Even though I did quite poorly in my university economics classes, I think I 
know what "economics" is, but I am not sure what "sustainability" is. It seems 
to be one of those terms that means different things to different people.

Is "sustainability" attained when we waste resources, time and effort, all of 
which are measured in dollars, yen, euros and pounds, pursuing goals that do 
not provide an equivalent return in terms of resources saved or created, or 
time or energy saved?

I have a problem with the statement "After a few years, it almost inevitably 
makes sound economic sense and we wonder why we were so stupid so as not to do 
it previously." 

First, it is hardly "inevitable" that the naysayers are proven wrong, in fact, 
history tells us that, in the environmental arena, the naysayers more often 
than not were right. Of course, one can not productively argue this issue, 
because the standard of measurement is not universally agreed upon. Some people 
are willing to sacrifice human lives and well being for the sake of the 
"environment" while others are not. [BTW, I am not taking sides on this debate, 
I am just pointing it out.] The automobile is a good example. It was believed 
that better gas mileage was good for the environment, and therefore a desirable 
goal. Given the technology available, the only way to increase mileage is to 
make cars smaller and lighter, using more plastic and less steel. So everyone 
now cheers because certain cars can get 28+ miles per gallon. What is ignored 
altogether is that smaller and lighter cars are less safe cars and more people 
die in car wrecks as a result. One doesn't need a physicist to convince us that 
that is true. Are you safer roaring down the autobahn on a motorcycle or a big 
American SUV, when you hit that tree? When you get sideswiped by that delivery 
truck, is your family safer in a Renault Clio or a Dodge Ram pickup truck? 
We can point to statistics that show that lives are lost solely as a result of 
driving smaller cars, but I don't think anyone will say (at least not publicly) 
that we should go back to the big, old cars. Apparently, we are willing to have 
some people die so that we can have a cleaner environment because that is good 
for people. 

Second, it is very hard and sometimes discouraged, to measure the environmental 
and human benefit "lost" from the action not taken or the project abandoned. 
For example, let's say that someone wants to introduce a new pesticide. 
Environmentalists say we should not use it because it is a nasty chemical. So 
the pesticide is never used. No one ever goes back to calculate the number of 
human lives that could have been saved or the amount of hunger that could have 
been avoided if the pesticide had been used. After all, a million people died 
of sarvation last year, a million died this year and a million will die next 
year, so what is different? We can't measure what we don't know, and we don't 
know the consequences of what we don't do. We accept what happens as the norm, 
we accept the new status quo as being the "right condition".  We know that 
banning DDT was the "right" thing to do and so we don't bother to count the 
increase in the cases of malaria and the resulting deaths.

The example of CFC-113 may be valid, but it may well be the exception. It may 
also be too early and we don't know enough yet to realize that CFC-113 is also 
"bad" and should be banned. The example of the village in Switzerland may also 
be valid, but it hardly proves the value of universal recycling of everything, 
everywhere. The following is from a recent news article:

"Danes unbottle doubts over plastic waste targets
A report by Denmark's environmental protection agency (EPA) concludes that 
there are no environmental benefits in collecting disposable plastic bottles 
and other plastic containers, and that the costs of recycling them are 
unacceptably high. The findings appear to confirm the results of similar 
studies in other European countries.
The German environment agency reported earlier this month that small 
lightweight packaging items might as well be incinerated as recycled on 
environmental grounds. This spring Austria's environment agency released 
similar findings."

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that the popular environmentalists are 
correct, i.e. that resources are finite. If that is the case then whenever we 
devote resources to one "cause" we deny them to another. Shouldn't we be 
careful and be sure that the resources we expend on issues such as recycling 
are, in fact, the best use of those resources, because once spent, they are 
gone forever. If I build a plant to recycle paper and then later find out that 
it was a bad environmental investment because the environmental expenditures of 
materials and energy in building and operating the paper recycling plant and 
paper recycling program far exceed the environmental benefit gained from paper 
recycling I have lost those resources forever.  That doesn't sound like 
"sustainability" to me. With finite resources one can only make just so many 
"wrong" decisions.


Chuck Dolci








 
*X-Accept-Language: en
*MIME-Version: 1.0
*Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
*From: b_ellis <[log in to unmask]>
*Subject: Re: [LF] Compulsory Electronics Recycling In The US
*X-To: Jim Smith <[log in to unmask]>
*To: [log in to unmask]
*
*Jim
*
*We are not talking about economics but sustainability. The economics
*FOLLOW from the issues. If you take almost environmental issue, the
*economists - and other naysayers - have wailed loud and clear at its
*introduction, saying it would never work etc., etc., etc. After a few
*years, it almost inevitably makes sound economic sense and we wonder why
*we were so stupid so as not to do it previously. Let me cite just one
*example in our industry. When the Montreal Protocol was introduced,
*everyone, including the economists, wailed loud and clear that replacing
*CFC-113 for defluxing would a) cost a tonne more and b) would cause a
*drop of quality. Experience has shown, after 14-2/3 years since the
*signature that CFC-113 was stupidly expensive, unnecessary in many cases
*and didn't even work very well, compared with most other methods of
*defluxing.
*
*OK, this example is not recycling, but there are many examples,
*especially in Europe, where "uneconomical" recycling has shown itself
*not only to promote sustainability but to be profitable. In the village
*where I used to live in Switzerland, we sorted out both industrial and
*household waste for recycling aluminium, iron/steel, white, green and
*brown glass, paper/cardboard, dry batteries, mineral oils, vegetable
*oils, PET bottles, other plastics, electrical equipment and white goods,
*garden waste, ash and other household waste. Every single one of these
*items was sent for either recovery/recycling or transformation. The
*municipality, when this was introduced about 12 or 13 years ago, never
*dreamt that it would actually be profitable, but it was, within 2-1/2
*years from the start, thanks to the discipline of the inhabitants who
*did the main sorting. As a result, the communal taxes in this commune
*are amongst the lowest in urban Switzerland. Did you know that the
*energy contained in a single polypropylene (you know, that thin, rather
*crinkly, plastic) bag, given away in a supermarket, if incinerated, will
*keep a 60 W light bulb burning for 10 minutes? Switzerland has a current
*(pun only slightly intended) generating capacity of 227 MW from
*incinerating non-recyclable household rubbish. I grant you, this is only
*a fraction of the total power requirements, but it reduces landfill
*requirements by 88%, does not sustain rats and other vermin in landfills
*and is a virtually free fuel.
*
*As an engineer, heavily involved in environmental matters for over 25
*years, I hate to preach economics to economists, but sustainability
*involves a much more holistic approach than just immediate dollars,
*pounds or rupees, but the long-term view from cradle-to-grave, sometimes
*over decades, even centuries. It includes the enormous health-care costs
*engendered by burning fossil fuels as if there were no future - and this
*alone costs the taxpayer in every country a bomb far exceeding the cost
*of using these same fuels in a less profligate manner, without even
*entering into the debate of greenhouse gases. It is our bounden duty, as
*citizens of this world, to use our limited resources in the most
*sustainable manner possible over the long term: the economic benefits,
*which may not be immediately apparent, will follow naturally.
*
*Voila, je l'ai dit :-)
*
*Brian
*Jim Smith wrote:
*>
*> Laura:
*>
*> And the economist side of me (honed in doctoral studies at the very
*> university from which your e-mail originates) screams "Recycling of
*> those materials will happen when it makes financial sense. And it will
*> make make financial sense when (or if) future generations turn out to
*> need those 'precious' resources." Certainly, if the materials are
*> needed, those future generations will know exactly where to look whereas
*> prospectors continue in demand today.
*>
*> Meanwhile, there's the issue of how precious those "precious resources"
*> will turn out to be a few decades from now. After all, it was just over
*> a hundred years ago that gas lighting was the height of technology (and
*> it was itself just displacing whale oil).
*>
*> I'm afraid your argument doesn't have an economic leg on which to stand.
*>
*> Sincerely,
*>
*> Jim Smith
*> Managing Director
*> Cambridge Management Sciences, Inc.
*> 4285 45th St. S.
*> St. Petersburg, FL 33711-4431
*> Tel: (727)866-6502 ext. 21
*> Fax: (727)867-7890
*> eMail: [log in to unmask]
*>
*> Laura J. Turbini wrote:
*> > Gordon and Forum Members,
*> >
*> > The recycling of the ever burgeoning amount of scrap electronics makes
*> > good sense -- not because these electronics will increase lead in
*> > drinking water -- but because the recycling will allow reuse of precious
*> > metal constituents, reduce the amount of mining for new ore, and
*> > preserve more resources for future generations.
*> >
*> > Laura Turbini
*> >
*> >     ----- Original Message -----
*> >     *From:* Davy, Gordon <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*> >     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*> >     *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2002 10:10 AM
*> >     *Subject:* [LF] Compulsory Electronics Recycling In The US
*> >
*> >      This posting is for the interest of US subscribers. Compulsory
*> >     recycling of unwanted electronic products is being considered in
*> >     state legislatures across the country, so it should not be too
*> >     surprising to see that it is now being considered as federal law,
*> >     too. Rep. Mike Thompson of California is drafting a bill, ?Computer
*> >     Hazardous Waste Infrastructure Program Act? that would require
*> >     purchasers of certain electronic devices including computers and
*> >     monitors to pay of fee of up to $10. This fee would fund grants to
*> >     selected organizations to collect and recycle or offer for reuse
*> >     this kind of item so as to keep them out of landfills. It would also
*> >     fund a study that would result in an annual report to Congress.
*> >     While paying the fee would be mandatory, submitting your unwanted
*> >     electronic products to the selected organizations would not. Not yet.
*> >
*> >     Few people will object to this bill, seeing the ten bucks as too
*> >     small an amount to complain about. Once people have gotten used to
*> >     the idea that there?s something wrong with dumping used electronics
*> >     in landfills, the amount will increase, with not all of the money
*> >     going to cover the deficit between operating cost and value of the
*> >     end product. Does anyone think I?m wrong in this prediction? Here is
*> >     the letter that I sent to Rep. Thompson on his draft legislation.
*> >
*> >     What I have to say is a distinctly minority opinion, one which you
*> >     may not have heard, but which I hope you will be willing to
*> >     consider, even though Democrats tend to favor environmental
*> >     legislation. As you know, the subject of keeping electronic products
*> >     out of landfills by encouraging their recycling is being considered
*> >     widely. In all these considerations what is taken for granted, with
*> >     little or no evaluation, is the notion that electronics going into
*> >     landfills is bad for the environment. The focus is entirely on the
*> >     ?how? to solve the problem (which I am not interested in), not
*> >     ?whether? there really is a problem (which is what I want to
*> >     discuss). You might ask yourself if you have ever seen the proof for
*> >     this notion, or whether the appeal was simply to your common sense
*> >     or intuition. I hope to convince you that it is quite illogical.
*> >
*> >     Here is my case that there is nothing wrong with the continued
*> >     dumping of used TVs, computers, monitors, etc. into landfills, and
*> >     hence no need for the proposed legislation.
*> >
*> >     ·          The claim that is made is that lead in electronic
*> >     products in landfills leaches into the ground water and pollutes it,
*> >     making it likely that people will increase their exposure to lead in
*> >     their drinking water. If this were true, then the proposed fix,
*> >     reducing the lead going into land fills would be totally inadequate,
*> >     because people have been disposing of lead-bearing waste in
*> >     landfills for over a century (starting with lead pipes and lead
*> >     paint in demolition debris, then car batteries, later radios and
*> >     TV?s, etc.) The lead that is already there would be polluting the
*> >     ground water (and cleanups all over the country would be the only
*> >     real fix). If it isn?t, then it's only fair to ask whether further
*> >     additions would have any noticeable effect. I could also tell you
*> >     about a scuba diving school that is conducted ? safely ? in an
*> >     abandoned lead mine. You might want to bring this question up with
*> >     the proponents to see how they respond.
*> >
*> >     ·          You can very easily verify whether the organizations
*> >     responsible for providing drinking water ? where you live in the
*> >     metropolitan DC area or in northern California (or anywhere else) ?
*> >     are seeing lead in the water they use as their source. Don?t take my
*> >     word for it ? ask them. They will tell you that they see lead at a
*> >     few parts per billion, and that it is not increasing. They will tell
*> >     you that they control the amount of lead coming out of their
*> >     customers? taps by controlling the pH. (In addition, the country has
*> >     already passed extensive legislation to ensure that drinking water
*> >     is safe.) The reason why there are no significant differences in the
*> >     lead in ground water anywhere is simple ? the laws of chemistry are
*> >     the same everywhere.
*> >
*> >     ·          You can check with the people responsible for running
*> >     landfills to see whether this is an issue they are even aware of.
*> >     Don?t assume that the proponents have already done this.
*> >
*> >     ·          You can also determine the incidence of lead poisoning in
*> >     this country (but don?t expect the proponents to have this info for
*> >     you). It has been dropping ever since lead was removed from gasoline
*> >     a quarter century ago. The cases remaining are not due to lead in
*> >     drinking water ? or lead in electronic products. This legislation
*> >     would not prevent even a single case of lead poisoning.
*> >
*> >     ·          Proponents for recycling of electronic products often
*> >     present figures of how many thousands of tons of these items go into
*> >     landfills each year. Have you ever heard what the percent of
*> >     municipal solid waste this represents? The answer is about one
*> >     percent, as they will grudgingly acknowledge. The amount of lead in
*> >     these products is a small fraction of that. That alone should raise
*> >     questions as to the motives of the proponents.
*> >
*> >     ·          The push for recycling of electronic products is not due
*> >     to pure concern for the environment. There are two factors that
*> >     would lead proponents to seek this legislation in spite of its not
*> >     benefiting the environment: they stand to benefit from the user fees
*> >     that would be imposed, or they are supported by contributions from
*> >     people who have been led to believe that lead in electronics is a
*> >     ?looming crisis? (a favored phrase). Your constituency is interested
*> >     in having a safe environment, but also interested in hanging on to
*> >     their money, while the proponents of this legislation are interested
*> >     in relieving them of it.
*> >
*> >     ·          For what it?s worth, my motivation is fairly pure: I hate
*> >     to see money wasted, and I hate to see these proponents profiting
*> >     from their misrepresentation. My background is that I have a Ph.D.
*> >     in physical chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley
*> >     (1970). My position is a minority opinion not because it is wrong,
*> >     but because there is no money to be made ? and not much to be saved
*> >     ? in adopting and supporting it. Although it might seem that the
*> >     manufacturers of the electronic products affected by the proposed
*> >     legislation would oppose the proposal, there are two limiting
*> >     factors: a) as long as it is imposed across the board, they will
*> >     simply pass the recycling fee along to the consumer (no one of which
*> >     has enough of a financial stake to get involved), and b) they face a
*> >     risk of being portrayed by the proponents as ?anti-environment? (a
*> >     very serious charge) if they object too strenuously. And you face a
*> >     choice, too, between taking a stand for the apparent protection of
*> >     the environment (popular) or for truth (out of fashion). But I would
*> >     argue that this country has enough real problems without diverting
*> >     attention ? yours or anyone else?s ? to a fabricated one.
*> >
*> >     ·          Recycling may seem noble ? the environmentally
*> >     responsible thing to do. However, if it has to be subsidized, then a
*> >     better term would be ?compulsory recycling?. Since there is no
*> >     problem that it solves, it is actually wasteful, because it diverts
*> >     resources ? money and time ? that could otherwise be spent on
*> >     something better. If electronics recycling didn?t need to be
*> >     subsidized ? if it were self-supporting ? it wouldn?t need to be
*> >     legislated, either. You couldn?t stop it.
*> >
*> >     Gordon Davy
*> >     Baltimore, MD
*> >     [log in to unmask]
*> >     410-993-7399
*> >
*> >     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*> >     Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
*> >     SET Leadfree NOMAIL Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org >
*> >     On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives Please visit IPC web
*> >     site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional information,
*> >     or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
*> >     
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*> >
*> >
*> > 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*> > Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
*> > Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases
*> >  > E-mail Archives Please visit IPC web site
*> > http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional information, or contact
*> > Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
*> > 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*> >
*>
*> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET 
Leadfree NOMAIL
*> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > 
E-mail Archives
*> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
*> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 
ext.5315
*> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
*Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree 
NOMAIL
*Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > 
E-mail Archives
*Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
*information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 
ext.5315
*------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------