Conservation

We can clarify conservation issues by distinguishing among the following:
(1) unique resources, which are one-of-a-kind or close to it, and which we value for aesthetic purposes (Mona Lisa, MJ's basketball game)
(2) One-of-a-kind resources that we value as historical artifacts, (original U.S. Declaration of Independence)
(3) Resources that can be reproduced or recycled or substituted for, and that we value for their material uses (wood pulp, trees, copper, oil, and food)

Category 3 are resources for which we can calculate whether it is cheaper to conserve for future use, or use now and obtain the services they provide. A question is whether as individuals and as a society we should try to use less of these materials than we are willing to pay for. Answer:apart from considerations of national security and international bargaining power, there is no economic rationale for special efforts to avoid using the resources. 

You should turn off the light if the money cost of he electrical energy is greater than the felt cost to you of taking a few steps to the light switch and flicking your wrist. It is rational for us to avoid waste if the value to us of the resource saved is more than the cost to us of achieving the saving.

There is much confusion between physical and economic conservation. To "save water" by not flushing the toilets is not rational economics.

Worst-case thinking may be appropriate for safety engineers, but it is not appropriate for most everyday planning.

The conservationists do not believe that consumers will react rationally to changes in resource availabilities and prices.

Where costs do not settle the issue, the decision about what is conserved, and how much, is a matter of tastes of values.

Recycling is one thing when it is economically worthwhile for the person who is doing the recycling but another thing when it is done purely for symbolic purposes. People voluntarily recycle valuable resources and throw away less valuable items that take more effort to recycle than they are worth. Coercive recycling is actually more wasteful than throwing things away. It wastes valuable labor and materials that could be put to better use--creating new life, new resources, and a cleaner environment.