Swedes Say Recycling Wastes Time And Money

Rob Parkhill writes "The London Daily Telegraph is reporting that a group of Swedish environmentalists are claiming that recycling is a waste of time and money, and most houshold waste should be burned instead."

Comments

Environmentalists never wanted recycling

[GuyMannDude]

(Out of curiosity, why is it that questioning environmentalist dogma is only valid coming from Scandinavians?)

The "recycling saves Mother Earth" viewpoint was never really from the environmentalists. I remember back when recycling was first being considered in America -- the environmentalists were the only group opposed to the idea. The reason is simply that they wanted the responsibility for trash to be imposed on the corporations producing the junk rather than relying on the volunteer efforts of consumers. For the politicians, the recycling plan was absolutely brilliant. By passing it, they could convince the masses that they were doing the environment a favor. Passing the bill also kept their corporate campaign contributors very happy. And most of all, people could get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside everytime they went to the recycling center, knowing that they were doing something good, all thanks to Senator Whatshisface.

Recycling was never part of "environmentalist dogma". It was simply a very clever trick cooked up by politicans.

GMD

This is just business rubbish.

[Nathan Ramella]

They include Valfrid Paulsson, a former director-general of the government's environmental protection agency, Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, and the former managing directors of three waste-collection companies.

None of these people are environmentalists. One is an Ex-Government mouthpiece, a former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy (former is the key word here), present occupation sounds like Waste-Management Lobbist and a bunch of waste collection companies. And their argument is purely money oriented. Waste-Collection companies find that it's unprofitable to recycle. This isn't about what's really good for the environment.

What would be best? Using less! But people won't do that. They like the convienence. They don't want to have to remember to bring a Nalgene bottle with them everywhere they go. They want to say 'Ah, I'm thirsty, and only poor people drink out of drinking fountians, and there isn't one around here anyway, so I'll plunk another dollar down for a bottle which I'll promptly throw away.

The truth of this is, recycling in the long run probably isn't cheaper, but it is better for the environment. By recycling, we keep our finite resources circulating rather than throwing things away.

So, boohoo if the waste management companies don't want to recycle. If the government is forcing these programs on waste-management, voters should support subsidies to waste-management to ensure that recycling continues.

So while it's about profit, sometimes you have to pay more to do the right thing.

The gluttony of resources at rock-bottom prices is just unrealistic. Nobody wants to pay the true price now. They just want discounted convienence by making future generations pay the price. The headline on this story is misleading.