The Institute (協会)

I think much of it has to do with making ourselves feel better about all the waste we produce as Americans. Simply throwing out all the catalogs, magazines, water bottles, cans, plastics, etc into our landfills just doesn't seem right either. I'm not saying that makes recycling right, but for most of us, it probably appeases the conscience.

JR, great point! I think that psychological angle is very, very true. Good stuff.

The "Eight Myths" article does not argue against recycling in general, but merely mandatory recycling. From the conclusion: "Informed, voluntary recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth, enabling us to achieve valued ends that would otherwise be impossible."

And sadly, Aaron, even that conclusion is wrong and not based in fact. But the article is a good start to asking questions. Recycling does not "conserve resources." That's just rubbish. As explained in Cradle to Cradle there is a better way.

If it does "conserve resources" I would love to see the explanation from either chemical or biological processes given the relationship between energy inputs and by-product outputs. Where's the data on that myth? An yes, it is increasing wealth for lots of "recycling" plant owners.

Hmm I would say current recycling is a waste of time. As most items are down-cycled (turned into items worth less then original) there still is a problem as large amounts of waste are still produced.

Some things are worth a ton to recycle that is copper, steel, aluminum or any other metal.

Our production system needs to be thought out, because just recycling at the end does little to no good. Cradle to Cradle points out that we do not make things that are valuable at the end of their life cycles or the fact we us trees to make low value items like paper.

What if say Dell was not just responsible for the process of making the computer but also the process of disposing of the computer? I think then we maybe getting somewhere.

Stuff white people like addressed the emotional issues behind recycling amazingly.

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/14/66-recycling/

...to toot the horn for econtalk again, there are two podcasts on recycing that help explore some of the questions. through them, I believe that aluminum may be a net positive, but ends up subsidizing the other resource-wasters like glass and paper.

incidentally...today was my orientation for GMU...met russ roberts (econtalk host)...whoohoo.

consume less...is an idea I like... :)

shawn, you got to meet Russ. . .that's awesome! Wish I were there. So jealous.

The science of aluminum recycling makes its net positive potential impossible. The chemistry of the process does not work out that way at all. Aluminum cans can never be recycled, only down-cycled. The energy inputs during the process and the parts per million toxicity coefficients of the outputs are nearly impossible, chemically speaking, to justify. You can't just take a can and recycle it into another can. It doesn't work that way. With aluminum, especially, it should never be called "recycling."

My question is (and has been since that pesky Ethics paper), how do regular Joes take part in the massive overhaul of the production process that the authors of Cradle to Cradle promote? The frustrating thing about that book is that their ideas sound GREAT but are only really plausible at a corporate/institutional level. Any thoughts Dr. Bradley?

justin....for a soundbite, here you go:

tell Joe to only do that which saves him money/time. if it doesn't, it's probably not worth it, because money and time are valuable, and are a good proxy for resource use.

Yes, recycling is a myth. UFOs are real. Evolution is a lie. If you look closely enough at the head of a pin you will see dancing angels.

i guess these guys are dopes?

http://www.uos.harvard.edu/fmo/recycling/myths.shtml

Andrew, irrelevant comments aside, I'm open to any evidence you have demonstrating that the process of recycling products is good for the environment or that any of the products that are recycled are actually "recycled" and not "downcycled". I want to be proven wrong here. I really do.

Dope?, the Harvard guys aren't dopes. What's true is the claim that waste reduction produces less overall waste is true. For example, using email instead of paper, but, again it's not true that recycling helps the environment. I found it fascinating that they focused on waster reduction instead of recycling. Hmmm.

Glad to see you mention Cradle to Cradle. Definitely a better way to think of the idea of stewardship. Recycling is all emotion and no fact, re-designing things with intentionality is the way to go.

@Justin,
As for what the regular Joe can do - unfortunately right now there really isn't much. Look for companies that are at least trying to embrace the concept. Talk about it. It will take a very long time for any type of change on this scale to take place.

Wow, amazing how the guy in the video points out the legalism that results in a government forcing citizens to spy on one another! Also, he takes on the political elites for making the recycling/save-the-earth issues more important than people just living their lives in productive ways. Awesome. In my neighborhood, I've observed my non-church-going next-door neighbor doesn't recycle, the Presbyterians who are active in church across the street do recycle, and the Asians in our neighborhood don't recycle, but they also put out very little garbage.

I think it is the swiss that use government sanctioned trash bags for waste. At $5 a pop they promote re-use and re-cycling on the consumer side (which is where any movement should start since producers are only filling a 'need').

I for one like to write 'return to send' on my junk mail. If enough start to do that it should curtail mass solicitation.

Although I never understood those who 'recycle' newspapers. They make a great weed barrier and turn into organics for your garden (just don't use the glossy adds, I sure those are like yellow #5 for your tomatoes).

It seems from what I've read (and even from some of your sources) that recycling most metals makes sense economically and environmentally at least for some. Metals can be restored much more easily than plastics (the composition of which is much more complicated making the recycling more complicated).

According to this website (http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/heattreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/recycle_and_scrap_melting/recycle_and_scrap_melting_process_description.htm), 33% of the PRIMARY aluminum used in the US comes from recycled aluminum. That means it's not "down-cycled."

From another website (http://www.owr.ehnr.state.nc.us/ref/01/text/00778/chapter4.htm): "Aluminum can either be produced from bauxite ore or from aluminum scrap. Refinement of aluminum ore is sufficiently expensive that the secondary production industry commands much of the market. About 40% of aluminum in the US is recovered for secondary refining (USEPA, 1995)."

With respect to recycling steel (from the same website): "The process does not require the three step refinement as needed to produce steel from ore. Production of steel from scrap can also be economical on a much smaller scale."

People wouldn't be stealing manholes and cemetery vases if metal recycling wasn't profitable.

It seems to me that it would be challenging to try to compare the environmental impact of mining/smelting to produce metal versus recycling (and having to remove contaminants, paints, etc.).

jamie...to your last question, the best we can do, and apparently it's pretty good, is to just compare prices. Whichever is cheaper (assuming prices are not skewed by governmental fiat or otherwise) will be the most efficient way of producing metal.

prices are glorious.

and, along those lines, to assist in putting a cost on environmental impact, we can assist in creating markets for pollution, wherein you would simply "buy" from a fixed amount of pollution credits. Those credits can be traded on the market, so it would be to a company's benefit to reduce their pollution and sell the credits to someone else.

The problem isn't recycling. The problem is over-consumption and planned obsolescence. If we used less in the first place, we'd have less junk to dispose of.

I think pollution credits are a pretty good idea. You might need to come up with a better name to make it sound "nicer," though.

We've had a similar discussion before about cost and environmental impact. If you had a lovely mountain that you could see from your house and then it was strip mined into a bare, brown, plateau of sorts, you might not like that. It's hard to put a price on things like that (in my mind). But that's just one small aspect of the whole issue.