NationStates Jolt Archive

I am writing to receive your endorsement for repealing UN resolution #13. My rationale for the repeal is the following:

When considering the application of recycling programs, one must perform a
basic cost-benefit analysis.

I. Recycling paper harms the environment.
A. It costs more energy to recycle paper than to simply make it from raw
materials.
1. This energy comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels which increase
the amount of pollution in the biosphere.
B. Recycling paper leads to deforestation.
1. The majority of paper in the world comes from wood pulp.
2. Because of the demand for paper and other wood products, it is
profitable for companies to maintain privately owned forests and tree farms.
3. Recycled paper would drive down the demand for raw materials thus
making it unprofitable for said companies to maintain private forests and tree farms
and more profitable to clear cut the trees and develop the land.
C. Recycling paper produces waste.
1. Before being recycled into new paper, old paper must be cleaned,
bleached, and treated. This produces a toxic sludge that must be disposed of.
2. This raises, not lowers, the number of toxins in the ecosystem.

II. Recycling glass harms the environment.
A. It requires more energy to recycle glass than to make it from raw
materials.
B. It requires more man-hours to recycle glass than o make it from raw
materials.
1. This makes recycled glass cost more.
2. Because of the extra cost, it is not profitable to recycle glass
3. That means the recycling of glass must be heavily subsidized by
the government.
C. Glass must be washed before being recycled.
1. This leads to more pollution of water with nitrates.

III. Recycling batteries harms the environment.
A. Recycling batteries costs more energy than producing new batteries.
B. Recycling batteries produces toxic waste.
C. Mandating that all batteries be rechargeable is a far sounder solution than recycling.

IV. Only the recycling of aluminum provides any benefit to the environment.


Thus the Confederacy of Transplanetary Peoples proposes the following:

I. A repeal of UN resolution #13.
II. Mandatory recycling of aluminum.
III. A ban on all non-rechargeable batteries.


Thank you for your time.

I am writing to receive your endorsement for repealing UN resolution #13. My rationale for the repeal is the following:

Oh, this shall be fun.

When considering the application of recycling programs, one must perform a basic cost-benefit analysis.

Cost: Already part of economy. No cost beyond what was already in place.
Benefit: Able to get out more materials and more products than before. Also means a bit less mining, lengthening the time I have materials around to use.

I. Recycling paper harms the environment.
A. It costs more energy to recycle paper than to simply make it from raw materials.

That's only for inefficient systems. Efficient ones don't have the extra cost.

The tabbing is annoying. Don't do it again.

1. This energy comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels which increase
the amount of pollution in the biosphere.

No evidence this is a good thing, a bad thing, or even something under human control.

B. Recycling paper leads to deforestation.

Oh, I have got to see how you support this one.

1. The majority of paper in the world comes from wood pulp.

The majority of paper in the world is not recycled.

2. Because of the demand for paper and other wood products, it is
profitable for companies to maintain privately owned forests and tree farms.

Which they are legally required to replant and maintain at certain levels in some nations.

3. Recycled paper would drive down the demand for raw materials thus making it unprofitable for said companies to maintain private forests and tree farms and more profitable to clear cut the trees and develop the land.

You can't recycle all paper. The demand will always be there for that reason. So, it only lessens the demand a bit at best.

C. Recycling paper produces waste.

So does breathing.

1. Before being recycled into new paper, old paper must be cleaned,
bleached, and treated. This produces a toxic sludge that must be disposed of.

Two words: Antimatter reactor.

Not a problem in my nation. There are other methods as well, but I like mine.

2. This raises, not lowers, the number of toxins in the ecosystem.

Only if you dump it in the environment.

II. Recycling glass harms the environment.[/quote]

You better have excellent evidence for this one.

A. It requires more energy to recycle glass than to make it from raw
materials.

You clean it, melt it down, and reform it. That's opposed to going out, getting the sand, refining it to be rid of particles that will affect glass quality, melting that down, and reforming it.

Less energy overall.

B. It requires more man-hours to recycle glass than o make it from raw materials.

They go out, get the glass, take it back to a factory, clean it, melt it down, and reform it. That's less manhours overall than going out to areas with sand, grabbing the sand, driving to a refinement plant to be rid of excess particles that you don't want affecting the glass, driving that to a factory, melting it down, and then reforming it.

1. This makes recycled glass cost more.

Inefficiency does that.

2. Because of the extra cost, it is not profitable to recycle glass
3. That means the recycling of glass must be heavily subsidized by
the government.

Once again, inefficiency.

C. Glass must be washed before being recycled.
1. This leads to more pollution of water with nitrates.

Only if you don't clean and recycle the water used. Nitrates are good for the soil anyway, so you could just sell it to farmers to use on crops.

III. Recycling batteries harms the environment.

Not any more than just dumping them does.

A. Recycling batteries costs more energy than producing new batteries.

Not really. All you do is open it, refill it with acid, replace what parts need to be replaced, close it, and sell it. That requires less energy overall than going out to drill the crude oil, refining the oil to plastic, making the acids and other parts, putting those in batteries, and then selling that.

B. Recycling batteries produces toxic waste.

Which happens to be good for scientific experiments and can be dealt with easily.

C. Mandating that all batteries be rechargeable is a far sounder solution than recycling.

Rechargable batteries have to be disposed of anyway. Over time they lose efficiency as to how much energy they can hold until, finally, they can hold none at all.

IV. Only the recycling of aluminum provides any benefit to the environment.

Yet requires just as much effort as recycling glass.

Thus the Confederacy of Transplanetary Peoples proposes the following:

I. A repeal of UN resolution #13.
II. Mandatory recycling of aluminum.
III. A ban on all non-rechargeable batteries.

:Adds another name to the list of people who did not read the FAQs:

YOU CANNOT HAVE A PROPOSAL AND A REPEAL IN THE SAME PIECE OF LEGISLATION

Also, banning non-rechargeable batteries is foolhardy. It sets me back technologically because the types of batteries I use, plutonium power cells, are not rechargeable. Lesser batteries don't hold as much of a charge for nearly as long.

So, I advise against this.

Well, for the recycling issue, i think you're sort of ignoring the part about recycled materials lessening the load on landfills (and having to have a place to dump trash)

However, i do think you have an idea about banning non-rechargeable batteries. Needs to be investigated and researched more, but definitely a concept that should be explored further.

However, i do think you have an idea about banning non-rechargeable batteries. Needs to be investigated and researched more, but definitely a concept that should be explored further.

Then kindly explain to my scientists how you recharge plutonium or why they have to pack 20 kilos of batteries in ships where four batteries now serve.

Hey, I said that it's a novel idea that we should look some more into. Did I go in and pledge, "Alright, this is awesome. Let's ban all the ideas."

And seriously, I get your entire "seperate planet with advanced technology," but when you start bringing in all of your crap into debates about the proposals, it simply gets annoying. Nobody gives a damn about your made-up "plutonium batteries" or whatever you've got. We're trying to create practical proposals that will help benefit the world, and your comments just keep muddling up the real issues.

Actually, the plutonium idea is based on something I saw in a science article as a possible future way to power space shuttles. My real problem with the idea is listed where I point out the fact they lose energy efficiency over time. It's not bad of an idea, but we still have technical issues to overcome.

I just said that last post to see if you were paying attention to the entirety of what I said on this thread.

The reason why I focus so much on the FT: DLE is a FT nation. If I am going to stay true to it, I need to focus on it through what it is and represent how it is when arguing. In some cases, such as the batteries and electricity idea one guy came up with last month, it is very applicable as it is something that stretches across technology levels and affects a wide range of nations, both MT and FT, adversely.