5 ms·

> the point is to recover materials & to slow production and consumption of wasteful single use containers You are simply assuming throwing single use containe

> 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.
- redthrow 10y ago
  > that essay is its very own brand of crazy. It seems both freightened and mean spirited through and through. You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. As a professional economist Landsburg is very open to different preferences people have. He's only asking for the same kind of open-mindedness in return by environmentalists (e.g. not calling anyone who doesn't agree with their dogma "crazy" and respecting those who don't participate in their quasi-religious rituals). > 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. [...] This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. > [...] even if recycling wastes tons of energy, there are still compelling reasons to recycle. So far you cited none that's compelling. The issue of pollution from landfill sites is a concern but you don't talk about (a) how big the impact is (probably different in different landfill facilities) and (b) why people's effort to recycle can be an effective solution (my hunch is it's not very effective). Also we are far from running out of fossil fuels anytime soon so that's not a compelling reason either. I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. > why are you using the weak political opines and outright rants of non-expert journalists who have agendas to argue economic and scientific issues [...] I cited Steven Landsburg, Mike Munger, and Russ Roberts who are all professional economists. Your 2 links (one from an environmental advocacy group) are virtually identical in their content written by the same 2 authors and only one of them is an "economic analyst" who doesn't seem to have published any academic paper in the field of economics (he's still entitled to his view but I don't think he made a good case for recycling in the article).
  - dahart 10y ago
    > You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. What would you like to argue about? There's nothing for me to rebut. Steven's experience is his own, he's free to interpret the world however he wants. If he's scared of environmentalism and wants to rant about it, that's his choice. He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism. It's an ad hominem that doesn't deserve any response. > This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones. What makes you a better environmentalist than the kind Landsburg talks about? What is your improved plan for keeping the air and water clean and available forever, without needing to recycle? Will your plan be cost and energy effective? I didn't see Landsburg drawing a line between naive environmentalists and other kinds, did I miss something? He seemed to draw a blanket conclusion that all environmentalism is nothing more than faith. I know you don't agree with that. > I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. I haven't stated a preference for recycling, nor given any religious or aesthetic reasons for said preference, so I'm not convinced you understand. Calling it religious is pretty disrespectful, which you already know. But you don't know me, nor my preferences on recycling, so all I can do is return the favor and say I respect your choices too.

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.

redthrow 10y ago
> that essay is its very own brand of crazy. It seems both freightened and mean spirited through and through. You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. As a professional economist Landsburg is very open to different preferences people have. He's only asking for the same kind of open-mindedness in return by environmentalists (e.g. not calling anyone who doesn't agree with their dogma "crazy" and respecting those who don't participate in their quasi-religious rituals). > 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. [...] This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. > [...] even if recycling wastes tons of energy, there are still compelling reasons to recycle. So far you cited none that's compelling. The issue of pollution from landfill sites is a concern but you don't talk about (a) how big the impact is (probably different in different landfill facilities) and (b) why people's effort to recycle can be an effective solution (my hunch is it's not very effective). Also we are far from running out of fossil fuels anytime soon so that's not a compelling reason either. I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. > why are you using the weak political opines and outright rants of non-expert journalists who have agendas to argue economic and scientific issues [...] I cited Steven Landsburg, Mike Munger, and Russ Roberts who are all professional economists. Your 2 links (one from an environmental advocacy group) are virtually identical in their content written by the same 2 authors and only one of them is an "economic analyst" who doesn't seem to have published any academic paper in the field of economics (he's still entitled to his view but I don't think he made a good case for recycling in the article).
- dahart 10y ago
  > You don't seem to have any rebuttal to the actual content of the essay. What would you like to argue about? There's nothing for me to rebut. Steven's experience is his own, he's free to interpret the world however he wants. If he's scared of environmentalism and wants to rant about it, that's his choice. He forfeits any reasonable discussion automatically by comparing a general desire to have clean air and water with religious fundamentalism. It's an ad hominem that doesn't deserve any response. > This doesn't make me a kind of naive environmentalists as described in Landsburg's essay. Sounds like we're getting somewhere now. Let's talk about the good environmentalists like you, not the naive ones. What makes you a better environmentalist than the kind Landsburg talks about? What is your improved plan for keeping the air and water clean and available forever, without needing to recycle? Will your plan be cost and energy effective? I didn't see Landsburg drawing a line between naive environmentalists and other kinds, did I miss something? He seemed to draw a blanket conclusion that all environmentalism is nothing more than faith. I know you don't agree with that. > I understand that you personally prefer recycling though (for religious/aesthetic reasons). I respect your choice. I haven't stated a preference for recycling, nor given any religious or aesthetic reasons for said preference, so I'm not convinced you understand. Calling it religious is pretty disrespectful, which you already know. But you don't know me, nor my preferences on recycling, so all I can do is return the favor and say I respect your choices too.