From: GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Subject: Re: Recycling Costs and Libertarian Candidates
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.195321.14704@aero.org>,
foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.184237.15100@morrow.stanford.edu> GA.JRG@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>The trouble with this argument is that the person who would be paying
>for the refuse disposal is not the most most directly responsible for
>creating the refuse. That is the producer of the products. If I want
>something that is packaged in plastic I don't have a choice of buying
>it without the wrapping. If I don't want to save my junk mail I don't
>have a choice but to discard it. The producers should be the one
>who pays the cost of the ultimate disposal.

You're trying to pass the buck.  If you don't like how someone is
packaging their product -- don't buy it.  Then write to the company
and tell them that the reason you aren't buying it is because of the
packaging only.  And don't tell me you don't have a choice.  I'm
sure that for any example you can come up with of something you
want to buy in a different package I can come up with a substitution
that meets your requirements.  It may not be as convenient a
solution but why should anyone else be forced to pay your
opportunity costs.  If you want to see change you have to make a
personal commitment to making it happen, not just whine (no personal
offense intended - generic you) about how "someone" ought to do
something.

>There is another way and that is to have the producer of products
>have to pay the total cost of the ultimate disposal of the ultimate
>waste less the savings in disposal costs that they achieve by using
>recycled materials.

But why?  If the person who purchases the product is willing to
assume those costs (which he or she effectively does by making the
purchase) why shouldn't they have that option?  What if the seller
goes to all the trouble to make things disposable and the person who
buys it dumps it in the trash anyway?  Then you're just wasting
money making it recyclable.  The best incentive to get that person
to put something in a recycling bin rather than the trash is the
knowledge that space in the trash bin costs more.

>#Unfortunately, in the short term this can mean a commitment to
>#spending more money since production overhead will be higher for
>#smaller volume products.  One way to combat this is to line up large
>#organizations which can use high volumes of some particular type of
>#recycled material to commit to the program for the PR value even if
>#it raised their short term costs.
>
>Do you think there is a resoanble chance of this happening?

Sure, sometimes in the process they even discover they can save
money.  MacDonald's was less than enthused about getting rid of
their styrofoam containers but when there was enough hugh and cry
about the practice they took a look at things again and realized
that not only would they get better PR by switching but they would
save money while they were at it.  Sometimes you just need to create
enough motion to overcome inertia.

>#You can also line up pledges to
>#purchase products made from recycled materials if the supplier can
>#get the price down to some agreed on level.  A committed market
>#should encourage both existing suppliers to increase their capacity
>#and entrepreneurs to look for innovative ways to reduce costs.
>#
>
>Again, do you think that this will happen?

Absolutely, but only if people like you who claim to be concerned
about things also make an effort to let those you deal with know
that it's important to you.  Don't sit back and wait for someone
else to amke the first move.

>#Most of this you will note, does not require any action by the
>#government but only by concerned (and greedy :-) individuals which
>#is exactly the way that Libertarians think the world should work.
>#
>#/June
>
>
>Yes, all of what you say does not require any government action. However,
>it hasn't happened in the past. It most likely won't happen in the future.
>
>The main reason IMO is that the concerned people are not so concerned that
>they will spend their money when they see unconcerned people undoing all their
>good works. The greedy people will have too short term goals to set up the
>system required to make your approach work.

I'm not sure I quite follow this but I reiterate that it *will*
require action  and not just words on the part of those who claim
to care.

>I suspect that if the full cost of the product to waste dump cycle were
>fully compared to the full cost of the product to recycling approach
>were known and if the true cost of the overpackaging approach were known
>one would find recycling to be much more economically efficient.

If you believe that, what are you doing to see that the necessary
research to support that position gets done?

>A producer will NOT used recycled materials because he bears the cost
>of recyling while he does not bear the cost of waste disposal. Most
>people won't pay the extra cost of buying products made with recycled
>materials because they don't save the cost of avoided waste disposal
>that some other noble citizen saved the disposal agency by not
>depositing their material in the land fill.

When means that you have to convince the producer that it is either
cheaper for him to use recycled materials or that letting it be
known that he uses recycled materials will help him sell for
product.

>It is a chicken and egg situation.

You know, I've never understood this euphemism.  To me it always
seemed obvious that the egg came first.  Whatever laid the first
chicken egg was obviously not, strictly speaking, a chicken itself.
The small steps that each of us takes to reduce waste will not seem
much like a chicken, but together I bet we could make a lot of eggs
:-)

/June