If you haven't seen the episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit!" on recycling, you really should, it's a riot. They even convinced one lady to seperate out the dirty diapers from her trash! The conclusion that was drawn is that most recycling facilities actually use more natural resources than they save just to run their equipment and supply their factories. The research they did for the show demonstrated that the only thing it really makes sense to recycle is aluminum. I recycle aluminum cans, but I'm not one of the bin freaks with 50 different multi-colored containers for recyclying every material known to man.

What's interesting is a lot of our forests wouldn't exist but for the timber companies. While its true that the ones planted for paper can't replace old growth, the fact is, when the paper industry stops exploiting one, it doesn't revert to old growth. It gets cut down to become a shopping mall.

So while old growth is ideal, new growth forests are better than nothing!

People have a need for doing things that feel virtuous.

For some people it's raising a family or going to a house of worship; for other people it's reflected in consumption and political habits.

In my city and the surrounding suburbs, the recycling thing started as a free "virtuous" activity, with lots of publicity and "oh, it's so good for us" nonsense. But in almost no time, a fee was instituted for picking up our recycling (whether we actually put anything in the recycle bin is immaterial), and now, city employees are literally snooping through our regular garbage bins to see - and report on - what "should" have been recycled! This is insanity!

Or as P.J. O'Rourke put it, "No one has to pay you to recycle Ferraris".

If something is of value to someone, they will buy it. If it's not - well then it's not in short supply and not worth recycling. A better real life example is copper - it's almost always worth stripping the copper out of a house before demolishing it because it's one of the few resources in genuinely short supply so it's scrap value is high. And it's easy to reuse. Same goes for aluminium, not because bauxite ore is particularly rare, but because the energy cost to refine it is so high. It makes sense to collect and reuse it.

Paper, glass, plastic - who cares? Most of it from here gets sent to China (seriously, huge fucking container ships leave Australia every day full of this shit) because the sorting alone requires very low labour costs. Let alone the toxicity of some of the recycling processes. You literally could not get some of these plants running in a Western country, they are environmental disasters. But the rules say it can't go into landfill, so it has to go somewhere...

'tis true it's silly to worry about saving paper in order to save trees, for the reasons given. But paper production and distribution DOES require significant energy, and I would think that the CO2-obsessed denizens of the NYT and the rest of the Dinosaur Media would have constant guilt feelings about this.

so it's scrap value is high

Apologies for the rogue apostrophe. I hate doing that.

The big winners in household recycling are aluminum cans and small batteries. You notice how you seldom see discarded aluminum cans lying around in the street. That's because homeless people pick them up and take them to recycling centers for money. We have a voluntary recycling program here (and it has remained voluntary since it was instituted in the early '90s). Pickup is free to residents, and it's only a little bit subsidized by the city, so the recycling company isn't required to pick up anything that they would lose money on. So what they pick up is a pretty good measure of where the market is, and it's changed several times. Right now they mainly pick up aluminum cans, newspapers, batteries, some types of plastic, and used motor oil. Notably, they don't pick up glass; they used to, but never found a way to make money on it. I presume the newspapers are at least a little bit of a win; I believe it goes to make blow-in insulation.

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that many industries have developed recycling methods that are specific to their industry, which the general public usually doesn't see. Whenever I have an electric motor that needs replacement, I take the old one to a local appliance parts store. They have a machine that strips the copper windings off, and they sell that to a copper recycler. Then they disassemble it; if it has alnico or rare-earth magnets, those go to a company that melts them and makes new ones. What's left is mainly the casing and shaft, which are usually steel and those eventually find their way back to the steel plant. (Most iron and steel made in the U.S. today is made from scrap.) About the only thing that gets tossed are the bearings, the carbon brushes, and the plastic bits.

The city burns nearly all garbage and trash that doesn't get recycled. Incinerating means no more landfill growth, and it's a way of getting back some of the energy that went into making the materials being burned. The incinerator makes steam, which the city sells to a nearby military base, which uses it for heating and industrial processes. The incinerator makes enough money selling the steam to pay for its O&M and actually remits a bit back to the city.

it's almost always worth stripping the copper out of a house before demolishing it

In Detroit, they strip it out of a house while you're still living in it and at work, and you'd better hope that they don't take the part that keeps the gas supplied to the dryer, and that you don't come in with a lit cigarette.

You notice how you seldom see discarded aluminum cans lying around in the street. That's because homeless people pick them up and take them to recycling centers for money.

I was one of the first people using reusable bags. I saw people bringing bags to the store when I was in France, and started bringing them in the USA. People looked at me like I was trying to steal groceries. But, after everybody started using them, I realized that homeless people have to go through a lot of crap in the recycling bins, which are very tall (one of the ladies is tiny and probably can't even reach anywhere near the bottom). I started getting paper bags and putting out all the bottles in them, and even running out and handing them to the people who collect cans in my neighborhood when I see them. Now, I suspect other shoppers at the grocery store (especially Trader Joe's) look at me like I'm some eco-criminal, but I'm just trying to make somebody's life a little easier, and yes, a paper bag will have to die for the cause.

I presume the newspapers are at least a little bit of a win; I believe it goes to make blow-in insulation.

I didn't know about that one Cousin Dave. Makes a lot more sense than trying to turn it into paper again. Pulp mills are bad enough on water use and bleach without tons of ink sludge to deal with as well.

In Detroit, they strip it out of a house while you're still living in it and at work

Ha ha! Yes, copper theft is a big problem in a lot of places. I work on road construction projects and you would be amazed how many times cables disappear the day after they've been installed. We're talking things like 500 metres of 70 millimetre squared cross section cables here (read - a shipload of copper, tons of it). I always wonder why they don't check out the electricians who are yawning the next day...powerful unions here of course, especially in my state.

In my downtown LA neighborhood, we don't get recycling bins, so the city Arts District puts out little trash cans. I put my bottles and cans in the TJ's bags for the homeless guy, but the city sends its own little truck out, before he can get them. I asked the driver why they did that, and he said the Arts District office takes them to the recycling center and gets cash. I'm sort of horrified.

Think about how much time this woman spends not making garbage:

http://www.sunset.com/home/natural-home/zero-waste-home-0111-00418000069984/

"The family orders their compostable toothbrushes from an Australian company"

That's her idea of energy efficiency? Shipping COMPOST across the entire Pacific ocean? Some people really can't see the forest for the trees.

The thing that gets me is, the recycling companies have to be getting paid somehow to recycle this stuff, or they wouldn't be doing it. WHY, then, do they want to charge me for picking it up? Seems to me like they're getting paid twice. Sorry, I'm not spending money to have to separate my garbage - if you want to provide me a receptacle and pick it up for free, I'll be happy to help you out.

I don't have any kids, so I feel I've more than done my share in reducing the world's carbon footprint. You're welcome.

The 1968 extremely funny comedy The Producers gives the scheme underlying green energy policy.

In the film, the Producer (Zero Mostel) tells his accountant that he has sold shares adding up to more than 100% of his projects. The accountant (Gene Wilder) says that is impossible and illegal. Still, as long as the productions lose money, no one will care about the particular portion that they own.

Green energy is supported by scientists who want grants, and by a wishful part of the public who care more about saving the world than the cost. However, the reason that all of this has political support is that huge amounts of money can be spent by government and wasted, with flowback political contributions, as long as no one expects those projects to pay for themselves.

It is exactly the expected failure and expense of green energy which hides the graft.

The slogan is "Of course these technologies will lose money for 5-10 years. That is the expected cost of a new industry." Yes, any industry formed by government with public subsidies and mandates.

EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/2008/03/tpm-adaquate-compensation.html

The Political Manual: Adequate Compensation
- Search for "Create new contracts".

=== ===
Encourage new ideas for garbage processing, recycling, green government vehicles, resource management, environmentally sensitive school cafeterias, concrete with recycled content, or biodegradable curtains and furniture.

You and your family can form a service company FamCo which sells to a preferred company NewContractor. NewContractor can easily win the new government contracts by bidding 70% of the realistic price. It can be expected that the first application of a new technology will have cost overruns.
=== ===

'We're not running out of wood, so why do we worry so much about recycling paper?' asks Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute.
____________________________________

Well, there's this old saying: "Better be safe than sorry." Not to mention that I'd guess that cutting trees and replacing them constantly isn't good when it comes to soil erosion.
_______________________________________

"Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production. Acting to conserve trees by recycling paper is like acting to conserve cornstalks by cutting back on corn consumption."
_____________________________________

Why can't people remember that many - most? - trees aren't fully grown even after a century?

Ergo, it's hardly fair to compare a tree to a cornstalk.

"Yes, a lot of trees have been cut down to make today's newspaper. But even more trees will probably be planted in their place."

--Sure, but if you have ever been to an old growth forest like the Hoh Rainforest in WA you begin to understand and respect how long it took for fungaloids the size of my face to form. The energy there is truly amazing!

"America's supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation's forests have three times more wood today than in 1920."

---Timber/wood, not ecosystems. Pay attention to language folks...it makes a big difference!

'We're not running out of wood, so why do we worry so much about recycling paper?' asks Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. "Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production.

Yes, but old growth gets cut down first. New growth is planted in it's stead. Invasive species make their way into areas that were previously protected by dense forest--it's a mess, so unbalanced!

Lenona's right to ask "Why can't people remember that many - most? - trees aren't fully grown even after a century?"

Most aren't and some can't reproduce until they reach 120 years-They have to be that old before they become players! Old trees are sexy, powerful, and full of energy and it's bullshit to think of them in terms of cost effectiveness or whatever. thumbs down.

This subject came up in a class I was in, about not using paper in order to 'save the trees'. I pointed out that pulp wood was grown on tree farms just like other crops were grown on other farms. Going around shouting 'don't use paper and save the trees' made as much sense as shouting 'don't eat turnips and save the turnips'. This got a laugh. Of course there are other reasons not to eat turnips—they're bitter as hell is one.

We have mandatory recycling, and you have to wash the bottles and cans. I'd bet people don't wash them with cold water, so I conclude this is a net cost to the environment. They don't want to drill for natural gas around here either.

When the underpaid (they were busted for exploiting their minimum wage employees) eco-disciples from NYPIRG come around, I politely tell them no. No money, no signature, nothing.

I call it self defence.

"Why can't people remember that many - most? - trees aren't fully grown even after a century? "

Huh? Most pines are fully grown in 10 years, red maples and water oaks in 15 or so. The only trees that grow that long are things like giant redwoods and sequoias. And while those are admittedly spectacular, they are also very atypical of most of America's forests.

Consider: southern Alabama was completely clear cut between 1890 and 1910. Everything that is there now has grown since then. There's now more forest in south Alabama than there was at the time of the Civil War, and in that time most of the growth has turned over at least three times.

Paper is not made from old-growth forest. It is made from what used to be considered 'weed' trees; fast growing soft-woods.

Cousin Dave is right. In the 1800s, the land had to be cleared to plant corn to feed the horses and mules that powered our civilization. I saw a photo of my Grandmother's farm from about 1900. It was totally devoid of trees. Now it is mostly forest and an unintentional deer farm.

So, it's OK to bulldoze everything? Is that what you're saying?

And be sure to note you're backing something Rush Limbaugh said in his first book.

Obviously American conservation policy works. Look at California and Florida. Concrete must be superior. It doesn't die.

Have you ever seen an unused paved parking lot in a southern state after three years. It will be completely broken up and overgrown with weeds. In the south, the environment will crawl up your leg and bite your ass if you stand still long enough. It's not fragile. We have environmentalists in the south, but they mostly live in cities like Atlanta or Ashville, which are actually desert colonies. Those of you who live in California and other desert states, I will pray for you. But leave us alone.

Penn & Teller make no mention the fact that landfill space is required for used newspapers which aren't recycled. Do they think there is limitless disposal space? And they degrade their case by throwing in the f**k word. If they could cite an economic analysis to reinforce their assertion, they would deserver some credibility.

I would much rather use CFLs than incandescent light bulbs. I've been using the Sylvania brand and have had excellent luck with them. They make economic sense to me. Once they become dead, only insignificant traces of mercury will be released into the atmosphere if they are busted up outdoors.

1) trash to energy plants can burn the newspapers rather than put them in landfills.

2) insignificant times a million and you've got groundwater contamination.

Iconoclast, landfill space really isn't an issue. The amount of land required is tiny - the calculation Jerry Taylor usually quotes is that all the garbage for the next thousand years in the US would fill a landfill 35 square miles and 100 foot deep (from memory, don't shoot me if I'm wrong). This sounds huge but if you compare it to the area of the continental US it's tiny. And of course landfill sites eventually get buried and built over when they stabilise enough, so it's never all there at once. The causes of landfill shortages are site selection issues (groundwater leaching and pissed off locals), transport costs, and lack of forward planning.

And as Brian says you can burn newspaper. I'm not sure if it's worth it, but that depends on lots of local factors, cities can make that decision individually based on what makes more sense for them.

I'm not so sure that CFLs make economic sense either. They cost a lot more, which is supposed to be offset by longer life and reduced energy costs - but I'm not the only one with doubts about this long life thing. Works in the lab, but in real life I've found they don't always last that long. For example, the electronics can burn out early, to the point where I had one literally drop out of the light fitting when the plastic base overheated and melted (incidentally scaring the fuck out of the cat sitting two feet away). I've never had an incandescent physically attack me or catch fire before, no matter how cheap. And the production of them is much more complicated and resource intensive. In short, they really suck. Ultimately LED lighting will take over when it gets cheap enough. Till then incandescents are as good as it gets.

Lighting is such a small component of your electricity bill anyway - you typically only have them on for a few hours in the evening anyway. Whereas your 1000W refrigerator is running a lot of the time. In office buildings it's a different story of course which is why they use fluorescents. A lot of the saving there comes from reducing heat load rather than direct energy savings though.

"In the south, the environment will crawl up your leg and bite your ass if you stand still long enough. It's not fragile. "

What he said. Those jokes about cars and houses being swallowed by kudzu? They aren't exaggerations.

That Sunset article is hilarious. A colleague and I were talking about it after we got our issues this month. Do the magazine editors think that this is going to inspire their readers? We thought, "Wow, Mom has some OCD issues." I mean, she takes the little plastic strip that covers the adhesive on her Netflix envelope and mails it back to them! She doesn't buy fruit that has little stickers on them. She shops at the store with glass containers in tow (does she pay the extra weight on the containers every time, I wonder) and buys all her families' clothes at Goodwill ($65 in total last year). There is reasonable conservation and then there is obsessive one-upsmanship.

I tend to be frugal, but not obsessive.
Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without just makes sense to me. So does basic recycling. It is provided with my garbage service. I also return plastic grocery bags to the store recycling bins. I don't use them a lot since I have some durable bags I reuse over and over.

If you have critters, those plastic grocery store bags are perfect for disposing of animal output.

I'll be honest, I'd like to see less plastic used in packaging consumer goods, but without a good theft-deterrent system, they really have no choice but to make things too large to pocket.

Kate Coe said: Why is reducing consumption supposed to be a good thing? People get paid to make things, sell things, repair things, recycle things. I buy more old stuff than new, but that's merely a function of taste than any position on consumption. I like employment for myself and others.
___________________________

Gee, why don't we lift the ban on the hunting and destructions of endangered animals and plants while we're at it, since poachers do what they do mainly to make enough money to feed their starving kids? Not to mention the laws against polluting, which is what high consumption leads to?

While it's often unfair to expect people in Third World countries to have fewer kids (as I mentioned elsewhere in this blog, in countries with a high infant mortality rate, hunger rate and no Social Security, having lots of babies is mandatory for survival) there's still eco-tourism as a money maker, for starters. As the Hunger Project has said, everyone once "knew" that the world was flat and that slavery was an economic necessity that could never be made illegal, so why can't we abolish hunger too and, eventually, lower the birth rate?

And, regarding First World countries, I remember a cartoon showing two deer looking at the bright lights of a big city. One says to the other: "Why don't they thin their OWN herd?"

In the words of a late wise man: "Nothing except diamonds is above the law of scarcity value."

I.e., if human life is to be treated as precious, it would help a lot if every child was truly wanted - by both parents.

I think at some point a lot of the paper thing may become a moot point, with the advent of the eBook. It will be interesting to see if that actually happens or not.

And yes, the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is not to have kids. Nothing makes me laugh harder than a mother of six trying to tell me she's "green". Have one, if you must, but don't have a herd of them and then try to tell me you care about the environment.

And before someone jumps down my throat for that, no, I don't think extinction of the human race is essentially a bad thing. Not that it would ever happen without a huge national disaster or a nuclear war. Humans will breed as long as there are humans who can.

So, yes, bulldozing everything is perfectly acceptable.

Hey, go break a bunch of windows today. You'll be creating jobs...