As the Worm Turns

Let’s take this tidbit by Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek:

I don’t recycle my trash because my time is too precious for me to spend it sorting such items into different containers. I never criticize those who do recycle, but environmentalists point accusing fingers at us nonrecyclers. In environmentalists’ eyes, those who unquestioningly disregard the value of one resource (time) in order to spend it on the conservation of other resources (wood, plastic and glass) are righteous while those of us who value and conserve time are sinners.

I don’t think that’s quite right. I think it’s perfectly valid — in fact, it’s a moral imperative — to criticize others for not recycling. So where do Boudreaux and I disagree?

What seems weird is comparing the value of one resource — time — to the value of the resources conserved through recycling. Boudreaux values his time more than he values the wood, plastic and glass conserved by recycling. So we can infer that those who do recycle must either value their time less or value wood, plastic and glass more. Right?

Wrong. This is obviously false. My decision to recycle isn’t based on the value of the recycled resources at all; after all, it takes me the same time — as measured by the time it takes to drag the smelly green bin to the curb once a week — to recycle one glass bottle as it does to recycle piles and piles of newspapers and the cans left from cases and cases of diet soda. And I get the same value in return for conserving in both cases: nothing.

It’s a central tenet of economic analysis — and the assumptions of decision theory that underlie it — that rational actions reflect preferences. If I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, then it’s rational for me to trade my time (as mediated by money earned) for chocolate rather than vanilla. So if I am deciding to trade my time in order to recycle, this decision has to reflect some fundamental preference of mine. What, then, do I prefer to my time if my recycling is to be rational?

I prefer being a good citizen. I prefer to act ethically. I’m willing to trade a bit of my time in order to do the right thing. And Boudreaux should feel the same way.

There aren’t many fundamental principles that must be shared by members of a pluralist society.[1] But conservatives, liberals and libertarians all agree that one is absolutely essential: the duty of non-interference. I have no right to stop anyone from utilizing their rights. This is, in fact, the only duty that is categorically required.[2] I can do (almost) anything I want so long as my actions don’t keep anyone else from doing their thing.

This duty, as far as I can see, holds across generations, within the bounds of a reasonable discount rate (i.e., obviously the future is worth less than the present, but that doesn’t imply that the future is worthless compared to the present). On any moderate, plausible forecast of the future, if we don’t conserve our resources then we will be violating our duty of non-interference, since we will leave future generations a world incapable of sustaining our present levels of development — either by exacerbating the greenhouse effect or by using up non-renewable resources at a rate faster than they can be replaced by technological alternatives.

So the duty of non-interference forces us toward some level of environmental stewardship. Do we all have to drive electric cars? Ban all fossil fuels? Return to a pre-industrial agrarian lifestyle?

No.

Again, on any moderate, plausible forecast of the future, the steps we need to take in order to fulfill our duty toward future generations will be small. Bringing the price of driving in line with costs incurred to society at large would be a start.[3] Using compact fluorescent bulbs would be another. But one of the biggest positive steps is recycling. While recycling isn’t cheap (the market for recycled materials is rather soft, so recycling programs usually exist through government subsidy), it is an effective way of reducing our impact on future generations.

So if Boudreaux accepts the duty of non-interference, he should take a wee bit of his time and recycle his glass, wood and plastic. Otherwise he is violating his ethical duty as a citizen. I would never call him a “sinner” — what with me not believing in sin — but I will call him out for failing in his civic duty.

[1] This was the core of the Linker/Yglesias discussion I’ve mentioned before.

[2] Obviously this absolute duty gets cashed out differently in each political ideology. Liberals see capitalism as interfering with the right to self-actualization. Libertarians see taxes as interference with the right to enjoy the fruit of one’s labors. Conservatives see gay rights as interfering with their right to be… well, conservative no-think-um wingnuts. But nothing in my argument hinges on these differences.

[3] John Derbyshire has an interesting discussion of this point in relation to New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to charge people for driving into Manhattan.


Hat Tip: I stole the idea for the internal ping-pong footnote links from The Barefoot Bum. Told ya I like hyperlinks.

Technorati Tags:
Environmentalism, Global Warming, Politics, Economics, Libertarian, Recycling, Don Boudreaux