Slashdot Mirror
Is Recycling Really Worth It?
sickofbluebins asks: "If one does a google on Why To Recycle there is a staggering amount of information on how recycling saves trees, resources, reduces pollution and generally is A Good Thing (tm). However, I recently read this article which comments that most recycling (besides aluminum) is not really worth it, and most of the recycling push is not based on science, but rather just by more politically based groups. I remember having people in my college classes be shocked when I informed them (being from a small town in the middle of logging country), that old growth forest was NOT being used for paper, as those trees produce the best lumber for things like houses and decks. The shock continued when I also stated in fact most paper comes from trees planted just for that purpose. All this makes me wonder how accurate the typical recycling information is.
So I ask you, Slashdot readers, have any of you seen a true 'scientific' study of the benefits (or lack thereof) of recycling, especially renewable resources such as paper. I would really like to know what recycling really helps our planet out, and what is just a bunch of hype."
At my high school there's a trash can and recycling bin in nearly every room. After school lets out, the janitor comes around and dumps both into his trash bin.
A quick comment on old growth forests. Preserving old growth forests has nothing to do with recycling or need. Compared to 150 years ago, old growth forests are nearly gone. I want old growth forests preserved because they are rare and valuable from a beauty and moral standpoint. Many who have been in a pacific northwest old growth forest know this. There is plenty (like most forest land) of other managed non-old growth forest land that logging companies manage. By cutting the last of the old growth forests, companies profit and loggers will lose their jobs. To imply that the ones who recycle (misguided, I agree) are ignorant need to look at the loggers who let their bosses profit while they lose their livelihood. These days, old growth forests are exceedingly valuable and rare and truely irreplaceable.
-Sean
I informed them (being from a small town in the middle of logging country), that old growth forest was NOT being used for paper, as those trees produce the best lumber for things like houses and decks.
While the second half of the statement is correct, the first half is speculation, and incorrect speculation at that. Old growth logging for paper does occur in BC (Canada), although most of the paper produced is for situations where high-quality paper is needed, not for writing paper in your three-ring binder. Blanket statements are A Bad Thing
The shock continued when I also stated in fact most paper comes from trees planted just for that purpose.
Correct, but your proposition leaves out a whole slew of other situations - you're stating that paper comes from either old growth or tree farms, ignoring exploitation of second and third growth forests in the public domain. Even though it's been logged, a large amount of it has recovered to the point of being relatively "virgin", yet is being logged again.
My own take on it: using trees (whether "wild" from a forest or "domestic" from a tree farm) to make paper is just plain stupid. We should use less paper or make it from other sources. Hemp or kanaf, for example, make fine, high quality paper, you get a much higher yield per acre and cause less soil depletion. Recycling would still be a good thing though in terms of cutting the waste stream on the other end, because even if the argument about "saving trees" was debunked, you still gotta figure out what to do with it on the other end, which is usually bury it or burn it, neither of which is a great solution.
Epilogue: From the website or your article's "source":
Heartland's mission is to help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people. Such ideas include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls a "a highly effective libertarian institute." Cato Institute president Edward Crane says Heartland "has had a tremendous impact, first in the Midwest, and now nationally."
So your premise is to debunk the "politically charged" assertions of environmental groups with "scientific "evidence, but you cite a right-wing libertarian think tank? Do I detect a little "small town logging bias"?
fuck you.
There needn't be a single, universal answer to this. It depends on the alternatives to recycling and the costs of each. For example, it may not make much sense to recycle steel if you live between an iron mine and a coal mine, but if you're in Japan, and have domestic supplies of neither raw material, recycling may make sense.
Another fact is the cost of the inputs, key among which is labor. If labor is cheap, picking through garbage to find glass, metal, and specific kinds of plastic makes sense. If it costs US$20/hr, it probably doesn't.
And finally, you need to consider the cost/benefit of your alternative, landfill or incineration. In some places, potentially recyclable materials, including some plastics, are burnt to generate electricity; this might make more sense than recycling. And if you're in Japan, recycling can also save valuable land from the dumps. That probably matters less in Montana.
.sig withheld by request
Environmental policy is, by it's very nature (pun!), ineffecient. Pollution is one of those rare problems that cannot be solved by a competitive free market. It's extremely difficult for people to "vote with thier dollars" for whatever company creates the least amount of long term negative environmental impact. Firstly, because that kind of thing is difficult to print on a label. Secondly, because nobody knows what the long term effects of what we do really is. So you have to dictate from the top.
But autocracy breeds corruption. And when you have to base your policy on "what if" and "just in case" and not, for example, 5000 years of careful scientific observation, the possibility for corruption becomes much more than a possibility. Corruption and waste run rampant in any system that is based more on faith and arguments from authority than on science because oversight and public scruitiny become extremely difficult, and environmental policy is no different.
Don't get me wrong. We need these laws...otherwise we go back to the days of rivers being so polluted that they catch on fire. But unless some serious and objective long-term study is done in all areas of environmental science, the solutions will always be very sub-optimal and may not, in fact, do anything to protect the long term health of the planet.
Next week: "Smoking is good for your health" by the R.J. Reynolds Institute.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Trees need to shed their leaves come winter in order to prevent this very vulnarable part of tree to become damaged and with it damage the tree itself. However these leaves represent a huge amount of resources for the tree. The energe invested in growing them is not a problem. It will have gained enough energe from them in return to regrow them next year.
The minerals however are another matter. Soil contains only a limited amount of the building blocks for leaves and for that matter the tree itself. Were shedded leaves simply to remain indefinete then two problems would occur. Sooner or later the tree would be unable to find any more nutrients in the soil. Hence no more leaves == no more food and the tree would starve. However it would also starve as any leaves it could grow would be covered under a pile of old leaves.
Fortuanlly shedded leaves decompose and the nutrients in them return to the soil. This prevents the soil from becoming starved and stops the earth being covered in huge piles of leaves.
So how does this apply to us? Well take packaging material like glass. It is cheap to make requiring a few cheap chemicals sand and power. Power is cheap sand is cheaper and as said the chemicals involved are also cheap. So why do we recycle glass? Not because the resource is limited. We are not likely to run out of sand anytime soon. Power is more restricted but recycling glass requires a similar amount of energy.
No the reason is to save us from being buried under a mountain of glass. Unless you want to live next to a garbage dump you better recycle glass. It is either used to make new glass or it will just be around forever and ever. (glass does not decompose ever)
Recycling metal is different. Metal ore is a far more finite resource. Yet old metal does decompose. Left long enough it will rust. So why do we recycle? Because it is cheaper in the long run. Every recycled can means less ore needed to be processed to produce replacement metal. Unlike glass recycling metal cost less energy.
So recycling has two goals.
To reduce the amount of waste we have to get rid off and to reduce the strain on the supply of the resource.
So does most recycling help? Wrong question, does recycling hurt? Yes to some it does. I bet you a small fortune that these are the same people that drive a 2 ton car all alone, who think speed limits are a restriction of their civil rights, that taxes are a way to keep them down, that women who don't date them are lesbians, that people with other religions/politics are stupid.
In short assholes. Do you want to be an asshole? No then buy four waste bins and one basket. 1 for paper. 1 for glass. 1 for food remains and finally one for all the rest. The basket is for all the stuff like old tv's fridges batteries and the like. How much time will it cost you to seperate them? Zero. How much time will it cost you to empty them? 1 hour extra per week max. Small price to pay for not being an asshole.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
> it would require a hole that is 44 miles on each side and 120 feet deep. This is a mere one-tenth of 1 percent of the land area of the continental United States. As the report concludes, "there is sufficient land available to continue [our] reliance on landfills."
Way to totally miss the point, Mr. Article! Clearly a 44mi x 44mi hole in the ground is possible (I nominate somewhere in Utah) but the fact is that in our large cities, we have nowhere to put the trash. NYC is a great example of this. We recycle because it's something else to do with the trash besides truck the sh*t to some inland landfill. In other words:
There is no more room, convenient to the cities where most people live (and therefore most trash is generated), for our trash to be dumped. This means either (A) urban/suburban residents paying the garbage company [no, not SCO, the other kind of garbage company] exorbitant amounts of money to haul garbage in a truck to someplace like Utah, or (B) reducing our trash output by whatever means is possible.
I'll take B.
Nobody wants the 44mi x 44mi x 120ft hole in their back yard. I have a sister who lives in Utah, and I've visited there, and they TREASURE their land. (So do we in Vermont, for that matter.) To get one Utah opinion that is shared by many (though assuredly not all) read the works of Edward Abbey.
Perhaps the best place for the landfill is next door to Roy E. Cordato's house or the Heartland Institute, though I'm sure they'd prefer it be next door to someone of lower income.
So many of these rants sound to me like, "Just let me keep making money, and keep my money, and don't bother me with these silly 'issues' and 'consequences.'"
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't have a source, but Minnesota grows a lot of paper trees, and the logging companyes prefer popal, which grows very quickly, lots are generally logged every 10 years or less. An Oak tree can live for 300 years, but it grows slowly. Popal grows much faster.
If this is really what the package read, then you can see how they got this past the advertising standards people: Tumble drying is highly inefficient, burning lots of energy just to evaporate water. If, instead, you machine washed the cloth diapers and then hung them out to dry, the environmentally friendly advantage of the disposables would disappear. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be doing this, but the disposable diaper company clearly stacked the deck when they made this claim.
Well, thing about it this way, is it cheaper to recycle or to create new from scratch? If it's not cheaper, then recycling is probably actually bad for the planet. Generally money is eventually tied to recources, i.e. natural resouces. At some point, that extra money you spend to recycle translates to extra electricity (read, burn more oil), extra man-power (and all the cost of keeping a human housed, fed and entertained), or some other extra resource being used up down the line.
Much in the way that electric cars don't reduce pollution (just redistribute it out of the cities to the power stations), recycling doesn't always reduce the impact on the environment... it just redistributes that impact to somewhere else.
Transportation costs are a major factor in recycling glass. This results in a finite radius around glass plants in which it is economical to ship recycled glass back to the manufacturer. Transportation costs are also why you will typically find glass plants located close to sources of glass grade sand such as the Saint Louis area. Given that commodity prices for industrial grade sand is roughly $18/ton, see USGS mineral commodity summary, it doesn't take many miles before transportation costs become prohibitive.
Transportation costs are also environmentally important. It doesn't make sense to recycle something, if the environmental cost of increased fossil fuel usage to transport the material outweighs the recycling benefits
The primary benefit of plastic bottles over glass is consumer safety. Plastic bottles don't fracture into razor sharp shards.
Mixed glass (clear, brown green) is a major problem in glass recycling. Clear glass is produced in the largest tonnage, but it doesn't take much brown or green glass contamination in the cullet before it is unusable for producing clear glass. Higher percentages of mixed glass can be tolerated in colored glass production, but they aren't produced in the tonnages of clear glass and could not consume the volume of mixed glass cullet. This is why segragating recycled glass by color is so important.Of course, there are alternative uses of recycled mixed glass cullet. One of which is glasphalt. The advantage being that recycled glass can be used locally without incurring prohibitive transportation costs.
Logic is not Divine.
sorting metal is easily done by the factory using an electromagnet...
The automotive industry is also the largest consummer of recycled steel...
It doesn't matter whether it's an SUV or a zero emissions electric car -- they're both made of metals ...
It requires less energy to re-smelt the metal than to extract it from the ore and process it from scratch (although they're often mixed new with recycled to control the final mixture)...
The last time I tried to calculate the amount of energy saved vs. the energy expended by recycling Aluminum or Paper, I couldn't make it even close. The real problem environmentalists miss is the energy issue - we are going to run out of energy long before we ever come close of running out of Alumininum. Aluminum recycling is particularly stupid because it's so cheap to refine in mass quantities.
Bottles work to recycle, if like in most of Canada, they are washed and reused instead of broken down and remelted. I remember the numbers being a little closer for glass, depending on the type.
The problem people forget is nothing is free. You need to collect the material. That's energy. Then you need to transport the materials to a center, where they are trucked yet again. All the while burning gasoline and diesel - don't forget those emissions in your calculations. Then you need to expend more energy to reduce the material to a simple state, then more energy still to reform it. The end product often needs to be recombined with unrecycled material to get an acceptable grade of finished product.
Do the environmentalists have any idea how paper is recycled? It's not friendly - you need very powerful chemicals to break up the bonds to reform into pulp. Where do you think those chemicals go when they're used up?
The sad thing is often it makes more sense to throw it away. Recycling is DEFINATELY not based on a solid background. It is a feel good, useless exercise to make children and ignorant adults feel better about their MASSIVE impact on the environment.
If you REALLY care about the environment, live close to where you work or telecommute so you don't have to drive and waste gas. Drive a small car. No, you don't need a SUV. Yes, they're nice. Use LESS material. Buy material in BULK so you don't have packaging. Limit your consumption of electricity. If you really want to help, don't have more than one or two children. If you're not selfish at all - don't have ANY children. Those things will make a real impact.
Recycling a bottle just makes you feel good, because the government must be right.
Show me the science. Recycling, until then, remains a bad joke. There is no shortage of land for landfills. There is no shortage of trees. Trees are the least of our problems. There is certainly no shortage of either iron or aluminum in the earth's crust. There is no shortage of silica. What there IS a shortage of is ENERGY. Wars are being fought over oil - thousands of people die over oil. Many more will in the future. People do not die over glass bottles.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Do you know where this expression came from? Do you know why recycling is last on that expression? Because it doesn't work.
Rant off.
..don't panic
You mean it wastes labor resources that could be better used for other things?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
The article is idiotic in places and long on speculation in others.
But what do you expect the Heartland institute is a propaganda arm of the politically active corporate sector. And this is not even a liberal/conservative argument, there are plenty of conservatives who embrace environmentalist arguments. This is a political conflict between economic interests who have heretofore not had to pay for the costs associated w/ pollution generated by their product and services(known in economics as externalities) and the rest of the world that is increasingly tired of giving the aforementioned interests a free ride.
It is by coff... er, will, alone I set my mind in motion...