REFUSE TO REDUCE REUSE AND RECYCLE

I am only kidding. I don't refuse to do any of what the title says. Just want to grab your attention. But I am frustrated from both an economic and environmental standpoint.

"Reduce"

I love reducing my consumption. It saves me money. It can also free me up for other things, like having a "social life" and going "out" every once and a while. I need to get out more, if you couldn't tell already.

"Reuse"

Learning how to properly amortize purchases is key to living frugally. I had my phone for over 5 years until I finally replaced it. I wear my clothing until not even the poorest person will want them anymore. I purchase only food that I know I can consume before it goes bad. You don't need to look or live like a hobo to do this. Just take better care of your possessions. Purchase things that will last longer term.

"Recycle"

This one is more specific and nonsensical. You don't have to compost, but if you have the means, putting clearly biodegradable items into a pile and using the pile as fertilizer could end up saving you money. Many companies buy aluminum cans and glass bottles. That is the consumer side of things. But not everything that people want to recycle makes sense to recycle. Paper, for instance. It generally costs more to re-purpose used paper than it does to produce new paper. The energy and water usage is the key factor here. By recycling paper you are using more resources than by purchasing new paper and throwing out used paper.

The Three R's of consumer-oriented environmentalism are only environmentally considerate when they positively affect the consumer's budgeting and lead to savings instead of additional spending. That principle of positively affecting finances is a very important aspect to environmentalism. In fact, most environmental concerns boil down to economic concerns. I'll go through a few here:

-Overfishing/Overforesting/Overuse. This problem is based on the classic economic problem of "tragedy of the commons." (Look up for yourself). The best and longest-lasting solution to this problem is to implement property rights and enforcement of existing legal structures. Fish farms have increased in popularity over the past few decades. These enclosures allow people to "farm" saltwater fish populations without completely removing them from their habitats. There have been some concerns about overcrowding of these fisheries and polluting of bays, but there are technological remedies in progress for these. And importantly, the pollution of the bays affects the bottom lines of the fishers/farmers. They have the incentive to fix this problem themselves. Overforesting is a similar concern. The most often cited example is the Amazon Rainforest, and how it is being clear-cut at astonishing rates. The enterprises attaining the timber, in many cases, do not own the land. They just pay off the government through bribes to clear-cut the land. The problem is one of corruption and lack of enforcement than one inherent in economic growth or free market capitalism. Conservation efforts here seem to be the best solution, since we cannot depend on the government of Brazil to change them.

-Pollution (general). This problem is known in economics as a "negative" externality. "Negative" because it imposes costs on a third party without their consent. Polluting a river produces costs on those who depend on the river for livelihood. In common law, the precedent would allow the people downstream to sue the polluters for damages/demand payments for the portion of their business that was lost as a result of the pollution. Polluting the air is more difficult, but a case can be made in some instances. No one can own the air because of its over-abundance. Hong Kong has developed a problem with air pollution caused by automobiles, but this is being dealt with privately by donations to organizations that provide more efficient, less polluting means of transportation. Pollution in streets before automobiles came along was generally caused by the proliferation of horses as a means of transport. The solution was the invention and subsequent adaptation of the automobile. Horsey poop everywhere was no more.

Conclusion

Most major environmental concerns can be and have been dealt with through voluntary means, usually by adding up real costs in dollar terms. Technological advances typically save the environment the most. The USB-flash drive saved more trees than the EPA, automobiles replaced smelly, unsanitary horsey manure with more acceptable smog. Conservation and property rights have saved and will continue to save fish populations and lessen the pressure put on the Earth's natural environment. Technological advances that make profitable recycling (like those that occurred in the steel industry) or those advances that make more productive smaller portions of land (like those that occurred in the oil industry and the advancements in fertilizers and genetic modification in agriculture) is where our next major breakthroughs in environmental protection will occur.

What does the dog have to do with it?

This one is straight forward. The dog is ticked off by the anti-environmentalists who claim to be pro-environmentalists. The dog also dislikes Pabst Blue Ribbon but is going to recycle the aluminum cans after he takes a cute doggy-nap.