In Sweden, they have to import garbage from Norway in order to stoke the Swedish power plants that are designed to burn refuse.
And the Norwegians pay the Swedes to take their garbage. And the Norwegians take back the ash residue.
We're nowhere near that savvy in this country. Even small-sale recycling gets denounced by Republicans as being some sort of Commie plot.
(H/T)
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Sunday, August 11, 2013
15 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
And, here WE are. Sent people to the moon and back, But NOOOOO, we can't burn our trash because people would have to separate the different kinds.
ReplyDeleteI am So not proud anymore.
w3ski
Recycling was big during the war.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I used the word "Socialism" just to get rise out of folks. Sweden is more of a social welfare state.
What really bugs me is the morons on the right who confuse "socialism" with "authoritarianism" and, what we seem to be tending to drift towards: Corporatist fascism.
I'm not a Republican--but like them I'm not against recycling, I'm against mandatory recycling. It appears that the Scandinavian system you're talking about is economically viable--that's great.
ReplyDeleteBut mandatory is a problem. Sometimes it isn't clear which is better, or how serious the problem is, but that doesn't stop a mandatory solution--ethanol in gasoline...where the production of ethanol is a net energy loss, and causes food prices to go up. Now we've got a requirement for cellulosic ethanol, producers are being fined for not using it, even though commercial quantities aren't available.
Because remember, folks, being asked to do something easy and common sense like separate out your burnable trash from the non-burnable is a violation of some fundamental human right to be an asshole. Or somethin'. Alrighty, then!
ReplyDelete- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Socialism isn't the same as authoritarianism, but it requires authoritarianism. Just like fascism isn't the same, but requires authoritarianism. Without authoritarianism, without force left vs right doesn't really matter much.
ReplyDeleteCost vs, benefit matters. Some recycling has benefits to justify the time spent--but lots of people don't count other people's time. What's the pollution and resource cost of most general aviation vs the benefits to society?
Not quite sure what you're getting at, Sevesteen. You're saying that being an asshole too lazy to sort your recyclables is fine as long as it saves time?
ReplyDeleteFor the record, sorting my recyclables consists of... I'm holding a bottle to throw away, or a newspaper, or something. I have three bins next to my refrigerator. It takes no (zero) additional time to put said newspaper into the burnables bin or bottle into the bottles bin than it'd take to put it into the miscellaneous trash bin. The only reason to not do it is if you're an asshole who wants to stick it to The Man and society in general because, well, because you're a jerk. Just sayin'.
And for those who say Americans will recycle only if forced at gunpoint, California has roughly 95% compliance with bottle and can recycling by using the carrot, not the gun. And roughly 75% compliance with plastic shopping bag recycling with neither gun nor carrot, just by asking people please be nice and recycle (well, and providing the blue bins too, duh). This isn't despotism, this is people doing the right thing because it's the right thing -- an old fashioned notion, I realize, but so it goes.
- Badtux the Recycling Penguin
Not sure how you get to "socialism requires authoritarianism", but enlighten me, if you will.
ReplyDeleteI think he's saying that the Scandinavian countries, rather than being democracies with a history of egalitarianism, are horrifying Stalinesque hellholes with policemen on every corner stopping you and frisking you and with police officers in paramilitary clothing smashing in doorways everyday to terrorize the citizenry into complying with the irrational dictates of government bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, that's New York City. My bad!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
I'm fine with using persuasion to encourage recycling. I'm pretty sure that Ronald Reagan wasn't the last Republican in California, so if they are getting 95% compliance, at least some Republicans can be convinced to recycle.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of socialism I'm thinking of is a government that collects extra taxes to pay for things that could be handled by the individuals involved--health care, education, communication as examples.
What definition of socialism doesn't require some degree of force?
I'm not only picking on the left. Fascism isn't exactly what I mean, but the right wants to put the government in charge of who I can sleep with and marry, what drugs I can take, how I can gamble.
I wouldn't define authoritarianism by the tax rate. Authoritarianism is a blind obedience to authority.
ReplyDeleteHealth care is one where we could use some socialism. Right now, we have the worst of all, with a form of no-competition oligarchical capitalism in health care. Oh, I know the free-market proponents think competition is the key, but there is a hell of a lot of difference between shopping for a lasik surgeon because one doesn't like wearing glasses and shopping for a thoracic surgeon when one is having a heart attack at 33 in the morning.
So authoritarianism is... paying taxes?
ReplyDeleteShark. Jumped. Well and truly.
Just sayin'.
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
This is a blog response, not an essay, so there are incomplete statements and simplifications. Taxes aren't necessarily authoritarian, there's some minimum tax level that is reasonable and proper. At some point taxation becomes an element of authoritarianism. If most of your income goes to taxes, I would say that is at least early stages, even if you are given benefits paid by those taxes (but chosen by others). There are also degrees of authoritarianism vs voluntarism, just like degrees between liberal and conservative.
ReplyDeleteHealth care is where we could use some actual capitalism--but I agree the current system combines the worst features of both systems. If you're shopping for a heart surgeon during a heart attack, you're screwed--but that's not a necessary feature of capitalist health care, anymore than suddenly needing a tow truck at 3am in BFE, Wyoming means everyone in that situation has to pay whatever is charged.
Good immediate capitalist steps for health care improvement that socialists shouldn't object to--Put individual-paid health insurance on the same tax status as employer paid. Open interstate competition in health insurance providers. Eliminate the drug war, deregulate everything except antibiotics. Make the FDA advisory rather than allowing them to declare some drugs and devices illegal, or requiring endless expensive tests. (It's amazing how often the FDA finds problems with a drug just after the patent expires...when there's a newly approved alternative)
Those won't cure the current problem, but they will help.
The US is the least-taxed major industrial nation on the planet. Just wondering if you knew that. Apparently not.
ReplyDeleteOn health care: Oh I get it. We're suppose to adopt a system of funding health care that has never worked in any nation anywhere on planet Earth rather than one where we have dozens of examples worldwide showing that it produces better outcomes at a lower cost than the US current health care system because... cooties!
I call it the cooties theory of healthcare provision. We can't do what's proven (i.e., Medicare For All) because... cooties(*)! Alrighty, then!
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
(*) You can substitute the word "socialism" or "tyranny" for the word "cooties" and the cooties theory of healthcare provision makes just as much sense. Just sayin'.
Badtux
ReplyDeleteI understand you want some form of socialized health care. As interim measures, how would anything I proposed go against your goals? Or is your preferred strategy to make health care so unpleasant that people want any change, no matter which direction?
Sevesteen, I want health care that works and doesn't kill me for profit. I look around at the way health care works in the rest of the world -- especially in the eighteen countries that have better healthcare outcomes for less money than the United States -- and suggest that we adopt the system that has the best outcomes and highest satisfaction rates. You, on the other hand, propose some unproven think tank bullshit some ideological dweeb pulled out of his ass.
ReplyDeleteThat's the difference. I'm an old-time conservative, I want what's proven and what works. You're an ideological radical, you want what's unproven but ideologically correct. I'm not a radical, so of course your nonsense annoys me.
And health care in France (which has Medicare For All) does *not* annoy people. They need health care. They go to their personal family doctor. They get it. Just like my 68-year-old mother who is on that evil socialist Medicare+Tricare and thinks it's the best thing in the world. What more do you want from healthcare? Other than that it be ideologically correct? I mean, c'mon, are you, like, some retired Soviet ideological monitor or some bullshit like that? You do know what happened to the Soviet Union, right?!
- Badtux the Conservative Penguin