5 ms·

Think Globally, Act Irrationally: Recycling http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungerrecycling.html http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungerrecycl

• dahart 10y ago
  Munger makes the same mistake that Tierney does by focusing on something that's easy to attack, and sounds good on the face, but is in fact nearly irrelevant to the discussion. Tierney's argument that it takes energy to recycle is completely moot; the point isn't energy at all, the point is to recover materials & to slow production and consumption of wasteful single use containers. Combine that with our ability to use abundant and unending solar power, and you can see that Tierney's assumption that energy is part of the economy of recycling is a straw man and doesn't stand up to reason or reality. Munger's entire argument is that recycling is expensive, there's a cost to recycling. Like Tierney, this is a misdirection. Cost is not the point of recycling. He's right, there's a cost, but he doesn't compare it to anything. What's the alternative to recycling, and how much does that cost? There's a cost to landfills too -- how much does it cost to throw away? Munger ignores the long term costs of not recycling. Running out of resources is going to be a lot more expensive than recycling. The byproducts of plastic production are toxic, and historically there have been some plastic factories that made workers fatally sick. Munger didn't try to factor in the health care costs of people who work in or live near factories. He hasn't attempted to consider the heavy cost of pollution. He doesn't calculate the costs of transporting garbage. He hasn't attempted to calculate the environmental costs of not recycling at all -- and this is the entire point of recycling, the entire basis upon which the economics of recycling is evaluated. The recycling movement is not even remotely concerned about the transaction price of recycling a bottle, it's concerned with slowing our frivolous and wasteful use of this planet's finite and valuable resources on one time deliveries of 12 ounces of Coke. There's a lot of information on the many large costs of not recycling that Munger is deliberately ignoring, here's just one: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/dangers-of-plastic http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/dangers-of-p... Thinking about cost alone is a persuasion strategy, it's a way to manipulate the argument and the audience, it's a way to put something seemingly tactile on the perceived downsides of recycling. It's a way to convince you that you're being cheated out of money -- but he's the one trying to trick you -- don't let it work on you so easily! If nothing else, if I haven't convinced you at all, at least Google all the articles you can on the critiques of Teirney and Munger, read them all and try to rebut them yourself.
  • redthrow 10y ago
    > the point is to recover materials & to slow production and consumption of wasteful single use containers You are simply assuming throwing single use containers in landfill is more wasteful than recycling. > our ability to use abundant and unending solar power Yeah, that's why electricity is free, right? Also by this logic you can equally argue that recycling is pointless because in the future we can use robots (which run on free energy 24/7) to go through landfills to recover useful resources. > Munger's entire argument is that recycling is expensive, there's a cost to recycling Way to simplify the opponent's position. Munger says recycling things like aluminium would probably make sense. He's accusing recycling proponents of not calculating the long term cost of recycling (which you demonstrated), which in many cases would be higher than simply throwing garbage away in landfill. Munger argues that recycling can save resources, of course, but it can also require more resources than production from scratch. Some curbside recycling, for example, makes sense, while other forms (such as green glass) may be akin to a form of religious expression rather than a wise policy that is environmentally productive. Why I'm Not an Environmentalist http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/WhyNotEnviro.pdf http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhil...
    • dahart 10y ago
      Whew, that essay is its very own brand of crazy. It seems both freightened and mean spirited through and through. I feel really bad for you if recycling and environmentalism scares you as much as it appears to scare Steven Landsburg. I know why are you are an environmentalist: because you breathe air and drink water, just like I do. I'd guess you are just as interested in those things being non-toxic as I am. I'd guess you're just as interested in your grandchildren and humanity finding abundant clean air and water in the future as I am. I could be wrong about these things since I don't know you, but I'd still be willing to bet money that you enjoy being outdoors sometimes. > Yeah, that's why electricity is free, right? Also by this logic What a nice straw man you have there. You're trying to change the subject, just like Tierney and Munger did. I was talking about energy, not about cost. I claim energy is abundant, not free. Tierney argued against recycling by claiming that recycling uses more energy than new production. Tierney is pretending to miss the point of recycling completely. He's fully aware that debating the relative energy consumption of recycling vs new products has nothing to do with why people recycle, and he's fully aware that even if recycling uses lots of energy, even if recycling wastes tons of energy, there are still compelling reasons to recycle. Petroleum is limited, while neither energy nor money are limited. Arguing over the percentages of waste of energy & cost is arguing over margins of the two things that won't run out. The earth and it's oil, on the other hand, are finite, and we're starting to see their limits. You can choose to ignore that, if you want, and continue to argue over the margins of the unlimited resources. Just curious, but why are you using the weak political opines and outright rants of non-expert journalists who have agendas to argue economic and scientific issues, when there are actual economists and scientists who are writing about these things? I'm sure there are real scientists who have good arguments against recycling, if what you really want is to oppose recycling.