pull down to refresh
27 sats \ 3 replies \ @LibertasBR 10h \ on: 'Recycling' Makes Plastic Pollution Worse | The Libertarian Institute econ
Garbage is still money. I think it is necessary to measure the impact of recycling and not recycling. Because in practical matters, recycling generates income for many people and theoretically reduces the need for newly extracted raw materials. No longer recycle?
Aside from a couple of materials, my understanding is that it's a net cost: i.e. the costs of recycling programs are greater than they produce.
The market test would be whether you get paid for doing all that recycling work, since it's an input into their industry. If it were profitable they would pay people to do it, rather than force them to do it through tax funded programs.
reply
Oh yes. Good point, in fact in many economies the cost of recycling is higher even considering all the people who do this service for free. Even so, I think that the accumulation of garbage would bring harm in the long run, of course, with this open and aimless market, new business opportunities would arise from this discarded and non-recycled material. I don't know of any studies and I haven't looked into it in depth to actually know what the best option would be.
reply
My knowledge is outdated, but since it's dominated by state actors, I doubt there's been much innovation.
That's another important element, though. Maybe it would be economical, if there were a real market at work.
At some point, landfill mining will be economically viable. For now, though, it's generally cheaper to keep producing materials.
reply