Tag: Environmentalism

The Sacrament of Recycling

George Noga

By: George Noga – Updated February 15, 2014

     High in the pantheon of environmental gods is recycling. A religion is a set of fundamental beliefs based on faith about the nature of the universe involving ritual observances and a moral code governing the conduct of its adherents. Recycling in the environmental religion is accepted dogma and a universally practiced sacrament. Even those who do not fully imbibe in environmentalism, believe in and practice recycling.

     The act of recycling itself is viewed as a morally redemptive, transcendental experience that meets some deep-seated emotional need. It involves just enough effort (but not too much) to impart an eco-high. Explaining to its acolytes why recycling is a waste of time, money and resources, i.e. a fraud, is received with predictable paroxysms.

“Recycling: A morally redemptive, transcendental experience satisfying deep-seated emotional needs and imparting an eco-high.”

       Recycling has its own mythology which, although not as entertaining as its Greek counterpart, is equally fatuous. The top five myths will be examined and debunked; but first it must be duly noted that my quarrel is only with recycling mandated by government. For many decades businesses have been voluntarily and quite profitably recycling, inter alia, steel, aluminum, and newsprint. Recycling makes sense only when confirmed in the marketplace.

The Five Biggest Recycling Myths

  1. Recycling is good for the environment  In many places up to half of recycled waste goes into the same landfill as other waste. Two separate trucks and crews make the pick ups and burn twice the fuel to drive to the same landfill; of course, the wasted trucks, people  fuel and money (to buy more trucks, etc.) are not counted as an environmental cost. A true accounting would be devastating for recycling. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment reports recycling changes the nature of pollution – often for the worse.
  2. There is a shortage of landfills   This is true only in a few areas of the Northeast and that primarily is due to politics. In any event, those few areas are able to ship their garbage economically to places that compete aggressively for the business. If every US county devoted one square mile to landfills, it would be enough for 4,000 years. In recent years private companies have opened huge new landfills and prices are plummeting.
  3. Packaging is a problem   Au contraire, packaging actually is a net environmental benefit. Packaging results in less waste and breakage; less advanced countries without modern packaging generate more waste. Mexico has fewer packaged goods but produces 33% more waste than a comparable American household. Egad, even McDonald’s is eco-friendly; it discards less than two ounces of waste per customer, less than eating at home.
  4. Natural resources (trees) are wasted  Trees are a farmed product grown expressly for paper. It makes no more sense to conserve paper to save trees than it makes to conserve cloth  to save cotton. Paper is natural, organic, biodegradable, renewable and sustainable. Working forests employ millions of Americans and help the environment by providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage. There are more trees planted each year (40% more) than are consumed. There are more trees than 100 years ago. Failure to use paper can hasten the conversion of forests to strip malls and parking lots.
  5. Plastic is particularly evil  Plastic doesn’t decay but neither do many biodegradable things in a landfill. Because plastic is so lightweight it uses less landfill space. Moreover, plastic is getting stronger, thinner and lighter all the time. Lightweight plastic requires less energy to manufacture and to transport; 12 plastic bags fit in the space of one paper bag.  Plastic packaging reduces waste and thereby is eco-friendly. Learn to like it.

  Most everything you thought you knew about recycling is wrong. Many times recycling is a waste of scarce resources and – when considering all the costs – likely harms the environment. You will know it is time to recycle when the marketplace deems it profitable – and not before.

Conversations with a Liberal about GMOs

George Noga
By: George Noga – December 1, 2013
       Recently I spent a week on the Hawaiian isle of Kauai. My visit coincided with a major political brouhaha about genetically modified organisms or “GMOs”. The residents were up in arms against agricultural interests that produce GMO seeds (mostly corn) there. In response, the local government passed a sweeping new law placing  restrictions on GMOs. Opposition is not restricted to Kauai as there are anti-GMO laws pending in several US states and Europeans’ loathing of GMOs borders on hysteria.
“GMOs are mentioned in the Bible – Genesis 30:25-43.”
       Genetic engineering is timeless. Selective breeding was practiced on corn at the dawn of human agriculture 10,000 years ago.  It is mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 30:25-43).  If you own a dog, it is safe to say it has gone through extensive genetic modifications. Circa 1973 man acquired the technology to modify DNA directly rather than via breeding. Since that time there have been many thousands of GMOs and in the subsequent 40 years not one person anywhere on the planet has experienced an ill effect – even a bellyache – from GMOs.
       While in Kauai I had the opportunity to talk with a liberal opponent of GMOs. The conversation went something like the following:
MLLG (Me): I don’t understand why you are so opposed to GMOs. They produce much more food more safely on significantly less land thus benefiting both humanity and the environment.
LIBERAL: I am against big corporations profiting from GMOs. If GMOs are that good, why are there still so many people in the world starving?
MLLG: The short answer is that  hunger today is primarily due to logistics and government interference. Surely GMOs have vastly alleviated hunger; India has become an exporter of rice.
MLLG: Even with the prices companies charge for GMO seeds, farmers in third world nations come out way ahead in the long run. They willingly spend their own money in a free market because their calculus is they will benefit at the prices they are paying. Fifteen million small farmers owning only  a few acres each in developing nations buy and plant GMO seeds.
LIBERAL: It is not right that big companies profit; in particular granting corporations patents on life forms is objectionable as it forces people to pay year after year for the same seeds. Moreover, large corporations take legal action against small farmers who copy the seeds.
MLLG: If businesses did not protect their patents they would go out of business and there  never again would be new life-saving GMO products created and everyone would be worse off.
LIBERAL: It is simply obscene and unacceptable for giant multinational corporations to go after small third world farmers struggling to get by.
MLLG: Isn’t copying the seeds without a patent the same as stealing?
LIBERAL: No, because the corporations acquired the patents unjustly; patents on plants, animals or genes must not be granted; these should be owned in common by all of humanity.
MLLG: You seem to hate bigness; are you aware GM crops are subject to hyper regulation? Because of the cost and complexity imposed by governments, only large multinational companies can afford to comply. Furthermore, small companies grow into  big companies only if they benefit a great many people by providing products they value and voluntarily purchase. Incidentally, do you also hate bigness in government? Never mind that – it was just rhetorical.
LIBERAL: It is not right for anyone to profit from something so basic as DNA or life forms; the technology should be posted on the internet or otherwise be placed in the public domain.
MLLG: It costs an enormous amount to research, test and produce successful GM crops. There are huge costs to comply with government rules and the Cartagena  Protocol on Biosafety. Without the profit motive, patents and patent enforcement, how could GMO technology exist?
LIBERAL: Governments or universities (with government grants) could do the job.
MLLG: Name anything government does well or a product produced by a university?
LIBERAL: Governments build good roads and bridges.
MLLG: Actually, governments contract with private for-profit companies to build these things.
MLLG: One final question: I know you also believe climate change poses an existential threat to humanity and you contemptuously dismiss those who disagree as being opposed to science. Given that situation, your opposition to biotechnology seems irreconcilable with your stance on climate. Your opposition to GMOs doesn’t appear to be based on science but on ideology and politics because  of your animus and antipathy toward free markets and private enterprise.
LIBERAL: I fail to see the connection.

Please Print This Email!

George Noga

By: George Noga – June 1, 2013

      How often do you receive paternalistic, proselytizing and presumptive emails, both personal and commercial, that contain animadversions in the form of footnotes or subscripts exhorting you to “do not print” the email to “protect the environment”? If you’re like me, it’s far too often. This is nothing more than your friends or the businesses you deal with gratuitously foisting their politics on you.

   Friends or companies, who normally would not initiate a political discussion, somehow believe it is acceptable to derogate you thusly. Businesses that do this would not deign to attach email subscripts urging you to vote a certain way. They would not presume to lecture you about abortion, gun control or gay marriage. Yet somehow they arrogantly believe it is copacetic to inflict their somewhat extreme environmental views about paper products on you.

   I decided to fight back. Upon receiving an offending email, I always attach (without comment) my own footnotes to the reply; I have one for personal emails and one for business. The following paragraph contains my footnote for personal emails.

Footnote or Subscript for Personal Emails

    “Please feel free to print this email along with all the attachments. Trees are a farmed product grown expressly for paper. It makes no more sense to conserve paper to save trees than it makes to conserve cloth to save cotton. Paper is natural, organic, biodegradable, renewable and sustainable. Working forests employ millions of Americans and help the environment by providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage. There are more trees planted commercially each year (by a vast margin) than are consumed; there are more trees than 100 years ago. In a very real sense, failure to print can hasten the conversion of forests to strip malls and parking lots. Therefore, by all means print this email and take satisfaction in knowing you are doing your part to help the environment and to save our American forests.”

Subscript for Business Emails

    For commercial emails I use the above paragraph, i.e. the same one as for personal emails. Then I add the following paragraph strictly for business.

   “Your company’s email contained a footnote admonishing me not to print it for the ersatz purpose of protecting the environment. By doing this you gratuitously injected contentious and argumentative politics into what should be purely a business relationship. Surely, you would not deign to tell customers how to vote; therefore, why do you assume it is acceptable to foist other political views? Politicizing a business relationship is bad business for many reasons:

  1. If your company doesn’t believe this to be a divisive political issue, it is ignorant.
  2. You are wrong; conserving trees grown for paper does not help the environment.
  3. Even if I agreed with your politics, I would deeply resent your presumptive and unwarranted intrusion into my personal life.
  4. Inasmuch as I both disagree with your politics and resent your intrusion – I will not do business with your company and hereby demand you remove my name from all lists.
  5. Injecting politics into business always is a losing proposition. Do your shareholders
  6. know about this and do they approve?”

  You have my permission to use or to modify the above language without attribution. If you disagree with the “do not print” warning or even if you are agnostic or supportive but don’t like people cramming their political views down your throat, then – by all means – fight back!

Note to readers: During the summer months some (but not all) of our blog posts may be updates or revisions of earlier posts – usually from years ago. Our potential readership now is in excess of 100,000 as a result of various electronic journals, websites and other blogs that routinely pick up and republish our posts. Therefore, over 95% of our readers have never seen these posts before and they are just as relevant now as when originally published.