At the industrial level steel recycling easily makes sense: car bodies, building components, manufacturing scrap, etc. At the industrial level plastic and glass recycling also probably make sense; the old economy of scale thing. At the individual consumer level, not so much. If it did make sense “they” wouldn’t have to use the force of law to make us do it.

a model is not a study. it’s a model. read the abstract. ironic that you accuse others of bluster using hot air as evidence.

if you can find a real world example of such a program working, THAT would be evidence. but models just don’t cut it. i’m not even going to go into your pointing to a kid’s page that has no actual data on it. you need to bring some facts to this discussion if you are looking to convince anyone.

i suspect that if you look at them, you will realize that most of the “science” behind your CO2 fears falls into the same camp. even according to the IPCC, the majority of warming from CO2 comes from posited positive feedback from other factors (see of which they admit to having a “very low” level of understanding and that has a nasty habit of being contradicted every time it is empirically tested. (see spencer’s recent work with water vapor and clouds with the NASA AQUA satellite.) see this piece for a description of IPCC feedback assumptions and a great chart about halfway in showing how each successive draft of the IPCC document shows less warming from CO2 and makes more aggressive feedback assumptions.

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/08/has-the-ipcc-inflated-the-feedback-factor-a-guest-weblog-by-christopher-monckton/

And I am tired of ultra-selective eco-contrarian pseudo-thinking. You write, “Every study has shown that . . . every other material [besides aluminum] represents a net [energy] loss” in recycling. You’re wrong. Re. glass and plastic, I do not make any claim about “every study,” but at least one detailed case study published in a peer-reviewed journal has found that glass and plastic recycling can be energy savers, especially at high recycling rates: see “Analysis of energy footprints associated with recycling of glass and plastic — case studies for industrial ecology,” V. Krivstov et al., Ecological Modelling 174 (2004): 175-189. As for paper, the US Government’s Energy Information Administration says, “So does paper recycling save energy? Yes it does, although the energy savings are not as spectacular as they are with aluminum and steel recycling” (hey, you forgot steel), adding that making a ton of paper from recycled rather than virgin fibers saves 7000 gal of water, 4000 kWh of electricity, and 60 lb of air pollutants (http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/paperandglass.html#SavingEnergy). I’m sure these figures are disputable, that various studies can be used to support various claims about energy balance, but your claim that “every study” shows that only aluminum recycling is an energy saver is pure, flat-out biogas.

You write, “For those really worked up about CO2, explain to me why we shouldn’t bury every scrap of waste paper as a carbon sink.”

This is probably like trying to teach a pig to whistle — it only wastes your time and annoys the pig — but since I agree with the large majority of the world’s climate scientists in being “really worked up about CO2,” here’s part of your answer: Because the carbon in buried paper doesn’t necessarily stay buried. Landfilled paper decays anerobically to produce methane, a greenhouse gas, and landfill methane is the largest source of U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions (http://uspowerpartners.org/Topics/SECTION6Topic-LandfillMethane.htm). So raising trees, which get their carbon from CO2, and then burying that carbon to be transformed into methane potentially multiplies the greenhouse efficacy of that carbon by a factor of up to 20 (which is how much radiative forcing each molecule of methane produces compared to each molecule of CO2). Plus, if recycling paper saves energy, as the US government says it does, that is a greenhouse savings even apart from the question of landfill methane.

As for whether SF’s recycling program is a dollar-draining socialist boondoggle or not, here’s what _MSW [Municipal Solid Waste] Management, the Journal for Municipal Solid Waste Professionals_, says (http://www.stormcon.com/mw_0209_playing.html):

” . . . San Francisco could benefit economically over the long-term through the marketing of collected materials, depending on what the markets have in store. Furthermore, the cost per ton for the compost and recycling collection is less than it is for trash. Indeed, although the program cost an estimated $100 million in infrastructure, monthly waste disposal costs in San Francisco are still considerably lower than the Bay Area average for residential consumers. . . . Avoiding landfill disposal is economically important, as significant costs are associated with purchasing additional landfill space or property, siting and permitting, and construction of a new landfill in the Bay Area. Thanks to the city’s innovations, these costs will be significantly delayed.”

Hey, sure, maybe it’s all lies and B.S. But it’d take more than your hasty, ill-informed bluster to make me think so.

That’s why the neutron bomb was born.

SF is beautiful but the people can grate on me.

ask about their policies to cut down alcoholism by causing corner stores to shut down or mandating what “adult beverages” they can sell. ask about no new liquor licenses in the fastest growing part of town (SOMA) out of fear that out of towners will come and get drunk on weekends or, god forbid, someone should open a restaurants. current pricing for a liquor license for a new restaurant is over six figures. ask about the ludicrous health care insurance requirements now jacking up prices at restaurants and small businesses all over town. don’t even get me started on the rent control or the fact that our DA refuses to prosecute auto break ins even if someone witnesses it.

loads of san franciscans are excited about this idea as they mistake “tyranny of the other side” and “green fascism” for “doing the right thing”.

it’s a beautiful city with lots to recommend it. but the rapidly swelling paternalism of the government here is badly out of control. ironically, the “grubbiest” parts of town are clustered around the government offices. coincidence?

I agree with the oil and battery stuff, anything that needs special processing, the rest is mostly nonsense. If the waste stream were valuable, the free market would have companies standing in line to do the work.