Are landfills the best solution for rubbish

[wolram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill

We have a landfill just three miles from us, some times the roads are are a right mess and the rubbish has blown off the trucks into the hedge rows, apart from the mess the landfill is taking up acres of farm land.

 

[DEvens]

"Best" implies a value judgement. That requires an evaluation of what the relative importance and value of the various inputs and requirements for dealing with all aspects of resource use. And this value judgement has to be shared and accepted across an entire society.

The only mechanism humans have ever come up with to make such judgements in anything resembling a rational manner is a free market. Prices allow information on a huge range of possible alternative actions to be balanced and compared. Including the costs of dealing with the wastes of various processes. Or possibly modifying the processes to decrease waste. Or to recycle it. Or maybe incinerate it and generate power. Or any of a huge number of other possible choices.



The way to deal with the rubbish blowing onto other people's property is property rights. If the landfill operators are required to come clean up the rubbish they dump on other people's land, then they will correct their operation to save themselves the bother and expense. Simple thing like a cover over the truck bins might well save everybody a lot of annoyance. Similarly, if they are required to clean up leaks from the landfill, or to correct polluted groundwater, etc., they will correct their own process

An example of something that is not too drastically far from ideal is how the Canadian system works. Basically, the regulator says "prove to me that your methods are safe according to the rules in this fairly simple regulatory document, and you can operate."

The way NOT to deal with such things is for some government to come along and declare, for example, that we all must recycle everything. If there is value in recycling something then there will already be a market for it. As for example, there is a market for recycled aluminum cans. You can feel smug about recycling aluminum cans. But much of the rest of the entire recycling craze is a huge fetishistic boondoggle. It increases costs by a lot, and does nothing for the environment. Or even damages the environment in some cases.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
The only mechanism humans have ever come up with to make such judgements in anything resembling a rational manner is a free market.
...

I consider electing officials who share my environmental stance to be another rational mechanism.

...
The way NOT to deal with such things is for some government to come along and declare, for example, that we all must recycle everything.

Can you site an instance where any government has declared that everything must be recycled

If there is value in recycling something then there will already be a market for it.

Covering up a problem with dirt doesn't make the problem go away. There are superfund sites all over the world, because the free market said it was ok. The fact that there was no market for keeping things tidy, doesn't mean the problem didn't come back to haunt us.

As for example, there is a market for recycled aluminum cans. You can feel smug about recycling aluminum cans.

I recycle everything my city allows. About the only two things I can't recycle are unmarked plastics, and cat poop.
It actually saves me money. The city has incorporated "market" strategies, which say that if I get once a month garbage service, they'll charge me less. And I still get weekly recycling service.
It actually takes me 2 months to generate 20 gallons of garbage.

But much of the rest of the entire recycling craze is a huge fetishistic boondoggle.

That might make a fun addition to my signature: "fetishistic boondoggler"
Thanks!

It increases costs by a lot

My rates have not gone up a lot.

and does nothing for the environment.

nothing?

Or even damages the environment in some cases.

This was interesting, so I looked it up.
The very first site listed 10 things that were bad about recycling.
Unfortunately for the author, his reference to "lead" in paint, being recycled into new products struck me as odd, as I thought "lead" in paint had been banned.
It was banned, 37 years ago.
So right off, I knew he'd be grasping for straws.
I wasn't disappointed.
My take-away lesson from his list, which is more of a question really; "If it's so horrible to recycle things because of all the horrible toxic things in them, why are we putting horrible toxic things in the things we buy in the first place? Aren't we just going to send these horrible toxic things to the landfill otherwise?"

Another less hyperbolic site, had this to say:

Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment? [phys.org Yay!]
July 14, 2009 by Miranda Marquit

...there are times when recycling can harm more than it helps. This is especially true when plastics are involved.
...

No mention of what the other harmful recycling practices are.
But I would say, we should find out what they are, and fix them.
And their information on plastic recycling tells me I've been doing it right, for many years. (pat on back, pat on back)

 

[russ_watters]

I consider electing officials who share my environmental stance to be another rational mechanism.

Hehe.

 

[mheslep]

But I would say, we should find out what they are, and fix them.

Used to be, only one truck came 'round to pick up the trash. Now there are two, one for garbage, one for recycling. More trucks, more pollution, more road damage, more, more, more.

 

[DEvens]

I consider electing officials who share my environmental stance to be another rational mechanism.

That's because your "stance" is more important to you than science. And you consider the brute physical force wielded by governments to be an acceptable tool in what you replace scientific discourse with.

 

[JorisL]

Used to be, only one truck came 'round to pick up the trash. Now there are two, one for garbage, one for recycling. More trucks, more pollution, more road damage, more, more, more.

Except current tech has less pollution in its exhaust fumes.
Road damage is abysmal if you ask me.

Here's an idea, why not make people burn everything, that way there isn't any need to pick up garbage so we have 0 trucks driving around, less, less, less (healthy)

One of the major problems I know of in recycling is plastic films around packaging.

Generally I try to recycles as much as possible, we are obliged to do so for aluminium containers, plastic bottles and drink cartons (in the same bag), PMD (plastic bottle, metal containers and drink cartons).
Paper and cardboard goes separate as well. As does glass and metals.

What's left are things like thin plastic containers like yoghurt pots and cling film these go into a plastic bag which we bring to the recycling park.
Secondly there is food (and garden) waste which you can feed to your chickens or turn into compost.
Lastly there's all else like textiles, old wallpaper etc. General waste you could call it.

We get a certain amount of free* bags for general waste and PMD.
The rest we can generally bring to the recycling park for free, except things like asbestos and other hard to process materials.

* Free means its included in our city taxes which you pay regardless. Extra bags can cost quite a lot.

 

[Johninch]

Obviously, whether landfills are the best solution for rubbish, depends on the type of rubbish.

The main problem is toxicity, which may present problems for future generations. Mistakes are made in the regulation of landfills and sometimes authorities decide that landfills have to be reprocessed. Not so easy with radioactive waste.

Pricing encourages the generation of rubbish enormously. First we pay for the rubbish to be produced, and then we don’t want it.

Obviously, the best solution for rubbish is to reduce it, just like all inputs and outputs – just reduce until the problem goes away or becomes negligible.

Governments try to reduce the production of rubbish with regulations about packaging, but not about the contents. They are scratching the surface. Let them continue, so that we can all smugly say that we are doing our best to protect the environment.

Those who are so concerned about the environment, should ask themselves every time they dispose of something, why am I doing this?
They should reduce their consumption to the absolute minimum!

 

[DEvens]

Governments try to reduce the production of rubbish with regulations about packaging, but not about the contents. They are scratching the surface. Let them continue, so that we can all smugly say that we are doing our best to protect the environment.

Sigh.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

So what is it that "let the government continue" does? Does it actually improve the environment? Do we actually see less damage to the environment in places where the government has continued?

Nah.

The purpose of letting the government continue is what it does. It let's the government continue. Thus, such a scheme is automatically successful, since its purpose is to expand and extend the power of government. Whether it helps the environment or not (almost universally not) is irrelevant to the evaluation of a scheme to let the government continue.

That we are most certainly NOT doing our best to protect the environment is not even on the list of evaluation checks for such a scheme. There is no mechanism nor measurement even contemplated. Other than compliance that is.

A recycle scheme, for example, is deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Rules about packaging are deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Helping the environment is not the purpose. Extending and expanding government control is the purpose. For that is what it does.

 

[Johninch]

So what is it that "let the government continue" does? Does it actually improve the environment? Do we actually see less damage to the environment in places where the government has continued?

Well, no. You are right on the whole. We don’t see less damage because any reduction is more than compensated by higher production and consumption, which increases the amount of rubbish.

However this does not alter the fact that the government tries to protect the environment, with some successes, and I think that it should continue to do this, so that we can say we are doing something.
Examples: Auto Emissions, Waste water treatment.
In the case of cleaner rivers, we do indeed see big improvements, at least in Europe.

We are not doing as much as theoretically possible because it is too expensive. The future costs of a deteriorating environment are impossible to calculate, so you can’t get citizens to pay nor to reduce the cost through lower consumption. It’s very much a case of live now, pay later, which I think is very understandable.

 

[WWGD]

Sigh.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does

So what is it that "let the government continue" does? Does it actually improve the environment? Do we actually see less damage to the environment in places where the government has continued?

Nah.

The purpose of letting the government continue is what it does. It let's the government continue. Thus, such a scheme is automatically successful, since its purpose is to expand and extend the power of government. Whether it helps the environment or not (almost universally not) is irrelevant to the evaluation of a scheme to let the government continue.

That we are most certainly NOT doing our best to protect the environment is not even on the list of evaluation checks for such a scheme. There is no mechanism nor measurement even contemplated. Other than compliance that is.

A recycle scheme, for example, is deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Rules about packaging are deemed successful if everybody complies. No check is made, nor even contemplated, that it actually helps the environment. Helping the environment is not the purpose. Extending and expanding government control is the purpose. For that is what it does.

You don't think government regulations, politicking, imperfections and all involved, are overall supported by research?

 

[wolram]

One way to save waste is to buy your veg (loose) instead of in plastic bags, compost all food waste and do not buy any thing that has multiple wrappings.

 

[WWGD]

I just use the supermarket bags to hold the recyclables. No need to buy extra bags. Or you can buy reusable bags.

There is also the fact that at least 1/3 of food bought is thrown out because it spoils.

And a developmental model that is not based on growth , measuring success with yardsticks other than GDP, sales, etc increase would also be helpful. I don't know enough about economics to come up with one myself.

 

[russ_watters]

Used to be, only one truck came 'round to pick up the trash. Now there are two, one for garbage, one for recycling. More trucks, more pollution, more road damage, more, more, more.

Er...not necessarily. If routs are well planned so the trucks are completely filled, addition of recycling trucks should result in zero change in truck-miles traveled to pick up the trash.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't think government regulations, politicking, imperfections and all involved, are overall supported by research?

That's a bit of a loaded question (example to follow). In general, I'd say that practical concerns (economic, the environment, effectiveness) are generally part of the conversation, but way behind politics (government being government) in importance.

See Obama's way to deal with nuclear waste. Sure, you can say he commissioned research, but clearly he had little actual interest in using scientific research in dealing with the issue. The result was that the "research" was flawed because he purposely set it up to be, but that's irrelevant anyway because it was only ever intended to be a distraction from the illegal, economically flawed, scientifically flawed, but politically useful policy (pandering to Harry Reid because he needed the ally) he had already executed before the "research" charade even started.

 

[WWGD]

"Best" implies a value judgement. That requires an evaluation of what the relative importance and value of the various inputs and requirements for dealing with all aspects of resource use. And this value judgement has to be shared and accepted across an entire society.

The only mechanism humans have ever come up with to make such judgements in anything resembling a rational manner is a free market. Prices allow information on a huge range of possible alternative actions to be balanced and compared. Including the costs of dealing with the wastes of various processes. Or possibly modifying the processes to decrease waste. Or to recycle it. Or maybe incinerate it and generate power. Or any of a huge number of other possible choices.



.

EDIT: Interesting that Friedman, the defender of everything free market, despite claiming not o agree with teaching tenure, accepted a tenured position at the University of Minesota:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ennh28taSiEC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=was+milton+friedman+a+tenured+professor&source=bl&ots=7di8K8-8gv&sig=mTRx1qjdoMn7XMX1Lq3JfL4rgug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIq_3w8LbCyAIVBDQ-Ch1W1AlK#v=onepage&q=was milton friedman a tenured professor&f=false
p.146

You would think that he would have accepted having, say, other professors, or his students decide whether his contract should be renewed at the end of every semester, or at least at the end of every year on the job.

That's a bit of a loaded question (example to follow) In general, I'd say that practical concerns (economic, the environment, effectiveness) are generally part of the conversation, but way behind politics (government being government) in importance.

See Obama's way to deal with nuclear waste. Sure, you can say he commissioned research, but clearly he had little actual interest in using scientific research in dealing with the issue. The result was that the "research" was flawed because he purposely set it up to be, but that's irrelevant anyway because it was only ever intended to be a distraction from the illegal, economically flawed, scientifically flawed, but politically useful policy (pandering to Harry Reid because he needed the ally) he had already executed before the "research" charade even started.

But how is this intrinsic to governments? It seems more of a quality associated to people in general.

 

[russ_watters]

But how is this intrinsic to governments? It seems more of a quality associated to people in general.

I agree, but don't see the relevance of that point.

 

[WWGD]

I agree, but don't see the relevance of that point.

I was initially addressing what I thought was a " government can do no good" stance by DEvens.
EDIT: I have never seen a situation where lack of authority has led to a natural order that can be said to be better that the order that may emerge from having ( a reasonable) authority (AFAIK, this is the Libertarian position): unmoderated websites are garbage, playgrounds, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

I was initially addressing what I thought was a " government can do no good" stance by DEvens.

Yes, I know: I don't see how that point relates to this issue. Since I'm having to reach here, I'll give it a shot and you can tell me how I did: You begrudgingly agree with the point, but don't like it for philosophical reasons, so you are trying to argue around it by saying other human pursuits share similar failings. Am I close?

 

[Mark44]

EDIT: Interesting that Friedman, the defender of everything free market, despite claiming not o agree with teaching tenure, accepted a tenured position at the University of Minesota:

They offered him a job -- he took it -- so what? I don't doubt that his position on tenure has changed in the slightest. I too had a tenured position, although at a community college rather than a university, but I resigned my position to get what I considered a better job. IMO, an unintended consequence of tenure in teaching is to make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent teachers.

EDIT: I have never seen a situation where lack of authority has led to a natural order that can be said to be better that the order that may emerge from having ( a reasonable) authority (AFAIK, this is the Libertarian position): unmoderated websites are garbage, playgrounds, etc

I believe this is the "straw man" argument that DEvens referred to. The argument is not living in a system with a government vs living in an anarchy, but instead, what level of government becomes too much. This is a fine point that the framers of the US Constitution struggled with.

@WWGD and @DEvens (and especially DEvens), let's keep the discussion civil, or else we authoritarian types will have to step in. Just sayin'.

 

[OmCheeto]

One way to save waste is to buy your veg (loose) instead of in plastic bags, compost all food waste and do not buy any thing that has multiple wrappings.

hmmm...
I saw the following on Facebook just 4 days ago.
Was this your inspiration for the thread?

Does seem a bit daft.

 

[wolram]

hmmm...
I saw the following on Facebook just 4 days ago.
Was this your inspiration for the thread?

Does seem a bit daft.

Absolutely ridiculous anyone that buys these is a complete barn pot. and the supermarket has the cheek to price them individually..

 

[wolram]

I found this article which is appropriate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-supermarkets-end-needless-packaging.html

But it will be hard to appease campaigners who point out that more rubbish goes to landfill in Britain than in any other European country,

 

[OmCheeto]

Absolutely ridiculous anyone that buys these is a complete barn pot.

Wait a minute. You appear to be a "rubbish" rabble rouser:

 

[OmCheeto]

I found this article which is appropriate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...orce-supermarkets-end-needless-packaging.html

But it will be hard to appease campaigners who point out that more rubbish goes to landfill in Britain than in any other European country,

You Brits have nothing on this colony.
I did the maths last night, and were I a proper American, my garbage can would weigh 150 lbs every two months.
I doubt mine weighs more than 20.
And I don't even put in the cat poop!
(I've outdoor cats.)

 

[mheslep]

Er...not necessarily. If routs are well planned so the trucks are completely filled, addition of recycling trucks should result in zero change in truck-miles traveled to pick up the trash.

Hmmm, complicated. Perhaps. A given piece of road unavoidably still sees double truck traffic recycling and trash trucks.

 

[mheslep]

I was initially addressing what I thought was a " government can do no good" stance by DEvens.
EDIT: I have never seen a situation where lack of authority has led to a natural order that can be said to be better that the order that may emerge from having ( a reasonable) authority (AFAIK, this is the Libertarian position): unmoderated websites are garbage, playgrounds, etc.

You are conflating anarchism with libertarianism or limited government policies. In the political arena, this is sometimes done intentionally, such as in the advertisement which portrayed free market proponents as favoring the lack of any government in Somalia and the rampant disease in the population there.

 

[WWGD]

Could everyone please note that what I wrote is a hypothetical: @DEvens : Sorry if I misinterpreted/ misundersstood/ misunderestimated, etc.your intention. I thought you were going in the direction of Libertarianism. I meant _if_ this is the case. This is clearly not your position. My bad.

 

[rootone]

I'm sure that there could easily be developed very efficient recycling without extending overly from present technologies.
It sadly is the case though that there are no big profits to be made from that, although a facility dedicated to it would probably pay for its operating cost at least.
We as a species are quite wasteful by nature is the problem I see.
On a hypothetical human colony on say Mars, landfill of say plastic rubbish, would be unthinkable, you would want all of that stuff reused for something,

 

[OmCheeto]

That's because your "stance" is more important to you than science. And you consider the brute physical force wielded by governments to be an acceptable tool in what you replace scientific discourse with.

Really? I never thought of myself like that.
hmmmm...

Do you believe in economic science? Since I've joined PF, I've really come to appreciate it, a lot. (I would expand, but it's quite off topic.)
Let's take an example of two economic systems of solid waste disposal.
I'll pick my city, and Russ's city, as he's the only person off the top of my head, in this thread, that I know where he lives. (Aside from Wolram: about half way between Liverpool and London. But I've stated before, that I have no intention of solving the world's problems.)

Types of systems, and costs:

Omic system:

According to my garbage bill, I pay ≈$300/year for my service, with incentives to recycle, via a private company. The rates are somewhat complicated, but if I took the 5 minutes to figure them out, I'm sure I could cut my rates in half. [ref: Portlandia]
​

Russic system:

According to what I've just googled, Russ pays the same rate, via a tax, apparently. (I am having a VERY difficult time figuring out their current system). But it appears that the system works on what I would call a "if we are all do gooders" system. [ref: Philly] My interpretation; "If you, and everyone else recycles, then everyone wins"! Unfortunately, as is even apparent on my street, where I see 55 gallon waste carts overflowing every two weeks in front of my neighbor's houses, do gooders are few and far between.
From the Philly reference:

Which frees up money to help fund other critical City services such as:

Education
Public Safety
Parks & Libraries​

From this, I interpolate that his "rubbish tax" is mixed in with a general financial fund, which get's very politically distributed. (Very bad, IMHO)​

Conclusion: These two types of systems cost he and I the same.​

Success of each system to recycle:

Omic:

In 2013, in 25 cities across Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties, more than 64 percent of what businesses and residents threw away was recovered – recycled, composted or converted to energy. What was left over was garbage. [ref]​

Russic:

Three sources (OMG... Too many lists... I don't live downtown, so I've attempted to only include metropolitan area statistics. I have no idea which of the following to believe, but it gives us a range. Scientifically speaking, I believe they call this "scatter". )

1. Where We Stand:

20%. A year after the Nutter Administration’s benchmark of 2011, Philadelphia finally topped the 20% threshold in the first quarter of the 2013 fiscal year [ref]​

2. Target 7: Solid Waste

Each household in Philadelphia throws away an average of 1.25 tons of trash each year, but recycles only 160 pounds. [= 6.4% recycling rate] [ref]​

3. The Unclean Truth: How Five Cities Stack Up On Recycling

Philadelphia’s recycling rate now stands at 37 percent, just over the national average. [ref]​

Conclusion: Portlandia's recycle rate is between 2 to 10 times as compared to Philly's, for the same cost.​

I would continue, as there are a lot more aspects to this*, but this has been a lot of work.
Time for my nap.

*
1. Global waste trade: The global waste trade is the international trade of waste between countries for further treatment, disposal, or recycling. Toxic or hazardous wastes are often exported from developed countries to developing countries, also known as countries of the Global South. Therefore, the burden of the toxicity of wastes from Western countries falls predominantly onto developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

2. I discovered yesterday that ≈60 dump trucks a day, travel 300 miles round trip, to get rid of our waste. I'm curious how far other cites rubbish travels. [ref]
Wait! Did that reference just say that Seattle is dumping trash there also? hmmm... 500 mile round trip.

3. There are of course, other aspects, but I'm typing one eyed right now...

 

[mheslep]

Host: "You are not going to condemn regulations regarding emissions ..."
Friedman: "I certainly am. Of course I'm going to condemn them. Why not?"

 

[DEvens]

3. The Unclean Truth: How Five Cities Stack Up On Recycling

Philadelphia’s recycling rate now stands at 37 percent, just over the national average.​

Conclusion: Portlandia's recycle rate is between 2 to 10 times as compared to Philly's, for the same cost.​

Lots of snips from the post I am quoting. But note: In another post I claimed that the success of recycling programs is determined by compliance, and compliance only. And that the reason for that is that the purpose of recycle programs is to extend the power and extent of government. And here you are holding up compliance rate as the measure of success.

I don't see any information about what the actual effect on the environment is. What is the net impact of recycling as compared to once-through? For example, I have seen several studies that claimed that recycling paper was bad for forests. In much the same way, and for much the same reasons, that many people stopping eating potatoes would be bad for potato farms. Not that it proves that recycling paper is bad. (Although, it probably isn't very good.) But it raises the point in a different way.

You have here offered compliance as evidence of success. Compliance is only success if either the goal is, as I state, more government. Or if there is additional evidence that recycling actually improves things. Except for aluminum cans, and some limited types of paper, the data seems to suggest the benefit is nil or negative.

How does one determine the relative value of things like land use, release of chemicals (as for example bleaching paper for recycling releases), the effort of sorting my garbage for recycling, the presence on my driveway of now THREE huge bins for garbage, etc. etc. These are value judgements. They require balancing a large number of potential, actual, present, and future values. Governments are notoriously poor at making such value judgements, especially when placed "in charge" over long periods. They nearly always, and more often sooner than later, come down to compliance as the measure. The Iron Law still applies.

And for recycling programs, they pretty much seized on it from day one.

So, you have not offered evidence of the benefit of recycle programs. You have offered compliance rates, which bolsters my view.

So, yes, I still think your "stance" is more important to you than the science.

 

[WWGD]

Host: "You are not going to condemn regulations regarding emissions ..."
Friedman: "I certainly am. Of course I'm going to condemn them. Why not?"

But if you claim Friedman is not being a hypocrite by accepting tenure " in an imperfect world" , then you can allege that regulations may be necessary because this is an imperfect world.

 

[OmCheeto]

Lots of snips from the post I am quoting. But note: In another post I claimed that the success of recycling programs is determined by compliance, and compliance only. And that the reason for that is that the purpose of recycle programs is to extend the power and extent of government. And here you are holding up compliance rate as the measure of success.

(Thank you for the snip. One subtopic at a time!
These responses would get exponential otherwise.)

Regarding compliance: Redirecting this back to the OP, if we had 100% compliance, Wolram and I would have no rubbish in our hedgerows, and dumping grounds could be used for farmland.

I don't see any information about what the actual effect on the environment is. What is the net impact of recycling as compared to once-through?

On a finite world?

No recycling:

For example, I have seen several studies that claimed that recycling paper was bad for forests.

References please! Otherwise, it's just hearsay. And most of the google "studies" I've seen that say that, are rubbish, IMHO.
Pro-paper recycling reference:

IS RECYCLING PAPER BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? [Sciencefocus.com, 2009]
In favour of recycling is the fact that paper mills use toxic compounds such as toluene, methanol and formaldehyde. A report by the US Environmental Protection Agency states that paper mills are among the worst polluters of any industry in the US. Recycling causes 35 per cent less water pollution and 74 per cent less air pollution than making new paper.

In much the same way, and for much the same reasons, that many people stopping eating potatoes would be bad for potato farms.

What?

Not that it proves that recycling paper is bad. (Although, it probably isn't very good.) But it raises the point in a different way.

You have here offered compliance as evidence of success.

No, I offered referenced evidence that successful, voluntary, government directed, economically sound theories, is effective. As in, financially neutral, and goal oriented.

Compliance is only success if either the goal is, as I state, more government.

pfft! Once people figure out how simple it is, government will be obsolete, in this meddlesome task.

Or if there is additional evidence that recycling actually improves things. Except for aluminum cans, and some limited types of paper, the data seems to suggest the benefit is nil or negative.
How does one determine the relative value of things

wait for it

land use, release of chemicals (as for example bleaching paper for recycling releases), the effort of sorting my garbage for recycling,

wait for it

like the presence on my driveway of now THREE huge bins for garbage

BAZINGA!
Sorry. I see the TWO huge RECYCLE bins, and my diminutive garbage bin, as a thing of beauty.

, etc. etc. These are value judgements. They require balancing a large number of potential, actual, present, and future values. Governments are notoriously poor at making such value judgements, especially when placed "in charge" over long periods. They nearly always, and more often sooner than later, come down to compliance as the measure. The Iron Law still applies.

I still haven't seen a reference to where you've pointed out that ANYONE is required to recycle. So, I consider your "Iron Law", a moot point.

And for recycling programs, they pretty much seized on it from day one.

So, you have not offered evidence of the benefit of recycle programs. You have offered compliance rates, which bolsters my view.

Oh, good god...

So, yes, I still think your "stance" is more important to you than the science.

You "think" my stance blah blah blah.
Sounds like an opinion to me.

You know what they say about opinions; They're like barn pots. Not everyone is one, but you can spot them, a smile away.

 

[mheslep]

... then you can allege that regulations may be necessary because this is an imperfect world.

Chopped the first clause because i) the 2nd is a non-sequitor to the 1st, ii) DEvens already responded to the fallacy, iii) I didn't claim here anything about Friedman's academic career.

The main problem with the part of your post that I quoted is demonstrating that regulations render the imperfect world at large more perfect. Yes regulations on the surface seem to have an upside, but they almost always have a downside. That video clip has several examples. See for instance the EPA's recent yellow paint job on the Animas river yellow even though it was warned of the likely outcome of tampering with a mine. So, instead of slapping a new regulation on every perceived imperfection, I would make regulations relatively rare, used as an absolute last resort.