TiVo Community Forums Archives - Penn & Teller BS: Recycling

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Penn & Teller BS: Recycling
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: zaknafein

This was a very well done episode. They had a good outline, and made all their points extremely well.

It was hysterical watching them bring out bin after bin, 8 in total, and the people still didn't mind.

My absolute favorite quote:

quote:
Ahh subsidies. That's when the government takes tax money from you by force -- all tax money is taken by force -- and spends it on something that you wouldn't be willing to pay for in the free market. Subsidies support questionable or obsolete businesses, in the name of public interest, because the government doesn't trust us to do what's best for us on our own.

Posted by: mrboo

I've had suspicions about recycling for a long time, but it's something that is so ingrained in people that you don't dare suggest that it's a waste of time or they call you lazy for not sorting. I liked the lady who showed a theoretical landfill that would hold our garbage for a 1000 years. Why do those environmental folks want to tell us what to do? There was irony in showing the recycling facility in Burbank, when Burbank itself is a garbage dump.

Posted by: lfrazier

Great episode!
I made four VHS copies and gave them to family and friends.

Posted by: jamesbobo

I intend to watch this tonight.
It's the next show that will spark a lot of debate. Then again, we probably won't be allowed to.

PS. attn. grammar police: I know it's not correct to end a sentence with "to".

Posted by: ruexp67

My Tivo clipped the last minute or so, so I missed the ending, but I was rather surprised by their results. VERY interesting stuff.

Posted by: Chris Gerhard

Penn & Teller BS hasn't been as funny this season as the first season in my opinion. Recycling is not as bad as P & T made it seem with that episode. Clearly we have finite resources so recycling is a worthwhile concept. Some of the specific examples shown are clearly BS though so I agree with part of the show. To paint recycling with such a broad brush I don't agree with however. Fortunately hardly anybody watches that show and no damage to a worthwhile cause could be done. Although I often agree with P&T and believe I have seen every episode, I watch it for the humor and outrageous way they present their biased opinions as opposed to treating it as a serious news expose' type of program.

Chris

Posted by: rtype

I've been "anti-recycling" for a very long time and I can't tell you how good it was to finally see someone else stating my views. I don't expect to win people over--the emotion behind most people's motivation far outweighs any reasoning I can offer--it's just good to see someone else on my side, however small the minority.

Another thing this episode didn't really cover, though, is reuse. Reuse is very different from recycling. Glass bottles are kindof in the middle--when we "recycled" glass bottles, we didn't really melt them down and restamp them, we just washed them and refilled them. This went over well until quality control met litigation and lost. It only takes a couple of cut lips to make the entire process not profitable. This is why Coca-Cola comes in glass bottles in Mexico and not in the US. (When they shoot TV commercials in California for Coca-Cola with those big glass bottles, they have to import the bottles from Mexico--kinda funny.) Of course, Mexican Coke has sugar instead of corn syrup so it'd taste better anyway.

But I digress. Prior to the lawsuits, reusing the glass bottles was more efficient than making new ones and this is why lots of bottling companies used the returns.

Today, better examples of reuse would be used clothing, furniture, etc. or repurposing old computers by installing Linux on them and using them as routers or servers. A program called "free-cycling" exists in most cities now with the idea being that if you don't feel like "selling" something, you can try to give it away to someone locally rather than taking it to the dumpster.

The point here is that these things are worth examining for yourself. Blanket statements like "recycling is good" have caused us harm. IMHFO, recycling paper is NOT good. Recycling aluminum cans IS good (if it doesn't cost you more in storage and gasoline to get them to the nearest recycling bin). It's all case by case, but the point of P&T is "don't believe the hype."

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

Although this was a pretty good episode, I think they fell to a fallacy that they seem to be suffering from more and more lately...they pick idiots who don't know anything to give the opposing point of view.

While it might be amusing having regular people on the street spout stupid things about recycling, it really isn't terribly useful. Why not go after people who really ought to know better?

Posted by: rtype

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Although this was a pretty good episode, I think they fell to a fallacy that they seem to be suffering from more and more lately...they pick idiots who don't know anything to give the opposing point of view.

While it might be amusing having regular people on the street spout stupid things about recycling, it really isn't terribly useful. Why not go after people who really ought to know better?

They did have the guy from the EPA. Who are you suggesting?

Posted by: grecorj

quote:
Originally posted by Medieval Guy
Although this was a pretty good episode, I think they fell to a fallacy that they seem to be suffering from more and more lately...they pick idiots who don't know anything to give the opposing point of view.

While it might be amusing having regular people on the street spout stupid things about recycling, it really isn't terribly useful. Why not go after people who really ought to know better?

Because they're not going to subject themselves to a traditional interview.

I take what I see on P&T:BS with as much of a grain of salt as I take anything else. It is though-provoking to hear "the other side".

I especially enjoyed the PETA episode.

Posted by: Rob Helmerichs

quote:
Originally posted by rtype
They did have the guy from the EPA. Who are you suggesting?

A lot more from the guy from the EPA, and a lot less from the idiots on the street who don't know anything and shouldn't be expected to know anything.

My problem is that the show places a premium on getting people to say idiotic things, and it's a lot easier to get regular people to say idiotic things than experts, who might actually say something you'll have to refute. The show can be pretty lazy in that regard. That's why I think they're better when they go after true lunacy, like psychics or alien abduction believers--because most people DON'T have strong feelings about that, so they're forced to go to the people who are really pushing that sort of stuff.

Posted by: rtype

Where they place a premium is with people who will say the funniest things or say the things easiest to make fun of. The show is comedy first, anything else second.

Part of the point of the recycling episode was to show that these are normal everyday people who believe that recycling is beneficial (for the economy, for the businesses, for the individual and for the environment). They went out of their way to say they weren't talking about nuts this time, but ordinary people. To that end, it was important to demonstrate what the average person thinks, not just the most knowledgable people.

I'm always surprised that the people they do get to appear on the show sign the release forms. It could very well be that the bigger fish they've gone after have simply refused.

Posted by: kdmorse

Oh how I loved that episode...... (the others this season haven't been nearly as good)

Now, I've known most of what they have said for a long time (and by god, been unable to convince anyone of any of it). They however missed one of the other problems with wide-spread recycling. By getting everyone into it, getting everyone to do their part, people tend to get in the mindset they by recycling, they're doing all they need to do. It takes the place of conservation (water, electricity, gas, etc..), and people tend to be as wasteful as they want in other areas, because they are recyclers, and are doing their part to save the world.

Now, with 4 tivos, 9 computers, and more electronic devices than you can shake a fist at, I'm not poster-child for conservation. But at least I'm not bull$hitting myself...

Note: There are several nich recycling arenas that are good for the environment, the economy, and business in general. Aluminum cans are one as they pointed out. There are some very reasonable programs that deal with shredded/beaded glass.

But by and large, the vast majority of the recycling effort is pure unadulterated waste..

Plant a tree. Clean up a waterway. Feed the birds. Reduce pollution. Swerve to avoid that damn squirrel in the road. All better uses of time and money.

-Ken

Posted by: rtype

I've actually always questioned whether conservation should really be a priority since the problem is economically driven.

Let's say we have a non-renewable resource that is cheap to burn as energy. As we begin to use it up, the price will steadily increase.

Let's say we than have an alternative resource that is not so cheap to create energy. As we develop the technology further, the price will steadily drop.

Eventually, there is an economic nexus in which the new energy source is cheaper than the old one. "Conserving" buys us time, but that's about it.

Now factor in to this the that the old resource is pollutant and the new one is not. What does conserving buy us then? Less pollution today but more pollution over a greater length of time? Is one significantly better than the other? It seems six of one and half dozen of the other to me. The sooner you use up plan A, the sooner we move on to plan B.

Of course, conservation does make sense for the consumer. The less you consume, the less money you spend. But I have a feeling that most people who hype the virtues of conservation aren't really talking about just trying to save a couple bucks on their light bills.

Posted by: kdmorse

The problem with the purely capitalist model of resources is that it takes considerable initial investment to make the New resource, whatever it is, A) workable, and B) profitable.

Incremental improvements in the old way cost less, and tend to take priority over investment in the new way. When scarcity drives up the cost, the cost is passed on to the consumer. And the consumer doesn't have the resources to have any say in the matter.

Power production is a perfect example. If someone had sunk some real $$$'s into it over the past decade, we'd at least have a working prototype fusion reactor, possibly a production unit. Only in the last two years or so has anyone really been pursuing it, and at the current pace, planned ignition is something like 5 years away. (Fuzzy Memory - Could be way off on the current plans).

These days innovation is penalized in such arenas, as it's not profitable in the short term. Blah...

But that's way off topic...

-Ken

Posted by: Jonathan_S

quote:
If someone had sunk some real $$$'s into it over the past decade, we'd at least have a working prototype fusion reactor, possibly a production unit.

Or orbital solar farms, or terrestrial solar, or improved nuclear fuel recycling/safer reactor designs. There are a lot of places where sinking real $$$s would generate big gains in self sufficient/low polluting energy production.

Posted by: vman41

quote:
Originally posted by rtype
Glass bottles are kindof in the middle--when we "recycled" glass bottles, we didn't really melt them down and restamp them, we just washed them and refilled them. This went over well until quality control met litigation and lost. It only takes a couple of cut lips to make the entire process not profitable. This is why Coca-Cola comes in glass bottles in Mexico and not in the US.

I thought returnable bottles went away for drawbacks other than cut lips. Their weight adds to transporation costs and managing the returned bottles was a PITA for the stores (e.g. space and cleanliness issues).

Posted by: Beancounter25

Wow, guys. Some very interesting points on the economic factors of resource consumption! Actually gave me something to think about, which doesn't happen often in a forum about television!

Posted by: rtype

quote:
Originally posted by vman41
I thought returnable bottles went away for drawbacks other than cut lips. Their weight adds to transporation costs and managing the returned bottles was a PITA for the stores (e.g. space and cleanliness issues).

I think the only other factor besides litigation would be cost. I believe both the cost and the litigations would be liabilities of the individual bottlers, though, so there may even be a couple of places in the US that still do it. (Some bottlers do still do "christmas" edition glass bottles--though I don't know if they actually bother to take returns and reuse them.)

Posted by: jamesbobo

They showed two people who were willing to go along with their 9 or 10 bin recycling plan. I have to wonder how many people told them it was too much trouble and unworkable before they found those two.

Posted by: justapixel

What show is this?

I wish I'd seen it. I refuse to recycle. My husband has terrible guilt over it, and of course, in school the kids have assemblies about recycling. My 7 year old has already asked me why I don't, and seems to think I'm some sort of cretin.

Which I am, but that's beside the point in this particular case.

Is this show still available?

Posted by: Smiles

There should be encore performances following this week's Bible episode on the 6th. If not, you can use BitTorrent and get it (try the tvt.milfclan.com archives) - I believe it's season 2, episode 5.

And yes, I generally agree with P&T on the recycling issue. The only things I recycle are cans & bottles, mostly because I want my nickels back. When I started following waste issues in my town, I learned how much it was costing to recycle lots of things. There was a time when recycling paper could actually be profitable, but it hasn't been for a while now.

Posted by: jimborst

quote:
What show is this?

Penn & Teller BullSh*t on Showtime. I started watching when my video store had vol. 1-3 (season 1) and since I had been wanting to add a movie package the show persuaded me to get showtime. If you have a good video store try renting the first 3 volumes.