I agree with that. In the USA, we have a lot of extra space. After a certain number of years, the landfill can be covered and the land itself reused. Seems just like another form of recycling.

encoderer 11y ago

Conservation.

ars 11y ago
Conserving what exactly? Take glass for example - the planet's crust is made of it. What are you conserving exactly when you reuse it?

xorcist 11y ago

> What is the main reason to recycle? It saves resources. But it's also economically efficient, which is the main reason societies do it. Landfills are completely dysfunctional in every way. Worst case, burn it and make use of the energy. The ashes are then much easier to take care of than what's seeping out of landfills. > Refraining from a single plane trip reduces more emissions than a lifetime of bottle recycling. Even if that was the goal, nobody ever said "Shall I take a plane trip today? No, I think I will recycle plastic bottles instead!". It's completely orthogonal. I like the parable about how saving a handful of coins is insignificant to buying a new car. In practice you pick up the dropped the coins from your couch, independent if you plan to buy that car or not. It works both ways. To frame the problem the way as in the article, no one pours spare coins out the window because you just decided not to buy a new car next week.

crazy1van 11y ago
> It saves resources. But it's also economically efficient, which is the main reason societies do it. I don't really think I agree that economic reasons are the only reasons to recycle. Some things like green house gas emissions are economic externalities that we should take into account even though they don't directly affect the economic bottom line. From that logic if recycling was ever proven to not be economically efficient, then we should stop doing it. I think the article was basically saying that in many ways it isn't economically efficient. > Landfills are completely dysfunctional in every way. Not sure if I agree with that. In the USA, we have a lot of extra space. After a certain number of years, the landfill can be covered and the land itself reused. Seems just like another form of recycling.