upvote
I don't think calling it a scheme to make people feel better is fair. Grand scheme of things, you'd do more "harm" to the planet (however minuscule on the personal level) by choosing not to recycle than choosing to recycle; a portion of it does get recycled in the end. As for whether or not people use it to absolve themselves of environmental guilt in other aspects of their lives, I personally doubt a significant number ever consider whether or not they recycle when choosing to eat a burger, buy a big house or crank the heat.
reply
> Grand scheme of things, you'd do more "harm" to the planet (however minuscule on the personal level) by choosing not to recycle than choosing to recycle; a portion of it does get recycled in the end.

Are you sure? A garbage truck direct to the landfill is less energy than a garbage truck (for what isn't recycled), and a second truck to the sort facility, all the machines to sort, and then a truck to the landfill. Now if only Al goes on the recycling truck this is a clear win since recycled Al much less energy than mining new. However for many plastics the value is already questionable if it is recycled, and clearly worse if not. (I'm not sure about paper or glass)

reply
> Grand scheme of things, you'd do more "harm" to the planet (however minuscule on the personal level) by choosing not to recycle than choosing to recycle

Yes, if everything else were held equal, but it's not. People have a limited amount of energy to dedicate to caring about environmental issues; every minute spent talking about recycling (or other only marginally important environmental issues) is one we're not spending talking about things that matter.

reply
> If you care about the environment, BY FAR the most important thing you can do is reducing your carbon footprint.

And by FAR the most effective way to do that for the average person is to drive less.

Most people have no idea how far they need to drive to produce 1kg of CO2 (even though it's widely advertised alongside fuel efficiency).

reply
Surely there's no point in reducing your personal carbon footprint without holding capital accountable at the state level.
reply
If I remember correctly, US per capita CO2 footprint is around 14 tonnes (this includes industrial activity). Average US driver of an ICE vehicle produces around 4 tonnes of CO2 per year.

Personal choices matter.

reply
deleted
reply
I think the second half of your argument is missing. How much of that CO2 emission is even in my control? What is capital doing to reduce its end of output? What sort of mechanisms do I even have to control the economy? I can't stop american companies from selling out my grandkid's future. My parents couldn't either. Our economy is simply not structured to reflect collective interest. If you vote for a political party that does want to take this seriously, you get accused of supporting fascism.

I'm not going to sweat recycling while our entire political economy makes a farce of caring about the future.

reply
Your efforts cascade. You alone mean nothing, but states and companies are just reacting to the collective wants, so if everyone waits for everyone else first nothing will happen.
reply
> states and companies are just reacting to the collective wants

Insanely naive take. They react to capital.

reply
> Recycling is largely a scheme to make people feel better about themselves

No, it's a scheme to stave off taxes on plastic packaging, or regulations to mandate glass. Which industry cares about how people feel about themselves, to fund and promote this scheme? On the other hand, it's very easy to point to the industry that benefits from continued use of plastic.

reply
deleted
reply
The best way for one to reduce their carbon footprint is to stop supporting large corporations. Unfortunately this involves not being lazy and we are lazy.
reply
> The best way for one to reduce their carbon footprint is to stop supporting large corporations.

Not really, no. The carbon footprint associated with your consumption has little-to-nothing to do with the type of economic structure that provides it.

Lots of fossil fuels are produced by the state, some even in socialist countries. Burning oil extracted by Pemex or PetrĂ³leos de Venezuela releases just as much carbon as oil extracted by Chevron.

And high-quality grass-fed organic beef raised by your local rancher involves at least as much carbon emissions as the cheapest beef you can get from Wal-Mart. Why wouldn't it?

The issue is consumption of fossil fuels, not capitalism. Capitalism is indirectly at fault only inasmuch as it has grown the economy, enabling our consumption of fossil fuels to increase.

reply
I didn't say anything about capitalism. I said this is our fault. It is a direct result of human behavior.
reply
Huh? You said it has to do with "large corporations", specifically. Which is not true.
reply