Moon is best for dumping the waste of earth

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Khrushchev's Other Shoe

Did you even read the article?

Some of it, I skimmed through and discovered that it seemed to have an "recycling is not the answer" attitude from the teacher's experiment, and I explained why I think it is incorrect.

Recycling will be the answer because it is the only answer as far as non biodegradable products go, we pretty much have no other choice. They say that it made more waste by cleaning up garbage then just leaving it alone, but doing it once is not the answer at all, the point is to do it your entire life, and in the end it pays off.

[Khrushchev's Other Shoe]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

Some of it, I skimmed through and discovered that it seemed to have an "recycling is not the answer" attitude from the teacher's experiment, and I explained why I think it is incorrect.

The author of the article used the teacher's experiment as an illustration; I certainly don't get the idea that the conclusion was drawn from the illustration.

At this point, let me point out that I have not stated that I agree with the article; in fact, there are certain points with which I do not agree. There are many other points where I do not feel I have the expertise to decide whether they are correct or not. There is one point with which I definitely agree, though, and that is that environmental policy is often designed to produce emotional satisfaction rather than a higher quality environment. To that end, I think the following are legitimate questions that ought to be considered:

a) Is there a crisis? That is, how long before the mountains of crap to which you refer are an issue? Is this something we should be worried about within the next ten years? The next one hundred years? The next one thousand years? The next one million years? Does anyone here have any analysis to this point?

b) Does the solution (mandatory recycling) solve the problem? That is, does it make the mountains of crap appear later, or sooner? Is it the most cost effective solution? If not, then the cost (in time, effort, and money) of recycling could be reallocated to uses with greater environmental impact.

Recycling will be the answer because it is the only answer as far as non biodegradable products go, we pretty much have no other choice.

If that is the case, then the solution proposed by the author (make people pay to dispose of their waste, thereby using a market allocation mechanism to find the most cost-effective way to eliminate the environmental damage from the waste) will lead to recycling. If there exists a more cost-effective way to eliminate the environmental damage from waste, then the mechanism proposed by the author will find that method instead, unless the superior method has been outlawed by mandatory recycling laws. Furthermore, regardless of the optimal method of handling the waste, charging for its disposal provides an incentive for individuals to produce less waste. In some places, waste disposal (be it by landfill or recycling) is a free government service, which completely eliminates the incentive to produce less waste.

They say that it made more waste by cleaning up garbage then just leaving it alone, but doing it once is not the answer at all, the point is to do it your entire life, and in the end it pays off.

If the claim made in the article (that the act of recycling often produces more environmental damage than it eliminates) is wrong, then that changes things. Is it wrong? What is the evidence to the point? I'm willing to listen, but I'm going to need some evidence to the point.

To sum up - is recycling a cost-effective solution to a real environmental problem? Or is it a low-cost guilt relief mechanism with little (or possibly negative) impact on the environment? If the latter, then the resources devoted to recycling could be diverted to other uses, such as improving the quality of the environment.

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Khrushchev's Other Shoe

a) Is there a crisis? That is, how long before the mountains of crap to which you refer are an issue? Is this something we should be worried about within the next ten years? The next one hundred years? The next one thousand years? The next one million years? Does anyone here have any analysis to this point?

This is similar to saying that a Asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and has 23 years before impact, it could miss, but then again it might hit us, but the problem is it is coming from behind the Sun and we can't tell exactly one way or the other until it gets very close. Do we wait 10 of the 23 years to find the definite answer?

b) Does the solution (mandatory recycling) solve the problem? That is, does it make the mountains of crap appear later, or sooner? Is it the most cost effective solution? If not, then the cost (in time, effort, and money) of recycling could be reallocated to uses with greater environmental impact.

Practice Makes Perfect. Just like everything else, recycling is something that is going to half to be refined and manipulated until it works, but if you don't try how can you get any better? The first time you tied your shoe, were you being efficient? The answer is no, but you got better with practice didn't you?


I agree that there is a lack of study and analysis in the effects of recycling, there is a quote that says "The worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions" which is very true, but so many great things have been done with the best intentions as well. This is something that needs to be tried, and utilized until it is known if it is indeed a non efficient way of dealing with our waste from my point of view.

[Khrushchev's Other Shoe]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

This is similar to saying that a Asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and has 23 years before impact, it could miss, but then again it might hit us, but the problem is it is coming from behind the Sun and we can't tell exactly one way or the other until it gets very close. Do we wait 10 of the 23 years to find the definite answer?

In your analogy, it is not possible to determine whether a problem exists or not. I have no problem coming up with a quick and dirty estimate of the magnitude of the waste disposal crisis. The facts (or at least some of the facts) are not hard to determine in this case.

Practice Makes Perfect.

Maybe, but did the alchemists fail to turn lead into gold because they didn't practice enough? Some things do become perfect with practice. Some don't work no matter how much you practice. Into which category does recycling fall? And if practice does make perfect, why not practice alternative methods of handling the waste? Why does this argument apply to recycling, and only recycling?

Just like everything else, recycling is something that is going to half to be refined and manipulated until it works, but if you don't try how can you get any better? The first time you tied your shoe, were you being efficient? The answer is no, but you got better with practice didn't you?

It's been a long time since I learned to tie my shoes, but I think it likely that during this learning process, I abandoned some techniques that just weren't working, and adopted alternative techniques that worked better. But again, why would this argument apply to recycling and only recycling, but not also to alternative methods of handling waste?

I agree that there is a lack of study and analysis in the effects of recycling, there is a quote that says "The worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions" which is very true, but so many great things have been done with the best intentions as well. This is something that needs to be tried, and utilized until it is known if it is indeed a non efficient way of dealing with our waste from my point of view.

It (recycling) is being tried. Is there a reason why alternative waste treatment methods should not also be tried?

The real issue here is not whether recycling should be tried or not. The question is whether it should be mandated. The author proposes a market allocation mechanism - let people dispose of their waste in any non-environmentally damaging way they like. If recycling is the most cost-effective method, it will win in the marketplace. If it isn't, it won't. And if it isn't, why would you want to mandate it?

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I miss one important thing here I'd like to know - WHAT alternative waste treatment methods? Name at least several, which would not classify as recycling and wouldn't be simple piles of rotting junk in remote locations (as it is now (and sometimes not so remote at all))

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Khrushchev's Other Shoe

If recycling is the most cost-effective method, it will win in the marketplace. If it isn't, it won't. And if it isn't, why would you want to mandate it?

To save the world perhaps?

Maybe, but did the alchemists fail to turn lead into gold because they didn't practice enough?

Well, who would have thought that you can make a flawless diamond from peanut-butter?

And I agree with Carnifex, what other methods do you speak of?

[Khrushchev's Other Shoe]

Here is my question:

If recycling is the most cost-effective method, it will win in the marketplace. If it isn't, it won't. And if it isn't, why would you want to mandate it?

And here is Dragon Star's answer:

To save the world perhaps?

If a policy is an inefficient way of eliminating the environmental damage of waste, then mandating it is not saving the world, it is destroying the world. It is using resources inefficiently, resources that could be devoted to solving other problems, including other environmental problems. If that's what you want to do, that's up to you, but I couldn't live with myself.

So far, I get the impression you don't know the answers to the following questions:

a) Does a problem exist?

b) If so, how serious is it?

c) Does a proposed solution actually solve the problem?

d) Is it the best solution to the problem?

Those seem like good questions to know if you're going to recommend policy, don't they? There's been a lot of study on these questions. Are you familiar with any of it?

Well, who would have thought that you can make a flawless diamond from peanut-butter?

I doubt I would have. Same question as before. If this somehow proves that recycling is the best policy, why does it not also prove that alternatives are the best policy?

And I agree with Carnifex, what other methods do you speak of?

Will be glad to do so, including the ones mentioned in the article. But first, please answer my earlier questions - what is the magnitude of the problem you wish to solve, and what analysis do you have to show that your proposed solution actually solves the problem, and is in fact the best solution?

[Khrushchev's Other Shoe]

Originally Posted by Carnifex

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I miss one important thing here I'd like to know - WHAT alternative waste treatment methods? Name at least several,

Is this demand being made of me? If so, the big one is in the article - don't produce the waste in the first place. The market allocation mechanism proposed by the author of the article addresses that. Furthermore, if, as Dragon Star claims, recycling is the only viable solution, the mechanism proposed in the article will result in recycling. So I have no idea why he reacts so badly to the article.

Questions like this are well-studied. The US has a market allocation mechanism for certain types of emissions, which produces a given level of reduction in emissions at the minimal cost. People are opposed to that one as well, for some reason I can't figure out. I'm not sure if they're upset because it reduces emissions too much, or because it's not expensive enough.

[Khrushchev's Other Shoe]

Hi Dragon Star,

It occurs to me that my question:

If recycling is the most cost-effective method, it will win in the marketplace. If it isn't, it won't. And if it isn't, why would you want to mandate it?

could be misinterpreted. Let me reword it:

If recycling is the most cost-effective method of eliminating the environmental damage from waste, it will win in the marketplace. If it isn't, it won't. And if it isn't, why would you want to mandate it?

Oh, now I get your position. Yes, not making waste is good one too, but that won't get rid of the waste we already made. Where do we put that? Recycle... By the way, maybe I don't know something, but as far as I know, multiple industrial processes are bound to make waste if their work, otherwise their prices just go skyrocketting (no pun intended) or they become impossible. One example - nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. Metallurgy is quite messy as well. What should we do with that? I say recycle, because there are many useful resources left in that junk, which can be used.

By the way, how do you imagine "not making waste"? I buy my six cans of Coke, I drink the Coke and I put those cans exactly where? Oh dear, did I think "recycle it"... Sarcasm excluded, what do you think about recycling various packaging items? Stop packaging stuff? Recycling it? What about redundant documents and other paper rubbish? What about scratched CDs? What about used light bulbs? What about... (Yes, I can continue indefinitely, I just don't believe that you can actually avoid making rubbish. Minimizing it would be welcome, but making none is ridiculous thought.)