LovePrevails Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 hey stef and coI think this recent video actually missed most of the important arguments and information regarding free market sustainability The main of the video was the following arguments (maybe I've missed a couple, if so please add) 1) in free market resources go to who can create them most efficiently 2) state subsidises inefficient use of respurces 3) as resources become more scare prices go up so alternatives will be found. When you say that 'the reason we know that recycling is inefficient is no one is paying you for the glass bpttle' or whatever, you miss out the main point which is that *the state is responsible for picking up your garbage* !! That means recyclers are competing against a subsidised/free service which makes their own look more expensive because you don't have to pay to get your garbage collected, if people did have to pay to get their garbage collected then they might find it was cheaper to recycle. What is more, because of the fact that people wouldn't want to produce much garbage because they would be paying for the collection, they would avoid buying products that had unnecessary packaging. When you go to the supermarket it's full of all these one-use-only packaging and intend which are made of composites of chemicals hitch are hard to break down. In a fee market you might be charged a fortune for the disposal of things that were hard to break down. Things that could be recycled easily, or composted, on the other hand, would either be free to dispose of (as someone would be happy to pick them up) or even sometimes be paid for. /so the whole economy would shift towards a more sustainable use of resources through people avoiding high waste disposal combats, and products would be specifically packaged in recyclable or reducible packaging , products would also be designed with easy disposal in mind . This would be a massive environmental effect. What is more state is also responsible for locating landfill sites, etc. how do we know landfill is the most efficient until we put it tithe free market? We Gav. No idea! These sites are an eye sore and an environmental issue, especially when there are batteries and things discarded there. Without state subsidisation landfills would be more expensive and a less efficient use of land so they would be a less popular option. Again this supports a move towards making everything that is produce more easily recyclable or reducae. Im sure there at either points I've yet to consider but I think the packaging/one-use-disposable argument is THE most important one to impress upon environmentalists and liberals. In my experience they can really see the sense of the argument. The thing is people like the convenience and abdication of personal responsibility which comes from passing the buck on to the state.
Lloyd Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 By what reasoning and evidence have you arrived at the conclusion that landfills are somehow enviromentally toxic?That they're an "eyesore" is merely a subjective matter of aesthetics, so I won't dispute that. Also, I'm curious as to whether or not you've done any research on the process and argument for recycling. For instance, I happen to know from my own studies that the recycling of most metals is both economically productive and an environmental net gain (even assuming the dubious claim that putting a ton of aluminum cans in a landfill would make that landfill more toxic), but I need to see some empirical proof regarding all other forms of recycling. Also, you might want to examine the difference between "the government does X" and the government assumed the role (often the exclusive right) to do X, thereby prohibiting others from doing X. Have you already made this examination? If so, what conclusions have you reached?
Recommended Posts