Clearly the terrorists would stop if Russia, England and others just removed all their bases in those countries and went home.
Here's something a little interesting that sort of demonstrates the law of unintended consequences....Berkeley to charge for recycling.
With less trash going into the garbage can, people are shifting to smaller can sizes. That is putting less money in city coffers - even after a 20 percent garbage rate increase last year. But the recycling and composting services once billed as free continue to grow...........
.............The decrease in garbage isn't just about recycling and composting. It's also tied to the economy. As consumption goes down, so does the amount of packaging and nonrecyclable waste that goes into garbage cans.
Etherington said it actually costs the city more to pick up and process recycling than garbage - $53 a ton versus $45. In the past, recycling mostly paid for itself through the resale process. But that's no longer the case.
Commodity rates for many recycled goods have plummeted. Paper went from being worth $187 a ton in July 2008 to $46 a ton in January 2009 and $116 a ton in December 2009, according to city staff. Aluminum went from $1,908 a ton to $679 to $1,200 in those same periods.
Some residents say scavengers, who raid curbside blue bins for the most valuable recyclables, are the reason recycling is less profitable.
Now just to make you aware, this sort of thing happens OFTEN in California. We have some of the most stringent laws out there with regard to recycling, waste management and also conserving energy. My problem isn't with those laws per se. The problem is the law of unintended consequences which is well known by many of us at the beginning and is just dismissed as bad intentions. Noting something like that when people consume less and produce less trash, the amount of revenue will go down but the government will still want the same amount of cash is dismissed as just lunacy. Many such plans are pitched as money savers and we are told that we will basically end up with a better result for the same cost or, basically a freebie, the same result with much lower cost due to some secondary benefit being mandated.
The reality though is that this isn't so. When people stop smoking, the government has to find another source of revenue. When they drive less or switch to more fuel efficient cars, suddenly we don't have enough gas tax money. In Berkeley, where people have clearly done very well with managing waste, costs are going up, not down. All the secondary markets that were supposed to provide the freebies have of course collapsed due to everyone piling into them. This article doesn't address it but I would bet if an accurate study were done it was a government subsidy that propped up the price in the first place.
Does that mean I'm opposed to recycling or composting or similar such measures? No, not at all and we absolutely recycle at my house and the chickens are part of our composting process. However on the flip side, don't act like a condescending idiot when people declare that this will cost more down the road and that there are no freebies in the world.
We can't all be in this together and then have something change and not have it affect us all. This is true be it health care, trash, you name it. Often the numbers can be bent in one direction initially but in the end they will revert to the mean. Everything always does.