Hey Ray,
        You make some good points. On the constructive side, I think the
solution lies with producers internalizing the costs of production so that
the manufacturing process includes the costs to the environment of the waste
contributed by the use of the product. This would result in higher prices,
which could then be reduced, were reused materials and containers made to
replace throwaways. So, pay higher prices for waste-inducing products and
take advantage of the savings involved in reusing materials in order to pay
lower prices.
        This can also be applied to products like gasoline, in which the
pollution costs to the environment of a gallon be included in that gallon's
price. Consumers would use less, refiners would work toward making a cleaner
product, and automakers would build more efficient vehicles. Of course, the
portion of the price that covers environmental damage could then be
allocated to cleanup.
        Finally, restructuring the tax code to replace sales taxes with
consumption taxes would shift the tax burden of cleanup to those who consume
the most, encouraging conservation and rationally shifting tax burdens to
put the onus on the consumer.
        Not my ideas: all this has been fully theorized and made practicable
years ago. Problem is, it's not in the short-term interests of that segment
of society with the most influence on the construction of social structure,
who are the same people (and corps.) with the most to lose in terms of $$
and profit, were such reforms to be instituted.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"

> ----------
> From:         Ray Lanier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Monday, August 27, 2001 6:50 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: recycling
>
> Hello Sarah, Anthony and all,
>
> I think that I understand your argument against recycling, but I can't
> seem
> to agree with it.
>
> Granted this is a materialistic, throw-away culture but I don't see how
> *not* recycling addresses the problem.  It seems to me that we each should
> follow John F.'s suggestion:  conform to the 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
> as our own individual creed.  It seems to me that any transformation of
> social ways begins with one's own self.  Even though I may/do falter, it
> is
> necessary  for the self to try to act in conformance with one's own
> beliefs.
> Having taken that step, others will follow.  Gradually one may, in that
> way,
> find ways to change the "shop-til-you-drop mentality.
>
> What is being called for is a major paradigm shift in the way humans think
> about their relations with Mother Nature.  That takes a long time, but it
> will never happen if each individual waits until society as a whole
> changes
> its own mind-set.
>
> One individual cannot change all of society; but no change will ever
> happen
> until some individuals commit themselves to *act* in a changed mode.
> After
> all, when we cash in our chips at the end of the roulette wheel of life,
> we
> need to be able to say, at least, that we *individually* tried.
>
> IMHO, of course, for whatever it's worth.
>
> Ray
>