Newsgroup sci.environment 109323

Directory

I've recently done a preliminary study of my town's recycling
tonnage over the past 5 years, and I'm concened that the total
tons recycled per year have stagnated over the past three years.
As part of my study I'd like to discuss why that may be so, and I'd
like some additional information and experience.
Our's town's recycling is to twice-monthly curb-side pick-up of
newspaper, glass, aluminum, and steel cans. We also have a 
drop-off site for all those, plus plastic, cardboard, and 
mixed paper. We've add this program for the five years. Finally,
we have a log of commercial activity in town.
1. Has anybody seen similar trends?
2. What are the pitfalls in comparing year to year? I know the local
economy has a big effect on recycling. The better the economy, 
the more consumption, the more recycling. But our economy in town
has been growing as of late, whereas recycling tonnages have not.
Also, there was a huge demolition and construction project in 1994,
which skewed our construction debris counts, but even if you look
only at our "household" recycling, the tonnages have not changed.
3. What would cause recycling rates to stagnate? Complacency?
Is recycling is no longer "sexy" or politically correct? I've noticed
more plastic food containers replacing glass and steel; how big
an effect must that be?
As I said, I'd be interested in your opinions and experience.
Ken Kretsch
kkretsch@attmail.com
cctd71b@prodigy.com

Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > 
: > : > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
: > : > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas.  It's a weighted average
: > : > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
: > 
: > : > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.  
: > : > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
: > : > rose 548%.  I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
: > 
: > : Those will then include a different bunch of fish
: > : in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
: > : amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
: > : Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
: > : have been unthinkable in 1970.
: > 
: > The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
: > price change is _understated_.  If people hadn't compensated
: > for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
: > the index would have increased by more than 40%.
: Ah, no. There other reasons people make choices as
: to what they eat than the price. eg if fish is perceived
: at some point as healthy, or even fashionable, people will
: accept a premium price for it.
I don't see your point.  This sounds like an argument about 
the interpretation of an increase in the CPI.  Sure, it could
be caused by in increase in demand.  But I thought we 
were discussing bias in the CPI, which I don't see in this
example.
: > Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
: > (that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
: > supermarkets").
: It was an instance of changing practises that can increase
: the retail price. If there is a demand for "freshness"
: it pays to fly in the same fillet of fish, which leads to
: a higher retail price for the same commodity, even if the
: wholesale price was fixed.
The CPI folks are supposed to adjust for quality change,
but I'll grant that the fish index is probably not 
their first priority.   
Still, I find it hard to believe that this is anything but 
a tiny problem.  And it's probably not a problem at all
in the producer price index, which shows a similar increase 
in price.
: > : Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
: > : increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
: > : both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
: > : for consumer convenience.
: > I doubt that this effects the CPI.  I think you're 
: > confusing the price level with price changes.
: It wouldn't affect the CPI much, unless fish prices
: were strongly weighed in evaluating the CPI. What it does
: do is affect the retail price relative to the CPI. 
: ie it makes the retail price higher, not because of an
: intrinsic rise in wholesale price but because of a change
: in preparation or marketing.
Suppose fish in Kansas is much more expensive than fish in
Maine.  Suppose folks in Kansas begin buying more fish.
Does the fish component of the CPI go up?  I'm not sure,
but I doubt it.  Increasing the weight of Kansas fish
purchasers in the index would be harder to do than not,
and would be undesirable (as you've pointed out), so why 
would the BLS do this?
: > : A number of different species of fish were introduced to
: > : US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
: > : commanded a premium price.
: > You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
: > Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
: > unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
: Expensive new varieties of fish will increase the
: mean price paid for "fish" if the fish index is
: calculated with uniform weight. How else do you allow
: for the introduction of new products in a category
: when calculating a mean index of cost?
If they're new goods, we can't calculate a change in 
price the first year they're introduced, right?
You can only calculate the change in price in 
subsequent years.  A price index compares the _same_
bundle of goods in two years.
The treatment of new goods is a common criticism of the CPI,
but the usual critique makes the opposite point from yours.
Expensive new goods like VCRs are introduced, but drop
in price rapidly: the CPI goes down because of the fall in
price.  It doesn't go up because VCRs are more expensive
than TVs.  (the critique is that new goods aren't 
introduced into the CPI rapidly enough.)
: > : Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval, 
: > : and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
: > This is totally irrelevant.  The CPI people check out
: > the price of fish in retail establishments, and 
: > don't make any distinction between domestic and
: > imported.
: Its not irrelevant! If some fraction of the fish is
: imported and becomes more expensive retail because the
: dollar reduced in value then this does not reflect
: an intrinsic supply-demand response but a forcing due
: to completely extraneous factors
: If the index of fish prices changes because a currency
: trader is worried about Sadam Hussein's temper, this 
: can not be argued to be representative of some supply
: and demand problem with fish itself.
Ok, granted.  I misunderstood your point because you didn't 
claim any trend in the exchange rate.  And you still don't.
I have no idea what's happened to exchange rates over the last
25 years.  Maybe the increase in the price of fish is even 
more rapid than I thought.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin                                   "Time makes more converts than   
Department of Economics                        Reason"                      
U.C. Berkeley                                  Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_

Well, I _still_ don't see Bruce's post, so I'll use Harold's reply as a
basis.  However, if I don't reply to something not in it, please refrain
from future insults, Bruce...just cc me in email.  Since you persist in
redefining the argument, I must restate my original remark:
"For the record, I do _not_ state that DDT is 'harmless', i.e. has zero
heath implications.  My statement-- which has not been challenged by
any of the serious debators here'-- is that DDT has a low order of 
toxicity in humans, and presents no health risks when used appropriately"
What I DO state is the following:
- Humans exposed to large, longterm doses have had little or no symptoms.
 - DDT has not been shown to be a human carcinogen.
 - DDT does not cause chromosomal damage
 - DDT does not cause liver damage
 - Dermal irritation from DDT is minor and presents no health risks
In regards to the study you reference below, you are correct.  2,4-D is not
DDT; They are both pesticides, Hayes does research on both.  I grabbed the
wrong  study when piecing together my post.  Please regard it as only being
*eighteen* case studies then.  Do you have a serious complaint or do you
prefer to quibble?
I am well aware that some recent research dealing with high, chronic levels
of DDT exposure has shown a possible correlation to cancer.  I am also
aware of the many more studies that have failed to show this.  Furthermore,
I am aware that these deal with doses far larger than a typical
environmental dose, and that approximately 60% of all chemicals-- manmade
*or* natural-- turn up carcinogenic in high enough levels.  There are over
1000 chemicals in a cup of coffee-- less than 30 have been extensively
studied, and 17 of those are carcinogenic at high levels.  I find it hard
to be overly concerned about this particular one.  
My original thesis was that the ban on DDT was premature, overreactive,
harmful, and indirectly resulted in the expansion of human misery.  If you
want to dispute something, dispute that.
Harold Brashears  wrote: in article 
> B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) wrote for all to see:
> >I'm particularly intrigued by the relevance of ...
> >...
> >>Three case studies ... of alveolar-cell carcinoma were performed among
> >>men occupationally engaged in 2,4-D handling/manufacture ... mortality
> >>rates were within control limits.   (HAYES, WAYLAND, PESTICIDES 
> >>STUDIED IN MAN. BALTIMORE/LONDON: WILLIAMS AND WILKINS, 1982) 
> >
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

Adam Ierymenko  wrote:
> 
> BTW, in the debate on sustainability.. we have to differentiate between
what
> resources are being used up and what resources are just being moved
around.
> For example, the aluminum in a pop can is not used up.. it is just moved
> from it's original location in the ground to a new location in a
landfill.
> It could be recovered if there were ever an aluminum shortage.  Coal on
the
> other hand is used up.
> 
Good point.  People who claim we're "using up" metals-- and water for that
matter-- must think the stuff spontaneously destructs.  (and no, rusting
doesn't count.)   Of course, things we _do_ use up such as oil and coal, we
should be preserving.   Nuclear power would allow us to do so.  
Side note:  genetic engineers are already discussing the possibility of an
organism which could efficiently extract fresh water from salt.  Of course,
Greenpeace wants to ban all such activity.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
The trouble with born-again Christians is that they are an even bigger pain
the second time around.         --Herb Caen

mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> > 
> > The deaths from people falling off roofs will dwarf the casualties
> > from nuclear power, Chernobyl included.
> > 
> Replies like this won't do much for your credibility.
Unfortunately, this is true.   Risk analysis studies rate solar power as
more dangerous than coal or nuclear.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

Andrew Taylor  wrote:
> references?
> 
> I repeat, I believe all 3 of the claims are fabrications.    I doubt they
> are yours, I expect you are just parroting someone else's fabrications.
> Just are you were for malaria, DDT, asbestos etc...
> 
> To refresh your memory your claims were:
> 
> >Paul Ehrlich is a fraud and a charlatan.  He wouldn't know a scientific
> >method if it bit him on the rump.   Every claim and prediction he's ever
> >made has turned out to be 180 degrees out of whack.  But you like him
> >because he spouts what you want to hear.   One of my favorite Ehrlich
> >predictions is the one claiming US population would shrink to 22 million
by
> >1999 (that's three years from now).  Of course, that was after he
predicted
> >the starvation of 3 billion people worldwide by 1980.  And isn't he the
one
> >who also predicted that residual DDT (whether or not we stopped use)
would
> >kill all the algae in the sea, and deprive us of 40% of our oxygen?
> 
The first two come from "Journalists and Others for Saving the Planet",
quoted in Wall Street Journal, David Brooks, they're also in "The
Apocalyptics", by Edith Efron, 1984, ..33-35.  I'm too tired too look up
the third one right now, I've posted it twice before, and you believe
Ehrlich is a god anyway, yet another proof of his idiocy will unlikely sway
you.
Waiting in anticipation of you stating that WSJ and Ms Efron are evil
right-wing founts of disinformation.   Of course, I noticed you didn't
challenge any of the many other examples I provided.  Instead of allowing
you to metastasize the argument, I'd like to ask you for a good example of
ANYTHING Ehrlich has been right about....other than butterfly counts, of
course.
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net

In article <56a8nt$5cm@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
(James G. Acker) wrote:
> Extremely Right (99@spies.com) wrote:
> : In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
> : 
> : > I notice that Helen Chenoweth, the freshman representative
> : > from Idaho, so demonized in the green usenet groups, has been
> : > re-elected.
> : 
> : I second the motion with interest... ###8up
> 
> 
>         Just to contrast, the vast majority of Republican 
> freshmen running for re-election took great pains to stress 
> that they were dedicated to protecting the environment 
> |  James G. Acker 
There is a presupposition by the left, a dialectical argument, that the
choice is between "saving the environment" or "destroying it." This is
false reasoning.  Who wants to live in their own waste? The REAL extreme
rhetoric is from the eco-socialist left and the Republicans are left
arguing without a mainstream media microphone. ###8up

John McCarthy wrote:
> I think we would still be alive if all the ozone were gone, 
> although we would be substantially inconvenienced.
But in previous messages you also wrote: ". . . moreover I haven't 
studied ozone depletion enough to have an opinion of my own."
That you haven't studied the problem was maybe obvious and needed
no elucidation.  But lines such as "substantially inconvenienced"
does not begin to address the impact of a catastrophic ozone 
depletion (which we hope the world has avoided).  You and Mr. 
Russell seem more inclined to mislead or misinform people about 
the problem than to refer to any actual research in the field.
Sam McClintock
sammcc@nando.net
. . . In order to CRITIQUE the research, you must READ the research.
. . . He who fails to do research before applying arithmetic is doomed
      to talk nonsense.