Looney Labs EcoFluxx Mailing list Archive

[Eco] Recycling and P&T's Bullshit

  • FromDaniel Brashler <dannob@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateTue, 30 Jan 2007 19:42:59 -0500
Ok,

I can't stand it.  I have to speak up on this too.

To start with, I think P&T are right that most people have only vague or misinformed reasons for recycling, and that in a real impact analysis recycling has a lot of drawbacks. As well, I applaud P&T for having the courage to question one of America's bigger "gree-gree's"

Nevertheless, I think their gratuitous attention-getting ad hominem and high-speed hard-sell on their own opinion might have detracted from their analysis. Important things I think they missed:
	
1. I think people's love of recycling does grow out of environmental movement of the 70's and 80's, during which the big push was to prove to the nation that "pollution" (a word you hardly hear any more) was a problem and that people who didn't think carefully about what they threw away and where they threw it were causing that problem. I think that was a lesson well-learned, and now, recycling is the individual response -- people are trying to be careful about what they throw away, and where it goes. I think that that mindset is precious all by itself.

2. While we may not be running out of landfill space, land itself is still a fundamentally limited resource. While a landfill does have it's uses after the trash is buried, it still has a lot less value, I think, than an unmolested piece of earth. To what extent can you build houses, citiies, farms, etc. on top of a landfill? It's just not the same, I don't think, and so I'd try to conserve or better manage the space we've got, rather than gradually covering the earth with buried trash. I realize that this ultimately comes down to a related rates problem of how fast the stuff decomposes versus how fast we pile it up, but which side of that equation to we want to be working toward, either way? I just don't think landfills are that great, and would rather have less than more, and I'm willing to pay some to avoid them.

3. The oil too is going away -- it's a finite resource as well. While it's certainly cheaper make plastic bottles out of oil that literally comes out of the ground by itself once you punch the hole, that fountain's not infinite. At some point, you're going to want to keep making plastic even though there's no more oil. I'd rather have it sorted out now, and have an infrastructure and technology base for re-manufacturing it in place than have to go digging through the landfills for the material and figure out how to make use of it only when it's a crisis.

4. Ultimately, all our efforts at recycling are tiny in comparison to the one on-going juggernaut event that is the growth of human civilization. When I was in high-school, I read something about recycling and environmental policies that stated with some statistical authority that the one biggest impact any person could have in protecting the environment was to not reproduce. Talk about a gree-gree. You can rail against urban sprawl and pray for sustainability all you want, but people just keep having children, and every single one of them wants to grow up, have a house, stay warm, eat food, drive a car, have their own children, etc., and it's pretty tough to tell folks that that might be bad. Moreover, living longer (and not dying) makes it even worse. Damn doctors! Keeping the Earth polluted with people!

So, I'm still recycling in the hope that maybe, years from now, a few less people have to be euthanized to make space for the next generation. It's about the principal, and the long view -- not the current pains. I'll shut up now, before I move this discussion into religious grounds. . .

Dan Brashler