An object level analysys seems to lead me to the conclusion recycling does not make a lot of sense for the environment.
For carbon-based materials like paper or plastics not recycling seems functionally the same as biomass burial which as far as I can see is accepted as a good way to reduce CO2. Additionally a large proportion of plastic sorted for recycling ends up being burned which seems like a strictly worse outcome than landfill.
For metals not recycling them will greatly increase the value of reclaimable resources per volume of landfil providing an incentive for the developement of technologies to do so.
In total I think on a large timescale resource recovery not requring manual sorting would provide a huge value and increasing the incentive to create it will make it more likely.
The strongest counterargument I see is that recycling decrases the price equilibrium of resources, decreasing the incentive to employ more costly methods of extraction which usually are more environmentally impactful.
This however especially does not seem to hold for paper and aluminium where the necessary resources are easily available.
As this contradicts expert consensus it seems I am missing something but I'm not sure what.
I would also gladly hear arguments about plastics and other materials but I wanted to make the question simpler/clearer.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ389 | |
| 2 | Ṁ35 | |
| 3 | Ṁ24 | |
| 4 | Ṁ20 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
I think your "putting aluminium in landfill will incentivise development of technology to reclaim resources from landfill" argument is pretty suspect.
Like, infecting lots of people with a disease will incentivise development of treatment for that disease. Breaking things will incentivise development of tougher things.
I think aluminium production is much more energy intensive than aluminium recycling. Saving energy is pretty important. Therefore I think recycling aluminium is worth doing.
I'll abstain on paper. I think it's pretty similar either way.
@Fion I think your disease analogy fails because infecting people with disease is inherently bad because it causes suffering. Putting aluminum underground doesn't seem to have any inherent downside. I think the point about reclaiming is good insofar as it draws attention to the fact that aluminum is market good subject to partial equilibrium. The more we bury in the earth, the more efficient it becomes to dig it up.
Similarly, we can very easily convert energy into dollars and vice versa via the market price. If mining new aluminum is cheaper than recycling it, then it should also be more efficient. No need to reference subjective values.
@Fion assuming technology to reclaim it gets developed sooner or later we are just storing that energy underground temporarily, and in the process we'll recover a lot of other energy that is also there. Now, with cumulative effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and changing energy mix that might matter a bit but it seems to me like it still most likely makes sense.
@akrasiac you're right that that's a fault with the analogy, but my main point still stands, that going out of your way to do a suboptimal plan in order to incentivise a solution to that plan, is self defeating.
On the energy point, I'd be interested to know if it's actually the case: is mining energy cheaper than recycling?
Even if it is, I disagree that the only cost of energy is the dollars it costs to buy it. Energy is mostly produced by burning fossil fuels, which has environmental costs.
@CodeandSolder could you elaborate on this? I don't understand the sense in which you're storing energy underground temporarily.
@Fion in the sense that our demand for those resources does not seem to fall, so whenever we recover them they will replace new production, reducing total energy used, just as they would if we recycled them now.
@CodeandSolder I realise the market is closed now so I should probably stop, but I think your argument rests on the assumption that a unit of energy today has the same environmental impact as a unit of energy in the future, which I don't think is true. In the future there will be much more wind, solar, nuclear, and deep geothermal. There will be much less need to conserve energy.
@Fion I actually addressed changing energy mix 2 comments ago, there certainly is some effect, it depends on what the timeline is and how changing the amount recycled would impact it. In short I strongly think on if we stuck all the aluminium we recycle in landfills we'd get it back in a couple of years and get the rest of the resources there in the process, all with VC money
@Fion and the market closed because deciding based on arguments after market close would feel unfair to those who bought NO, I'm very open to discussion and appreciate your involvement in it!
Worth it under what circumstances? Some forms of recycling can be profitable (and therefore worth it) but they often depend on pre-sorting. The standard in America is to throw all your recycling in a single bin. The sorting costs often outweigh any benefits. If you made households clean and sort their recycling, I think this could make some forms of recycling sensical, although that's sort of cheating. You're essentially outsourcing your sorting costs to an unpaid laborer (the household), but their time is worth something, so it becomes an incalculable cost.
@akrasiac with pre-sorting, purely from environmental impact standpoint, without including time and financial balance.
@kenakofer I assumed mentioning other materials would encourage people to provide information on them while this resolution criteria would provide a clear resolution, I could change to just aluminium but people have already placed bets
@CodeandSolder makes sense. So for resolution, if you are convinced of only one of the materials mentioned, how will you resolve?
@kenakofer 50% seems like the best option, should have thought about that and included it in the description, is anybody opposed to that solution?