If you were on the U.N.S. Unity...

[Mr. President]

What newsletter btw?

sar-casm n [French sarcasme, from Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, fr. sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer]: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance.

Socialist parties have been successful, I'll admit, to a degree. But they tend to adopt inefficient economic policies such as heavy taxation and large amounts of welfare handouts. Here in Australia where even conservative politicians have socialist economic leanings, you can gain a thousand dollars a year in salary through promotion and lose most of it through taxes. Maintaining a welfare state drags the economy down and increases the dependence of recipients on further benefits, while doing little to alleviate their actual problems.

The only reason modern-day greens and socialists are able to believe in green-ness and socialism is because of the past successes of capitalism, which has granted them the affluent and comfortable living conditions that free their time to think about socialist politics. I actually disagree with you that people with a good living standard vote right-wing. I get the impression that the middle class tends to be liberal precisely because they are in the middle. The rich don't want to live in a welfare state because they will be paying the most taxes. The poor don't want to get involved with radical politics because they spend forty hours a week working and have no time for it.

Also, university students tend to be very liberal and enamored of socialist ideas, but many of them grow out of it once they realize that you can't have a capitalist lifestyle with the house, the car, the job, the high-quality education, etc., on a pure green economy.

***

Anyway, I personally think the University and the Morganites would dominate Alpha Centauri, and possibly the Hive as well, provided the latter didn't make the mistakes that totalitarianisms on Earth made. But does anyone else find that the Gaians are "favored" by the game's makers? I've seen them land between the Hive and the Spartans and come out with half of Planet under their control and making more money than everyone else put together.

[Hydro]

Of the AI factions, the Gaians do tend to do fairly well. I think this is because of their +2 efficiency, which allows them more bases before inefficiency and bureaucracy drones become crippling. Another major factor is that the AI doesn’t have a clue on how to best use FM and wealth to bury the greenies in clouds of energy and research, which cripples Morgan in particular. So, I do not think the game is biased toward the Gaians; it is just that the AI can’t take advantage of some of the other strategies that are successful. The result: the Gaians expand more than anyone except, perhaps, Yang does, and they have a competitive production and tech rate.

Wandering over to economics, it is cheaper not to pollute in the first place then to clean up the mess afterward. If a Green economy doesn’t throttle industry with irrational regulation, but focuses on productivity (both long term and short term) and net-benefit analysis then it becomes a viable strategy. The problem is that Green conjures images of frothing-at-the-mouth radicals that want to shut down evil industry, while at the same time enjoying their cell phones, ‘love vans’, and the luxury of free time to protest everything.

Hydro

[Shai-Hulud]

I don't think Morgan's society would be that different from capitalism on earth. In general, we are moving towards more individualistic age. The capitalism best provides the wealth and freedom that individualism in action requires. "O sweet decadence!" is not ecactly the first thing that comes into mind when I hear the word "capitalism".

Perhaps because not every society can give all low-wage jobs to foreign workers.

Makes me think you don't fancy capitalism? Well, many societies have a large middle class and lower class as a minority. And without much foreigners doing anything. Finland, for example. Of course, if you want to point out to developing countries supporting western way of life...that's another topic.

Socialism ain't going nowhere. The communist utopia of society free of classes will live on. It's not happening but people will keep trying.

It's true that social democratic parties have succeeded in many of their efforts. I have every reason to honor their success. But the social democratic societies have a lot of problems to deal with. Socialism of any kind leads into inefficiency. That inefficiency(lack of motivation and societal isolation) is tearing down social democracy.

[Maniac]

Hydro:

Wandering over to economics, it is cheaper not to pollute in the first place then to clean up the mess afterward.

Exactly it is cheaper to clean up the mess afterwards. That’s why environmental efforts are focused on recycling methods and finding ways to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere instead of changing the production process.

Shai-Hulud:

Makes me think you don't fancy capitalism?

Who said that? Just because I don’t believe unconditionally capitalism is the utopia to come, the solution to all problems, you think I’m totally opposed to it? Capitalism is a great system for technological progress, but not perfect. It has fallacies and some green and socialist accents are needed to fix those.

Of course, if you want to point out to developing countries supporting western way of life...that's another topic.

I was indeed referring to that.

Socialism of any kind leads into inefficiency. That inefficiency(lack of motivation and societal isolation) is tearing down social democracy.

Societal isolation?? How do you mean?

Mr. President:

I disagree heavy taxation is an inefficient economic policy. Probably you think every coin given to the government is a waste of money and that lowering taxation will increase consumption and thus increase economic growth. Yeah sure, that’s true to some degree. Reality shows us that when taxes are lowered people will save a fair share of the extra money. Thus it’s taken out of circulation; nobody has any use of it, thus less economic growth, thus an inefficient economic policy. The government can put that money to better use. For example, they can provide capital for starting companies or they can invest in technological research that won’t bring immediate benefits. Summarized, they can invest the money in sectors where it’s needed. This while consumers will spend their money just about anywhere, sometimes on a good place, sometimes on a bad one like, I don’t know, going to the movies.
I do agree regarding welfare handouts. Government should focus on creating employment, and not on giving retirement and unemployment pays. My idea of socialism is not supporting ‘the weak’, but creating equal chances. This means supporting things such as education, mobility and health care.

We tend to disagree about everything what’s the cause and consequence. IMHO it are the comfortable living conditions of the middle class, created by the successful socialist parties who led many societies away out of 19th century capitalism, which makes people shy away from socialism and a welfare state, because, as you say, they will be paying most of the taxes. I’m sure there are many sociological studies that support my view. Those middle class people will then move to liberal right-wing parties. And I think here a definition of “liberal” and “right wing” is in order. Because “liberal” can mean tolerant on ethical matters, promoting freedom etcetera; or it can mean in favour of laissez-faire free market. And “right” can mean in favour of totalitarian fascist-like politics, or it can also mean in favour of laissez-faire free market. When I said people with a high living standard vote more right, I meant pro-capitalism, contra-socialism. Do you mean the same when you say the middle class votes liberal?
And I’m sorry: you are absolutely wrong about poor people. It is commonly known that they vote more radical and extreme, either left wing communist or right wing fascist/racist/nationalist/anything else demagogic. Just look at the 1930’s.

You’re right about students. So as long as those idealist students are allowed to vote, left parties will have success.

M@ni@c

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by M@ni@c:
Reality shows us that when taxes are lowered people will save a fair share of the extra money. Thus it’s taken out of circulation

This is not exactly true. It is one of the positive side of banks that they put the saved money into circulation again as credits. Money left in in the safe at home is lost for circulation.

About capitalism in general: One thing which seemed to be left out of the discussion is that a laissez-faire capitalism leads to monopolies. This was not so seriously dangerous in the past where monopolies usually applied only nationwide. With the globalisation we come into monopolies à la Micro$oft, which apply worldwide. Once it exists it is very difficult to get rid of it, because most products nowadays require high investments before they can be sold. This means it is very easy for the monopolist to combat any competition -- except people develop for free, this is why Micro$oft fears Linux. But you cannot live of doing something for free. So a monopoly is an extremely stable situation, and far more stable than a balanced competition. This is why a controlling state is necessary.
Another thing is that we are dealing with humans. A free capitalism is extremely happy with unemployment because it gives enterprises a good means to dictate conditions. The enterprise has the choice to employ you or not. You don't have the choice, you need to make a life. And exactly this was the problem at the end of the 19th century. Working days of 12 hours, unemployment, and, compared to today's situation, poor workers.
The third aspect of the state was already partially mentioned by M@ni@c: The possibility for the society to control development of a country. This is not only funding fundamental science or arts, but also public transportation or developing retarded regions (within a country). If the government does not take care of public transportation, you will have nothing in rural areas, while in cities it will be fine, until 8 pm. No tram at 2.15 am when you had a beer or two or three ... and you definitely couln't drive a car.
So, I think this, and providing equal chances (not equal income) for everybody, should be the duties of a government. And in a democracy, also providing the means for everybody to participate in the state, which means free access to radio (TV is a luxury, IMO) or other suitable media.

[johndmuller]

Just talking economics, a monopoly isn't necessarily bad; it depends.

The chances are that a monopolist would try to stifle competition and would not be interested in innovation, but the product can't be completely bad and outrageously priced either or else someone else would be able to enter the market. Microsoft mostly operates by co-opting good ideas - buying them out (making the inventors rich sooner and more surely than they would otherwise, just maybe not as rich) or else the traditional way or underselling them for a similar product (maybe better, maybe worse, but pretty much equivalent). People are still trying to enter this market, so the consumer is still getting the benefits of various price wars.

Even if a mature monopoly arrives and everyone has to pay too much, in economic terms things could still be OK if the monopolist spends/invests the ill gotten gains in an economically efficient manner.

When the government spends money on real goods and services, like roads and buildings, it is being reasonably efficient and provides economic stimulation, but on the other hand, it also has the power to create inefficiencies, by introducing market distortions like protectionist tarriffs and oddball tax incentives or other things that it executes by force, so to speak. A lot of the inefficiencies are a matter of perspective, particularly global versus national levels of economy - i.e., propping up local industries is not necessarily bad for the local economy (it's worse for the economies of the cheaper source), just worse for the economy as a whole, which had more efficient possibilities.

[Shai-Hulud]

Societal isolation?? How do you mean?

Unemployment, technological progress, and the diversity and development of culture cause people to be isolated from the society. For example, some can't use internet which is a major forum with many possibilities to improve one's standard of living. People simply don't know how to use society's services and opportunities. I think this is a major problem in today's capitalism. One of the most important reasons for poverty.

State is an important factor in economy but its role should be redefined to some degree. Taxation is less inefficient way to invest than free market because of state bureaucracy. But if you want to give equal opportunities for everyone you need to support lower classes. Aim should be to make societal competition and political participation possible for all. As a humanist I support social security, but only minimal social security. State can't create welfare in long term, only private sector can. State should concentrate on sustaining and improving politics and assuring the security of its people.

Just talking economics, a monopoly isn't necessarily bad; it depends.

Microsoft's monopoly can be explained with many reasons. Personally I believe that making a commercially succesful user interface is such a complex and hard task that only few corporations could really succeed in making one. Not to say that Microsoft isn't acting somewhat suspiciously by time to time - it's still obvious that the creators of it we're superbly talented. And it's not easy(but not impossible, as proven by Linux) to beat the MS software in free market.

[Maniac]

Darn, just like in a previous alike discussion a year ago with johndmuller I'll have to stop for a while. There is so much I'd like to respond to but I won't have internet access the next week. Fear my response in a week!

[Archaic]

Here's another point to consider then.

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Exactly it is cheaper to clean up the mess afterwards. That’s why environmental efforts are focused on recycling methods and finding ways to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere instead of changing the production process.

Recycling methods, without exception, produce more pollution than was originally produced when the original product was created. For example, while many City Councils in Australia collect Recycling bins of paper, plastics and glass, the great majority of them simply throw these Recyclable materials onto the landfill, simply because the cost of Recycling them (That's both the monetary cost and the societal cost of the pollution) is far too great. Recycling is a tool for saving and reusing resources, NOT for saving the environment.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Archaic
Here's another point to consider then.



Recycling methods, without exception, produce more pollution than was originally produced when the original product was created. For example, while many City Councils in Australia collect Recycling bins of paper, plastics and glass, the great majority of them simply throw these Recyclable materials onto the landfill, simply because the cost of Recycling them (That's both the monetary cost and the societal cost of the pollution) is far too great. Recycling is a tool for saving and reusing resources, NOT for saving the environment.

This is NONSENSE. Primary production of non-recyclable plastics, aluminium, chlorine bleached paper and cotton produce more pollution.

'These days the term 'recycling' typically covers the process of collecting used or discarded 'waste' materials and converting them into new products to be used or sold. Recycling reduces landfill and conserves resources.

Separating recyclable items from household waste and leaving them at the kerbside for collection or taking them to a drop-off centre is only the first step in the recycling process. Recycling cannot be considered to have taken place until the resource is recovered, reprocessed and re-used.

By transforming waste materials into useable resources, recycling provides a way to manage solid waste while reducing pollution, conserving energy, creating jobs and building more competitive manufacturing industries.

There are environmental, economic and social advantages and benefits to recycling a variety of materials. Some of these benefits include:

* Recycling conserves valuable natural resources and raw materials used in industry. By making products from recycled materials instead of virgin materials, we conserve land and reduce the need to drill for oil and dig for minerals, etc;
* Recycling generates civic pride and environmental awareness;
* Recycling helps prevent environmental pollution. In most cases, making products from recycled materials creates less air pollution and water pollution than making products from virgin materials;
* Recycling saves energy, thus reducing acid rain, global warming and air pollution. Making products from recycled ingredients often uses much less energy than producing the same product from raw materials;
* When the materials that you recycle go into new products, they don't go into landfills or incinerators, so landfill space is conserved and helps solve our waste disposal problems;
* Goods are used productively and prevented from becoming litter and garbage;
* The recycling process creates far more jobs than landfills or incinerators, and recycling can frequently be the least expensive waste management method for cities and towns.
(ESA 2001)

To start recycling you should first call your local council to find out what recycling facilities are available in your area. You may have either a kerbside collection system, or a community drop-off system. For businesses, you may have to find a recycling service that caters for your needs, which may cost depending on quantities and materials.

Kerbside collection of recyclables involves placing your recyclables out on the footpath for collection on a set day like a normal garbage collection.

Your council will provide you with a bin or recycling container and will tell you what can and cannot be included for collection. The usual items include all glass jars and bottles, aluminium and steel cans, PET plastic soft drink bottles and HDPE plastic milk and detergent bottles. It may also be possible to include paper, light cardboard, newspapers and 'junk' mail, milk and fruit juice cartons.

Community drop-off centres require a bit more effort. You will need to store your recyclables at home or work and then take them to the drop-off centre. Remember to take your boxes and bags back with you from the drop-off centre to prevent litter, and do not mix any non-recyclables with the recyclables.

Separate your recyclables such as glass, plastic, paper and metal from other rubbish depending on what your local council will collect (EPAQ 2001).

Businesses that generate more waste than these services can handle may have to look to other commercial services. These vary greatly and a good place to start is by contacting your local waste services provider, regional waste board or local council. Some of these services may cost money for pick up of materials while some don't, depending on the volume and type of materials you make available to them. The increased savings of implementing a waste reduction strategy of other materials can usually outweigh the costs of these services.

The NSW Wasteboards have developed a Reuse and Recycling Directory that has been designed as a guide for businesses, government and the general public as a means of identifying companies that accept waste products for reuse and recycling. It is available on the Internet at http://www.wasteboards.nsw.gov.au/directory/default.htm


In recent times kerbside recycling has frequently been the subject of public debate regarding its cost to the community.

Are the costs of Kerbside Recycling justified by the benefits? YES!!

The findings of the National Packaging Covenant Council's (NPCC) report Independent Assessment of Kerbside Recycling in Australia conducted by Nolan-ITU, convey an important message- that the environmental benefits of recycling significantly outweigh the environment costs.
The report's key finding was that the integrated cost-benefit assessment confirms a common perception that the current kerbside system in metropolitan and regional centres provides a total net benefit to Australian communities (Nolan-ITU 2001).
When combining the financial costs of kerbside systems with the environmental benefits (which have been estimated using conservative environmental values) it is clear that practically all the current systems provide a significant net benefit to Australian communities.


Nationally
Net financial cost (for recyclables collection, sorting and delivery) is $158 million per year.
Net environmental benefit of kerbside recycling (over landfill) is $424 million per year.
Overall benefit is therefore an estimated $266 million per year.

Households (on average)
Net financial costs amount to $26 per household per year.
Environmental benefits to $68 per household per year.
Average overall benefit of around $42 per household per year (Nolan-ITU 2001).


References & Further Contacts
Krebs, W. A. (ed) 1991, The Collins Australian Pocket Dictionary, Harper Collins Publishers, Sydney.
Nolan-ITU, 2001, Independent Economic Assessment of Kerbside Recycling in Australia,
(commissioned by) National Packaging Covenant Council.
NSW Wasteboards 2001, Glossary of Terms, www.wasteboards.nsw.gov.au/
EPAQ (Environmental Protection Authority Queensland), 2001, Waste and Recycling
http://www.env.qld.gov.au/environment/school/waste/
Planet Ark, 1996, The Planet Ark Recycling Report, Nova Design Associates, Sydney
Planet Ark, 2001, Planet Ark Recycling Report 2001, www.planetark.org/recycling
ESA (Environmental Systems of America), 2001, Recycling- Hows and Whys,
http://envirosystemsinc.com/howswhys.html
terra cordis, 2001, Resource and Recovery Education, training manual, terra cordis pty limited'

from www.cleanup.com.au

The failure of certain councils in Australia to adequately institute recycling methods and systems neither invalidates recycling as a process for dealing with household and business waste, nor does it imply that recycling CAUSES more pollution than primary manufacturing. If you seriously believe that recycling is more polluting than primary manufacturing than go live next to an aluminium smelter or bauxite mine.

Unsurprisingly, my favourite faction is Deirdre and the Gaians....

[Archaic]

Well well well, looks like someone's been doing their "research". I see little there that even comes close to refuting my points (I already said it concerves resources, etc. My point is that it's more pollutant.) to be perfectly honest. What should I have expected though from something that I've probably got on a flyer from Clean Up Australia Day earlier in the year.

While I know I'm right, at this point in time I can't lift paragraphs en-masse from texts to prove my point. Give me a few days to do that. I'll need to contact my Uni professor who introduced me to this fact earlier in the week.

Right now, I'll address the points as briefly as I can. I've got another Economics lecture tonight.

The first two and last three bullet points I don't deny. Those aren't related to the point I was making.

* Recycling helps prevent environmental pollution. In most cases, making products from recycled materials creates less air pollution and water pollution than making products from virgin materials;

This point I STRONGLY refute. Let me take a key sentance there.
making products from recycled materials creates less air pollution and water pollution than making products from virgin materials
Less air and water pollution? No arguement there. But VOLUME of pollution is not necessarily my point with all industries. It's the degree of overall pollution, and while there are not as many by-products of recycling as there are with the original creation, these by-products are by far more harmful to the environment in the long term.

* Recycling saves energy, thus reducing acid rain, global warming and air pollution. Making products from recycled ingredients often uses much less energy than producing the same product from raw materials;

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. I'll have to come back to it later in the week.


Most of the rest is utterly irrelevant, but here's something that is important.

that the environmental benefits of recycling significantly outweigh the environment costs.

In other words, as far as they're concerned, the benifits of being able to re-use resources and save on land for landfill outweigh the costs of the environmental pollution it causes.


The councils have more than adequate recycling methods and systems. However, they've chosen to NOT use them. WHY? Because, in their opinions, the costs outweigh the benifits. We're not talking small shire councils here. We're talking state capitals and major regional centres. Ever wonder why they had the center devisor removed from the bins? Because they don't need it anymore. There's no point when they're just dumping it.

I DO seriously believe that it causes more pollution. Don't believe me, someone who's been in said country towns with mines and smelters? Try living next to a recycling facility that's actually being used for what it was intended.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Archaic

'Well well well, looks like someone's been doing their "research".'

Could you be less patronising, do you think?

'I see little there that even comes close to refuting my points (I already said it concerves resources, etc. My point is that it's more pollutant.)'

So conserving resources isn't contributing to non-pollution of the environment. What a quaint notion.

'Recycling methods, without exception, produce more pollution than was originally produced when the original product was created.'

I see. I note you do not say how this is so, nor do you offer a valid comparison. Does recycling waste cloth or paper really produce more pollution than

i) chlorine bleached cotton
ii) chlorine bleached paper pulp ?

If recycling conserves resources, then how is it more polluting than manufacturing that requires the consumption of fossil fuels, and the use of petro-chemicals and caustic toxic chemicals?

'What should I have expected though from something that I've probably got on a flyer from Clean Up Australia Day earlier in the year.'

Well yes. How terrible of me to quote from Clean Up Australia's website, given that Clean Up Australia weekend was this weekend just passed, that you live in Australia and I live in Australia. And that the subject of Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their concomitant effect on climate and the survival of low lying Pacific nations came up at CHOGM last week.

'While I know I'm right',

Oh, I'm so glad for you.


'I'll need to contact my Uni professor who introduced me to this fact earlier in the week.'

Marvellous. The all-knowing academic who wouldn't have any connection with primary manufacturers or receive grants from interested parties.

'Right now, I'll address the points as briefly as I can. I've got another Economics lecture tonight.'

Whereas I of course, like all woolly headed recyclers, will simply stroll out in my recycled rubber tyre sandals to go and chat to a redgum tree, before blowing up a logging truck.


'This point I STRONGLY refute. Let me take a key sentance there.
making products from recycled materials creates less air pollution and water pollution than making products from virgin materials
Less air and water pollution? No arguement there. But VOLUME of pollution is not necessarily my point with all industries. It's the degree of overall pollution, and while there are not as many by-products of recycling as there are with the original creation, these by-products are by far more harmful to the environment in the long term.'

I see. Which by-products of recycling are you talking about? As opposed to the pollutants of primary manufacture, such as dioxins, chlorine bleach, ammonia and P.C.B.s? Let alone the pollution put out by brown coal power stations used to fuel those factories.


'Most of the rest is utterly irrelevant, but here's something that is important.'

On the contrary- it's extremely relevant. The environment isn't simply some cash cow for polluting primary manufacturers that will go on endlessly healing itself after they've set rivers on fire with toxic waste, or dumped heavy metal waste into rural water tables.

'In other words, as far as they're concerned, the benifits of being able to re-use resources and save on land for landfill outweigh the costs of the environmental pollution it causes.'

Ever wonder if any of those councillors are simply looking after their own political careers or investments? I suspect most people wouldn't want to live next to a recycling facility, or indeed a waste management facility. But then, they wouldn't choose to live next to an aluminium smelter or chemical plant either. It's called short termism, nimbyism- not in my backyard. In effect,what the Western World has done with its dirty/heavy industries- site them in the developing world and we can all enjoy our cosseted lifestyles and not have to worry about those funny brown people scavenging waste from toxic dumps.

Take a look at the lifespan of unrecycled waste and factor that in to the cost, societal and environmental, of non-recycling. 1 million years for someone's glass bottle carelessly tossed away, up to 100 years for an aluminium can.


'Facts About Plastic

Plastics have only been widely used in Australia in the past few decades but have had a devastating impact on our natural environment.

Top 10 Plastic Bag Facts

1. Australians use more than six billion plastic bags per year - if these were tied together they would stretch around the world 37 times.

2. Less than 1% of the total number of plastic bags that Australians use each year are being re-used by Australian households (ABS, Environmental Issues: Peoples Views and Practices, 4602.0, March 2000).

3. On average, 82.6% of Australian households say they re-use plastic bags (ABS, Environmental Issues: Peoples Views and Practices, 4602.0, March 2000).

4. 3.6 billion of the 6 billion plastic bags Australians use each year are plastic supermarket bags. These are made of HDPE (high-density polyethylene) and have the potential to be recycled.

5. Only 10 % of households take their plastic bags to a central collection point, other than a dump, for recycling (ABS, Environmental Issues: Peoples Views and Practices, 4602.0, March 2000).

6. Nearly half a million plastic bags were collected on Clean Up Australia Day this year.

7. Results from Clean Up Australia Day 2001 revealed that 32% of the total rubbish collected was made from plastic - 7.3% of this rubbish was plastic bags.

8. On average 60 plastic bags were collected at each site (7039 sites) on Clean Up Australia Day 2001:

* Beach sites, 60 bags per site;
* River/Creek/parkland sites, 160 bags per site.

9. It takes only four grocery shopping trips for an average Australian family to accumulate 60 plastic shopping bags

10. Plastic bags may take between 20 and 1000 years to break down in the environment.

General Plastics Facts

1. Over 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles worldwide are killed by plastic rubbish every year. Marine life, in particular turtles, is prone to mistaking plastic bags for jellyfish, ingesting them and dying of intestinal blockage.

2. A study on Albatross chicks on Midway Island, near Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, found 9 out of 10 birds had plastic rubbish in their gullets. It is disturbing to note that when the animal dies and decays the plastic is then free to repeat this deadly cycle.

Waste Facts

1. Australians are the second highest producers (behind only the United States) of waste, per person, in the world - with each of us sending almost 690 kgs of waste to landfill each year (Human Development Report 1999, United Nations Development Program).

2. More than 18 million tonnes of waste ends up in landfill each year in Australia.

3. From the 18 millions tonnes of waste produced each year in Australia, approximately 7 million tonnes of that waste is from the household sector.

4. On average, all Australian capital cities will reach their present landfill capacity by 2010.

5. The amount of waste placed in landfill each year in Australia is enough to cover the state of Victoria. '

So by recycling and reusing just the plastic bags, for instance, we would actually be polluting more, than creating them in the first place and throwing them away, ?

I don't think so.

[Adalbertus]

I don't believe there is a definite answer as to what is cheaper or causes more environmental harm. One has to look at each part individually. I'l just pick three (knowing that even there I cannot be detailed enough to give a "waterproof" answer):
* Paper: During the recycling process, the quality of paper degrades seriously. The reason is that it consists of (mostly wood) fibres which become shorter every time you recycle. So you will need more glue to make a paper. Additionnally you will have to filter out those fibres who became too short. This is and will be waste, compost for the garden at best. On the conservation of forests I still believe that there is enough waste wood (from industry and forest cleaning which is necessary to make the strong trees grow even better, the latter being the reason why not buying a christmas tree for ecological reasons is a pure nonsense) to produce paper without the need to kill those nice big trees. The additionnal costs in energy and water you often see are probably mostly due to compare and overall unefficient conventional paper mill with an optimized recycling paper mill. Don't believe a statistics which you didn't fake yourself.
The printing colours as a polluter certainly do exist but they do not come into the equation for the paper itself because you will print on both sorts of paper.
* Glass: For producing glass the most energy you will have to put into is for melting sand or old glass. As both is mostly the same substance, the energetic costs are mostly the same. And who likes to look through a brown window for having the comfortable feeling to do it most ecologically? Where one might be able to sensibly recycle glass is to reuse bottles. But the drawback is that they have to be cleaned which has to be done with very aggressive chemicals. (Btw. I've heard of an investgation that selling milk in PET tubes is the most ecological. Not much material, to be stored efficiently, recyclable, no aggressive cleaning.)
* Aluminium: Most of the energy in the process of making aluminium (and some nasty chemicals, too) go into making the metal from a mineral (oxide, I think). This is why the ore usually goes to the energy (half around the globe ... ). Here, recycling saves most of the energy because you already have the metal, only in the wrong shape. (It is not a problem of resources, Aluminium is one of the most abundant elements on earth).

It's going way off-topic, but it's fun

[Adalbertus]

molly bloom,

Sorry I have to disagree in several points:

"Creating jobs" and "cheaper" never can be fulfilled the same time, globally. This works only if you limit yourself to a certain region or part of economy (or if you are willing to accept unfair wages). The reason is that all costs are costs for people doing their work. A tree grows for free. Petroleum lies in the earth for free. The cost of it is to pay people to chop down the tree, to make growing it better or to drill to get the petroleum. The reason why it is more expensive to create the job for one person to get the petroleum than for a forester is the cost of the equipment, which is the cost of the persons to create it. There is no other cost than work (Even if it is sometimes convenient to assign costs to a ressource when you are not interested in a global view).

I see. I note you do not say how this is so, nor do you offer a valid comparison. Does recycling waste cloth or paper really produce more pollution than

i) chlorine bleached cotton
ii) chlorine bleached paper pulp ?

You offer an invalid comparison yourself. You will need aggressive chemicals (or unused paper) to create a white recycling paper. The difference is that people are willing to write on grey recycling paper but not willing to write on brown (or whatever) paper freshly from wood. (Btw. I think ozone bleaching works just as well and is less toxic to the environment, because ozone decomposes to oxygen).

Take a look at the lifespan of unrecycled waste and factor that in to the cost, societal and environmental, of non-recycling. 1 million years for someone's glass bottle carelessly tossed away, up to 100 years for an aluminium can.

Those long-living things are no problem to the environment. Not at all. It's not looking nice, that's all. The reason is exactly that it is long-living. No toxic substances set free. Glass: Basically glass is a stone. Aluminium: Afaik, it is non-toxic in itself, and certainly when it is set free to nature it is in the form of Al2O3 or Al(OH)3, which are abundant in nature anyway.

And as for fossile fuels the problem is not that we use them but that we do not take the waste CO2 out of the atmosphere again.

It's always the same game: You greenish people bring up some good ideas but think not far enough. And the anti-greenish alike

[Shai-Hulud]

And once...this was a "If you were on the U.N.S. Unity..." - thread. A fact hardly believable when you look at few last posts . Seems you've all done your homework. Recycling...fascinating.

[Adalbertus]

One positive side: It keeps reminding other posters that they could answer the real question.

And we are behaving as if we were already on Unity: Each person advocating the position of their faction. It's not so far off-topic

With a few well-thought arguments, you can support the biggest nonsense.

[wgabrie]

I'm not too picky about which faction I'd go with, Sister Miriam was my choice, but as long as I don't end up with Yang torturing me, or Zak experimenting on me I'm happy.

[Cybergod]

All you anti-greenies, have you forgotten about your polymers? (I am sorry if it was mentioned but I cannot be bothered to reread 5 pages of argument ) They produce so much waste and micro-organisms cannot break them down. But when I think about it, I think it's Switzerland, they recycle above 70% of the plastics by burning them in power plants. So you see there are and must be solutions to combine both energy-producing industries and caring for the world (not thinking of just tommorow or next year but centuries to come - would you like your children to be told fairy tales of this strange place called a forest? Or to have the "last tree" labelled in a museum (like in some bad SF movie)).

Also America has, what 6% or something (sorry if I'm wrong - this is coming from a student who is excercising his freedom of speech ), of the world population but produce over half of the world's polution. HELLO! And then you lot wonder why rest of the world considers you to be selfish cowboys!

So I'd still go with the green Gaians. Plus because they are peaceful people (yeah right - nuking me first!!! grr).

But otherwise I'd go with the University or the Peacekeepers - never Morgan.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ohh I know I'm gonna regret his but...

I'm a chemical engineer by trade and this whole thing with recycling is an optimization problem.

re: polymers

The example given of recycling polymers as a fuel source. Think a second on what you just wrote. Polymers are combusted to yield fuel thus causing pollution in the form of COx. This is supposedly the exact cause of global warming.

The alternative is that the polymer stay inert in the ground and EVENTUALLY biodegrade into long carbon chain materials. Depending on the length of the carbon chain this is oil. Now were talking eons in order to do so. But... Polyethylene and Polypropylenes and Polyesters in of themselves are inert and don't have water leaching out poisonous materials such as heavy metals, Dioxins, Chlorinated and Brominated materials, neither do they have aromatic materials thought to cause cancer. Are they unsightly inlandfills. Well Yes by definition a landfill is unsightly. So the more waste, the more landfills, the more unsightly the environment.

Now I'm not advocating their landfill I'm just saying landfilling of these products is not necessarily a health risk (unless of course nasty additives, stabilizers and inks are used)

(/estimate Note: the below figures are for illustration purpose only and are not to be considered as gospel)

Oh sure if power generation is required the "you may as well burn polymer as any other fuel" answer is made, then there again I strongly disagree. Fuel for power generation is a rather low end refined product. Coal being the dirtiest but least refined. Diesel and oil being a step up from that. Cleaner and better would be Natural Gas. The point is that in order to get say 10 lbs of each of these it requires say 11 lbs of coal b/c of some yield issues, Diesel and Oil require say 30 lbs due to refining yields and split stream generated( Low Molecular weight stuff actually is the fuel to run the distillation collumns) natural Gas say 15 lbs due to transport losses.

Now compare that to 10 pounds of plastic. It would take almost 100 pounds of petrochemical to yield the 10 pounds of plastic. And the answer, the European country has taken to is simply burning it. Wow if only they had recycled it as plastic look at how much petrochemicals they just wasted and caused damage to the environment. Demand hasn't changed so the need for all those replacement plastics still exists.

(/end estimate)

Sorry, but I think it extremely morally condescending to say just because a person disagrees with a (and I hate to use the stereotype as I think that is what causes all the friction in the first place) 'greenie' in the first place that makes them morally bankrupt. I like Adalbertus, think that the answer lies with thinking and researching deeper on the subject and not going with initial gut feels.

The bigger answer lies in curbing demand as ultimately demand drives power generation, need for plastics etc. But if the demand is not curbed then more intelligent choices of fuel sources and feed stocks can be made.

Hopefully within our lifetime we will see 'clean reactors' in the form of affordable reliable fuel cells. Which reminds me, within the world of SMAC why were clean reactors decided to be a means to eliminate support costs of units as opposed to a efficiency booster and eco-damage reducer?

Og

[Sikander]

It looks like Albertus and Ogie have beaten me to the punch, so I'll skip ahead to some general observations.

I agree completely that the cases for making various choices such as what materials / fuels to use, and what / whether to recycle certain waste products are extremely complex, and deserve to be analyzed with great care before we make the decision to expend propoganda capital in convincing others that 'X' is the right choice. This is one of the biggest problems I see in the 'green' movement today (and I am referring to the generalized concern for the planet rather than the political party here).

In many cases they have gotten the cart before the horse. They haven't done the complicated research necessary to be as certain as they should that the problems they point out are of the magnitude that they say they are, and especially that the solutions or compensations for those problems are the best solutions currently available.

The noisiest segment of the green movement seems to have the least understanding of the political, economic, social, environmental and health issues implicit in the policies they advocate. It often seems easier to deny the divinity of Christ to a Bishop than to argue that one of their positions doesn't make any sense scientifically because the science is counter-intuitive. These are the types of people you tend to see protesting at globalization conferences, they tend to be young and educated through political means rather than coming to their viewpoints through a general education in critical thinking and methodology and coming to their own conclusions.

Fortunately the vast majority of people no matter what part of society they come from (and from across the political spectrum) are concerned about the environment. I have a lot of friends who are well-educated in various types of sciences, Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry, Biology, Medicine etc. All of them consider themselves environmentalists. It was from these people the true scope of the uncertainty in the scientific community regarding something as complex the environment of the earth became clear to me.

These people are no less committed or caring about the long term viability of the planet, but they are a good deal less noisy and more thoughtful than their more radical and less-educated bretheren. Unfortunately they aren't as photogenic as a bunch of clowns in costumes creating a disturbance, and their message (ie let's do the research and look at all the base assumptions and put them to the test before we expend a lot of energy trying to mitigate what we think is a problem) is not as comprehensible to the average person than simply blaming X corporation or political party for being evil greedy polluting scum. This is unfortunate, because all green policy is sapping society's tolerance for paying the costs associated with making changes. We want to get the most bang from our buck, and neutral or counterproductive policies use up political capital as much as a well-considered and comprehensive one. The entire debate could use a less heat and more light.

[Hydro]

I had to laugh when I was reading through Sik’s comments on wild eyed, poorly informed Green extremists. I was remembering my grad school days and the environmental group I joined. It was led by an avowed Communist (whose father was insanely rich) and his Mao-quoting cadre, sprinkled with a few rabid PETA folks (who wore leather – CLUE meter reading ZERO). When I asked them what in the world quoting Mao had to do with environmental issues they launched into a political diatribe on the evils of capitalism, while being oblivious and impervious to the facts of wanton environmental destruction in Maoist and Stalinist regimes. I would ask a few pointed environmental questions and they would typically assume what I call the ‘glassy eyed stare of non-comprehension’. I quit when they sponsored Hemp Day.

Luckily, most of the environmentalists I’ve met since then are more like those Sik’s described – quiet, professional, well informed, and interested in doing what can be reasonably done.

Now, a few more thoughts on recycling. I work as a hydrogeologist for a large engineering firm on environmental contamination and my clients are both government (such as the US EPA) and industry. I see the sordid results of contamination every day, and the costs to investigate and clean up these messes are huge, not to mention the long-term harm to people and the environment in general. Here is my take:

The costs of recycling are frequently seen as higher than primary production/extraction and manufacturing, but that is generally because secondary costs are not included. For instance, land degradation associated with primary materials extraction is generally excluded, as are after-the-fact cleanup of manufacturing byproducts (e.g. – environmental contamination) and disposal. What does this mean? It means that the costs of either primary extraction vs. recycled materials can be ‘spun’ by advocates based on how they define the process and life cycle. Environmentalists include a cradle-to-grave life span and factor in some intangibles in their costs, while industry and civic leaders may only sees primary costs that they are directly responsible for. This is a Gaian vs. Morganite philosophical difference.

Disposal costs of non-recycled materials - If it isn’t reused then it is either dumped at ground surface (or water) or goes in a landfill. Most people object to living in an open trash heap, so most materials end up in landfills. Landfills are another after-the-fact cost that is not factored into primary production/extraction, and these costs can be significant since the wastes have to be hauled, processed, placed and then monitored for 10s or 100s of years. These landfills are a constant source of soil, air, and groundwater contamination, and the secondary costs of monitoring and cleaning up these concentrated messes are huge. Recycling effectively reduces waste volume, particularly for paper and yard waste, which make up the vast majority of landfill volume – I seem to recall that in my area they used to make up 70% of waste volume! This which reduces long term environmental liability. Many communities where I live in the Chicago area know recycling is a ‘loser’ in terms of costs but do it anyway since they don’t want to permit and authorize the operation of hugely unpopular landfills.

Aesthetics - So, you don’t like living next to a nasty recycling processing center. Well, then you can live by a strip mine, a smelter, and a landfill. Maybe a steel mill is more to your liking? How about a 2000 acre petrochemical facility? Which would you choose? While processing recycling materials is messy, I can guarantee that a landfill (especially the gigantic, mountain-sized landfills in the otherwise flat Chicago area – they could be ski slopes if they didn’t generate so much internal heat and require flares to burn off methane) is much worse. This isn’t exactly an either-or proposition, since even with aggressive recycling there will still need to be extraction, primary manufacturing, and landfilling, but the point is that there will be less – significantly less if well engineered.