My gym's not really equipped for a fight gone bad, I was thinking filthy 50s... but I can't remember the workout order. Anyone know where it's listed? Thanks in advance.

John, what a fantastic interview! I'm glad to see the face behind the post. Dude, that vein running down your bicept has be feeling pretty envious and at the same time thinking I still have a lot of fitness to look forward to as a young man of 43.

Tony and Jamie, well done! Tony you are a master.

Congrats Dan D! Such an achievement is not on par with some I've seen on this site but hell, count all the victories, large and small.

Paul

Derek,

Check the FAQs, under the named workouts I believe.

Paul

The article linked should be titled "Think Globally, Act Irrationally: Recycling of Glass"

It only talks about recycling glass which apparently is inefficient because of the way glass is manufactured. Solution is to devise a way to manufacture glass so that it does not contain toxins and can be recycled at a lower and more efficient cost.

Wopat, I concur with Paul, great interview. If I can be in remotely the same league of fitness at your age, I'll consider myself a success. No knocks, there, true honesty. The bicep vein is nasty.

Ha. "Recycling enthusiasts". Classic.

People will pay large amounts of money to "feel good", like they've done their part.

I've noticed more and more residential areas in SoCal reverting to the recycling bin frenzy.

Are these "recycling enthusiasts" as emotionally attached to our environment (and as "dedicated") as the PETA fanatics, that they have influenced our city halls with ideas of grandeur?
Are politicians attempting to convince their inhabitants they are in a "forward" thinking city?

Or... is recycling effective, once you take out all the glass?

In all honesty, I am not very well versed in this subject. Is their relevance to this article?, is this an issue we, as taxpayers, should be looking into?

Ditto on the comments about the interview.

Also... I agree with edevine, the bicep vein is nasty. It hypnotized me throughout most of the interview.

My committment to not recycle has been validated. Thanks for the article. Enviromentalism is a religion for many, and on the whole, irrational.

Right on, John! Great interview!

What happens years (many years) from now when all the natural resources are sequestered in garbage dumps? Lets just wait untill we are forced to dig through our own waste to develop and make recycling technology more effecient. Brilliant plan.

It sounds like some recycling methods aren't very efficient yet, but it's no reason to stop. Instead of railing against the concept, let's push for improvements that make it worthwhile.

I think the author is flat wrong when he writes that, "If recycling were efficient, someone would pay you to do it." Is money the only thing keeping me from pitching my Japanese/Chinese/Indian imported goods into the landfill when they wear out?

This is about forethought and planning for the future. I don't want my grandkids to have to make very expensive (financially and culturally) decisions about the crap I mindlessly throw away.

Is anyone having problems downloading todays and yestardays videos?

To Comment 11:

The point is that if you buy something that will wear out (most things do) that you either can put it in the trash, or "recycle" it. It turns out that there is a greater cost (both economic and to the "environment") to recycle it than to throw it away. Whether or not we should buy the "Japanese/Chinese/Indian imported goods" in the first place is a different question.

Interesting article. There are two things it doesn't address though.
1. Is recycling glass about conserving sand or is it about filling the landfills more slowly? I would contend that one reason to recycle is that we don't want to junk ourselves out by stuffing our landfills full of material that can be reused.
2. What are the energy requirements to recycle and how do they compare with making new product (and what is the quality comparison)? Steel, glass and plastic all involve a state change (melting) which is inherently energy intensive. If it isn't cost effective to recycle it, it probably isn't energy effective either. Will the cost advantage still not be there if energy prices double? I have no idea, but the question should be answered before abandoning recycling programs altogether. Steel is more energy efficient to recycle than make new although the quality of steel from mini-mills is much lower than that of nonrecycled steel. The fact that there is a market for low quality steel is what makes recycling it work economically. My guess is that if anyone had a use for low quality glass (brownish-greenish-clear for example) then the markets would make it worthwhile to recycle it. The recycling enthusiasts (and the rest of us) would be better served finding a use for the glass than forcing the recycling issue before the market can justify it.

WSO and Matt,
I don't think the author's argument was not to recycle or not to improve recycling technology. He simply points out that it is costing us more resources to recycle those things in which we have an oversupply (e.g. cullet and yard waste). The efficiency of recycling methods is not the problem, it's that we are consuming scarce resources to produce a worthless product.

Wopat, great interview. Good to place the person with the posts.

Tony and Jamie, the product just keeps getting better. Thank you.

I like watching my Prius recycle energy, while I watch the road that is, darn that screen is addictive.

Beyond that, I only put stuff in the recycling bin because otherwise I'd eat a fine. About the only thing I've ever seen be a practical recycling product is paper.

These new interviews are awesome.

#4
Good idea.

Why don't you spearhead that project and bring it to fruition instead of just making idle, asinine comments.

even if recycling costs us more, atleast it lowers the amount of resources we need to extract from the earth. money isn't the most important thing in the world. if we take away resources at a faster rate than the world can reproduce it, we risk causing problems for future generations.

Hey Derick (#1):
I did the Filthy Fifties today as well because I have to take tomorrow as a rest day for a family picnic. The order I believe is as follows:
"Filthy Fifties"
-50 Box jumps, 24 in box
-50 Jumping pull ups
-50 Kettleball swings, 35lbs
-50 Walking lunges
-50 Knees to elbows
-50 Push press, 45lbs.
-50 Back extensions
-50 Wall balls
-50 Burpees
-50 Double unders

29/m/145lbs.

21:40 (pr by 4:12) and used a 40# DB for the swings. This workout is simply insane and I love it!

Recycling is part of the "reduce, reuse, recycle" triad. Per the usual arguments, it's good to manufacture goods from recycled materials, better to reuse older goods, and best to reduce consumption by not using whatever it is in the first place. Since all of this could save us money, it wouldn't be a completely horrible idea, except for the bits where it falls apart economically.

One fact of economics is that everything costs something. Labor and machinery and energy to acquire the raw materials. Ditto for the manufacturing and distributing. Funny enough, the exact same kinds of costs crop up in collecting and sorting and recycling back to raw materials.

The side effect of this is that all those costs can be translated into dollars. And the efficiency of the processes can be measured by their relative costs. If two ways of doing something have the exact same outcome, the cheaper is clearly the most efficient and therefore uses the least resources. Most recycling programs run on tax dollars rather than their own ability to produce. They're not only less efficient than starting from raw materials, they can't even make enough money to support themselves. Scrap metal the notable exception.

But, one might ask, aren't we saving the environment and conserving our natural resources? Somewhere along the line, labor stopped being considered a "natural resource" worthy of conservation. Those poor schmucks work soul-crushing $10/hr government jobs sorting trash and need an act of congress to get a raise. Better to work at Wal-Mart than subsist on government cheese doing something that's not even really worth doing.

#21
Thanks a lot CBR Chitown. Couldn't find this one anywhere.

John,
Great interview, I compare with you everyday. BW165 age 38. you and Sesoku. Good to see you at a cert. Envious. Stay Strong
Coop

Hey all, just a radnom question:

I just finished making my own set of rings and I'm not sure what tape would be best to use for them...Any ideas? Tennis Tape, or Athletic Tape, is there something else?

Daniel, Guam

Here is another random question:
What is the offical way to alter the Crossfit program to help increase power lifts?(Deadlift/Back Squat/Bench) I would like to get over the 1000lbs mark combined.
Thanks in advance.

"if recycling is more expensive than using new materials, it can't possibly be efficient."

This is an over-simplified comparison. By the same logic, if a mortgage payment is higher than a rental payment, it's more "efficient" to rent than buy a house.

Both Munger and the rent/buy analogy overlook the fundamental idea that perhaps things cost more because you investing in something long term that will pay off later. It's foolish to only look at present prices - Munger needs to consider a longer-term approach.

On the other hand glass recycling is one of the least interesting recycling stories. Aluminum recycling is much better because bauxite mining (aluminum ore) is so destructive. Plastic recycling is interesting because plastic is a petroleum product.

Maybe his wife ignores his economics lectures because he's wrong.

Daniel #25,
I used athletic tap (1inch wide), on my homemade rings and it seems to work pretty well. Chalk does cause some clogging over time, but just redo the tape.
John Wopat, great interview! I am re-appraising my view of lawyers.
On the recycling article, Munger does bring some valid economic points, but it doesn't address the bigger picture. I had the opportunity to live in Germany, and they freakin' recycle! I would be interested in the overall economic impact of their recycling program. I still recycle, when I'm home. This place would make a GREAT landfill!

Great interview.
doing lone ranger FGB today...

thanks!

Robert #28, thanks I'll give it a shot...

Daniel

The article on recycling assumes that price (value) is assigned in direct relation to cost. As anyone involved in marketing or advertising will tell you, it is not. The price of any given item can be as high as the market will bear. If garden waste is valuable AND people are willing to pay for it to be removed, then there's every likelihood that those doing the removing will have them do so.

Residents where I live pay a one-time fee to cover the cost of a green waste bin from the council, the bins are then emptied free of charge by a local organic recycling company who are expanding steadily enough to have had to relocate to a larger facility this year.

I know certain plastics are very efficient to recycle. Local councils here collect different kinds of plastics in line with what their recycling facilities are able to process. Along with those, everywhere accepts, sorts and recycles aluminium, steel and glass without any fee other than the one time charge for the bin (which is made from recycled plastic.

Paper recycling has a lot of issues related to water use and toxic leeching but then, so does paper production from virgin sources. A relatively new industry here is the full-cycle management of the paper and cardboard life-cycle. One corporation here has built quite an empire out of collecting office and industrial waste paper and turning it into other office and industrial paper and packaging (and charging at both ends).

I was interested to read about the glass issue, but I think many of the economic assumptions in the article were oversimplified to the point of being flawed.

#26 markd,

I would recommended the book, Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe. I would also post this in the exercise section of the message board, so others can see where your at and help you out.

GREAT intrrview...thanks for posting it!

Wopat...great inspiration....Thanks.

I don't think the author's intent is to do away with all recycling. I believe his intent was to show the lack of foresight and rational thinking displayed by lawmakers bent over the rail by the environmental lobby. Whether it's spotted owls, global warming, or recycling, the environmental lobby is a force that no lawmaker can challenge without committing political suicide. Even if facts are presented that counter the group-think of the environmental lobby (i.e. a particular form of recycling actually wastes natural resources), there's no challenge by our politicians. Consequently, the general public continues to be led down the path of ignorance like lemmings jumping off a cliff.

Now I'm not saying that there should be no recycling, but we (including local, state, fed gov't and the environmental lobby) should all do an opportunity-cost analysis before pushing a particular agenda when it comes to the environment. If it doesn't make sense, then don't do it.

#27, Mark,

Quoting the article: "if recycling is more expensive than using new materials, it can't possibly be efficient."

You wrote : “This is an over-simplified comparison. By the same logic, if a mortgage payment is higher than a rental payment, it's more ‘efficient’ to rent than buy a house.”

Actually, this is absolutely correct statement regarding economic efficiency (assuming you have properly adjusted for the tax benefits and all other related costs). What an individual personally desires (including a desire to speculate on future prices) is a different matter.

Well they certainly do pay you to recycle metal, espcially brass and copper so as many people have pointed out, all this article accomplishes is to argue that it is financially wastefull to recycle glass.

Interesting article.

One point I would like to add that the author doesn't address:
What can we do to reduce waste altogether besides recycling?
I work at the great (not) establishment of Starbucks and many customers ask if we can recycle their used paper or plastic cups. (No)
BUT if people bring their OWN CUP and get any beverage they want made into that personal cup, SBUX gives you a discount on the beverage, baristas are very grateful and the consumer has eliminated on cup from the whole recycle question. This one cups adds quickly into the hundreds and thousands of cups over the years.
If you don't want to do your own dishes and are grabbing a coffee with friends- get the beverage in a ceramic mug and SBUX will do the dishes and you save a cup that way.

Recycling may not alway be the most economical option according to the author, but there are MANY OTHER ways to do something that has a DIRECT effect on the amount of waste someone produces.

We all need to be good stewards of the environment, but we need to do more than something that just "feels good"

Joh,

But couldn't people do even more? If they stop drinking Starbucks coffee altogether, then there would be no need to wash those ceramic mugs. After all, the soapy water has to go somewhere, right? And what happens to all those coffee grounds? Why doesn't Starbucks separate them and use them for compost?

Isn't it safe to say that people who forgo coffee (and beef, and respirating) altogether are doing the most for the environment? Of course, that's an argument most people don't want to hear.

Excellent article.

What bothers me about this subject is that the costs and inefficiencies of recycling glass have been known and understood for at least 15 years, and yet we persist in this folly. I was studying this stuff in college 17 years ago, and we knew it then, as did anyone who worked for the government. And yet we persist in recycling glass when it should instead be pointed straight to the landfill, because it fits into the myopic fantasy that environmental "stewardship" has become.

Comment #10: "What happens years (many years) from now when all the natural resources are sequestered in garbage dumps?"

You are inappropriately assuming a scarcity/finite supply model for the stuff that ends up in landfills. Have you spent any time at a landfill, transfer station, or paper sorting facility, or studied the actual composition of our landfills? The stuff we throw away is not scarce by an means, nor can it necessarily be reused.

What bothers me most about this whole subject is that the people running the show (the environmentalists, the people that work for your government office of waste management) clearly know the true costs of recycling glass, or should. Any decent degree program in Environmental Policy teaches its students how to do a benefit-cost analysis (mine did). Assuming that people that work in the waste management industry have some background (big assumption), there really is no excuse for this type of thing anymore.

Oh, and while I'm at it: We are not running out of landfill space. Not even close. What we are running out of is common-sense. If you removed all the hysteria and nonsensical thinking from the environmental movement it would collapse upon itself.

Aside from the fact that, as many have pointed out, recycling is economically viable for many materials, Munger's argument fails to consider the real trigger for the recycling push in the Northeast US and elsewhere - landfills that are quickly reaching capacity and the cost of space to create new ones. A comprehensive economic argument has to look beyond the relatively short reach of the market's influence on prices. So what if some green types have it right for the wrong reasons?

I almost recycled my lunch after yesterday's WOD. Does that count?

Sounds to me like everyone that disagrees with recycling does so because they feel it costs too much, it's so sad when people put monetary value ahead of a healthy environment. Next thing you know we'll all be speaking Chinese.

I think one problem is reconciling immediate costs with potential future costs, which could range from a landfill hunt to global disaster. Of course, the future is up for debate.

Hari,
In the same vein, the threat of overpopulation means one should commit suicide.
There probably exists some middle ground between absolute self-deprivation/green-living (or dying) and excess. Otherwise, the two extremes say that all environmental research is bunk and excess is fine, or we are already screwed.

Does recycling cost money? Yes. Does simple garbage collecting cost money? Again, yes. Whether the additional costs of recycling are worthwhile depends on how the largely non-financial benefits of recycling are valued.

#39 It's my ubderstanding that Starbucks does, indeed, recycle its coffee grounds. In fact, if you would like some for your own compost bin, they are free for the asking.

# 44,45, David, Neil,

I stand at least partially corrected on the Starbucks-coffee-grinds question. Thank you.

Starbucks' approach (as you both describe it) is apparently consistent with the economic reasoning presented in the article. Starbucks gives away its grinds (at no cost to itself) to people willing to pay (with their own time and labor) to take them away. Starbucks doesn't (correct me, if I'm wrong) pay to have its grinds recycled.

#43, Ben,

"In the same vein, the threat of overpopulation means one should commit suicide. There probably exists some middle ground between absolute self-deprivation/green-living (or dying) and excess."

Your point simply reinforces mine: That there are (varying) limits to what we are all willing to pay. The question is where the "middle ground" is and what constitues "excess."

#22 - You could classify "labor" as a renewable resource and thus not in the same class as oil and metals. I agree that it is not feasible to recycle everything but I recycle what I can because I care about the quality of life of my amd your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They are the ones who will most feel the effects of our resource use today.

To compare the economic incentives or disincentives to recycle to another arena: What about the foot soldier in a war. Economically, he'd be better off if he stayed home and made money while his peers fought the war. Yet, people still volunteer for the military. This doesn't even take into consideration the disincentive of death and disability inherent in military service. Where's the utility in that?

ProPain #42 You said "I almost recycled my lunch after yesterday's WOD. Does that count?" That was funny.

Good article. The key is to reduce, reuse and recycle in that order. Just because some recycling programs are not the most efficient or well managed does not mean we should not continue to try to do what is best for our "sick" planet. Be involved and active, do your research. Check out San Francisco's recycling website and see how a successful program operates. www.sfenvironment.org. Keep reusing those water bottles when you meet your next "girl".

GREAT INTERVIEW JOHN, AND IT WAS GREAT WORKING TEAMS WITH YOU "FIGHT GONE BAD" HOPE TO SEE YOU AT ONE OF THE NEXT CERTIFICATIONS OR SEMINARS,

100 Burpees with jumping Pullups...22:22...after seeing the video I just had to try it..It may become a great yardstick for me in the future...but believe me it took FOREVER

Hello John Wopat. I don't post much but I have to say your interview was particularly meaningful to me for a couple of reasons. We're about the same age and I'm a regular reader of your posts. I love your enthusiasm and use your posts as benchmarks for my workouts. It's great fun for me because we're pretty evenly matched. Stay healthy and "Thanks Coach".

I think this explains CFers: "We must pursue the beasts of this life rather than letting them pursue us." Nicolas Christpher, "The Bestiary"

#8, Confirmation bias much?

Good interview. But did anyone find these two comments contradictory?

Paraphrasing:

He was drawn to crossfit because he, like many crossfitters, refuse to believe everything they read and want to make up their own minds independently.

and then, again paraphrasing:

I let Coach decide for me because he knows more than i do.

I love this site, I love the spirit, the efficacy is apparent. But why does this skeptical, independent-minded lens seem to be focused on a select few subjects: namely foreign policy, environmentalism and left-leaning economic theories?

I love the recycling article. Now when I go over to some of my, greener, friends homes. I'll have a better argument for not saving and recycling anything without a cash return value. Specifically all those beer bottles I seem to collect every Saturday night.

# 48

I am a Marine. Not a tin can. The likelihood of death we face daily in training and combat is incomparable to recycling from an economic standpoint, or any other standpoint.

I and others like me go to work every day so that you can have an economy, a recycling bin, and a free country where your children and grandchildren can worry about their trash cans. If losing limb or life is the least price I pay for one more day of liberty, then I have sold myself well. I ask for no greater incentive than to destroy the enemy of my country and its way of life. That is the utility in me.

Semper Fidelis

#56, RJ,

I use the Ronald Reagan approach ("trust but verify") to resolve the "conflict" between refusing to believe everything I read, on the one hand, and letting Coach decide for me, on the other.

To date, I have found that everything Coach has written has survived verification. On the other hand, I doubt most of what I read in the NY Times. Here's a link to the NY Times article John was referring to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/fashion/thursdaystyles/22Fitness.html?ei=5088&en=60e8cc2df444a18f&ex=1292907600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Semper Fi, Leon
I am a bit behind on the WOD's. It took me 31:20 to do 20 rounds of 5 pull-ups (w/assist), 10 push-ups, and 15 squats.

I have not had a chance to read the article posted today, though I will tomorrow. I did get to see Tom Bethel very unscientifically dispel the idea of global warming, stem cell research, and the effect of aids in Africa, in support of a book he has written. I lived in atl for a while and if you walk out of your office and the smog is a daily visible haze, even if it is not warming your planet (which it is), it can't be good for you. If people are dying by the millions (over 25 million to be current) with similar symptoms in the same region, I don't care if you call it "the shakes' something is wrong. Recycling could very much be improved, but that should be our goal, not giving up and seeing who can make the most money while the entire place goes to pot. Read Cradle to Cradle and look at the possibilities.

#58, Leon;

Thank you.

TJO

#58 this is #48. I was a Marine. From the perspective of the foot-soldier you are absolutely correct and your motivations are admirable. Maybe I should have been more specific in my comment. In any country, the people(not always politicians or even known to the general public) who control and/or influence the people who control the military and the economy can have quite different motivations than the soldier in the trench or the activist who is trying to make the world a better place.

I sat through 10 minutes of an infomercial today. It's by a women named Greer Childers. She had a remarkable claim: "Motionless Exercise" If you follow this program 3x/week 7 minutes/day you will loose inches and pounds in just weeks. There is a series of (still) overweight women who give testimoney of the effect of Ms Childers program. However, for at least as long as I watched the infomercial Ms Childers never demonstrated what "motionless exercise" is.

I could not watch the entire infomercial. I found it too distasteful.

Ken_Davis, maybe she WAS demonstrating her workout the entire time- by not doing anything. That's why you didn't notice it. The only thing those people are going to lose is their money.

Steve, your post was right on as usual.

So much fertile ground for thought in the article and the posts.

In lieu of a real post, I'll just say that this post (and there's no way to say this without being arrogant and demeaning, I'll apologize in advance): "even if recycling costs us more, atleast it lowers the amount of resources we need to extract from the earth. money isn't the most important thing in the world. if we take away resources at a faster rate than the world can reproduce it, we risk causing problems for future generations."

This is the level of intelligent analysis we get from govt schools - communicates well via written word but can't think through the simplest levels of economic analysis.

The point is how do we sheeple sit around and let people use the coercive power of govt to compel us to do that which is ecnomically stupid - the answer is the fury of the masses. That is the reason we have a republican form of federal govt; the founders knew that the masses would fall for the stupid tricks of the few illusionists and designed a republican form, with strong constitutional limits, to protect us from that. It's still working to a degree at the Federal level. Locally, we're just throwing in the towel to this mindless "it's a good thing, we must do it" mentality without the discipline to figure whether it's the best thing.

There's an unlimited amount of good things that could be done - we obviously have no methodology to sort out which are the most important good thing nor how to justify what is or what isn't a justifiable use of coercive govt power. Shame on us.

If it can't be done by well intentioned non-profits, or greedy for-profits (you know, all those horrible people that make it so easy for us to buy anything we freakin' want at prices we can afford for even the masses), there's a reason, an economically compelling reason, and the fact that we let the well intentioned take our money to do things that are "good but not the not best thing" is again, cause for shame on us.

Anyone should recycle if they want to - I do, I hate throwing things away, practically need OCD treatment over it; I even have worms to eat my garbage (but the Germans are now saying worms release intolerable green house gasses; good thing I don't believe in that lie). But the silly submission to govt coercion over another 'good idea' is just wrong.

41yom / 152

CFWU x3 x15 (-PU, Dips)

WOD - GI Jane 100 Pull-up Burpies - Time 13:59

Did this today because of up coming travel this coming week.

Appolloswabbie,

Have you tried to tell your City Council that they have their head up their asses?

They don't like it much. You get escorted out. :)

To #36:

"Actually, this is absolutely correct statement regarding economic efficiency (assuming you have properly adjusted for the tax benefits and all other related costs). What an individual personally desires (including a desire to speculate on future prices) is a different matter."

No, actually, it isn't. You are trying to calculate efficiency while simultaneously ignoring future MONETARY benefits. I am not talking about some nandy-pandy feel-good benefit of recycling, but rather investment in new industries that can pay off in the future.

Again, by analogy, you can't honestly say you should decide whether to rent or buy without taking into account the fact that if you buy a house, you own a house. Renting versus buying is not just about the cheapest way to put a roof over your head this month. There are such things as future costs and benefits.

Come on, I'm dying here. Post!

so tired....cant sleeep...cant tipe..please post..

Steve, your post was right on as usual.

So much fertile ground for thought in the article and the posts.

In lieu of a real post, I'll just say that this post (and there's no way to say this without being arrogant and demeaning, I'll apologize in advance): "even if recycling costs us more, atleast it lowers the amount of resources we need to extract from the earth. money isn't the most important thing in the world. if we take away resources at a faster rate than the world can reproduce it, we risk causing problems for future generations."

This is the level of intelligent analysis we get from govt schools - communicates well via written word but can't think through the simplest levels of economic analysis.

The point is how do we sheeple sit around and let people use the coercive power of govt to compel us to do that which is ecnomically stupid - the answer is the fury of the masses. That is the reason we have a republican form of federal govt; the founders knew that the masses would fall for the stupid tricks of the few illusionists and designed a republican form, with strong constitutional limits, to protect us from that. It's still working to a degree at the Federal level. Locally, we're just throwing in the towel to this mindless "it's a good thing, we must do it" mentality without the discipline to figure whether it's the best thing.

There's an unlimited amount of good things that could be done - we obviously have no methodology to sort out which are the most important good thing nor how to justify what is or what isn't a justifiable use of coercive govt power. Shame on us.

If it can't be done by well intentioned non-profits, or greedy for-profits (you know, all those horrible people that make it so easy for us to buy anything we freakin' want at prices we can afford for even the masses), there's a reason, an economically compelling reason, and the fact that we let the well intentioned take our money to do things that are "good but not the not best thing" is again, cause for shame on us.

Anyone should recycle if they want to - I do, I hate throwing things away, practically need OCD treatment over it; I even have worms to eat my garbage (but the Germans are now saying worms release intolerable green house gasses; good thing I don't believe in that lie). But the silly submission to govt coercion over another 'good idea' is just wrong.

Tim, laughing, thanks. Nope, never did, but will throw my money in the pot for the next "stop the tax increase" campaign at the local level, and won't support the next "let's make everyone else pay more so we can get what we want done" campaign at any level.

I found one of the referenced sources to be much more interesting and better presented than the posted article. Well worth a read (at least for me - it turned much of what I thought I knew or understood about garbage and what we do with it completely on its head.)

Benjamin, Daniel K. "Eight Great Myths of Recycling." PERC Policy Report 28, 2003.
http://www.perc.org/pdf/ps28.pdf

And I do have to say that my family of 6 recycles a mountain of newspaper, mixed paper, cans and plastic every week! We also re-use many things, find new homes for clothing & household goods, and try to minimize how much comes IN to the household. It does cross my mind on occasion that all the effort we put into these "worthy activities" are in some way sops to the guilty consciences we have as people who truly do consume a lot of energy and material goods. Exactly why there's a "guilty conscience" about being a consumer is a different discussion though!

Cynthia

Typical idiotic positioning by Crossfit rest day article .
As atypical, efficient and out-of-the box Crossfit training paradigms are.... Their political dispositions are as backward as can be..... Whats up with that ?

great interview with john. they could have been interviewing me. i would have almost every question identically.

Great interview John. It was great to see you on Saturday!

#70, Mark,

"You are trying to calculate efficiency while simultaneously ignoring future MONETARY benefits."

You are speculating on future monetary benefits. When will this "future monetary benefit occur?"

'You are speculating on future monetary benefits. When will this "future monetary benefit occur?"'

This is exactly the issue. There is a split over what the future is perceived to hold. For instance, it makes no sense to be selling hydrogen fuel (for example, I'm not arguing its particular merits/disadvantages) when oil fits the bill. Large-scale future planning for environmental impact won't make economic sense until probably 50 or 100 years down the road.

However, this is sort of tangent to the particular recycling example because the mechanics of it aren't likely to change much (although I would hope it improves). What's left out by the author is the environmental impact. He argues the electricity expended does not warrant recycling the glass, but it doesn't come across as clearly as the economic argument.
Quantifying the environmental implications seems tricky to me, which must be why the debate exists.

Is it because the government (and our taxes) is involved that many of you want to insist on making this a purely monetary issue? I spend money on my fitness training with zero future monetary benefit. Last week I paid money to haul some stuff to the garbage dump rather than dump it in the corner of our property (which would be free). Last year I spent money to paint our house simply because I couldn't stand its original color.

We all personally spend money all the time with no assurance of future monetary benefit, because there are non-monetary benefits that are important to us. While I'm not always happy with how the government spends my tax money, in principle I have no problem with it being able to spend money without having to justify it on purely economic grounds.

It doesn't matter that recycling is not free, and that it costs money. Regular garbage pickup costs money. Landfills cost money, and you must consider their value over time (including costs for potential leaks, contaminated groundwater etc). Landfills don't really go away. Recovering that land is VERY expensive.

I agree with many of the points, but there are some serious flaws in his argument.

Here in the South East of England, I'm told by private refuse contractors 'in the know' that the majority of the materials handled by the public recycling waste division aren't recycled at all.
They end up in the same rubbish dump as everything else and then land-filled or incinerated.

Plan an expose on this.

Wow - not that I'm an expert, but I think the recycling article is written by a novice who is arguing every point the same way, using economics, and not looking at other issues objectively. I must ask: did ANYONE, EVER, actually think recycling saves money? If so, I'm sorry. Of course it doesn't! Economics and ethics do not go hand-in-hand. Has the author ever heard the word "donation" before? An economist would think a donation is absurd - it is the worst possible option in all circumstances, from an economist's perspective. Yet, donations are for good causes, and people choose to give them regardless of their understanding of econ. Recycling is analogous to giving a donation. The reason recycling is currently not economically worthwhile is in part because its infrastructure is not as well established as the processes to create bulk items from raw materials. Indeed, if more items were recycled, the costs per item would diminish. This is basic economics that the author should understand. This last sentence reminds me: the author referred to his reasoning on one issue as "basic calculus," another novice attempt to sound more intelligent than he actually is, with the assumption that most of his readers don't know what calculus is. I have a feeling he neither understands calculus, nor thermodynamics and energy conversions, nor the goal of recycling, which is not (and never was) to make money.

Michael Munger needs to start writing things when he's sober, not so tired, and not thinking about what he wants to do to his wife when he goes to bed. I hope next time we get an article, deeply thought out by Michael Munger, claiming that going to Disney World is a bad economic decision. He'll list the cost of tickets, food, and even give a rare case of how someone got injured there (along with the medical expenses), making it sound like it happens to all who go there. Get it? People don't recycle for economic gain, so the argument is invalid from the start.

#79, Ben,

"Large-scale future planning for environmental impact won't make economic sense until probably 50 or 100 years down the road."

1. How much does it cost to drive around one of those big diesel trucks to pick up newspapers, bottles, and cans? How much CO2 do they spew into the environment?

2. How much landfill space is required to safely store the toxins of one of those "energy efficient" flourescent bulbs when they do burn out?

Good article. It makes sense. You gotta look at the bottom line, but also be conscious of the big picture.

I have to say, I think my best tack is simply to laugh at some of these arguments. I believe it is a fact that posters on blogs like this, and internet users in general, are of above average intelligence and education. And yet, some of these posts make me wonder. About stuff.

As I see it, there are basically two issues: energy efficiency, and finite resources.

With respect to the first, he is simply making the case that (say with glass, but to some extent the argument holds with all materials) we stuff all our stuff in the various slots. Half of us screw it up. Somebody has to exert the energy to sort it out.

Then what is sorted is loaded into trucks, and sent somewhere. With respect to glass, let's assume it is sent somewhere to be melted, and, uh, Reglassified. Well, actually, to be useful, it needs to be in a useful form. So, let's say it is sent to the Rolling Rock Brewery (who owe me a bulk discount) in Pennsylvania, who melt it down, and make green bottles out of it. The stuff they melt down has to be driven there, then heated, both of which use energy. Then a certain percentage is apparently unusable, due to pollutants, like beer. Ultimately they make their bottles, and deliver their weekly shipment to my local grocer.

Scenario two, they drive up to St. Joseph's on the shores of Lake Michigan, scoop up a ton or two of sand, and do some sort of processing at their plant, which also yields those fine green bottles.

With respect to energy, it's a crap shoot which one actually uses more gas, oil, coal, nuclear, water, or wind energy. It's tough to say. On that basis, my best guess is it's pretty close, making recycling mostly a feel-good culty kind of thing.

With respect to finite resources, I just don't think we have any shortage of sand. I don't think we have a shortage of wood. Aluminum: don't know. It's possible. It's also possible that something else could be developed that would also make good beer cans. If it's unique in all ways, and demonstrably finite, then yes, recycling makes sense, even if it costs more in the short term.

But by and large, these issues are amenable to and should be subjected to, cost/benefit analysis. If it costs more energy to recycle a resource we are not short of, then that is a dumb policy, even according to the criteria developed by environmentalists.

Less hysteria, more thought. My recommendation.

Prost.

Great video plug by Mr. Wopat. At ~4:24 on the video he mentions Coach's comments on the "Path to Excellence" as a part of the certification seminar... is there a clip that can be loaded to share his wise insight on that topic? I'm going searching on the site to see if it is burried somewhere here. any help wouild be appreciated!

SEE COMMENT #74. It's perplexing that posted article cites a reference which directly undermines its own claims. The article doesn't seem to address much of the content of that reference either.

Economists, at times, in arguing for the pursuit of the most economically effecient course of action inadequately account for intangible consequences or those otherwise not easily measurable financially. Furthermore, economic effeciency is usually defined within the context of the interests of a narrow band of parties. Economists whose income relies on the favor of certain political or economic interests would likely be motivated to write sympathetic articles.

On the other hand, the various "environmentalists" (however that gets defined) are similarly prone to fallacies.

The upshot is that we have to be sensitive to the soundness of reasoning and whether the counters to one's own argument have been appropriately addressed or refuted.

So, Ben, you're saying it's better to be right than to be wrong, and that we need to be careful to avoid the latter while hewing closely to the former?

Would you further agree that it is manifestly the case that our two political parties have somewhat differing opinions, and correspondingly somewhat different bases of support?

How would you assess the informational content--defined as containing the unexpected, versus the self evident--content of the previous two paragraphs?

I see these sorts of things, and they appear to make sense on the surface, but if analyzed they pop like soap bubbles. It is much harder to say something than nothing, and very hard to say something while mincing words to avoid having to defend an indefensible position.

What advances debate is: "I believe X,Y, and Z, and here is why", followed by defense of said positions using facts and logic, and not avoidance.

Reading between the lines, to beat a dead horse, you seem to be implying the author was tied to business interests, and implicitly an environment hating Republican, and that if the article had been written by an environmentalist, it would have read differently. Of course. But which position is right? Don't you have to actually address the arguments made, and isn't it a profound form of laziness to write an entire essay off due to its' presumed provenance? Are you not saying, in effect, "I know what is right, and any purported evidence presented to me to the contrary can only be wicked propaganda dished out by mean people with base motives, and I therefore need not even assess it superficially"?

If you are not saying that, then I feel compelled to point out many people do in fact operate exactly like that, at least from what I've seen participating in these sorts of forums and debates.

This (safe) essay makes a good companion piece:

RECYCLING RUBBISH
EIGHT GREAT MYTHS ABOUT WASTE DISPOSAL

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=224