Kelly Brown and other Recyclists: The following comments may interest you:
Any substance extracted out of "nature" will involve processing to convert it i
nto a useful product. Processing involves human, machines, and facilities.
All 3 elements of this activity need substances in their creation, transportati
on, maintenance, use, and disposal. These substances also need to be extracted
from nature or disposed products.
"True" recycling will involving the substance back into the nature in the shape
and form it was before extraction. Note even under the most ideal conditions
we have used so many other substances.
Typical recycling does not extract the substances out of the nature but uses th
e products already extracted- mostly.
To consume one pound of meat how much of energy, petroleum, minerals, human
resources, metals, etc will be needed? How much of time and other substances
will be involved in replacing one gallon of crude petroleum back into nature.
The best and most difficult solution is to reduce population and thus consumpti
on. I would welcome thoughts from you and others on the list. Regards.
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:39:46 -0500
From: Kelly Marie Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Recycling is Garbage" ??
Hello,
Did anyone happen to catch the story in the New York Times Magazine,
June 30, 1996, "Recycling is Garbage" by John Tierney? I am interested
in thoughts/ideas/opinions. I can identify some of the bias, but I am not
quite confident in my ability to address the general idea that recycling is
neither economically, nor environmentally wise. It is my understanding
that there is a school of thought that says that recycling takes more
resources out of the environment than it saves. After having read the
story in the NYTimes Magazine I feel more confused than ever about
what is the "correct" thing to do. I certainly wouldn't want to be
recycling every ounce possible, when this activity is itself wasteful.
Any thoughts??
Kelly Brown,Georgia State University, School of Policy Studies, Dept. of
Economics, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 21 15:32:02 1996
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 96 16:19:47 CST
From: jivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Request comments and references
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi: I would appreciate your comments, references, and available visuals on the
following topics:
1. "SHE (Safety, Health, and Environmental) Protection + Sustainable Developmen
should it be decided? Monitored? Implemented?
2. "Role of Women in SHE"
3. SHE Protection for Small Businesses
I look forward to your input. Thanks. Jivan
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 21 23:24:09 1996
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:24:02 +1200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Helen Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Recycling is Garbage" ??
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>It would seem wasteful to invest an entire day to pushing a cart around
>the streets, gleaning aluminum cans.
That would depend on the number of cans gleanable, the availability of
alternative occupation, the quality of the air and the aesthetic value of
the neighbourhood etc. It could be a safer, more satisfying way of keeping
fit and making a living than speeding to work in a guzzler of 'expensive'
gasoline and sitting down all day pushing buttons or shuffling paper.
>In the best of all possible worlds,
>there would be stimulating, gratifying employment for this individual -and
>of course, deposit, refillable bottles.
>
Mmmm maybe. I did see a paper, suspect because it was written by a plastics
manufacturer, which had some credible figures about the environmental costs
of the extra fuel required for transporting heavy glass compared to plastic,
the extra trip returning the bottles, the extra heating costs for
sterilisation etc. I don't remember whether there were extra damaging
chemicals in the sterilisation process or not.
This was an argument against re-using however, not against recycling. Part
of the argument was, I think, that plastic was easier and less
environmentally damaging to recycle.
>"Waste" is undoubtedly defined by the person writing. If it costs them
>money, it is waste. If it poisons us for free, it is efficient.
>
Unless we sue them!
>In many parts of the world people glean much of what we throw out here.
>Are they wasteful or are they shrewd reusers?
>
They are poor.
Helen Marsh: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +64 9 473 9760
5 Neilon Place, Browns Bay, Auckland North Shore, New Zealand
http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon
UBINZ - Universal Basic Income - http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon/ubinz.htm
