The purpose of environmental protection is to protect the environment. 
Jobs should have nothing to do with it, whether positive or negative, 
or, for that matter any other economical factor, within reason. If it 
costs what it takes, then it costs just that. The only times the economy 
should play a role are a) where there ia choice between two solutions of 
equal environmental merit and b) where the cost of reducing emissions is 
totally unreasonable with respect to the potential damage caused. I 
agree that b) is very arbitrary but one example, in the latest REACH 
proposal, is an exemption for a substance that is produced in minimal 
quantities (I think the limit is now 10 kg) and whose molecule is 
unlikely to be dangerous from modelling (free interpretation). As the 
registering process is expected to cost €30,000 to €200,000 per 
substance, you can see the idea that the cost is secondary.

If we take the case of recycling aluminium, for example, the recycled 
metal costs about 1/5th the cost of virgin metal, mostly saving on 
energy. But the bauxite and fluorspar miners, the transporters, the 
smelters and so on would prefer you use only virgin metal, even though 
their operations are all highly polluting. So this is a case where it is 
obviously advantageous to recycle, economically and environmentally, at 
the cost of jobs.

I would not say that all recycling is environmentally positive, but 99% 
of the cases are, as a guess. Let me cite a concrete example from our 
industry to illustrate this thesis. A company washing PCB Assemblies 
recycles the water by passing it through a mixed bed DI column. When the 
column is exhausted, it is replaced by a fresh one and sent to the 
manufacturer for regeneration. He is not to know that it has lead and 
other heavy metal cations sequestered in it (he would assume that it had 
been used to deionise tap water, like most of the columns he receives 
back). The cation exchange resins are regenerated with hydrochloric acid 
which will release the heavy metals. During the subsequent rinse, the 
waste water will go to drain, lead and other metals included. There are 
two ways to avoid this potentially damaging problem: 1. have the resins 
treated separately or 2. burn the resins in a cement kiln, so that the 
metal ashes are finally imprisoned in concrete. Both of these obviously 
entail an increase of costs.

Obviously, you are right that transporting waste for recycling involves 
emissions, but so does transporting the raw materials for virgin 
materials, often far more. I believe you are in the USA. Just think of 
all the minerals, including oil, that are imported into your country to 
make manufactured goods. For example, you import 11 million tonnes of 
iron ore (mostly from Brazil). The entailed pollution from transporting 
this is far higher than transporting the equivalent 9 million tonnes of 
used steel, even from CA to PA. China is expected to import 200 million 
tonnes of iron ore (mostly from Australia), in addition to 340 million 
tonnes of domestic ore, this year, but they don't have a large reservoir 
of steel to recycle, like you do (they have only about 19 million tonnes 
p.a.). In fact, China imports about 11 million tonnes of scrap iron and 
steel per year! The global total of recycled steel is 400 million 
tonnes, which is roughly equal to the steel resulting from the 500 
million tonnes of ore that is mined, in metal content. It is therefore 
clear that, if a low-cost metal like iron and steel can be economically 
and environmentally recycled to this 50% extent, then so can many other 
materials.

If we take commodities like oil and natural gas, where the exploitable 
quantities are becoming limited and are likely to diminish to very small 
quantities within decades, it behoves us to economise on the use of 
virgin materials so as to spin our resources out for as long a period as 
possible, no matter the economical and employment costs. That is why I 
don't mind used deep fryer oil being added to diesel fuel, rather than 
dumped in a landfill, even if it means one Saudi Arabian less being 
employed and one member of a tanker crew. It may mean one American being 
employed instead, filtering the collected oil.

Brian

Charles Dolci wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
> I think this argument shows part of the weakness of the environmental
> movement as presently constructed.
> 
> Is the purpose of an environmental policy to increase employment or is
> it to better protect the environment? Would recycling be more attractive
> if it meant less employment AND less emmissions? What if it meant  more
> employment and more emissions?
> 
> I don't know if Robin  really meant to say "always".  Do you really
> think it ALWAYS means higher employment  and lower emmissions? In all
> cases, everywhere and at all times?
> 
> I can see and appreciate the argument being made for recycling certain
> materials  in certain densely populated areas, then the costs (both
> environmental and economic) of transporting enough recyled material to
> keep a facility running profitably (think in terms of  energy, material
> and other inputs IN and useful material OUT and not $$$) might be offset
> by the benefits.  Is it environmentally sound to build a plastics
> recycling plant, a paper recycling plant, a steel recycling plant, AND
> an X recycling plant in Butte, Montana  to serve the 835 residents of
> that locale? Is that a wise use of resources?  The alternative is to
> ship the materials to Denver or some other locale where recycling plants
> do operate. But there are economic and environmental costs to
> transporting this stuff all over the place?
> 
> Also, what is the energy source for operating that recycling facility vs
> operating the mine?  Is it electricity from hydroelectric, from nuclear
> or coal or oil fired generators? Or maybe wind?  And consider emissions.
> What exactly is being emitted?  Maybe the energy used to process the
> virgin material comes from nuclear power plants, with little or no air
> emissions and the recycling plant is powered by energy from coal or oil
> fired generators?  Is recycling still better?
> I don't know, but who has done the analysis?
> 
> The problem is that there are too many variables on each side, and one
> can not say the recycling  ALWAYS leads to lower emissions or higher
> employment.  (Gordon Davy rightly makes the point that  by definition if
> it takes more people to do the work then it is less efficient - at least
> with respect to that input.)
> 
> In comparing the two one has to consider the time, the place, the
> commodity and other circumstances.  Perhaps at a given time and place
> and for a certain commodity one can argue that to recycle the commodity
> is then more efficient than taking it from an original source, but that
> is all one can say.
> 
> Chuck Dolci
> 
> Robin Ingenthron wrote:
> 
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>> I'm puzzled.... Whether or not your statement is true, I don't see how it
>> derives from my message.   My point is actually that recycling is always
>> higher
>> employment and lower emmissions.  Disincentives to recycle only come from
>> government, either in terms of subsidies for landfilling or environmental
>> enforcement based on other than environmental factors (proximity to the
>> regulator).
>>
>> I think leadfree is a big mistake.  I don't think that mining and then
>> throwing away metals is good for the planet or future generations.  It is
>> because of the latter that I oppose the former.
>>
>> Robin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Davy, Gordon" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [LF] The derivative Tale of the Dog
>>
>>
>> Thank you, Bev and Robin, for posting some very interesting facts about
>> recycling. What they say to me is that whether something should be
>> recycled
>> may be a complicated proposition, and hence that it is simplistic and
>> dogmatic to favor any and all recycling, regardless of cost and
>> consequences.
>>
>> There are people with an agenda who promote this kind of notion. They
>> may be
>> aware of the facts, but they don't volunteer them.
>>
>> And yes, Brian, this discussion should probably be in the Environet forum
>> (http://listserv.ipc.org/archives/environet.html) instead.
>>
>> Gordon Davy
>> Baltimore, MD
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 410-993-7399
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
>>
>>
>> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>> Please visit IPC web site
>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at
>> [log in to unmask] or
>> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
>>
>> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks
>> send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>> Please visit IPC web site
>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional
>> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
>> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee 
> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks 
> send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site 
> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional 
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 
> ext.2815
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> 
>