Hacker News Reader

Comment by jay_kyburz | Hacker News Reader

We should also start to recognize the third price that must be paid, but is even more overlooked, the cost to dispose of something when we are done.

For many years we have just been chucking stuff in the bin and trying to forget about it, but for most things that not sustainable.

View on HN

I assume we’re talking about eventually running out of resources to make $thing, not running out of places to put old $things?

Because I just drove through Nevada and can personally attest that we are not in danger of running out of places to dig big holes to put old stuff in.

Assuming this is true, you still need to pay for machines to dig the big holes, transportation to those big holes, infrastructure for transporting to those to those big desert holes.

That’s probably still less total effort than what’s embodied in the device as part of its making. Mining and refining bauxite or iron ore, mining and refining fossil fuels, doing all the processing and transporting to get it to you in good condition is likely to dominate the cost to throw it into a regionally compacted bundle to trundle it off across half a continent (but not the world’s largest ocean) for disposal.

Reminds me of George Carlin's classic "Stuff" routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

So how did we end up with places like Fresh Kills in New York?

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

I didn’t claim landfills don’t exist, nor that there is unlimited room in populated areas. I claim that there is essentially unlimited room if you’re willing to travel a few hundred miles, at least in the states.

Trucking trash is pretty cheap - think about how cheap it is to transport retail goods across the country. Now think about the cost savings from not caring about the condition of the “product” on arrival.

And anyway, it’s gotta be cheaper than sending waste to China, like we used to do.

Or pollution in producing the thing. Particularly greenhouse gases.

I thought actually that this was going to be the second price from the article. What's so disappointing to me is how many companies get to treat the earth as a free or nearly resource to turn into profit.

It's free in the same way that stealing is a way to get things for free. When you pay for petrol for example, the money you pay goes to the oil extractors, refiners, distributors, etc. for the transfer of oil from the ground to your car. But you're not paying the earth for the taking of those resources (carbon budget I can be considered a "resource"). It's analogous to paying for someone to steal for you.

In an efficient market, the price you pay would include a carbon tax paid to the "Earth fund", and the fund would be used to replenish the planet's resources (eg. by carbon capture and storage).

But until then, the version of capitalism we operate is one where the largest participant (planet Earth) is only being stolen from; never being paid.

That's pretty much what carbon credits are. We have them, they just need to be expanded and developed. And ideally not subverted and transformed into just another tax.

The current system, as far as I understand it, is a market. One of the better ideas I've seen governments implement. You can purchase carbon credits only to the extent other carbon credits are on the market - like people planting trees.

So do you think all the people breathing air right now are stealing it unless they first ask Mother Earth whether they may have it? What should the payment be?

That's a ridiculously pedantic extension of what should be a common sense (I guess it's not so common) understanding.

Sorry, but it's not at all common sense to me. Where is the line? Am I allowed to cut down a tree on the property I own? Or is that stealing? I brought up the extreme case of breathing because it is literally putting carbon directly in the air.

How about this: The CO2 that you're breathing out right now has been bound during your lifetime, and can certainly be expected to become bound once more during your lifetime. The same cannot be said for CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.

Thank you, that's my sentiment precisely and thoroughly stated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com