4 ms·
Exactly. There is a major, qualitative difference between Reduce, which is strategic and lowers pollution, and Reuse and Recycle, which are tactical and mostly
by spodek 7y ago
Exactly.
There is a major, qualitative difference between Reduce, which is strategic and lowers pollution, and Reuse and Recycle, which are tactical and mostly just shuffle pollution around.
If your strategy is in place and people support it, use all the tactics you can. But if your strategy is not in place, tactics often backfire. As this article points out, people think they're being virtuous by recycling so they buy plastic profligately -- the opposite of the strategy. I'm starting to think we should change the phrase "Reduce, reuse, recycle" to "Reduce".
I treat this more in detail in my Leadership and the Environment podcast episode 183: Reusing and recycling are tactical. Reducing is strategic http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume-6 http://joshuaspodek.com/guests/rants-raves-monologues-volume....
On another note:
We can each reduce our consumption and therefore demand significantly, while improving our lives. When I cut out nearly all my packaged food, my food costs went down and quality of life and food went up. The last two times I emptied my garbage were September 2018 and July 2017.
Some might say it's hard or only one person, as I would have before experiencing the change, but it was rewarding and improves my life, as it will yours. That it reduced my garbage by about 90% is a side effect. http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage http://joshuaspodek.com/year-emptied-garbage.
I'm not saying only individuals should change or suggesting not doing other things. I support institutional change and pricing extraction and waste with taxes since the public pays for the cleanup. But everyone right here right now can cut their consumption and waste, which will lead to faster implementation of institutional change, legislation, etc.