Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"But since recycling saves energy, it also cuts down on pollution emitted by utilities and the companies themselves. When energy is used, the price of the resulting pollution is passed on to all energy consumers in their utility bills. Due to the new clean air law, utility companies must comply with tougher standards in reducing pollutants they release while producing energy. The cost of compliance is usually passed on to each energy consumer.
If energy use is reduced by methods such as recycling, less pollution is produced. That reduces everyone's cost in terms of paying to reduce pollution and in limiting damage to natural resources.
Once the long-term costs and advantages are weighed, recycling does make economic sense. Using resources wisely is always economical."
because the rest isnt legitimate quantifiable savings. its just fantasyland bs. when someone says to me "you will actually pay more direct costs but these indirect costs that i cant quantify will be lowered so you get a net savings" i say go f yourself. come back when you can actually reduce my costs.
yet there are many private companies out there, as well as cities, that collect recycleables and sell them for a profit.
of course there is money in collecting recyclables. they are getting paid for that part of the process. however, they are a cost in the process, so that gets deducted from the benefits to payers. no company is going to make a profit if they take the process from beginning to end and sell the final product. the reason is ultimately because it uses more time, resources, labor, etc. to recycle products. otherwise, it would be cheaper.
because the rest isnt legitimate quantifiable savings. its just fantasyland bs. when someone says to me "you will actually pay more direct costs but these indirect costs that i cant quantify will be lowered so you get a net savings" i say go f yourself. come back when you can actually reduce my costs.
so you're one of those that believes that gasoline actually only "costs" us $2.89/gallon (or whatever the current price is)? you ignore the tax dollars we spend on wars that are at least partially influenced by oil, the tax dollars spent on protection in countries that provide us oil, the tax dollars wasted on subsidies to oil companies, etc etc?
just like why people won't spend $100 more on a washing machine that uses less water. shortsighted thinking.
fact is, we do pay to reduce pollution, so that cost is direct and quantifiable - you're just ignoring that data.
of course there is money in collecting recyclables. they are getting paid for that part of the process. however, they are a cost in the process, so that gets deducted from the benefits to payers. no company is going to make a profit if they take the process from beginning to end and sell the final product. the reason is ultimately because it uses more time, resources, labor, etc. to recycle products. otherwise, it would be cheaper.
again - you offer no proof that it uses more time, resources, labor, etc to recycle products. and purchase prices are not cost are not value. until you get this basic premise of intro to econ, you need to re-evaluate your argument.
so you're one of those that believes that gasoline actually only "costs" us $2.89/gallon (or whatever the current price is)? you ignore the tax dollars we spend on wars that are at least partially influenced by oil, the tax dollars spent on protection in countries that provide us oil, the tax dollars wasted on subsidies to oil companies, etc etc?
just like why people won't spend $100 more on a washing machine that uses less water. shortsighted thinking.
fact is, we do pay to reduce pollution, so that cost is direct and quantifiable - you're just ignoring that data.
i'm not totally sold on the electric vehicles yet. the nissan leaf is pretty sweet, but the chevy volt is gonna be a joke i think. good idea, but way too expensive.
the subsidy, well, i dunno if it's the proper amount, but, when you consider that if we can move ourselves away from foreign oil by reducing our gasoline consumption (which is only 1 piece of the puzzle), i think a subsidy to encourage the adoption of these vehicles is a good idea.
the subsidy, well, i dunno if it's the proper amount, but, when you consider that if we can move ourselves away from foreign oil by reducing our gasoline consumption (which is only 1 piece of the puzzle), i think a subsidy to encourage the adoption of these vehicles is a good idea.
its a good idea for taxpayers to pay 8,000 for every single electric car that is bought? its insanity.
there is also no genuine effort by the left to move away from foreign oil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
