What's Wrong with the Three Rs of Environmentalism

From FEE.org (Sept. 19, 2016):

Reduce, reuse, recycle. On its face, following the “three R’s” seems to be the obvious path to environmental nirvana:

Reduce – Use less. Turn off the lights when they’re not needed, don’t let the water run while you’re brushing your teeth, use both sides of every piece of paper, replace incandescent light bulbs with more efficient light sources, put more insulation in the attic, buy energy efficient appliances and toilets that use less water.

Reuse – Use items again. Don’t get lost in the “paper or plastic” trap at the grocery store, get a reusable shopping bag. Don’t toss those plastic water bottles, refill them.

Recycle – Send glass, aluminum, paper, and plastic to the recycler, not the dump.

Clearly, the “Three R’s” are a win for everyone; saving resources, energy, and labor all while reducing pollution. What could be wrong with that?  Nothing. But only if resources, energy, and labor really are saved and pollution really is reduced.

The catch is that while reducing, reusing, and recycling save some resources, each activity also costs other resources. Determining whether a given “R” saves more resources than it costs can be difficult, especially when we are spending “apples” to save “oranges.”  But even when we’re dealing with “apples-to-apples” cases, the trade-offs may not be obvious.

Consider, for example, reducing electricity use by replacing old appliances with newer, higher efficiency models. Won’t this result in a net energy saving?  Maybe, but manufacturing new appliances uses energy and, not incidentally, creates pollution.

The question is, will the new appliance save more energy over its lifetime than it costs to make, transport, and install?  We can imagine a situation in which the answer is clearly “no.”  Suppose, for example, that dishwasher manufacturers come out with new models that are slightly more energy-efficient every six months. Obviously, replacing your dishwasher twice a year would waste far more energy than it would save. But what about replacing the dishwasher every five years, or every ten?

Reduce or Not?

A few (relatively) simple present value calculations can provide the answer. The expected life of the appliance and the estimated energy savings over that life are typically provided by the manufacturer. We can compare the present value of the cost of electricity that would be used over those years to the cost of purchasing and installing the dishwasher.

If the present value of the energy saved is higher than the purchase price, we can be reasonably confident that replacing our old dishwasher will result in a net energy saving. Without market prices, however, we would be unable to determine the better course – keeping or replacing the old appliance. Economics to the rescue! [read more]

Basically it’s a trade-off with the three Rs. For example, the author talks about plastic versus paper bags. Plastic bags are cheaper to make but decompose longer. I actually give my plastic bags back to the grocer.  And reusable grocery bags are not much better.  From the article:

According to a study by the British Environment Agency, a nonwoven polypropylene bag would have to be used 11 times to “break even” with the cost of one single-use plastic bag, while a cotton bag would have to be used 131 times.

Even recycling even has costs. According to the article,

For instance, old newsprint must be collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and powered.

Some people do the three Rs because they think they are saving the earth even though that may or may not be the case. The article gives the reader something to think about.