This sounds really interesting; I'll check that book out.
That said, I'm sympathetic to your parents sentiment. If I was taught correctly, the "reduce, reuse, recycle" arrow diagram is meant to be exercised in order:
1) reduce (your consumption)
2) reuse (a product or material in its existing state; repair if necessary.)
3) recycle (as a last resort - it's expensive, and if the usefulness of the current <thing> isn't completely used, you're wasting it.)
This is why I (for better or worse), don't take the Prius owners seriously when they look down their noses at my still 100% viable 40-year-old air-cooled VW.
I'm convinced the push for greater recyclability of vehicle parts is having a worse effect. A new VW is full of plastic parts which seem to have a ten year lifespan at best. Too many of these breaking render the vehicle uneconomic to repair. The result is that eh vehicle is scrapped and parts recycled. Great- except that recycling takes an enormous amount of energy, and building a new car and getting it to the consumer takes another enormous amount of energy (and materials). It would have been better if the original vehicle had a longer economic life.
That said, I'm sympathetic to your parents sentiment. If I was taught correctly, the "reduce, reuse, recycle" arrow diagram is meant to be exercised in order:
1) reduce (your consumption)
2) reuse (a product or material in its existing state; repair if necessary.)
3) recycle (as a last resort - it's expensive, and if the usefulness of the current <thing> isn't completely used, you're wasting it.)
This is why I (for better or worse), don't take the Prius owners seriously when they look down their noses at my still 100% viable 40-year-old air-cooled VW.
Edit: formatting, bracket-matching.
)))))))))