Comments on: I Recycle!

By: Cas Adler-Ivanbrook

Cas Adler-Ivanbrook — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:13:02 +0000

Hi Pat,
“And to Casimir Adler-Ivanbrook- Some people believe testing should follow “imagining” what will happen to CaCO3 dependant creatures–. Seems zooplankton flourish with increased CO2 . http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/320/5874/336.

Coral also responds really well to increased CO2.http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119393461/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

You seem to disparage the economist view as simplistic while your own seems to always end in apocalypse.”

You appear to have me at a disadvantage. My original comment appears to have been deleted (for some reason), so it is hard for me to reply. However, I looked up the first reference you offered. It concerns one species of ZP. Are you really going to extrapolate to your conclusion on this, and two species of coral, subjected to labaratory conditions? OK. I argue a general proposition about increasing acidification of the oceans. You are welcome to argue that I am doing the same as you, but the proof will be in the pudding, as they say. If you are right–well done, and I bow to your superior scientific acumen. If I am right, lord help us. I repeat–neo-classical economics mostly assumes nicely behaved mathematically tractable functions. If one has a non-linear catastrophic event, one is not going to be able to smoothly differentiate one’s functions. There will not be a nice tractable tradeoff in the MRS in C or P or U. The good news is that if we do experience a catastrophic event, we won’t be throwing away paper plates anymore… we will be trying to eat them… Cheers

By: A reciclagem e os preços de mercado « O Insurgente

A reciclagem e os preços de mercado « O Insurgente — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:05:27 +0000

[...] under: Ambiente,Economia,Nanny State Watch,Política,Teoria — André Azevedo Alves @ 16:00 I Recycle! – Market Prices Compel Us to Recycle when Recycling Is Appropriate. Por Don Boudreaux. It might well be immoral to waste things, but contrary to popular misconception, [...]

By: D. Saul Weiner

D. Saul Weiner — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:37:13 +0000

Suppose that one were charged a market rate for waste removal and disposal based on how much garbage he generates (perhaps by volume, weight, or some combination), rather than paying a fixed fee which is independent of one’s output (waste socialism). Would that produce a different set of behaviors? Would we use fewer paper plates if we knew that it would cost an extra dollar to dispose of them for each family meal? (the dollar is illustrative; I have no idea what the true cost would be). I think that depending on the costs involved, it very well could, especially for the more economically-minded.

By: Joe Hooker

Joe Hooker — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:31:17 +0000

We continue to foolishly place reliance on markets to assess the true costs of our consumer oriented, wasteful society. markets are clearly inept at measuring long-term environmental costs. The time horizons are simply too short, focusing on short-term efficiencies, and our knowledge base is inadequate. We continue to accelerate the extent to which we acquire and throw stuff out. Meanwhile, we accelerate the speed with which we obliterate natural habitats- ecosystems ,of diminishing wildlife diversity, degredation of ecology. Stop expecting markets to do what they are incapable of doing- taking an ethical, prudent, humble approach to evaluating how we need to fit in with the natural world.

By: The thinker

The thinker — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 05:15:27 +0000

I agree with the earlier comment about the confusion in the article between reusing and recycling. The terms are(mistakenly) used interchangably in the paper plates example.

If you wash the paper plates and eat off them again, this is REUSE.

Put them in the recycling bin with other paper and cardboard products, this is RECYCLING.

It sounds like the author practices reusing and not recycling. I don’t know the waste collection arrangements are in his jurisdiction but in mine we have a separate bin for recycling products and general waste. Its not a huge time cost for me to separate my rubbish into the appropriate bin, so I RECYCLE.

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 11 May 2010 18:51:38 +0000

Paper plates – use them, toss them, and it’ll be ground up. For the idiotic “guy” up there, know that recycling isn’t a direct process. What you toss in the recycle bin doesn’t go directly back on the shelves. Those paper plates are shredded, pulped, chlorinated/bleached/etc, and then it comes out as new. Nothing is contaminated in the end product.

People recycle yet consumption of materials is still up. It might be time to teach reusing. Old shirts as rags, newspaper as window cleaner. And in the end, these too can be recycled after a long cycle of repeated use. Reuse old items, less production, more resources around. Simple concept.

By: Pat Moffitt

Pat Moffitt — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 05:30:16 +0000

Professor-Fresh take on an old argument! Congrats.

And to Casimir Adler-Ivanbrook- Some people believe testing should follow “imagining” what will happen to CaCO3 dependant creatures–. Seems zooplankton flourish with increased CO2 . http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/320/5874/336.

Coral also responds really well to increased CO2.http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119393461/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

You seem to disparage the economist view as simplistic while your own seems to always end in apocalypse.

By: Doc

Doc — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 06:34:35 +0000

To Recylce or not to Recyle…. As the author states it boils down to value, value of time against the efforts and labor of recyling. It some country I have worked they recyle because as one reader states they are poor and the benefits of recyling save them money, therefore it is in their instance a worthwhile expenditure of time.
The students response by walking out is infantile, I was under the impression that university where seats of learning, therefore discourse was promoted, not blind dogma, no wonder the modern generation are so inept at dealing with real life issues, if they lack the abiltiy to engage and seek solutions through discourse then we are surely doomed, but that is evident by the behavior of congress (Both Sides) partisan politics, rigid adherence to their manifesto’s and sadly their total lack of connect with the average American, no wonder Congress and the Presidency have such low approval ratings, like the student who walked out they prefer to keep their blinkers on racing down the track in a sucidal belief that they have all the answers.

By: Deborah

Deborah — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:10:13 +0000

I agree that markets often impact recycling. For instance, if it is cheaper to buy an inexpensive watch than to buy a replacement battery, many will buy the watch. It makes more sense economically. In the US, most people don’t have to deal with trash and landfills. Out of sight, out of mind. In developing nations where trash is a bigger issue, even the poor recycle. In fact, the poor will pick through the trash to collect recyclable items because they can make money off if it. It makes sense for them to do so economically. (I’m not saying it’s a great job, just that recycling is economically driven in that case.) I also agree that reusing things is akin to recycling. In fact, it’s probably better. It doesn’t require money or energy from manufacturing companies to reprocess them! I do think it would be nice if people recycled more. It’s not hard to do, and in some cases, doesn’t require sorting at home.

By: We all recycle. « The Last Post for Freedom

We all recycle. « The Last Post for Freedom — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:03:43 +0000

[...] Go to comments The next time you a self-righteous prude tells you to recycle tell them that you already do. Categories: Uncategorized Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment [...]