Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

  My Profile  Log In   Register Free Now   
Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet Planet Thoughts Advanced       Click to see one of our videos, chosen at random from the database, along with its PlanetThought
 Try a video
Home   About   Books&Media   Resources   Contact  
   News   Quote   Review   Story   Tip   All   Blogs   News   Quotes   Reviews   Stories   Tips
Get Email or Web Quotes
or use our RSS feeds:
New Feed:  Fossil Fuel
 Full  Blog  News
Read & Comment:
A Solar Community In Isr...
'Let's You And Him Fight...
Paul Krugman's Errors An...
Why Climate Change Is An...

Most recent comments:
From Farm To Fork
A Simple List: Things We...
Can the affluent rest at...

Bookmark the site
Contribute $
Easy link from your site
Visit Second Life
Visit SU Blog

Blog item: Recycling? What A Waste.

    Email a Friend     See Related

3 comments, last: Nov-6-2010   Add a comment   Author: GuestWriter (Oct-17-2010)
Categories: Philosophical & Quality of Life, Pollution, Sustainable Living

Recycling effectiveness; click to see a larger image, and other source materialsBy

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. They come home well prepared to be the enforcers of the creed against parents who might inadvertently drop a foil ball into the glass bin or overlook a plastic wrapper in the aluminum bin.

Oh, I used to believe in recycling, and I still believe in the other two R's: reducing and reusing. However, recycling is a waste of time, money, and ever-scarce resources. What John Tierney wrote in the New York Times nearly 10 years ago is still true: "Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America."

Reducing and reusing make sense. With no investment in resources, I can place the plastic grocery bag in the bathroom garbage can and save a penny or so for some more-pressing need. Reducing and reusing are free market activities that are profitable investments of time and labor.

Any astute entrepreneur will see the benefit of conserving factors of production. Today, builders construct houses using less wood than similar houses built just 20 years ago. In addition, these houses are built sturdier; for the most part anyway.

The Green's love for trees did not reduce the amount of wood used in construction; the reduction was simply a reaction to the increasing cost for wood products. Using less wood makes financial sense, and any entrepreneur worth his profit will change his recipe to conserve wood through better design or by substituting less dear materials for wood products.

A recent Mises article, Ethanol and the Calculation Issue, noted the inability to calculate the true cost of producing Ethanol. 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 Ethanol at the pump. Certainly the Chicago School, Keynesians, etc., will give the calculation the old college try, to no avail of course. Absent government supports, the price of Ethanol at the pump reveals the most accurate economic cost of producing that fuel.

The same applies to recycling. What is the true cost of all the factors involved in the recycling process? I do not have a clue. Though using Misesian logic, I know that the cost of recycling exceed its benefit. This is the simple result of the observation that recycling does not return a financial profit.

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. In this instance, I was an entrepreneur investing factors of production in order to turn dirty waste glass into capital. The value of the exchange exceeded my preference for time, hard work, and my parents' soap, water, and auto fuel. (Of course all of my exchanges against my parents' resources were high on my preference list, but that is another issue altogether). In this activity, I was not recycling in the standard use of the term. I was producing factors of production — cleaned glass — for a profit.

So, what is wrong with recycling? The answer is simple; it does not pay. In addition, since it does not pay, it is an inefficient use of the time, money, and scarce resources. As Mises would have argued: let prices be your guide. Prices are essential to evaluate actions ex post. If the accounting of a near past event reveals a financial loss, the activity was a waste of both the entrepreneur's and society's scarce resources.

That said, I am supposed to believe that I need to invest resources into cleaning and sorting all sorts of recyclable materials for no compensation; an activity that many considered economically efficient. In addition, in some local communities, residents have to pay extra so that a waste company will recycle their paper, plastic, and glass as the recycling bins come with a per-month fee.

In other areas, such as my township, the garbage company profits at the mercy of the political class. The trustees in my township specified that in order to win the waste removal contract, the winning company had to provide recycling bins. Further, they have to send special trucks around to empty those neatly packed bins and deliver the bins' contents to companies that have no pressing need for these unraw materials. The recycling bins are ostensibly free, but in reality, their cost is bundled into my monthly waste removal bill.

Since there is no market for recyclable materials, at least no market price sufficient to return my investment in soap and water, not to mention time and labor, I conclude that there is no pressing need for recycling.

Ok, but what about the lack of landfills nationwide? If landfills were truly in short supply, then the cost of dumping waste would quickly rise. I would then see the financial benefit to reducing my waste volume. And since the recycling bin does not count toward waste volume, the more in the recycling bin, the less in the increasingly expensive garbage cans. Prices drive entrepreneurial calculations and, hence, human action. Recycling is no different.

Come on now, there cannot be any benefit to even the neoclassical society if you actually have to pay someone to remove recyclables.

Since recycling does not turn a profit, it is more efficient to utilize the scarce resources devoted to recycling activities in other modes of production. Instead of wasting resources on recycling, it would be more prudent to invest that money so that entrepreneurs can create new recipes to conserve scarce materials in the production process.

Human action guides resources toward the activities that meet the most pressing needs. This movement of resources means that those activities that do not meet pressing needs are relatively expensive. Why? Those activities have to bid for factors of production along with the profitable activities — activities that are meeting the most pressing needs. The profitable activities will drive the cost of those scarce factors upward leading to financial ruin for those activities that do not satisfy the most pressing needs. Forced recycling is such a failed activity.

The concept of diminishing recyclable resources is fraught with errors. Glass headed to the landfills will sit quietly awaiting someone to desire its value. The glass is not going anywhere, and should glass become as dear as gold — or even slightly less dear, you can bet that entrepreneurs will begin mining landfills for all those junked glass bottles.

The only caveat to this train of thought is what Rothbard wrote about when he discussed psychic profit: the perceived benefit one receives from performing an action, even if that action leads to an economic loss.

See original blog item: Ludwig von Mises Institute  
Related reading:
  A World Of Plastic (Article And InfoGraphic) (Aug-2-2011)
  Global Youth Uprising: Dashed Hopes, Anger, And ... (Jun-26-2011)
  I Think This Is A Good Idea, At Least Where I Li... (May-13-2011)
  Vegan Jelloware Re-Invents The Disposable Cup (Aug-14-2010)
  Dirty Little Secret: Who Wants To Live Forever (... (May-19-2010)
  Throwing Out Food and Paper Will Be Illegal! (Nov-23-2009)
  EU Paper Industry Has Cut Carbon Pollution By 42... (Nov-23-2009)
  Plastics In Oceans Decompose, Release Hazardous ... (Aug-29-2009)
  Plastic Marine Debris: What We Know (Aug-21-2009)
  Santa Barbara Students Lead the Way to Sustainab... (Jul-26-2009)

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings
^ top
Add a comment    
  Follow the comments made here? 
  (Please log in or register free to follow comments)
Comment by: City Worker (Nov-6-2010)   
This article: talks a bit about recycling of aluminum and paper. The downside of the aritcle is that it doesn't tell how it came up with its figures.
Comment by:  PT (David Alexander) (Oct-28-2010)   Web site

I wonder whether manufacturers increase the profit margin due to the prestige of using recycled paper, that is, the people who care about that will willingly pay a bit extra.

By the way, plastics do not fully recycle... they "downcycle", meaning they get less and less useful each time they get reused (not sure if they can be reused more than once). Metal and glass truly recycle, and can be 100% reused multiple times. They don't degrade nearly as much as plastic during recycling, and in some cases are completely like new after recycling.
Comment by: City Worker (Oct-28-2010)   

I think some recycling makes sense and some does not, but I think it’s a bit too difficult to ask people to differentiate, so it’s best to keep the rules like they are. Now, I don’t have any figures to bear this out, but….. Take paper recycling. Some businesses use lots and lots of paper. And I can’t imagine it’s more costly and wasteful of resources to recycle that paper than to cut down trees and make it into paper. I think that a problem is that businesses aren’t assiduous enough in their recycling efforts. However, maybe bond paper made with 100% recycled material is more costly because it often costs up to twice as much as paper made without non-recycled material. As for things like scrap metal, from, let’s say cars, I think recycling it makes a lot of sense…. But that’s just a feeling. Now take something like a plastic bottle half full of a sticky food you want to throw out. Cleaning that out enough to make it acceptable for the recycle bin….. well, I don’t know about that.

^ top 
About author/contributor GuestWriter welcomes occasional articles and opinion pieces from writers who are not regular contributors. Their contributions will be listed under the "GuestWriter" name, and additional attribution will be shown in accordance with the agreement with the original writer and source of the PlanetThought.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet

We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

     Members/Affiliates *

Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
Environmental News Network
Heroin and Cornflakes

* Members of PlanetThoughts      
  communities on SU or MBL,      
  and blog article affiliates      

  Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
Good Bags
Opposing Views

Valid my RSS feeds

We Do Follow

  Volunteer      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy  

Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved.
Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.