Is recycling really useful? A frank conversation.

Have you considered that because of recycling we're having price stability, whereas if we just spend and spend, prices really will go up?

Your argument is entirely resting on the price adjustments, but the idea of recycling focuses on the raw materials themselves, not what price you sell it.

It doesn't matter how high demand is if there's not enough supply. That's shortage. That means there's simply not enough resources available to meet everyone's needs. You can make the price 0 or negative and it won't matter; you can't distribute 10 diamonds to 11 people and satisfy "everyone has a diamond". Recycling is meant to deter that scenario as much as possible.

And considering that "Were running out of resources" is the main point of recycling, and the response to that didn't overturn it, I would say recycling has not been refuted in this thread after all.

@Spectator: Well, it is going up. America has stuff like subsidies to artificially lower the prices of things like oil, food, and manufactured products.

For example, France has no oil subsidies, and they pay something around $17 USD for a gallon of gas.

edited 3rd Mar '12 12:34:52 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

@spectator: Seen gas prices lately?

Dude, if you're counting on space mining to bail us out of any resource shortage in the near future, I have a bridge to Narnia to sell you.

Also, have you seen gas prices lately? That's in response to a source of it potentially being cut off, and we've probably got enough to last our lifetime. (It's not something we should remain totally dependent, but given we can't exactly recycle gas I'm not sure how relevant it is to this topic, except as a transportation cost.)

Recycling helps to keep the materials we've already spent time digging up and making in circulation in our current economy. As long as the materials keep cycling through, we can maintain a steady price over all, instead of having it spike up once a mine runs out or something.

I don't think it's a good idea to use economics theories to decide whether natural resources are running out. Economics are, as far as I know, invented to deal with a system of human making - something social. It's not going to predict, or respond accurately to, natural phenomena.

I, for one, would like to know what other sources greedyspectator has for this information. You mentioned you had other sources besides Penn and Teller's show, but didn't list them.

Penn and Teller tend to consult some sources themselves and back up with evidence.

In this case, it seems like the evidence is too cherry-picked.

Something else occurred to me when I read your posts again, greedyspectator. Assuming that things will turn out OK because economics will balance things out when materials become scarce is a bad idea, because it assumes that everybody in the industries knows and understands that the materials are running out - and that they have the foresight and incentive to do something about it.

If something is profitable in the short term but unprofitable in the long term, do you think a company is going to look ahead and decide on the better long-term solution if it means losing money in the here and now?

edited 3rd Mar '12 1:08:00 AM by LoniJay

A few points to clarify: I said the trend for gas and oil prices is downward. If you see the graph in Wikipedia, you'll see that there are fluctuations in gas prices, but the trend is always going downward (after adjusting for inflation). Also, note that I use global prices instead of national ones. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Oil_Prices_1861_2007.svg) Note that the prices at 1861-1866 is the current peak. The proposition that we are running out of oil is dubious at best, given that the percentage increase in the price of oil does not outpace the percentage increase in wages, which will not be true if we indeed are running out of oil. This is also the case of nearly all resources: The increase in wages greatly outpace the increase in price. Specifically, the percentage increases from 1913 to 2006 are as follows: US wages, 8040. US CPI, 2020. US Population, 310. Oil, 6840. Nickel, 2750. Zinc, 2270. Copper, 1930. Lead, 1550. Aluminum, 550. (Source: US Census Bureau, US Bureau of Labor Statistics ans US Geological Survey. Compiled by Nariman Behravesh in his book Spin-Free Economics, Page 118)

In conclusion, as long as wages continue to increase faster than world prices, we are not running out of resources or are getting more efficient in its use. While natural resources may be limited in the short run, there are a few constraints in the long run. In the end, the real limit to growth, if there is one, is human ingenuity.

Aside from the sources I have stated above, I also draw my conclusions from an evil capitalist screw-the-environment right wing publication, The New York Times. No kidding, check it out. (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)

Also, my original post is about the economic costs of recycling that do not have corresponding benefits. I'm not sure why this thread is now about resources... but oh well, I like debates anyway. This thread has no strawmans and the like thus far, and I am enjoying it immensely.

And, also, regarding my resources statistic above, I would like to clarify that if wages increase faster than prices, then the logical conclusion to it is that either a) supply is increasing or b) we are getting more efficient in the use of resources, since an increase in wages is a corresponding increase in global demand.

... have you read any of the arguments posted here? Wages have nothing to do with finite oil reserves. Neither does demand for oil. Economics do not matter to the oil.

Once again - you assume that the economic system is a perfect reflection of real-life resources. It can't be. It runs on how much oil people think we have left, not how much is actually left.

@abstractematics: If you would like to assert that recycling is the cause of global price stability, you will either need to give statistical evidence from an economist who has been studying the global economy, or be an economist yourself. Hell, I'm not an economist, and that is why I'm citing sources. The claim that recycling is stabilizing world prices is dubious anyway, since less than 10% of the world's resources are recycled, and the US recycles only 25% of their waste (source: EPA, An Agenda For Action).

Same goes to everyone here. Any claim should be backed by a study or at least explained. I know there is no such thing as notability in TV Tropes, but since I have to show my research I expect everyone else to show theirs. It's quite annoying to be demanded on sources while others do not show their work either, since it is a double standard. It's not a command, but it will help us reach a consensus, which is really what I want to get to.

@Loni Jay: Now, I know that TV Tropes isn't exactly the most accurate source, but let me quote the useful notes page on economics.

"The resource halt: A source of conflict in many post-apocalyptic scenarios is the sudden exhaustion of a valuable natural resource such as oil and the conflicts that inevitably flow from it. Any microeconomic principles student will tell you that the real world does not work this way. If mankind is faced with such a threat, owners of the resource will withhold some of their stockpiles now in order to take advantage of the future scarcity. Furthermore this will mean that the price of the resource will rise slowly, giving humanity time to adapt. As a result, the point where we do run out will not be a trigger for a massive calamity, rather it will hardly be noticed."

In other words, if stockpiles are diminishing, prices will increase, which will in turn incentivize alternatives or efficiency. The wages-prices dynamic is simply a reflection of that. It does not matter if we run out of oil since by then we won't be using oil anyway. Also, according to Prof. Steve Horowitz, there are economic reasons why we simply can't run out of resources, because prices signal scarcity, and if resources are scarce, alternatives will be invented or efficiency will be increased. Full Video Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y&feature=relmfu)

Once again - that assumes that people are paying attention and are prepared. It assumes that by the time oil has run out, we've already got our asses into gear and have a standardised system in place to use some other energy source for fuel. That sort of infrastructure doesn't just pop up overnight.

That's why people want us to get a serious start on the technology now, rather than waiting until we have no choice. It's like a university student who knows that eventually they're going to need to do an assignment, and that it will be easier if they start early, but left alone would probably drag and say "But I don't need to start it yet, I still have lots of time".

Well, if you're trying to say that the government should invest in research, yes I agree with you. Knowledge has large spillover effects and is thus a very public-sided good. I don't understand how recycling can help with finding alternatives for oil, however.

Its impossible to know the exact amount of oil left, but proven reserves are always increasing. Also, note that the price mechanism encourages innovation when it is profitable to do so. Case in point, when copper prices rise, telephone industries are afraid that soon the telephone industry will stall. Instead, the rise in copper prices encouraged innovation culminating in the invention of fiber optic cables which are made of sand which has largely replaced copper wires in the telephone industry. What I'm saying here is that an actual resource stall has never happened in a capitalist economy in the past, despite all the possible supply crises that may happen.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y&feature=relmfu

Please keep your posts as 'single' as possible. Other than that, this is a topic about how recycling is useful. Monetarily useful is not our current aim, it seems, so you can stop listing out sources that, yet again, point that there are no perils if there are no instabilities in prices

This is more than just monetary measure, I'd like to remind you. It's about pragmatics and long term benefits combined. With you keep going on about prices = reserves, your approach into this conversation is far worse than being wrong. Just because a limited resource is priced as such, it doesn't mean it's bottomless. You're assuming the price is the ultimate indication for anything, which is the fallacy of your logic : price does NOT equal worth and vice versa

edited 3rd Mar '12 5:00:54 AM by Cassie

For the record random youtube videos and pen and teller make for poor or questionable sources.

Prices (adjusted to inflation) don't necessarily directly correlate with the remaining amount of a resource because there's a lot more that goes into it than the amount of left in the world and economics generally doesn't look that far into the future. Government subsidies, efficiency of extraction, politics on trading for the resource in foreign deposits. Prices from oil were higher (adjusted to inflation) in the 1880s because they wouldn't efficiently extract it from all over the world like they can now, and demand was higher relative to the commercially available supply.

Also the point about most post-apocalyptic scenarios is that disasters strike too suddenly for people to have safe stockpiles, and the loss of communication between different parts of the world mean that the majority of citizens are cut off from any stockpiles that do exist, but then again a TV Tropes page isn't really a valuable place to look for any deep analysis on something like that anyway.

Petrol price hits record high, The average price of unleaded petrol has reached a new high of 137.44p per litre, according to industry analysts Experian Catalist.

We need to move from an oil based economy and any recycling that reduces energy demand is good for us and for the planet

Yeah, arguing about price as to the amount of the resource available is a poor way of figuring out how much resource we still have. If you look at goods we no longer use and their relative price (with inflation calculated) and then look at availability at the times, you'll notice weak correlation. The issue is that any upward price shock is going to tend to cause conservative, recycling and alternatives to be used. That causes downward pressure on the price.

You can see this with tin when it was critical resource, you can see with lumber when it was a strategic resource, or coal when it was a strategic resource.

If you're looking at oil prices, you betray the fact that our cars today are essentially three or four times more efficient on the same tank of gasoline, our refining process are far more efficient and the extraction technology has gone quite further. Look at today where we are willing to create giant toxic lakes the size of national parks just to get some oil, and you want to tell me that everything is okay? Not your country being pillaged and destroyed.

The difference is this:

• We can use energy, which can come from renewable sources, to perform recycling
• We can only do mining, extracting or whatever to get more new resource

Where are you going to get that new resource? Recycling is a given and we can improve its efficiency. Finding new sources of material is not a given. My point? We can't rely on magically finding new resources to supplement our dwindling supplies.

edited 3rd Mar '12 9:45:21 AM by breadloaf

It's always a good idea to see what supposedly eco acts really are good for the environment or not. Green Lantern is a great resource for seperating the genuinely eco from the greenwashing.

About people recycling before there was a recycling movement: 100+ years ago people recycled practically everything they could - they had to. This is back in the days when the titles dustmen and rag-and-bone men actually described what they collected. No country comes close to Victorian-era recycling.

Apparently, paper, glass and aluminium are best suited to recycling, and it's definitely better to recycle those materials than make them from scratch.

EDIT: As Ace Of Spades said, gathering materials from space is God-only knows how many years away. It's a hope for the future, and in the meanwhile we _should_ be recycling to make sure our resources survive until then.

edited 3rd Mar '12 10:30:16 AM by betaalpha

@greedyspectator:

Depends on what materials you're talking about when you quote 10%, 25%. We can't lump recycling of different materials together. Some may be more effective and meaningful than others.

Essentially, you're trying to use this◊ to argue. Economics, supply and demand. That's a problem when I introduce this◊: a limit in how much of quantity is available. That hinders the supply curve from being any useful past a certain point.

Now imagine if the equilibrium point was past that quantity limit. You're in trouble. Recycling's goal is to regain lost materials, to increase that quantity limit.

Recycling is about its gain after all. Even if it's net loss, it's a necessity to prevent a greater loss.

edited 3rd Mar '12 10:23:27 AM by abstractematics

@abstractmathematics

The problem with your argument is, however, supplies do not disappear overnight. Supplies, if they are indeed running out, will dwindle over time. The reduction in supply will increase price, signalling rarity, which will in turn encourage a) efficiency or b) alternatives. It doesn't matter in the long run if supplies are really running out, because when supplies really are, we would barely feel the impacts and by the time they are too expensive, we would have already moved on to other energy sources. In the end, the only long run limit to growth is human ingenuity.

Note that if there is a limit to quantity, the supply curve will 'ride up' the quantity limit. Frankly, I don't think the graph you're using is in any way correct.

@breadloaf

Yes, cars are more efficient which makes the price of oil cheaper. That is what I'm trying to get at: Recycling is completely unnecessary because the price mechanism will automatically cause people to look for either efficiency or alternatives. Recycling is simply economically wasteful. It creates negative wealth because its cheaper to just make new stuff from scratch, aside from aluminum and other metal products. If recycling were economically beneficial, the US wouldn't need to commit $8 billion dollars of subsidies to keep recycling paper and plastic alive. So no, recycling paper is not cheaper than making new paper, unless those $8 billion dollars are used only for subsidizing plastic, which I find highly unlikely.

By the way, sorry it took a long time to reply. My internet was down.

Furthermore, it's silly to argue that we aren't running out of oil. Just look at how much excess capacity has fallen. Obviously there will still be oil production for a long time, but it's more expensive and less efficient than in the past. Or did you not notice how oil prices spike whenever someone in the middle east sneezes nowadays?

edited 4th Mar '12 6:34:05 AM by storyyeller