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."
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
Reuse is becoming cheaper than disposal for lots of things.
Things might be different over there in the land of the freely available, but here in Europe, the push to recycle has as much to do with not generating waste. We're running out of space to put the stuff, and noone wants incinerators built near them, so every attempt to build one gets held up in court for years.
And yes, sand for glass is pretty damn cheap, but in some places, it can be a lot easier to turn old glass into new glass than to find a new quarry, or beach that isn't vanishing due to everyone driving down and taking sand and rocks for their gardens.
The economic arguments aren't all focused on costs of production, or sustainable use of resources anymore (since we're supposed to have learnt the lessons by now).
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
This is most obvious when Americans say "Our way is better because we make more money".
Recycling in the US is a mostly a political issue, the article you quote reads like a Microsoft apologist paper than anything else.
Resource management should be deemed successful using other metrics:
Reusing glass bottles rather than recycling them is an example. Others would be land fill usage and environmental contamination (like from all of our old electronic toys or air pollution from incineration).Also for recycling to be successful, it most be the norm rather than the exception and the end consumer must do the sorting and separation. Here, there is quite a large fine if you are caught not sorting your trash, and it is levied on all of the flats in the house, so generally your neighbors do not tolerate this sort of thing!
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Crunched glass is an essential component when producing glass: it dramatically reduces the energy needed to melt sand and form new glass (it melts at a lower temperatures and provides for better transfer of heat). So, not only recycling glass is good to reduce waste, but it is essential in the modern industrial glass-making processes.
I worked at a glass factory, but you could have at least used google to learn how the process works.
That's an important point.
: ;-)
A few years ago , our town's landfill, well, filled up.
But... due to a rather amazing bit of short-sightedness there's a two year delay in getting the new landfill online! What to do?
Well, in our case, they've gotten the Recycling Nazi's to take over operation of the landfill (which is rapidly turning into a large hill, there's a good view from the top).
Now everyone going in gets their load of junk inspected for anything recyclable by the Recycling Nazi's. Boxes / glass / paper / car parts / old fridges / oil / any domestic appliance gets taken and so on. The only thing that makes it to the landfill now is domestic refuse. Of course, when I use the phrase "Recycling Nazi" I'm being facetious - they're quite friendly and will happily sift through your junk without any effort on your part.
The upshot of this is of course
- Our landfill grows at a slower rate than it did previously. Which is lucky , because for a while there we all thought it would start blocking out the sun soon
- That one man's junk is another man's treasure and they make a bit of cash selling used parts cheap.(Eg I bought an A/C compressor for my car for $5, as opposed to $400 new)
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
> 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.
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.
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