Comments on: Drink and Be Merry: Styrofoam, Paper, and Prices

By: Plastic Container

Plastic Container — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:06:04 +0000

Thanks very much for the help, it worked like a charm!

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:41:46 +0000

Well, it wouldn’t be perfect, but the existence of an externality on the market is an opportunity for an entreprenuer to step in and solve the problem. It’s much more likely to be resolved that way than by politicians or bureacrats declaring a “market failure” and passing silly legislation with unintended consequences.
Of course, that’s assuming that an externality is a problem for someone. Some externalities are beneficial and not enough of an issue to work too hard at resolving.

By: Brian S

Brian S — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:32:41 +0000

The free market would better reflect cost involved of such commodity markets such as plastics and paper – yes, of course. But would they “fully reflect” the costs? Even in a entirely free market externalities will exist as property rights of air or groundwater cannot be well-defined. And even if property rights of such commons could be well-defined, the injuries of such cost are typically physically and temporally distant.

By: Sione

Sione — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:34:57 +0000

I read an analysis of oil prices where it was demonstrated that if the US Navy departed the Gulf, the price of oil would eventually fall to around the US$5/barrel mark. Now that suggests that subsidies to the US Navy should immediately cease as those ultimately have the consequence of pushing the price of oil far higher than it would otherwise be- for non-US based consumers as well as for US based consumers. Reckon Obama should get honest and remove ALL the govt interferences in the market.

Sione

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:23:34 +0000

Part of the point of a good, free market, is, as Art said, prices would fully reflect the costs involved. The average consumer shouldn’t have to become an expert in plastics, paper, and recycling to make a good choice. It’s the government’s rules and regulations that interfere with pricing and make it more difficult to make good consumer choices.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:08:41 +0000

One wonders who wrote that particular speech, and if Obama even understood the implications of what he was saying?

By: RTB

RTB — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:19:03 +0000

I sometimes plan my trips along the scenic route if time permits. And my car only gets 36 mpg. I’m not doing my part, not giving back, and not socially or environmentally conscious. I’m a bad man.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:41:31 +0000

I get 40 mpg and plan all my trips to avoid wasting gas not because I’m “doing my part” but because I’m cheap and lazy

My vice is true virtue

By: Sarah

Sarah — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:57:58 +0000

Good for you, Art, for making your own decision. I have no doubts too, that you’ll be aware of other, better options should they come about. I’m jealous that EPS (styrofoam) is economically viable in your area!

Last year, Whole Foods mandated the use of glass in its packaging whenever possible. Nobody imagined what a pain that would be for the WF stores in Albuquerque, where (at the time), there was no market, and therefore no recycling centers that would accept glass. There’s now a market for about 10% of what’s produced in the city, but not much else in the state.

Same goes for the compostable plastic cold-drink cups. I think these things are great! Unfortunately, they’re not a common recyclable plastic, and I question if there are enough local municipal food-waste pickups to actually divert these cups from the landfill (backyard composting leaves you with a thin white cookie after a year or so).

Free up IP, and more people will know what things are made of (and how), and be better-equipped to make these decisions themselves. Government rules can make jobs, but people thinking about such things can create wealth.

By: Art Carden

Art Carden — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:49:50 +0000

Thanks for the note. Your point about recycling is duly noted: one of the websites on the “styrofoam or paper” search said that this was part of one coffee shop’s business: their styrofoam cups were easier to recycle than their paper cups.

By: Brian S

Brian S — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 22:08:24 +0000

I'd assume you are probably right in that styrofoam cups require less energy in production than paper cups though from my experience in the valuable resource recovery (read: recycling) industry, I must say they are certainly not easier to recycle. Most regional markets do not recycle polystyrene products at all because the commodity is so difficult to transport and process. It's low density allows it to disperse everywhere when handled and results in high transportation costs considering its volume to weight ratio. The density of a commodity strongly correlates with its price in the recycling industry, considering that generally the price of: metals > paper > cardboard > plastics.Eventually, I think styrofoam cups will be replaced with cups made of input-efficient forms of biomass because of environmental health concerns regarding the release of aromatic compounds during styrene's degradation (see here). I'd assume for the shift in market to be very similar to the recent phasing out of polycarbonate water bottles and other products due to concerns of bisphenol-A's leachability. There is now an entire new line of "BPA-free" plastic products being marketed. This particular case provided an excellent example of the markets' ability to very quickly receive and answer consumer's health/environmental demands - all before the FDA had even released a statement regarding the topic other than that it was simply "under review".

By: Château de Gisors

Château de Gisors — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:19:20 +0000

yes it’s right CRC !

By: jl

jl — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:00:57 +0000

Yeah, I think oil subsidies is Democrat code for charging oil companies lower royalties than what _could_ be charged!

By: CRC

CRC — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:34:16 +0000

RE: "President Obama scored a point with me during the State of the Union Address when he suggested getting rid of oil subsidies."While I'm totally with you in supporting the elimination of all subsidies (to industry or others), I'd caution anyone in interpreting politician-speak the same way you would interpret plain English.I've heard tax breaks and tax cuts referred to as "subsidies." I've also heard politicians use omission as a way to tell the "truth" while grossly misleading their audiences. An example of this would be to refer to the large "subsidies" and tax breaks given to the oil industry (true) while (possibly) neglecting to mention that some or all of these are not specific to that industry and available to and used by other industries. It's a clever rhetorical trick.That said, yes, we need to end all special treatment for all special interests.