As we’ve pointed out many a time if recycling makes a profit then we should do it - and someone will do it. Whether we maintain that glorious state of being a free market and capitalist society or not if there’s free money just lying around the steets of the city then people will scoop it up. Which is what profitable to recycle materials not being recycled are - free money just lying around. The logic here being very simple indeed, as people can profit from doing what is not being done - recycling - therefore someone will.

Impetus, support, subsidy and legal force are only required when the recycling is not profitable - at which point of course why would we employ any of those four to make it happen?

Which brings us to battery recycling, a part of that electric vehicle revolution:

Recycling could save about 38% of the carbon and 35% of the cost of mining the same materials.

Excellent, so that’s that problem solved then. Manufacturers of batteries will preferentially purchase the recycled material, people recycling will be able to make a profit. Given that battery recycling will be profitable we need use none of the four - impetus, support, subsidy or legal force - to make it happen because it’s going to happen anyway. Indeed, the argument that we need to use any of those four is an admission that it will not be, left alone, profitable and therefore we shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Note that we’ve not even got to bring in the carbon emissions part for this to be true - simple market prices do it all for us.

No, there is no useful argument that “it’s all going to run out if we don’t recycle”. Firstly, that’s all in prices anyway, secondly as Telsa points out (start on page 31 here) it’s not true anyway.

How excellent, we’ve just discovered yet another human problem that government need do absolutely nothing at all about. Which really just leaves us with the only important question - when can we start having less government?