Comments (84)

• Vince Daliessio

  After the 9/11 attacks, NYC mayor Bloomberg partly suspended the city's recycling program, citing a cost of $34+ million per year, which the city could not then afford due to the costs of the recovery. But have no fear - Mayor Bloomberg fully reinstituted the program this year!

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:24 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  "Our analysis of the Department of Sanitation’s 2002 cost data found that—before it was cut back in 2003 and 2004—the curbside and containerized recycling program cost taxpayers roughly $34 million more than if we had simply included the material in with regular household garbage." Source: NYC's Independent Budget Office, http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/recyclingtestiMarch04.pdf

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:26 AM

• Georgist

  This article completely ignores the intelligent person's case for recycling. (Yes, being intelligent doesn't make them right, but if you're going to make a strong case you have to beat the best arguments, not the worst ones.) People who have actually thought about this issue and advocate recycling are totally "down" with the calculation argument. They just claim that the current situation (perhaps due to government) blurs and hides the costs of simply discarding, meaning entrepreneurial calculations won't yield optimal results. But, I suppose it's easier to attack a strawman, just like the ethanol article did.

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:27 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Okay G-ist, here's an answer - privatize refuse collection completely, with no rules regarding recycling at all. If recycling is economic, it will happen, if it isn't it won't. All data I have seen on this issue indicates a net economic benefit to aluminum recycling, and net losses for every other stram of consumer-use material. And what "straw man" are you referring to in the ethanol debate? I didn't see anyone claim that economic ethanol would be undesirable in any way, just subsidized, mandated ethanol.

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:34 AM

• c

  It occurs to me that the author's analysis does not account for the economic impact of potential enviromental remediation that could be otherwise avoided through properly designed recycling programmes.

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:54 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  BZZT! Your answer is incorrect because; 1)All (private)currently-permitted landfills have to meet government standards for environmental integrity, and; 2)The consumer recyclables we are referring to are not a significant source of environmental contamination.

  Published: September 22, 2005 9:01 AM

• nobody

  The article makes several references to Chicago/neoclassical schools of thought, and their support for recycling. Is that true? All of the neoclassical analysis I've seen concludes that, with the important exception of aluminum, recycling's costs far exceed its benefits.

  Published: September 22, 2005 9:24 AM

• jayant bhandari

  Jim might have wanted to add that this is what happens in a quite a few communities: people sort out their garbage in separate bins self-satisfied that they are doing a great community service. The recycling company picks the garbage up, mixes everything together, and takes it away. Hypocracy? Yes.

  Published: September 22, 2005 9:35 AM

• Joe Pulcinella

  Thinking globally about government-mandated recycling, one would have to consider what new innovations would arise if that money and time were spent in free market ways. Let's use the Soviet Union as a case example. The USSR was much more polluted in every way than the US. It stayed that way while the US became less polluted even before federal programs such as fuel mileage standards and such came about. The free market going about its business (including adherance to property rights) by itself leads to a net increase in living standards with decreased pollution being just one benefit.

  Published: September 22, 2005 9:37 AM

• Matthew Armstrong

  And you wonder why libertarianism remains so popular...

  While I don't disagree with the article, I think as (apply your anti-statist label here) we need to be careful where we pick our fights. Instead of attacking recycling, it would have made more sense to ask why it has to be provided publicly and therefore imposed on everyone whether they want it or not. I'm assuming neoclassical analysis shows it doesn't pay since it is working in an objectivist framework.

  Let's assume that people have a psychic preference for recycling (in other words, people's subjective valuation for recycling makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside regardless of the monetary cost). Using these numbers from NYC, the cost works out to say, $5 a person. Since statism is so rampant the true economic calculation would be impossible, let's be generous and say the true cost is 10 times that. Now suppose a private company offers to provide a recycling service for $55 a year to cover these costs and make a 10% return. I have a feeling most people would be willing to pay that amount (see above, warm and fuzzy). In this nice free-market world people would pay trash collection fees conditional on what they actually produce in garbage, so individuals would have an incentive to recycle as much as possible to minimize non-recyclable garbage fees.

  This seems to make pro-market and pro-environment people happy. This is all off the top of my head, please correct me if I'm wrong.

  Published: September 22, 2005 10:03 AM

• Bruce Hoby

  Um...in my community, I bring my recycling to the recycling center once ever two weeks. It costs me a dime in fuel to transport it there. If I set it curbside I would be charged an extra $2.00 per 30 gallon bag (I save about $12.00 per month I imagine. I drink a lot of beer and I don't crush cans, too messy.)

  Anywho, I think I do O.K. I don't think I could write a long article complaining about it.

  Published: September 22, 2005 10:30 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Matthew has a good point - the collectivist way refuse is handled in this country is a major impediment to economic recycling. My community went from a weekly central collection to a weekly curbside collection a few years ago. A measure to require payment by the bag (which would have benefitted me, at the time a single person who traveled for work therefore producing little garbage) was defeated, leaving the least user of the resource (me) paying the same as the largest users (families with kids). This kind of ingrained socialism is what makes it so hard to tease out the strands of the argument. Get rid of socialized garbage collection, and the market will take care of everything.

  Published: September 22, 2005 10:58 AM

• Don Beezley

  The head of the "eco-cycle" program in Boulder, CO, responding to the low rate of recycling in Colorado, stated something to the effect that, "What we need is enlightened leaders who will force people to live their lives the right way." Seems like that nicely sums up the totalitarian instincts of the environmental "left."

  (BTW, he may have said "Companies" versus "People," I don't recall for sure, but the message and ugly intent is the same either way).

  Published: September 22, 2005 11:21 AM

• Georgist

  Vince Daliessio: Sure, privatize refuse collection, take off the deposits on cans, and require all landfills to carry third party insurance against damage to the water supply and future users of the land above it. Then the cost of not recycling will be totally reflected in the prices we pay. For the record, I think that recycling would not be worth it under such a system either. But that's not what the article argued! It said, basically, hey, it saves money under current distorted markets not to recycle, ergo recycling must be wasteful ... which is hardly going to convince anyone on the fence or pro-recyling.

  Published: September 22, 2005 11:41 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  G-man: I admit your point. However, that isn't the only lesson one can infer from the situation. One could also infer that under current conditions, recycling is uneconomic, and people should vote for politicians who will make the changes in the refuse collection system necessary to make it so. One could make the case that if refuse collectors were allowed to charge consumers by volume, recycling would increase dramatically. But as I related earlier, politicians do not like to make people pay for the services they use.

  Either way, consumer recycling is, for now, and for the forseeable future, uneconomic. Misesians believe that the market mechanism will provide the correct answer over time, whether liberalizing the refuse business from its connection to government will make recycling economical or not.

  Austrian economics is "value-free" in that regard, in that Austrians have no attachment to the disposition of those bottles, cans, and papers save an economic one. If there is no economic benefit, then those items are worth no more than the other refuse and as a result should not occupy one bit more resource expenditure. If there should arise an economic benefit, then by all means that will be welcome. And voluntary recycling is always an acceptable alternative.But if there is no economic benefit, why should anyone waste any time or resources on cans, bottles, or papers if they do not want to?

  Published: September 22, 2005 12:24 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  Uh, maybe my reading comprehension is deficient, but it seems like Fedako's commentary failed to address head-on a couple of central arguments made by recyclists.

  One is that the resources used in making human goods are in short supply: we'll run out of things like petroleum (whence plastics are derived) and forests (lumber and paper) sooner if we don't we don't slow down the demand to extract them anew by reusing the already-extracted products.

  This is easy to refute, and it seems as though it'd insult the intelligence of readers here to go into much:

  (1) With petroleum, while the earth's rather vast supply is presumably finite, the market takes that into consideration and prices it accordingly. That the price never skyrockets (BTW, the recent mushrooming of its price in the US reflects political interruptions of the market, not any decline of its availability in nature) is because competitive marketers know that its supply will continue steadily far into the forseeable future.

  (2) With forests, nearly all mass-marketed wood products in the industrialized world derive from commercially planted forests. Enough on that. (I suppose that some conservationists worry that the creatures who live in these forests lose their homes until the trees regrow again, a very long time. That's a sentimental concern. Perhaps someone more up on philosophy can talk to that.)

  A second argument is that the process itself of extracting these resources is destructive to the earth. A lot of energy is used to drill for the petroleum, transport it great distances, and manufacture it into plastics. Ditto with felling and trimming trees, transporting them to mills, etc. Various forms of energy are used, polluting byproducts are incurred, etc. A corollary argument is that the market fails to reflect the overall cost of this destructive impact, therefore it should be mitigated by enforcing recycling.

  Any thoughts on this?
  

  Published: September 22, 2005 12:49 PM

• John Powers

  Re: Ethanol and The Calculation Issue

  Jim Fedako, you state,

  "No one can calculate the cost of all the factors of production in the direction from the highest order labor and land down to the lowest order."

  Yes, but you can come pretty close. A bunch of postings on Ethanol Calculation came out with
  $2.02 as a tolerable calculation for production and distribution of a gallon of ethanol. (Go read the comments for details.)

  I think calculating cost is a bit complex for making apple pie, ethanol, ham sandwiches, etc but you can get pretty close with some minimal effort.

  I have concluded that people like to make sweeping statements much more than they like to do arithmetic.

  JBP

  Published: September 22, 2005 1:01 PM

• Matthew Armstrong

  Vince - We actually have a half decent system even though I live in one of the most socialist cities in America (Ithaca, NY). Trash collection requires purchasing garbage tags, so households have a monetary incentive to reduce waste. Locals would be in disbelief if it were explained to them how pro-market this is! Then again, they would probably not believe me if I told them I was an an-cap and pro-environment (shouldn't I be out scorching the earth?). Recycling is "free" however, I assume it is just funded out of local tax collection.

  Regarding reusing, are can and bottle deposits mandatory or imposed by law? I wish more reusable containers had deposits, as this provides an incentive for people to reuse. When I walk around town, I see lots of empty water bottles (which no deposit) littering the streets, yet rarely will I see anything you can collect a deposit on. On recycling nights, people even go through bins collecting stuff they can redeem for money.

  Published: September 22, 2005 1:06 PM

• Matthew Armstrong

  Just to clarify, I think can and bottle deposits should be mandatory. I would be much more likely to support companies that voluntarily used deposits to promote reuse!

  Published: September 22, 2005 1:08 PM

• Matthew Armstrong

  Crap, I meant voluntary. You get the point...

  Published: September 22, 2005 1:09 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  The deposit bottle scheme in NY is a scam too - when I lived in Long Island, I dutifully saved all my bottles and cans and, when I had a significant amount, trundled them back to my favorite (but not only) grocery store, to try to redeem them at the return machines every store has to have in its lobby. But guess what - only a handful of the bottles and cans in my shopping cart were accepted for refund! The rest, presumably because me (or my roommates) had purchased them at different stores, were rejected by the machines! I left the cart full of unwanted bottles in the lobby in disgust, continued to separate the cans (to give to the cleaning lady at work for redemption), and resumed throwing the bottles in the trash.

  Published: September 22, 2005 1:38 PM

• David Lalama

  Jim: Recycling is not necessarily a waste or an investment. Just like handguns or nuclear energy, it all depends on how you use it. Everyone here knows that. The point actually is: forcing people to recycle because some bureaucrat "thinks" so, will very likely turn it into a wasteful and counterproductive activity in no time. There are companies that actually make money in the recycling business, while creating jobs and contributing to the economy, yadda, yadda, yadda. I hate to say this, but your piece of writing has a distinctive "socialist-against-reason" style to it.

  Published: September 22, 2005 2:20 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  David,

  I think Jim's "socialist-against-reason" style is out of exasperation with the promoters of consumer recycling who seem to be completely unaware of the economic aspects of what they desire in their hearts, which seems to be a world in which their sensibilities are not offended. This leads many recycling enthusiasts to move beyond personally expending time, money, and effort to recycle materials, and even beyond petitioning the government to remove political obstacles, and into the realm of state indoctrination of children and forced recycling by adults. There is nothing, repeat, NOTHING about these materials that makes them worth handling differently than trash except their economic value, and when that value is zero or negative, recycling will not occur, aside from the aforementioned enthusiasts. Yet many of these people believe in coercing others to pay in order that their aesthetic sensibilities not be violated.

  Published: September 22, 2005 2:57 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Yes John, you seem to have browbeaten some of the participants in te ethanol discussion into accepting a wholesale price of $2.02 for ethanol. Gasoline was wholesaling at $2.37 in Hawaii this week, implying that ethanol might be economic (forgetting about all subsidies), until we realize we need 1.4 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy equivalent of a gallon of gas, so an equivalent price would be $2.83, invalidating that thesis.

  Published: September 22, 2005 3:10 PM

• bill stewart

  As a former consultant in the industrial by-products business, I can assure all that companies, like children, sell their 'waste' - sometimes (brass screw and envelope manufacturing being two example) the revenues from these activities exceed the companies' entire net incomes! (In other words, competition in these 'commodity' industries actually forces final good prices below raw material and conversion costs.) Here, the market works as it should.

  For most of us, however, the complete opportunity cost of separating, collecting and transporting materials is a net loser. This is especially true in do-good office waste recycling programs far from recycling mills where, absent employee pressure, virtually noone would take the trouble to sort the styrofoam cups from the discarded inter-office memos (printed out, of course, despite having been electronically transmitted. These programs, subsidised by otherwise intelligent managers, serve to depress prices in the recyclable raw materials markets.

  Even the so-called psychic income was largely induced by government tax revenues in the schools and/or poorly educated newscasters.

  Published: September 22, 2005 3:23 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Oh, Vince, now you've gone and done it!:~)

  Published: September 22, 2005 3:31 PM

• Paul Filhiol

  If the stuff we're asked to recycle were worth any money, they wouldn't have to ask us to recycle it. In fact, many muncipalities "fine" you for not recycling, so that goes way beyond "asking".

  That being said, there are some things that should be included in municipal recycling programs. One of them is cooking grease. This could be sold to people who make bio-diesel. Of course, the average home does not generate much, but an entire municipality would, especially if the restaurants participated. Then, the makers of the bio-diesel can blend it with subsidized ethanol...but I don't want to get into that argument.

  Anyway, despite what Mr. Stewart posted, most restaurants currently "pay" to have their grease hauled off by a renderer.

  Published: September 22, 2005 3:57 PM

• Eric Westhagen

  Dear Jim,

  Of course I enjoyed your morning article from the Mises site. In graduate school I "discovered" Human Action "resting"
  quietly on the library shelves.

  But I must be "out of touch" when it comes to your equation of the "Chicago School" equaling the "Keynesian School." At
  least that is what you imply. But maybe it is a slam on empiricism in economics. If so--well then equate deductive reasoning
  of the "neo" Austrians with the Keynesians. Or maybe one should "equate" the marginalists and older Austrians with both?

  Anyway, my view of the Chicago School IS the school of Milton Friedman and George Stigler. And it would seem to me that
  those two would "agree" rather than oppose your article, written in an attractive style of a pamphleteer.

  But I am asking for more clarification about your view of the "Chicago School." Possibly you are just slamming that maybe
  they would first observe the facts that prove recycling is a waste of resources. Certainly Lord Keynes and his Bloomsberry
  friends might not bother with the inductive approach.

  Just what are you slamming about Chicago and just who represents that wrong viewpoint in your mind.

  Sincerely,
  Eric Westhagen
  Brandon, Wiscons

  Published: September 22, 2005 4:29 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  McCosker brings up some arguments that I find, not difficult to counter, but difficult to explain. Obviously, if the supply of virgin resources like petroleum and wood decrease, their price will go up. At some point, it would eventually become worthwhile and profitable to recycle and cut back on the use of said resources.
  
  As for environmental destruction, the market *will* take that into effect if we're talking about privately-owned resources--private owners won't willingly allow a source of income to be casually or carelessly damaged or destroyed. Perhaps he's referring to third party externalities?
  
  The difficulty comes when talking about "public" resources, or even just heavily-regulated private resources, because then you have the vicious cycle of government not allowing the market to work, though people usually don't see it that way.
  
  So the question the article didn't deal with is this: in the larger view, is government already doing things that affect the profitability of recycling, such as distorting the market for virgin resources like petroleum and wood, or controlling trash services and landfill operations to keep them from operating effectively? I'm not convinced that recycling is currently profitable, for the most part, but these other factors probably need to be considered.
  

  Published: September 22, 2005 4:58 PM

• J D

  "This Fall, school kids across the country will again be taught a chief doctrine in the civic religion: recycle, not only because you fear the police but also because you love the planet."

  
  Jim, put education in the private sector, including government guaranteed loans, and school kids will probably not be taught civic religions.

  Published: September 22, 2005 5:02 PM

• Sione Vatu

  When I lived overseas I ended up in a municipality where they forced people to have recycling bins (which every household had to pay for). You were expected to sort your rubbish by type! There was also the imposition of a limitation on how much garbage would be removed from each house per week. The City Council applied this imposition by prividing one small plastic bin per household for each class of rubbish. If the rubbish did not fit in the bin they would not collect it. Tough for the rate paying householder. If he had extra rubbish he was supposed to take it to the dump on his own time and pay.

  As you can imagine the recycling bins started to fill with regular rubbish; the overflow. The fines started after that. Do not put the wrong item in the wrong bin was the admonishment. People got annoyed about that one.

  Des and the boys were over from Nuie. He had the right answer. He found out the names of the councillors responsible for the ordinances. Right after that all sorts of rubbish started turning up at their homes. Somehow a lot of it got inside. One particularly imaginative person managed to fill a councillor's car with some. I understand that stuff smelled bad. Actually all of it would have smelled terrible, the boys were good at leaving things like that to stew-up in the sun for a few days before delivery, if you know what I mean.

  That's the thing with those Nuie boys. They do not give consent to the silly invasions and impositions of the socialists. They turn these things around and "share the love." Now that's recycling that's worth the effort.

  Talofa!

  Published: September 22, 2005 5:12 PM

• David White

  This is my umpteenth reference to this article about subsidized oil -- -- and its market distorting effects with regard not only to alternative fuels (like ethanol) but alternative modes of transportation and real estate development.

  But more to the point so far as this article is concerned is that as someone whose suburb abandoned curbside recycling last year despite an 80+% participation rate -- but who CAN'T NOT RECYCLE and therefore takes his recyclables each week to the local recycle center -- I am also working through this organization -- www.urbancentury.org -- to foster the creation of a facility that would combine a state-of-the-art materials recycling facility (MRF) with state-of-the-art gasification technology to process all of the solid waste generated in the (Chattanooga, TN) region into clean energy and raw materials in a first-of-its-kind "SMART Park" (Sustainable Manufacturing, Agricultural, and Recycling Technologies).

  With manufacturing jobs fleeing the US as its corporations cherry-pick the global labor market (you're welcome to call it free trade; I call it a free fall), the simple but profound notion that, in the words of famed architect William McDonough's, "waste equals food" is vital to understanding that what we so wantonly discard is the raw material with which we can revitalize our economy and rescue it from the death throes of debt-driven consumerism. That is, instead of plunging headlong into thirdworldization -- as both political parties would have us do -- we can increase the productivity of the materials sector in the same way that we've increased the productivity of the labor and capital sectors: through Total Quality Management. Which is to say that "zero emissions" -- www.zeri.org -- is no different from "zero defects" (quality is "Job One") or "zero inventory" (just-in-time manufacturing). And once we get the state out of the way (and I firmly believe we will, though not without great pain), we can launch this productivity revolution in earnest and reap the rewards accordingly.

  Published: September 22, 2005 7:54 PM

• David White

  Oops, here the article I referenced above: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030722-093718-6082r.htm

  Published: September 22, 2005 7:56 PM

• Bob A.

  I’m relatively new to this fascinating world of Libertarian (?) thought, free markets, and the desire to get government out of free enterprise. I am truly encouraged about America’s chances for the future because this philosophy will spread exponentially and I will do my small part to help. About a month ago I subscribed to the Mises Daily Article and have been sharing it with other anti-neocons and their reactions have been excitedly positive. Show a tax-and-spender that there are better ways and that there is such a large and rapidly building body of work to support these ways, and the results are very surprising indeed.

  
  My wife and I just got back from grocery shopping and dropping off our recycling at the facility 6 blocks from the store, so I thought I’d make my first reply on the blog to this article regarding recycling.

  
  Reducing and reusing should be foremost as they will obviously make recycling less necessary, but recycling is definitely a necessity. The author is way off base on numerous points, at least as it relates to my geographic area.

  
  

  
  This statement shows, to me, that the author isn’t well read as far as the amount of refuse created by Americans. Throw in the facts that Americans cannot seem to grasp the concept of “overgrazing� (from overpopulation) and that people from all over the world continue pouring in to live here, one can easily see that recycling is an absolute necessity.

  
  

  
  The recycling facility in my local area is owned privately. Dropping off recycling is free. There are even employees who help the “customers� empty their containers. The recycling company sells its bundles to companies who remanufacture various goods and packaging. The facility is very clean and technologically current. They receive no tax money. Obviously, it’s a profitable business for the company. In fact, on the way home on I-90, we saw two 40ft flatbeds from the company; one hauling huge bundles of recycled cardboard and the truck behind it hauling huge bundles of crushed plastic. I guess they must have found a buyer.

  
  We moved to our area about 2 years ago. Before that we lived in Western Washington for a couple of decades. In our little town, maybe 50 miles from Seattle, the refuse collection companies paid us $5.00 per month for our recycling. That wasn’t much; in a TRUE free market economy, we might be able to sell our recycling at better prices.

  
  Recycling also pays in intangible ways. It’s easy to find information on the Internet about how much less expensive recycled packaging is for food producers, for example. The companies who use the packaging will never tell anyone how they manage to reduce prices to remain competitive, but stop recycling and cause all packaging to be made from newly-produced raw materials, and we’ll all be bombarded with messages in every media from companies crying the blues and apologizing for having to raise prices to account for increased packaging costs. So, even if the recycling company in this geographical area doesn’t pay us for our recycling—yet—we are receiving savings on goods purchased that are packaged using recycled materials.

  
  

  
  Maybe I’m giving this too much attention, because this sounds a lot like a joke. I wash 4 aluminum or tin cat food cans, maybe a couple of plastic beverage bottles, and a couple of plastic frozen entrée containers every day (yeah, my wife and I eat too many of those nowadays!). These are washed along with any other dishes of the day. No more soap or water is added to account for these recyclables. It seems a little silly to suggest an “investment in soap and water.�

  
  

  
  It’s probably been a couple of decades since I saw a garbage truck that wasn’t a crusher-type, so I don’t think there’ll be any mining of glass bottles. But, more importantly, the author is obviously not aware of the toxicity of landfills.

  
  

  
  Trees “inhale� carbon dioxide, the poison we exhale, and, after processing this poison, trees “exhale� the oxygen that we must have for survival. Because of this miracle, I am thus far unable to envision a more productive transaction on planet earth.

  
  There are fewer trees available to produce wood products because there are fewer trees cut. There are fewer trees cut because people finally began to recognize the dramatic negative effects from clear-cutting. The dramatic negative effects from clear-cutting are caused by not replanting and managing forests. Want to find blame? Blame government for complicity with fly-by-night logging companies in making tracts available at far less than market prices. And blame the fly-by-nighters for only being in the business for the enormous short-term gains with no intention of living by the “do-no-harm� credo. You would have thought that, if government insisted on interference, it would have at least required replanting and sustainable management as part of the transaction.

  
  Fewer trees cut = higher prices for wood products. More trees planted and managed = more forests. There are companies in the timber industry that are in it for the long term (one such company’s name starts with “W�) and these companies understand the 80-year yield cycle and that selective thinning and careful maintenance is more productive (profitable). If more forests are created and managed, our atmosphere will be cleaner and the timber industry can also make a comeback.

  
  There have been many positive effects from the downsizing of the timber industry but the three best results, in my humble opinion are a) the retraining of loggers into engineers, IT professionals, etc thus building new industries in towns that once depended on the destruction of forests, b) the emergence of the push for paper-free systems within business and government, and c) the sudden advancement of technology for recycling paper.

  
  It would be interesting to learn of the Misesian school of thought regarding logging outfits such as the aforementioned fly-by-nighters and estimates of how they might be handled in a TRUE free market in which TRUE free enterprise is transacted.

  
  

  
  I respect the obvious intellectual abilities of those who write in these blogs. This “electronic hall� produces discussions vastly different than the great majority of discussions in places like Free Republic and Democratic Underground. So I don’t mean any offense by this statement: There are many stones, a garden full of them, that need to be turned over before anyone should tell “the recycling story� told by the author of this article.

  
  I apologize for the length of my post; I’ve resisted replying to other articles but was unable to restrain myself this time.

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:52 PM

• Bob A.

  I'm not sure what I did wrong, but I quoted passages from the article to preface my comments and they were stripped. I used the "less than" and "greater than" symbols to surround the quotations; does this cause the quotations to be stripped?

  Published: September 22, 2005 8:57 PM

• Matthew Armstrong

  Bob A -

  Just time for a quick comment before bed, but as usual, in the Mises/Rothbard framework, the problem is government itself. Government has no responsibility towards the future, at best state agents are looking as far ahead as the next election. Replanting and resource management are irrelevant to those currently in power, as they will be out of power by the time the resourcse are depleted! This situation only leads to gross mismanagement of natural resources. In the Misesian world all property is privately owned, so logging will only occur on land where private agents find it profitable to do so. Since their future livelihood is at stake, it is in their best interest to ensure that there are trees to harvest in the future. The only "fly-by-nighters" in a Misesian world are in fact criminals and would be treated as such. Unfortunately, under statism the government sets the rules and is therefore unaccountable. Just a quick explanation, I'm sure someone will elaborate...

  Published: September 22, 2005 11:26 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  Good answer, Clem. I'm satisfied.

  Published: September 23, 2005 1:43 AM

• Dennis Spain

  I urge Mises.org readers to Google "Changing World Technologies" for an exciting website apropos this essay on recycling.

  The company featured has an operating plant in Missouri that uses a process known as thermal depolymerization to convert almost any waste-stream, including sewage, into high quality oil, gas, elemental carbon, and minerals suitable for use as fertilzer.

  The process has been around for awhile but engineers have really been innovative in the last fifteen years and are about to enter into large scale production. The process requires no energy inputs as the gas produced is used to power the plant. Most of the technology used is from the oil refinery industry. The only emission of any importance is steam, and thus a plant requires no environmental regulation or inspection prior to start-up. The technology appears to be scalable up and down and is really quite an exciting prospect.
  

  Published: September 23, 2005 1:46 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Dennis, to the extent that those guys are doing this in an economic manner, it is indeed a beautiful thing.

  But to those who remind us about current subsidies' effects on the economics of (name the sector) - Yes it sucks that the oil industry, waste industry, etc get subsidies, but that is not a valid argument in favor of more subsidies! It is, however, an indictment of the whole subsidy system - the fact that obvious "good" ideas cannot be made to turn a profit is just another example of how industry subsidy and regulation benefits established players at the expense of the new guys. Mussolini would be immensely proud of our modern corporatist state.

  Published: September 23, 2005 7:22 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Bob A,

  The greater than and less than symbols are used to define HTML tags that allow you to format your text and create web links. Anything bracketed by these symbols will not show up in posted text.

  Published: September 23, 2005 8:53 AM

• David White

  Yancey,

  How does one insert one-click hyperlinks rather than copy-and-paste URLs?

  Published: September 23, 2005 10:13 AM

• gene berman

  A significant amount of support for recycling comes from folks who have pet peeves about (take your pick)soda-pop consumption, alcoholic beverage consumption, fast-food consumption, candy consumption, cigaret-smoking, etc. and believe the law need protect their specific aesthetic sensibilities. A great many more are similarly and generally offended by careless discard of trash of all types. And, of course, Austrians will recognize a generalized externality and thus may be sympathetic to those efforts designed to saddle those primarily responsible with the costs involved--it's just a bit easier to say than to effect. At the extreme end are local laws requiring citizens to separate types of refuse for which no market can be found (other than at a loss for time and trouble).

  One other thing I would mention is the widespread advertising (particularly by manufacturers of paper goods) of the extent to which they use recycled material. What they don't mention is that that level is only slightly above that which prevailed (because it was PROFITABLE)long before the advent of modern recycling.

  And, Vince--"Yo!"--I grew up in Drexel Hill almost 60 years ago.

  Mises remarked that the type of aesthetic preference involved is actually associated more with educated urban dwellers than with either rural or primitive folk. My own slight experience
  bears out that opinion. Indians in the hinterland of Venezuela found our concern with trash-disposal amusing--even laughable. And not all cultures share our prejudice against litter. Years ago, I read and saw pictures of a beautiful shrine erected in a Japanese mall--waterfall, bonsai, temple building, etc. Mall patrons spent much time gazing at the loveliness--and tossing soft drink and fast-food trash into it, to the tune of about a ton of trash every 24 hours. I've also read that Indians of the western plains, rather than being sparing, total users of the bison they killed, easily converted to market-hunting for merely the salable portions of their kills, similarly to their white counterparts and competitors.

  Published: September 23, 2005 11:08 AM

• gene berman

  Both libertarians and mainstream conservatives may find amusing the further-out demands of the "environmental whackos" (Rush's term) and are quick to dismiss early alarmists like Rachel Carson (THE SEA AROUND US and SILENT SPRING), pointing out that things are not as bad as she described and that the problems were not as irreversible as she thought. That's not quite fair.

  When I was young, many rivers were well on their way to being open industrial waste sewers. In my locale, the Schulkyll was thoroughly contaminated by a range of pollutants; conditions were similar elsewhere. Whether Carson was entirely correct or not (and whether the clean-up regime enacted into law was the best way to solve the problem) are somewhat beside the point. Until those books, few paid any attention. Today, that river (and the Delaware and the Hudson) are "back" as prime fisheries--but fishermen need still be advised (in the booklet received with their license) on just how many fish meals can be made of their catches (and whether due to mercury, chlorinated biphenyls, or both--or others). I used to spend a fair amount of time in the NJ Pine Barrens catching snakes (my hobby at the time). On any given day, it would be easy to have observed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of "fence lizards," whether deep in the forest or on the edge of human habitation (the better snake-hunting territory). In the past 30 years, I've been back in that area (not far from where I live)about a dozen times and, in all those times, have not seen even a single one of those once-ubiquitous creatures. My guess is that most were wiped out by the egg-formation action attributed to DDT.

  Maybe it's no big loss--that's a matter of perspective.

  Published: September 23, 2005 11:38 AM

• Marwan

  It's funny that we are discussing recycling in the terms of the state that mandates we do it. Like anything else it is a perosnal choice -- I don't do it and even if it was profitable I wouldn't waste my time. All of you in supoort of recycling are welcome to go through my trash and recycle what you want. Once I dump it -- it's not my property anymore and I don't care what you do with it. Smoke it, eat it, wipe with, whatever. Just don't bring it back to me and don't tell me what to do with it in my house.

  Anyway, if we are going to recycle anything -- how about those losers down The Potomac from me. I'd like to recycle them into something you hemp dressed, Birkenstock wearing, wheat grass drinking facists can smoke.

  Please take this post in jest -- I think this is a great discussion and I am very curious to know if recycling is worth it. Alas, we can discuss it for eons, but, until our Washington masters leave the issue alone -- measuring the efficiency of it will be impossible.

  Published: September 23, 2005 12:42 PM

• gene berman

  You're right, Marwan--your trash disposal should be nobody's business (unless it actually is their business to sell you that service)and especially if such disposal infringes not on anyone else's rights or property.

  The problem is that we have "grown" or developed a far from well-thought-out property regime, leaving much of the environment "common" and presenting many with either external economies, diseconomies, or both. Up to now, people's inclination is to fix these matters by passing laws telling others how to behave in these matters. To compound matters, it is readily observable that some are able to reap enormous profits--and have done so--by taking advantage of
  the imperfections in property law. I'm sure that many of these were even, in their day, due as much to ignorance and inattention as simply to greed.

  I'm also against enforced recycling: it's just plain stupid. On the other hand, particularly because I'm an occasional (fresh-water)angler and have observed for many years the process of eutrification, I take time to put hardly anything through the garbage disposal (and the vegetable matter goes largely into garden compost).

  But, until there is more widespread appreciation of the soundness of economic (and libertarian) views on property rights and relationships, there's simply no way out of the common regime of coercion, subsidy, etc., ad nauseam. I'd like to say that a lifetime would have seen a great difference but I have to observe that whatever difference there is--is no more than a drop in a bucket.

  Published: September 23, 2005 1:58 PM

• Eric Westhagen

  Subject: "Playing to the Choir"

  Dear Blog,

  Yesterday I wrote a few lines in this Blog and today I have revisited the link since so much was airing.

  I would tend to conclude that "Mises.org" has been a success in that they do not simply "play to the choir." In fact, it would
  seem that more with opposing views to libertarianism wrote comments. Possibly their "knees" could not help a few extra
  "jerks" though. Personal experience and bias were not intended by the author as I saw it and "recycling" could just as well
  been considered a metaphor.

  Bloggers dragged in every partial thought on the subject, though. Even "clear cutting" which, no doubt bothered the aesthetic
  of the authors own real estate.

  But then again, maybe the Keynesians are reading Mises.org just to see what we are talking about. Oh, well, I do the same
  with the "move-on" site.

  Eric Westhagen

  Published: September 23, 2005 2:36 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Gene Berman - "YO!" from Ridley (Crum Lynne).

  I have since moved from southeastern Delaware County, PA, to southwestern NJ. Even though state regulation on a macro (state) level is worse here, it would have to get a lot worse at the micro (local) level here to make me want to move back to Delco again - and the Catanias are longtime family friends!

  But back to the subject at hand - anybody here disagree with competition and usage pricing for refuse removal?

  Published: September 23, 2005 4:21 PM

• Bob A.

  There are thousands of privately owned recycling facilities in America. In fact, there are over 2000 in California. Obviously, there is profit in recycling for these businesses.

  Here’s an interesting statistic: California managed a 4% increase in recycling from 2003 to 2004. This 4% jump alone “equates roughly to saving 31 million gallons of gasoline.� The increase includes a jump of 1.5 billion containers, and the volume of these containers “would fill to the rim three 50,000-seat baseball stadiums.� See: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/news/2005%20News%20Releases/NR2005-09_2004_Recycling_Rates.htm

  Equally obvious is that everyone benefits from recycling, even those who don’t participate. When DAY ZERO occurs, that day when TRUE free markets are commonplace, the future might give me the opportunity to sell my recyclables for decent money. For now, we’re all getting economic benefits, albeit difficult to measure.
  

  Published: September 23, 2005 6:22 PM

• Bob A.

  Eric,

  “In fact, it would seem that more with opposing views to libertarianism wrote comments.�

  My apologies for my lack of knowledge of Libertarianism as you understand it. As I mentioned in my post that included references to clear cutting, I’m new to this philosophy. However, I have definitely misunderstood much of what I’ve learned thus far if, by questioning the comments of someone, I have violated Libertarian precepts.

  The discussion of forestry and clear-cutting techniques was in response to the author’s bold statement that the “decision to reduce wood in houses was not prompted by a green's love for trees; it was a reaction to the increasing cost for wood products.�

  I believe in TRUE free markets and the grand possibility that they will be the salvation of America. The body of work supporting Libertarian principles and the Mises economic tenets are truly amazing, thought provoking, and encouraging. On the other hand, I see I will have to contend with bloggers such as yourself who will do what they can to discourage discussions if the subject matter doesn’t suit them. If these great ideas are going to get the widespread recognition and acceptance they need, you’ll need more converts, not discouraged students who give up before they get a good start.

  Oh well, I see the same in almost all online forums. Discourage me? Ain’t gonna happen.
  

  Published: September 23, 2005 6:47 PM

• gene berman

  Bob A.:

  The fact that recycling centers are profitable is not an evidence that RECYCLING is profitable. If that seems a contradictory statement, you'd need to pay a bit more attention to the income streams of the recyclers concerned.

  First off, I'm specifically excluding from this discussion those places essentially operating as scrapyards; these were (and are) potentially profitable businesses long before the term "recycle" came into use.

  Today, there seem to be businesses catering particularly to the marketable commodity portion of trash such as aluminum cans, paper and cardboard, etc. And, though there has for a long time (before "recycling")an existent market for these portions, they would have been normal feedstocks for the scrap operators specializing in each.

  Things are essentially different when the "recycling center" exists primarily to act as a middleman between the actual scrapyard and a number of various smaller collectors, each of which would not exist but for the existence of laws mandating that citizens dispose of various types of rubbish in specific ways, sometimes by partial sorting or sometimes by separating as many as three or four categories from each other. Many of these places could not possibly exist under a regime of freedom from the present coercion.

  If you are paid nothing for your effort but must spend an hour a month on separating, the fact that both the company receiving the stuff and the company to whom they sell it can both show a profit is a long way away from showing that "recycling is profitable." What is profitable for the recycler is that he has the unpaid labor of you and a half-dozen other forced laborers to produce, perhaps 5 lbs of aluminum
  cans for the collector associated with the recycle center, who is also paid through either direct fees or on contract with the municipality.
  In the end, you and the other guys spend $50-$100
  (or more) of your time so that the "profitable" recycle center can get most of the $2-3 (tops) that the scrapyard pays them for the product of your combined efforts.

  I appreciate your interest in the ideas expressed at this site. One that's been expressed before but bears repeating is that folks rarely need to be forced or coerced by law to do those things that are actually profitable for them. Sure, it can happen--but not often.

  taxpayer funds or direct fees, who then sells

  Published: September 23, 2005 9:40 PM

• Bob A.

  Recycling is profitable for all concerned, as I've previously explained. During the past 35 years I've lived in Washington (State), Oregon, and Colorado. Most of the time I've lived in Washington. I have never been forced to recyle. In all situations except the one I'm in now, I've been paid for my recyclables. As of now, the privately owned center, that makes an excellent profit from its sales, does not pay for my recyclables. My wife and I do not think of the few minutes per day that we spend tossing glass, plastic, aluminum, and paper into the 4 receptacles we set up. I expect that the center will some time in the future find the need to pay for recyclables in order for it to expand its operations and increase profits.

  For those who live in areas that force them to do what they do not want to do, I recommend activism to bring about changes. After all, is this site not interested in educating enough people in Austrian economics such that it can become reality in America? Or is there another goal in mind that I'm failing to grasp?
  

  Published: September 23, 2005 10:11 PM

• Tim

  There is an interesting article in the same vein as Jim's here, it's Slate economist Steven Landsburg's "Why I am not an environmentalist" subtitled "The Science of Economics Versus the Religion of Ecology".

  What Jim and Steven Landsburg are opposed to is really "faith based environmentalism" not rational environmentalist policies per se.

  Also of note, an eco-skeptic blog entry worth checking out here.

  Published: September 24, 2005 3:20 AM

• Sione Vatu

  Guys

  I too was fascinated in the Changing World Technologies idea of changing waste into fuel (in this case a light crude). I did a little checking as I'd thought of investing or seeking a franchise (people like me do this as we do not like squandering our own money). I found enough to keep the chequebook in the pocket and the cash in the wallet. And they ain't emerging just yet!
  
  Changing World Technologies is the recipient of much govt. handout and subsidy (a bad omen). I understand they recently were "granted" another US$10 million in order to keep the doors open. What has been achieved apart from some excellent press? Nothing I was able to verify as yet. Few details are forthcoming. It looks suspicious. Could be too good to be true. Caution is necessary.

  I note independent audits or technical examinations of the plant and the claims are not available. I note no independent refiner or qualified party appears to have examined the product (alleged to be equivalent to Texas light). I have been unable to locate a substantial technical explanation of the CWT process, including in the patent databases. There is little in the literature (another bad omen). No-one else is getting into the business to compete with their own processes (such as oil and chemical companies). A lack of serious attention from the specialist scientific/engineering journals and a paucity of activity from large commercial interests in the organic chemical industry suggests all is not quite right (a seriously bad omen to take heed of). Perhaps the situation is not as claimed.

  ...but there has been plenty of govt. cash to keep the whole pyramid above water. And there have been some lovely fluff pieces in Discover magazine.

  For a civilisation that relies on technology to survive the amount of uncritical belief that manifests itself is extremely dangerous. Perhaps thinking and learning is too hard, especially when faith and myth provide all answers. Oh well. Your society believes in god-devils and spirit-monsters, so I suppose you deserve to be fleeced. PTL!

  The Mises Daily article is spot on.

  BTW has anyone noticed how the automobile industry reuses parts, components and metals? These guys have been doing the "recycling" long before any environmentalists started prattling on and on and on and on and on. If it's worth doing something like this, people will do it of their own accord. You don't require govt. boondoggles and bosses and cronies.

  The garbage "industry" as with so many others has been grossly distorted by government interference. It is difficult to work out what is economic, what is marginal and what is complete rubbish (totally un-recyclable in this case). The only conclusion to be drawn is that elimination of govt. interference from new technology research, garbage, "recycling" and all other industries should be mandatory. Let free and thoughtful people deal with the opportunities themselves.

  Talofa!

  Sione

  Published: September 24, 2005 9:54 AM

• Bob A.

  For every article that disparages environmentalism, there are many more that support it—with science. Here’s the thing: If anti-environmentalists are correct, they can chuckle and say, “Now haven’t you people been ridiculous.� But if environmentalists are correct, we’re ALL in big trouble if we haven’t been doing what we can to prevent the ruin of Planet Earth. It’s analogous to a criminal breaking into one’s home in the middle of the night. One could wonder if the criminal is likely to have murder in mind and let things play out. And if one discovers murder was the plan all along, it could be too late to do anything about it; life may be snuffed out because of the choice to ponder the chances of being right or wrong.

  I, for one, do not appreciate those who will poison my air and water. And as far as recycling is concerned, I am pleased to help those who purchase packaged products attain lower prices because of the use of my recyclables—you’re welcome.

  “If it's worth doing something like this, people will do it of their own accord.�

  Yes, absolutely. Exactly as many thousands of privately-owned recycling plants all across America are now doing and some of whom have been doing for decades.

  The price of oil, which is controlled by futures traders; unconnected shareholders who care not one iota if profits are true or false and whether upticks in share prices came from actual increases in productivity; government supports and giveaways of money taken from America’s citizens in the form of taxes; Wall Street oligarchs and their information-disseminating minions; and many other behind-the-scenes operators, will produce major negative effects in our economy. But there will be some positive effects. For example, more emphasis will be put on advancement of non-petroleum fuels, lubricants, and coolants. And the recycling industry, mostly the plastics recycling industry, will see great opportunities emerge. Who knows but that production costs of virgin plastics might rise to be triple that of a few years ago.
  I recently read something written by a really smart person, and I read it in my Mises Daily Article from 9-20-05, Mises in Defense of Edgeworth, by Ludwig von Mises, last sentence in the article:
  “No general rule is available, except that, like the cultivated Athenian, we should eschew the invidious disparagement of each other's pursuits."
  

  Published: September 24, 2005 11:35 AM

• Marwan

  Bob A. stated "I, for one, do not appreciate those who will poison my air and water."

  Bob, I think that is true for everyone. I DON'T recycle and I don't want anyone polluting my property either. That begs the question: why don't I recycle? Becuase I don't have the necessary information in the current environment. I don't know:
  1. Is there really a pollution problem?

  2. Is recyclying the most effective solution?

  3. How is my PRIVATE property polluted?

  4. Am I polluting other's PRIVATE property?

  These questions cannot be answered given our current social, economic and political environment. Since we are all essentialy serfs in a semi-capitalist-quasi-feudal system, we do NOT have private property. If you disagree, ask yourself: why do I own my house if the government charges me a tax for the property? And not just a usage-service tax but one that taxes the property I 'own' and the market appreciation I 'enjoy', while the monetary value is reduced by state-engineered inflation? Since we don't own any PRIVATE property, the state essentially owns everything and my natural inclination is to do NOTHING the state demands until the threat or use of violence exceeds my tolerance level -- I choose NOT to recycle. Should I? I don't know. Do I not care about the 'environment'? I cannot make that determination becasue I don't know if recycling (as it is practiced in the current environment) is beneficial. I choose NOT to expend energy, time and scarce resouces to an activity that I cannot determine is useful.

  Like most other 'micro' issues discussed on this blog, it comes down to the 'macro' view of the fact that we do not live in an ideal environment (which is an end we CAN attain if we choose), therefore we cannot determine the veracity of numerous activities. Engagement in these activities is arbitrary and must be undertaken on faith. Faith is fine when it comes to your spirtual beleifs; however, faith in the religion of the state is ALWAYS evil. Ergo, the state advocates recycling, therefore, recycling is evil. I cannot do something evil :)

  Published: September 24, 2005 8:21 PM

• Aaron

  The difficulty with the arguement is that it presents the choice as differing types of ideology. The case against recylcing is that it pollutes through wasted economy. The resources used to recycle are a type of anti-mining, as they are constructed in an environment devoid of auditing or finacial analysis. As if worshipping our trash can asuage guilt for creating it, and it were a travesty to actually look to see if we are helping. We've an illconceived network of "recyclying" facilities, which totemize trash, allowing it to be passed along in to more and more people, eventually reaching someone who will reluctantly re-introduce it into the now deminished value adding stream at a huge loss. Analysing the progress of one peice of returned trash, and the gas, power, energy, fuss and structure to return it to the product stream would quickly reveal by comparison that the cheaper non-recylced materials cost less polution to create, even considering the cost of storing the trash item on the planet. Pollution generally equals cost. Something that is expensive to mine, such as a recylcled item mined from our homes, creates pollution. The notion that we are undervalueing the cost of large landfills, incineration and such. well that assumes that analytical tools that are applied to the situation can't reveal truth, as if there were some better type of fairy or elfin based math that would more clearly demonstrate why this works. The fact that recyling is much more expensive means that it is polluting more and sucking time and energy away from other activities, such reusing, reducing and simply using auding and budgeting.. all methods which actually help control costs - and the waste they incurr both financially and on our environment.

  Published: September 24, 2005 11:57 PM

• Jim Reid

  Thanks for putting into words my beliefs about
  recycling. I too gave it up once the trash
  companies charged me to donate. Obious economic
  problems.

  Published: September 25, 2005 9:38 AM

• BobA.

  Marwan,
  “Since we are all essentialy serfs in a semi-capitalist-quasi-feudal system, we do NOT have private property.�
  I like your description! I’ve been trying to convince as many people as I can that we live in a feudal system right now—not quasi at all, but fully feudal. I think many people have difficulty recognizing this because they think of the living conditions of the middle ages. We are rapidly becoming economic slaves, but the whips and chains haven’t been used yet. Of course, they never will because that will bring revolution, something the neocons will do everything possible to avoid. No, it will be economic manipulation that will be used as a weapon.
  Only a few years ago I would have had a different attitude about a law that required I recycle. Back then I would have thought, “Well that really sucks,� and then gone about my daily life as usual. I recycled anyway and the thought of forcing people in this manner didn’t have so much impact on me. Now, though I live in an area where recycling is voluntary, should such a law be passed, I would be tempted to stop recycling in spite. I would not stop though, because recycling is the right thing to do in my opinion. However, I would get enough people together to pool resources for a full page ad in the local paper to begin the activism required to repeal the law. And we would establish a website and on and on. In fact, I almost wish they would pass such a law so that there is an opportunity to engage more people in this newly-discovered philosophy of people actually governing themselves.
  If only I didn’t have to use up time and energy making a living; I’d be a full-time activist—a very NOISY activist.
  I see your logic and why you resist recycling. Fortunately, tens of millions of people recycle their plastics, glass, aluminum, tin, and paper products in America. In fact, hundreds of millions of people around the world do so. There is sufficient mitigation of damages in these numbers.
  The best part of this newly-discovered philosophy for me is the notion that reasonable people are able to do what is best for them and do no harm to others in the process. This is “old hat� to you folks and you probable think of me as “What-‘r’-you-just-stupid.� If you do not recycle and you believe your reasoning is sound, you are then correct; how’s that for logic. However, I’ll try to convince as many people as I can to recycle because I believe my reasoning is sound.
  

  Published: September 25, 2005 12:27 PM

• Bob A.

  Aaron,

  “The resources used to recycle are a type of anti-mining, as they are constructed in an environment devoid of auditing or finacial analysis.�

  Well, that simply cannot be the case with the thousands of successful privately-owned recycling facilities across America and around the world.

  “Analysing the progress of one peice of returned trash, and the gas, power, energy, fuss and structure to return it to the product stream would quickly reveal by comparison that the cheaper non-recylced materials cost less polution to create, even considering the cost of storing the trash item on the planet.�

  It will only take a few minutes at a recycling facility to understand how little cost per pound there is in bundling products for transport to manufacturers who use recyclables. Additionally, it is very simple to understand that purchasing virgin plastics, for example, is much higher and requires much more energy in initial production than reusing recyclables. Why not write some letters to people who reuse plastics, say HDPE for example, and ask them how much less it costs to chop up recyclables and begin remanufacture than it does to purchase the powders and pellets of virgin plastics and put them through the full cycle?

  Let’s face it; if it didn’t create acceptable profit margins, re-manufacturers would not bother to do it. And, as I’ve previously mentioned, the artificially-created higher price of oil will make it much more attractive to recyclers, recycling facilities, and re-manufacturers who reuse what you’ve suggested be “stored� in landfills.

  Recycling should be voluntary as everything should be. And ALL recycling facilities should pay for customers’ recyclables. It’s up to America’s citizens to bring it about. Or just keep on complaining about it.
  

  Published: September 25, 2005 1:06 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  Bob A.:

  "Reducing and reusing should be foremost as they will obviously make recycling less necessary, but recycling is definitely a necessity. The author is way off base on numerous points, at least as it relates to my geographic area."

  I don't know what you mean by "necessary" and "necessity" here. Necessary for what?

  Cleaner air? The survival of mankind? Of life on earth? Let's hear about it.

  "This statement shows, to me, that the author isn’t well read as far as the amount of refuse created by Americans. Throw in the facts that Americans cannot seem to grasp the concept of 'overgrazing' (from overpopulation) and that people from all over the world continue pouring in to live here, one can easily see that recycling is an absolute necessity."

  Have you read the cached NY Times article the Fedako commentary links to? I assume didn't want to repeat everything in that. It explains how America has plenty of land to take care of its landfill needs for thousands of year.

  America's nearly open borders with the Third World are a catastrophe indeed, but that has nothing to do with recycling.

  "The recycling facility in my local area is owned privately. Dropping off recycling is free. There are even employees who help the 'customers' empty their containers. The recycling company sells its bundles to companies who remanufacture various goods and packaging. The facility is very clean and technologically current. They receive no tax money. Obviously, it’s a profitable business for the company. In fact, on the way home on I-90, we saw two 40ft flatbeds from the company; one hauling huge bundles of recycled cardboard and the truck behind it hauling huge bundles of crushed plastic. I guess they must have found a buyer."

  If this company is truly unsubsidized, then its creators are savvy entrepreneurs indeed. But the reason Fedako's commentary is here is because of the hugely widespread, wasteful, and coercive recycling laws and programs that plague the country. If your local company has found a way to be cost-effective and voluntary, then that's free enterprise, pure and simple.

  "We moved to our area about 2 years ago. Before that we lived in Western Washington for a couple of decades. In our little town, maybe 50 miles from Seattle, the refuse collection companies paid us $5.00 per month for our recycling. That wasn’t much; in a TRUE free market economy, we might be able to sell our recycling at better prices."

  Perhaps, though I doubt it. I wonder whether the $5 you're talking about wasn't really a redistribution program courtesy of obscured government compulsion.

  "Recycling also pays in intangible ways. It’s easy to find information on the Internet about how much less expensive recycled packaging is for food producers, for example. The companies who use the packaging will never tell anyone how they manage to reduce prices to remain competitive, but stop recycling and cause all packaging to be made from newly-produced raw materials, and we’ll all be bombarded with messages in every media from companies crying the blues and apologizing for having to raise prices to account for increased packaging costs. So, even if the recycling company in this geographical area doesn’t pay us for our recycling—yet—we are receiving savings on goods purchased that are packaged using recycled materials."

  Again, if it's profitable, food packaging companies will put out an adequate bounty for recyclables. It doesn't take government coercion, or eager-beaver citizen "concern" to make it happen if it's worthwhile.

  "Maybe I’m giving this too much attention, because this sounds a lot like a joke. I wash 4 aluminum or tin cat food cans, maybe a couple of plastic beverage bottles, and a couple of plastic frozen entrée containers every day (yeah, my wife and I eat too many of those nowadays!). These are washed along with any other dishes of the day. No more soap or water is added to account for these recyclables. It seems a little silly to suggest an 'investment in soap and water.'"

  If you're washing more receptacles in the sink, you should expect to use more water. (Unless you'd be using too much water for the regular dishes.) If you're putting them in a dishwasher, then you're filling the dishwasher sooner.

  Such behavior as that seems more befitting the description "a little silly."

  "It’s probably been a couple of decades since I saw a garbage truck that wasn’t a crusher-type, so I don’t think there’ll be any mining of glass bottles. But, more importantly, the author is obviously not aware of the toxicity of landfills."

  Again, Fedako probably didn't want to repeat everything from the NY Times.

  In fact, modern rules make it rare for toxins to bleed out of landfills. And regular household recyclables (glass, plastics, wood products, "green waste") aren't the toxins in them anyway.

  (Yes, I know about used motor oil, the exception that proves the rule, so to speak. It's illegal, where I live, to put it in the garbage, even though the collectors have no recycling provision for it. One has to go miles to a toxic waste recycling center and pay a special fee to leave it there. Naturally, most self-changers probably just conceal the stuff in their trash. I have my oil changed professionally and am charged a $3 recycling fee along with it.)

  "There are fewer trees available to produce wood products because there are fewer trees cut. There are fewer trees cut because people finally began to recognize the dramatic negative effects from clear-cutting. The dramatic negative effects from clear-cutting are caused by not replanting and managing forests. Want to find blame? Blame government for complicity with fly-by-night logging companies in making tracts available at far less than market prices. And blame the fly-by-nighters for only being in the business for the enormous short-term gains with no intention of living by the 'do-no-harm' credo. You would have thought that, if government insisted on interference, it would have at least required replanting and sustainable management as part of the transaction."

  Most of our wood products are from commercial forests. It's sad that, as usual with government, government forests are so mismanaged. I'd be surprised if subsidized,compulsory recycling had much impact on that. If anything, the subsidized, compulsory recycling movement serves as a smokescreen for crony timber companies that arrange to clear government forests, and for socialist-minded professional environmentalists who don't want bad publicity about government forest management for fear of increasing public support for the privatization of government lands. (Somewhere around half the US landmass!)

  "Fewer trees cut = higher prices for wood products. More trees planted and managed = more forests. There are companies in the timber industry that are in it for the long term (one such company’s name starts with 'W') and these companies understand the 80-year yield cycle and that selective thinning and careful maintenance is more productive (profitable). If more forests are created and managed, our atmosphere will be cleaner and the timber industry can also make a comeback.

  "There have been many positive effects from the downsizing of the timber industry but the three best results, in my humble opinion are a) the retraining of loggers into engineers, IT professionals, etc thus building new industries in towns that once depended on the destruction of forests, b) the emergence of the push for paper-free systems within business and government, and c) the sudden advancement of technology for recycling paper."

  Recycling paper is still usually very cost-ineffective on an individual household basis.

  If you want better forest management, get government out of forest. Subsidized, compulsory recycling is a wasteful sideshow.

  "It would be interesting to learn of the Misesian school of thought regarding logging outfits such as the aforementioned fly-by-nighters and estimates of how they might be handled in a TRUE free market in which TRUE free enterprise is transacted."

  Private owners of commercial forests are interested in renewal. Governments cut deals in the short-term interest of their officials, the future be damned. (Sometimes known as public choice economics.)

  "There are thousands of privately owned recycling facilities in America. In fact, there are over 2000 in California. Obviously, there is profit in recycling for these businesses.

  "Here’s an interesting statistic: California managed a 4% increase in recycling from 2003 to 2004. This 4% jump alone 'equates roughly to saving 31 million gallons of gasoline.' The increase includes a jump of 1.5 billion containers, and the volume of these containers 'would fill to the rim three 50,000-seat baseball stadiums.' See: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/news/2005%20News%20Releases/NR2005-09_2004_Recycling_Rates.htm"

  That's a State of California p.r. website! Holy propaganda, Batman!

  I live in California, and I assure you the compulsory curbside recycling we have here is a big fat losing screw-the-customer, screw-the-taxpayer political payoff to crony corporations and environmentalist fanatics who have so much pull here.

  "Equally obvious is that everyone benefits from recycling, even those who don’t participate. When DAY ZERO occurs, that day when TRUE free markets are commonplace, the future might give me the opportunity to sell my recyclables for decent money. For now, we’re all getting economic benefits, albeit difficult to measure."

  Sorry, but that's not obvious at all. What *is* obvious is that everyone (except the aforementioned payoff beneficiaries, plus the funcionaries of the leviathan State) is being screwed by subsidized, compulsory recycling. Happy lambs to the slaughter.

  "Recycling is profitable for all concerned, as I've previously explained. During the past 35 years I've lived in Washington (State), Oregon, and Colorado. Most of the time I've lived in Washington. I have never been forced to recyle. In all situations except the one I'm in now, I've been paid for my recyclables. As of now, the privately owned center, that makes an excellent profit from its sales, does not pay for my recyclables. My wife and I do not think of the few minutes per day that we spend tossing glass, plastic, aluminum, and paper into the 4 receptacles we set up. I expect that the center will some time in the future find the need to pay for recyclables in order for it to expand its operations and increase profits."

  It always nice to hear about voluntary, unsubsidized businesses serving consumer needs. But I wonder whether "the few minutes per day" you *and* your wife spend are really worthwhile, especially now that you're not paid anything.

  Except in this way:

  I curbside recycle because I pay for it whether I want to or not. I could put everything in my trashcan, but there wouldn't be room. Whereas when I put out the recyclables, they're picked up without extra charge.

  But I'm not fooled by the underlying politico-economic reality of this. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as the man said. The extra cost of curbside recycling is pooled with everyone else in my trash collection district and incorporated into all our trash collection bills.

  If fact, people are encouraged to accumulate more garbage because, whereas they're charged per trash can, the recyclables actual collection cost is hidden from the individual household, so there's an incentive to take advantage of this seemingly "free" service.

  "For those who live in areas that force them to do what they do not want to do, I recommend activism to bring about changes. After all, is this site not interested in educating enough people in Austrian economics such that it can become reality in America? Or is there another goal in mind that I'm failing to grasp?"

  That sounds like a red herring. This is a forum for ideas, not particularly for sharing strategies of activism. Nobody wrote here against activism on this subject. Are you insinuating we're insincere if we don't become political activists?

  BTW, I spent about 15 years of my life working professionally and semi-professionally in politics, most of it as a legislative aide. I've seen all too well that there's a far more urgent need to educate people about the nature of the State than to play the its political games.

  "For every article that disparages environmentalism, there are many more that support it—with science. Here’s the thing: If anti-environmentalists are correct, they can chuckle and say, 'Now haven’t you people been ridiculous.' But if environmentalists are correct, we’re ALL in big trouble if we haven’t been doing what we can to prevent the ruin of Planet Earth. It’s analogous to a criminal breaking into one’s home in the middle of the night. One could wonder if the criminal is likely to have murder in mind and let things play out. And if one discovers murder was the plan all along, it could be too late to do anything about it; life may be snuffed out because of the choice to ponder the chances of being right or wrong."

  You're right that environmentalists get a lot more media play than their critics. That's the way it is with statism: Are you suggesting that makes them right?

  For now, I don't seek to take this particular discussion into the whole of environmental issues. I'm content here to say that the government's subsidized, compulsory recycling regime is bad stuff for reasons already stated. And nothing stated so far in this discussion has rebutted those reasons, logically or empirically.

  "I, for one, do not appreciate those who will poison my air and water. And as far as recycling is concerned, I am pleased to help those who purchase packaged products attain lower prices because of the use of my recyclables—you’re welcome."

  You don't "appreciate those who will poison my air and water"? Mom and apple pie.

  Your altruistic commitment to lower prices for other consumers is touching. But the government-fostered system is so uneconomic that it seems very dubious that it offers any such net benefits.
  

  Published: September 25, 2005 2:40 PM

• Bob A.

  R.P. McCosker,

  “I don't know what you mean by ‘necessary’ and ‘necessity’ here. Necessary for what?�

  To reduce space in landfills, to reduce costs by remanufacturing (essentially reusing items whose costs have already been incurred), and, in the case of plastics, to slow the increased usage of non-renewable resources better used elsewhere.

  “America's nearly open borders with the Third World are a catastrophe indeed, but that has nothing to do with recycling.�

  Yes, it most certainly does. With the normal overpopulation we’re creating, add to it the enormous influx of those from other countries, and then imagine NO RECYCLING.

  “Cleaner air? The survival of mankind? Of life on earth? Let's hear about it.�

  I’ll refer here to your stated desire that “For now, I don't seek to take this particular discussion into the whole of environmental issues.� I thinks that’s for the best as the question above would create, though extremely interesting for me, quite a lengthy discussion. I feel confident in assuming you agree with that.

  “Have you read the cached NY Times article the Fedako commentary links to? I assume didn't want to repeat everything in that. It explains how America has plenty of land to take care of its landfill needs for thousands of year.�

  Oh, yeah, I read it long ago. There are innumerable articles that refute everything in it. Do I want to repeat it? Absolutely not. And the statement that “America has plenty of land to take care of its landfill needs for thousands of year� is one that I am frankly shocked by. Imagine the millions of tons of recyclables that are now being reused being suddenly thrown day in and day out into landfills. Unbelievable.

  “But the reason Fedako's commentary is here is because of the hugely widespread, wasteful, and coercive recycling laws and programs that plague the country.�

  Well, if that’s the reason for the commentary, then I’m all for it and apologize for having read far too much into it. I learn more and more daily just how destructive government has become. Too bad this philosophy doesn’t spread more rapidly.

  “If your local company has found a way to be cost-effective and voluntary, then that's free enterprise, pure and simple.�

  Yes, I congratulate them, but I wish they would pay me for my recyclables. Although this would dip into their profits, I believe they should pay for the raw materials of their business—initial product to sell. However, if the company desires to grow by finding new markets or increasing its share, it will need more product and this will create the need to pay for it thereby motivating others to recycle. In fact, because of this article, I’ve decided to contact the ownership of this particular company for an interview or at least a correspondent. In that regard, I thank the author.

  “Perhaps, though I doubt it. I wonder whether the $5 you're talking about wasn't really a redistribution program courtesy of obscured government compulsion.�

  Could be. Kinda like buying a used car for a discount that has already been built into the price.

  “It doesn't take government coercion, or eager-beaver citizen "concern" to make it happen if it's worthwhile.�

  Government coercion is a very bad thing, alright. And it won’t be necessary for me to be an “eager-beaver citizen� if this anti-recycling campaign doesn’t reach too far.

  “If you're washing more receptacles in the sink, you should expect to use more water. (Unless you'd be using too much water for the regular dishes.) If you're putting them in a dishwasher, then you're filling the dishwasher sooner.�

  No, I don’t use more water. Additionally, I use biodegradable soap and have rerouted the drain from the sink to the garden. We’re low water users. And I’m the dishwasher.

  “Such behavior as that seems more befitting the description ‘a little silly.’�

  Not to me. Am I not permitted actions contrary to those that you deem appropriate for you? A sink full of water is a sink full of water no matter how many recyclables I wash, and the same amount of soap is used as well. Talk about an incalculable “investment,� try determining how much soap is used on a cat food can.

  “Most of our wood products are from commercial forests. It's sad that, as usual with government, government forests are so mismanaged. I'd be surprised if subsidized,compulsory recycling had much impact on that. If anything, the subsidized, compulsory recycling movement serves as a smokescreen for crony timber companies that arrange to clear government forests, and for socialist-minded professional environmentalists who don't want bad publicity about government forest management for fear of increasing public support for the privatization of government lands. (Somewhere around half the US landmass!)�

  I don’t have much problem with the above as government cannot properly manage much of anything. And I mentioned previously that it’s likely that “cronyism� with the government is what caused what became problems for the entire timber industry even though the major commercial companies plant far more trees than they cut down.

  However, the subject of privatizing “public� lands is a whole different story, one that I would really enjoy discussing though it would more than likely far exceed the conversation regarding environmentalism. While I believe that privatization can solve economic problems, privatization in the current government/corporate plutocratic oligarchy will be disastrous. Give it another 4-8 years if the neocons remain in power, and it will be far worse. Anyway, we’re better off not getting into that one.

  “Subsidized, compulsory recycling is a wasteful sideshow.�

  Agreed.

  “Recycling paper is still usually very cost-ineffective on an individual household basis.�

  Strongly disagree.

  “Private owners of commercial forests are interested in renewal. Governments cut deals in the short-term interest of their officials, the future be damned. (Sometimes known as public choice economics.)�

  Strongly agree.
  
  “That's a State of California p.r. website! Holy propaganda, Batman!
  I live in California, and I assure you the compulsory curbside recycling we have here is a big fat losing screw-the-customer, screw-the-taxpayer political payoff to crony corporations and environmentalist fanatics who have so much pull here.�

  I figured on there being California residents on the blog. All websites, left and right, use propaganda. But there are statistics, not only at this website but a great many others, that will verify the enormous amount of recyclables that are re-manufactured in America. Your governmental problems can be solved; coercion can be stopped; private enterprise can prevail. But do away with recycling altogether and we’re all going to suffer for it in the short and long term.

  “Sorry, but that's not obvious at all. What *is* obvious is that everyone (except the aforementioned payoff beneficiaries, plus the funcionaries of the leviathan State) is being screwed by subsidized, compulsory recycling. Happy lambs to the slaughter.�

  Subsidization and compulsion by government is wrong at all levels.

  “That sounds like a red herring. This is a forum for ideas, not particularly for sharing strategies of activism. Nobody wrote here against activism on this subject. Are you insinuating we're insincere if we don't become political activists?�

  These statements make it seem as though you’re trying to start a schoolyard fight. Nothing I’ve written suggests such a thing. If this is a forum for ideas, then I’ve complied.

  “BTW, I spent about 15 years of my life working professionally and semi-professionally in politics, most of it as a legislative aide. I've seen all too well that there's a far more urgent need to educate people about the nature of the State than to play the its political games.�

  I wish you the best of successes in spreading the word. Too bad the word isn’t spreading much faster. It’s a shame for people to have to “stumble� onto great ideas. I’m glad I did, but I wish I’d known a couple of decades ago. BTW, people who vote for Democrats aren’t horned devils who worship socialism or some other –ism that you despise. People like me merely need to be shown a better way; we already believe that individual freedoms are the basis required to live in liberty and pursue our happiness. The message that tax-and-spend is not the best way to achieve these ends and that there is a much better way, needs to become widely known; not a secret credo.

  “You're right that environmentalists get a lot more media play than their critics. That's the way it is with statism: Are you suggesting that makes them right?�

  I don’t agree with statism, but I’m extremely interested in environmentalism. I read quite a lot about the various subjects within it from all viewpoints. What I believe is right may be wrong and the same goes for you. We just have to be confident in our decisions, and I am in mine.

  “You don't ‘appreciate those who will poison my air and water’? Mom and apple pie.�

  Well, I’m not quite sure what to make of the “Mom and apple pie� thing. I don’t appreciate those who will poison my air and water. Period. Simple.

  “Your altruistic commitment to lower prices for other consumers is touching. But the government-fostered system is so uneconomic that it seems very dubious that it offers any such net benefits.�

  None of my comments have suggested support of any government-fostered system so, again, I’m not quite sure what to make of the statement. Possibly, you didn’t intend it to apply to me and you were merely stating your opinion, with which I happen to agree. However, the author’s article was anti-recycling, not specifically anti-government-supported-recycling.

  The article, in no uncertain terms, impugned the wisdom of those who participate in recycling in general. And the last paragraph begged for additional commentary:

  “Oh, and don't tell my children half the recycling story. Remember Hazlitt and turn over the second and third stone before drawing an economic conclusion.�

  
  Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but it seems to me from your “tone� that you would prefer this statement:

  Comment on the blog.

  To instead state:

  Comment on the blog to our board of reviewers. Should your comments be in agreement with the general attitudes of the board, your comments will be posted.

  Published: September 25, 2005 5:15 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  Bob A.:

  As you've addressed practically none of the substance of my comments, I've little more to say here.

  But your last, gratuitous remark beckons a response:

  "Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but it seems to me from your 'tone' that you would prefer this statement:

  "Comment on the blog.

  "To instead state:

  "Comment on the blog to our board of reviewers. Should your comments be in agreement with the general attitudes of the board, your comments will be posted."

  As you can plainly see, there's no screening of your opinions. That's why they're on this webpage, being discussed here. Criticism isn't censorship.

  Published: September 25, 2005 5:57 PM

• Bob A.

  R.P. McCosker,

  "Criticism isn't censorship."

  All can plainly see that censorship is not a problem to worry about at this site, thus making it all the better. My comments addressed what I perceive your attitude to be; that someone dare disagree with you publicly. I hope I'm wrong about my perception, but your diction and syntax do not prove that out:

  "As you've addressed practically none of the substance of my comments, I've little more to say here."

  I welcome criticism as I believe it to be part of gaining wisdom. Knowledge-building is available to those who desire and value it; wisdom being a much different endeavor. But there is a method of criticism I feel confident in assuming you are quite familiar with, your intellect, likely high degree of higher education, and obvious excellent articulation being evident.

  This has been an enlightening discussion for many reasons beyond the commentary about the subject matter of the article. Here is my last word:

  Hooray for those who recycle and double-hooray for those who have examined sufficient data to be confident in their decisions either way.

  Take it away, sir.

  Respectfully,
  Bob A.

  Published: September 25, 2005 7:25 PM

• Bob A.

  R.P. McCosker,

  My sincerest apologies for the title of "sir." I continue to have difficulty in the online environment making assumptions about the gender of the bloggers. Even if I was correct in addressing you in such manner, it was foolish of me to do so without prior knowledge. Of course, if I was incorrect, I am twice as foolish.

  Published: September 25, 2005 7:33 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  Bob A.:

  I could be called "sir," but you may call me "Randy" if you prefer.

  Published: September 25, 2005 11:33 PM

• Bob A.

  Randy,

  Sir, it's a pleasure to meet you. I look forward to more such stimulating and enlightening discussions. This website is a real treasure.

  Published: September 26, 2005 1:12 AM

• Yancey Ward

  David White,

  I apologize for the delay in responding to your query, but I was away over the weekend. Here is the reference I use whenever I wish to use HTML tags. I would give a description of how to create one-click links, but it is difficult to do in an HTML-based comments section. It takes a little practice to get it right. As for the links, just remember that if you want a word or particular phrase to be your link (a hidden URL), you put this text between the bracketing tags.

  Published: September 26, 2005 8:48 AM

• Yancey Ward

  As for the discussion at hand, the key issue, I think, is the coercion used to force one to sort one's trash. I think recycling of metals, paper, and plastic may be profitable, but why not let recyclers pay you directly for your efforts of sorting? One could even offer differential pricing for trash disposal.

  Published: September 26, 2005 8:59 AM

• Walter E. Wallis

  Environmentalism did not start with Carson. At the turn of the last century California outlawed hydraulic mining, surely one of the big powers back then, because silting the rivers was flooding out farmers. The population growth during WWII overburdened treatment plants adequate to an earlier standard, and most of the clean water projects started as soon as war priorities wound down. A good portion of my engineering in the 50's was devoted to air pollution control, well before EPA. As for recycling, eliminate punitive taxation and assign a value to a person's time, then dump the idiot idea that a garbage dump needs to be bundled up like the crown jewels and we might get back to working for ourselves and not for some parsimonious pissant politicians who just love to play Simon Says with us.

  Published: September 26, 2005 6:36 PM

• Martin

  This is the most stupid article I have ever read on Mises.org.
  Recycling is inefficient because it doesn't pay?
  Recycling is a waste of resources?
  Who are you to say that? I could say the same about the cosmetics industry. You are a marxist. You believe in normative economics, and in the labour-based theory of value. That's ridiculous. If people like recycling, there is value enough there for me. If they like to spend their money in Vegas, there is value to be made in Vegas too.

  What kind of economist are you? How come you got published?

  Published: September 26, 2005 8:30 PM

• Bob A.

  W.A. Sheer,

  “You cannot CLEARLY perceive a vast chasm of difference between the likes of a George Bush or even - gasp - Bill Clinton and the monsters in charge of China or Saddam Hussein?�

  Without a doubt, the differences are clear. But does this mean that an invasion of China is on the horizon? And George Bush might be a great guy, but the administration he fronts for wants a newly-styled Fatherland, minus violence against America’s citizens thus far.

  “Similarly, although one can accurately ascribe all sorts of statist tendencies to many in our government, it is a stretch to defend those who openly murder their own citizens AS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY, and those who do stupid, misguided things like increase taxes, expand state controls over private property, or go to war over what can only be called mistaken reasoning in hindsight.�

  Forgive me if I missed something, but I haven’t yet seen anybody defend the murder of citizens. I HAVE seen many statements that suggest, strongly, that we don’t have the right to invasion. Additionally, after “success� from an invasion, is not the question ALWAYS, “Okay. That’s done. Who’s next? Who else is acting against what we think is right?�

  “I think that's clear to anyone who cares to genuinely think it through. It's not a defense of statism or of those who advocate it by whatever name, but it IS putting things in reasonable perspective.�

  That would be YOUR perspective that you wish to project on others, would it not?

  “Even if the _effect_ is to support the enemies of free minds and free markets, the claim that one _intended_ to educate them may be acceptable.�

  Who are the enemies of free minds? Certainly you cannot be liberal-bashing; liberals are the ones the administration wants to stop from free thinking. And surely you’re not suggesting that this administration has been promoting free markets or, for that matter, anything even resembling free markets!

  “How effective can any such spokesman be for any cause or position?�

  As you have asked for a response from nobody in particular, the answer is VERY effective.
  

  Published: September 26, 2005 10:11 PM

• Bob A.

  Sorry! This belongs on another thread from a different article!

  Published: September 26, 2005 10:22 PM

• NotApplicable

  Why do you folks insist on fighting pointless battles with the self-destructive do-gooders of the world? (for the record, I'm a recovering do-gooder)

  If mindless politicians and their equally mindless "psychic reward" junkies (so-called constituents) demand action, well, no amount of logic about the harm of unintended consequences is going to keep them from destroying the Earth. Such is the nature of the false belief systems driving the divide and conquer body politic.

  Back when I was still a believer, I always found myself correcting people who would recycle anything that looked even remotely recyclable, without regard to the actual harm of further "polluting the stream" of recovered materials.

  But now... now I've stopped tilting at those windmills. Thanks to Penn & Teller's show Bullshit!, I came to realize the environmental harm created by manufacturing raw materials. Materials that are more efficiently obtained from historical methods. It all comes down to net energy (even environmental considerations). More energy usage = more pollution.

  What's to be done? The only thing that can be, which is to promote this "solution" until it dies from its own weight. So, given that I cannot stop this destructive scenario from unfolding, I've chosen the path of Greenspan, which is to accelerate it so that its death comes about much quicker.

  Which is a way of saying that not only do I no longer correct misguided recylcers, I've joined them! I recycle anything that remotely looks recyclable, with the exact same judgement as those I used to correct. "What do you mean they don't recylce this, why they should!"

  I figure if they get enough of these things, then some do-gooder looking for a politcal score will notice them, and insist that they be recycled too!

  Eventually, this exercise results in reductio ad absurdum to the point where even the most pious defenders of recycling will be forced to challenge the reason behind their flawed beliefs.

  
  
  Besides, even if they don't, I still have that warm-fuzzy feeling inside, knowing that I've given someone a job to sort out the trash from their treasure.

  Perhaps if we all start to do our part, then all of our children can look forward to a career in the garbage sorting industry.

  And we will all live happily ever after.

  Published: September 27, 2005 1:46 PM

• Walter E. Wallis

  No one has to buy makeup, no one has to go to Las Vegas. Make recycling just as voluntary and God bless you. Take Northern California garbage up to Alturas and Southern California gerbage to Iron Mountain and recover the economically recoverable stuff there. Remove the stupid deposits so that recovery will be based on genuine economic messages. Keep religion out of garbage and vice versa.

  Published: September 29, 2005 12:18 AM

• warren mcintyre

  Unnecessary manufacture of materials = Unnecessary use of energy use = Unnecessary rises in temperature of oceans = Unnecessary long term costs?
  Some times we have to consider the hidden costs

  Although I guess you would suggest we concentrate on working out how to 'hide' CO2 (as we have tried to do with nuclear waste?)or blame the suns increasing relative temperature.

  Published: October 4, 2005 9:52 AM

• John Mason

  What an incredibly stupid article.

  Published: July 14, 2006 12:14 AM

• John Mason

  http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm

  Published: July 14, 2006 12:20 AM

• Reactionary

  I'd love to be proved wrong, but if recycling used less resources than it consumed, you'd wake up to find recycling bins at the end of your driveway placed there by entrepeneurs.

  I had the same uncomfortable feeling watching a documentary on ethanol production. It takes a lot of heat to boil the biomass in order to distill ethanol. Does the process to manufacture ethanol create more fuel than it consumes?

  Published: July 14, 2006 10:19 AM

• Muna

  One glaring omission in the postings - no one seems to think that the MANUFACTURER of the waste should carry the cost! The economics of recycling argument falls flat on its tush, as all product waste costs, be it local government, ratepayers or the environment, are a form of indirect subsidy to these unintelligently designed products and processes.

  1) 100% takeback will internalise all life cycle costs, thereby ensuring both better desing in future, as well as removing the burden from society at large.

  2) any life cycle analysis shows that most packaging in its current form is not inherently financially viable, and can only deliver a profit to companies via these externalised subsidies.

  so, genuinely free market? I think not!

  Published: November 26, 2006 4:30 AM

• Robin Ingenthron

  General Mining Act of 1872 explains it. In countries without institutionalized subsidies of VIRGIN material, recycling is accomplished in the free market exactly as the author says it "should" be. Even in Hong Kong and Singapore (which are not low-wage areas), it's almost impossible to throw away cardboard, no matter how hard you may try. More info at
  www dot wr3a dot org

  Published: January 7, 2007 7:09 AM

• Mark Base

  Learn about how they recycle stuff in Sweden!

  Recycling in Sweden->

  Published: January 31, 2007 4:45 AM

• Nathan

  Comments on "Recycling: What a Waste"

  Just because it is financially cheaper to dump waste in a landfill than recycle it dosen't justify anything.

  If you believe burrying your trash in someone elses back yard is acceptable then I have a proposal.

  For the next year burry all of your trash in your own backyard and only eat livestock from reclaimed lands.

  I'm sure you would never be caught living such a lifestyle. You probably live in some uppermiddle class community where view waste management is an out of sight out of mind problem.

  Each individual has an ethical responsibility to their children to do as little damage to the world (in this case the environment) as possible.

  No kid grows up wanting to live on a landfill.

  If that means spending more money to limit the amount of waste then so be it.

  Your article is a great example on how the wastefulness of americans is justified throgh economics.

  Has america lost its ethics or is the average person so uneducated that they cannot think for them selves.

  The greed of man has turned politics from helping out the many to benifiting the rich.

  Have some ethics and think about waste management, global warming, and the failing education system in america.

  Is that cost justified by the monitary profit of the few or the monitary inconvience of the many?

  Published: February 15, 2007 9:06 PM

• Emily Ekart

  You say that there is no market for recyclable materials? Then let's make one. You went on and on about how recycling is an inefficient use of scarce resources.... um hello!!!! recycling is trying to make sure that we have those resources years from now. Recycling is helping preserve them. You believe in reusing but not recycling, that is just what recycling is. Re-using the materials that we have already used before. Recycling actually can save loads of money, that's if people like you would get on board. You can't expect things to get better if you keep using everying up, even if you are redusing and reusing. Recycling and the No-Waste program Eco-Cycle (Colorado) has come up with can help save this earth that we call home.

  Published: May 1, 2008 3:50 PM

• scott t

  "This article completely ignores the intelligent person's case for recycling."

  well...the author says this.....

  "If recycling at a financial loss leads you to greater psychic profit, then recycle, recycle, recycle. Let your personal preferences guide your actions....."
  i assume the intelligent make some choices based on psychic profit or benefit??

  and then goes on to say....

  "I used to recycle; it paid. As a child living in the Pittsburgh area, I would collect and clean used glass containers. After collecting a sufficient amount of glass, my father would drive the three or so miles to the local glass factory where the owner gladly exchanged cleaned waste glass for dollars."

  which is probobly how recycling should be instead of the massive curbside collection operations.

  i have read that the newer landfills are selected for geological stability and there are devices now that can reduce bulk even further than compaction extending the lifespan of landfills by quite a bit - hopefully reducing the costs of refuse disposal.

  i still see mixed information concerning claims of reduced energy usage for virgin material or recycled material.

  my experience with clothing made from recycled has been ok but not necessarily superior to other synthetic material clothing.

  Published: October 7, 2009 6:09 PM