The Recycling Myth
Recycling is really a scam in many respects. While it sounds like a good idea on paper, it actually uses more energy and creates more pollution in the process. But even more disturbing is the insane make work that the statists create to bedevil the citizenry. This article by th libertarian Von Mises institute delves into the extreme madness of Sweden’s recycling system. It shows what happens when you let alleged do gooders have too much power.
The latter is actually true: everybody is recycling. But that is the result of government force, not a voluntary choice. The state’s monopolist garbage-collection “service” no longer accepts garbage: they will only collect leftovers and other biodegradables. Any other kind of garbage that accidentally finds its way to your garbage bin can result in a nice little fine (it really isn’t that little) and the whole neighborhood could face increased garbage collection rates (i.e., even larger increases than usual — they tend to increase annually or biannually anyway).
So what do you do with your waste? Most homes have a number of trash bins for different kinds of trash: batteries in one; biodegradables in one; wood in one; colored glass in one, other glass in another; aluminum in one, other metals in another; newspapers in one, hard paper in another, and paper that doesn’t fit these two categories in a third; and plastic of all sorts in another collection of bins. The materials generally have to be cleaned before thrown away — milk cartons with milk in them cannot be recycled just as metal cans cannot have too much of the paper labels left.
The people of Sweden are thus forced to clean their trash before carefully separating different kinds of materials. This is the future, they say, and it is supposedly good for the environment. (What about the economy?)
Add to this all the energy schemes the government is slowly trying to shove down our throat and you can add environmentalism to the list of excuses control freaks are using to take away more liberties and choices. All in the name of “protecting us”.
This stuff is really getting out of hand, and I don’t see a whole lot of answers coming from either political party. Just more of the same.
Japan went nuts on recycling a few years back, and you are even supposed to separate different kinds of plastic by codes printed on the item. Garbage has be be disposed of in clear bags so the contents are easily seen. But they did push too far on one thing--they required you to write your name and address on the bag so you could be tracked and fined if you were a naughty person.
This was NOT a success, showing even the notoriously law-abiding Japanese have their limits.
In reality, hardly anyone separates things they way they are supposed to. Plastic, glass, metal, and “burnables” seem to be as far as they will go. Japanese kitchens are small enough--eight or ten specialized garbage cans are not going to fit. Further, the various plastics are supposed to be separated out into the numerous classes, then you are supposed to lug them to local collection centers and carefully dump them into the correct containers. Oh, and you need special bags to hold them, too.
San Francisco announced they were going to increase their recyclable portion of their garbage to over 50% a few years back. This turned out to be an unrealistic goal since that is not the normal percentage division of the average household. Never fear! The bold Gaia-lovers in SF had a simple plan. They refuse to collect more than a certain amount of non-recyclable trash from the residents. Simple, huh? Each home gets a little black can for non-recyclables, and a bigass green one for recyclables. Problem solved! Of course, what happens is when the black can is full, people throw the rest into the green can, but on paper, SF rocks the planet, and they have even put up billboards patting themselves on the back for leading the nation towards trash utopia.
Even more amusing, they decided that the yearly pickup for “big garbage” (fridges, mattresses, old dressers, etc) was becoming an embarrassment. So they announced it would be “improved.” Now, instead of having one day a year you could dump that dead washing machine, you could call up twice a year for a personalized pickup. Nice, huh? The trouble was in the small print. At the same time, they reduced the number of items they would accept by nearly 80%. As a result, dumped mattresses, empty paint cans, rusty bikes, etc are now common sights on our streets, in our parks and vacant lots...and god help anyone who doesn’t lock their dumpster.
And finally, it was leaked a few years ago that over 70% of SFs “recycled” paper was ending up in a landfill in Marin.
What a joke.Posted by on 02/05 at 04:06 PMPenn and Teller did a program on recycling; as usual they destroyed it. It might be on thier web site.
Posted by on 02/05 at 04:07 PMToren’s comment reminded me of what happened in the UK a few years ago. The recycling “brain trust” decided that old refrigerators were a problem, so they put a big price tag on recycling them. A few months after they imposed the recycling cost, old refrigerators began showing up just outside of London. Apparently, one farmer found tens of them on his property.
Posted by on 02/05 at 04:19 PMBureaucrats are the devils of our time.
Posted by on 02/05 at 04:57 PMIf government was serious about recycling, groceries would be required to accept cans and bottles.
Glass is a joke. Without the CRV it takes pounds to get a penny. That’s pounds per penny. Plastic and aluminum are a bit better, but even aluminum cans get no more than 30¢ a pound. The remaining $1.25 comes from the state.
And then you have the cost recording all the deposits and all the refunds, making sure the recyclers get their money for paying for the cans and bottles.
At one time scrap aluminum, cans and siding etc., was being bought by recyclers of $1.25 in California. Because there was a demand for it. Then the Japanese market dried up thanks to a massive economic collapse, and the price paid for aluminum fell. But instead of letting things adjust naturally, we had to construct a false demand, and in the doing we have so flooded the aluminum market the buyers can basically set the conditions.
Even worse, the combination of false high prices for aluminum cans, plus the inconvenience of recycling them means that most folks look on the deposit as being a sort of tax on purchasing beverages in cans. Which leaves those cans to be collected and redeemed by the homeless. Which means the homeless have more money to spend on drugs and booze. A few on getting themselves off the streets, but for most it enables a self-destructive life that invariably winds up making things worse for everybody.
Another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences is what we have here, and one that ruins lives and communities.
Posted by mythusmage on 02/06 at 05:03 PM
Next entry: Bon Jovi Loves My Town
Previous entry: Bought and Paid For Candidates
