| Revision as of 05:28, 1 February 2007 edit68.58.169.204 (talk) →Saves trees← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:10, 12 January 2011 edit undo68.3.119.83 (talk) ←Redirected page to Recycling#Criticism | ||
| (159 intermediate revisions by 88 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}} | |||
| The following are criticisms of many popular points used for ]. | |||
| ==Saves energy== | |||
| There is controversy on just how much ] is saved through recycling. The ] states on its website that "a paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber."<ref>Energy Information Administration Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> Critics often argue that in the overall processes, it can take more energy to produce recycled products than it does to dispose of them in traditional ] methods. This argument is followed from the ] of ], which critics note is often done by a second ] in addition to the truck that picks up the regular trash. | |||
| It is difficult to determine the exact amount of energy consumed in waste disposal processes. How much energy is used in recycling depends largely on the type of material being recycled and the process used to do so. ] is generally agreed to use far less energy when recycled rather than being produced from scratch. The EPA states that "recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, ]."<ref>Environmental Protection Agency Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> | |||
| Public policy analyst James V. DeLong points out that recycling is a manufacturing process and many of the methods use more energy than they save. In addition to energy usage, he notes that recycling requires capital and labor while producing some waste. These processes need to be more efficient than production from original raw material and/or traditional garbage disposal in order for recycling to be the superior method.<ref name="RPC">Regulatory Policy Center Accessed November 4, 2006</ref> | |||
| ==Saves money== | |||
| The amount of money actually saved through recycling is proportional to the efficiency of the recycling program used to do it. The ] argues that the cost of recycling depends on various factors around a community that recycles, such as ]s and the amount of disposal that the community recycles. It states that communities start to save money when they treat recycling as a replacement for their traditional waste system rather than an add-on to it and by "redesigning their collection schedules and/or trucks."<ref>Waste to Wealth Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> | |||
| In many cases the cost of recyclable materials also exceeds the cost of raw materials. Virgin plastic resin costs 40% less than recycled resin.<ref>United States Department of Energy Accessed November 10, 2006</ref> Additionally, an ] study that tracked the price of clear cullet from July 15 to August 2, 1991, found that the average cost per ton ranged from $40 to $60,<ref> Environmental Protection Agency Accessed November 10, 2006</ref> while a ] report shows that the cost per ton of raw silica sand from years 1993 to 1997 fell between $17.33 and $18.10.<ref> United States Geological Survey Accessed November 10, 2006</ref> | |||
| In a 1996 article for '']'', ] argued that it costs more money to recycle the trash of New York City than it does to dispose of it in a landfill. Tierney argued that the recycling process employs people to do the additional waste disposal, sorting, inspecting, and many fees are often charged because the processing costs used to make the end product are often more than the price gained from its sale. Tierney also referenced a study conducted by the ] (SWANA) that found in the six communities involved in the study, "all but one of the curbside recycling programs, and all the composting operations and ] ]s, increased the cost of waste disposal."<ref name="A">New York Times Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> | |||
| ==Creates jobs== | |||
| Critics often argue that while recycling may create jobs, they are often jobs with low wages and terrible working conditions. | |||
| <ref>HEARTLAND INSTITUTE Accessed October 18, 2006 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| These jobs are sometimes considered to be ] that don't produce as much as the cost of wages to pay for those jobs. Recycling jobs have seen mention in publications listing the worst jobs to work in. | |||
| <ref>Alternet Accessed October 18, 2006 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| In areas without many environmental regulations and/or worker protections, jobs involved in recycling such as ] can result in deplorable conditions for both workers and the surrounding communities. | |||
| ==Saves trees== | |||
| In a 1990 recycling awareness pamphlet the EPA stated, "Every ton of paper recovered for recycling saves 17 trees from being cut down to make new paper." | |||
| <ref>Environmental Protection Agency Accessed October 18, 2006 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| The argument for saving trees has been used consistently to justify the recycling of paper. In 2005 51.5 percent of the paper consumed in the ] was recovered for recycling. | |||
| <ref>Paper Industry Association Council Accessed October 18, 2006 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| ] ] has claimed that paper recycling actually reduces tree populations poop. He argues that because paper companies have incentives to replenish the forests they own, large demands for paper lead to large forests. Conversely, reduced demand for paper leads to fewer forests. Similar arguments were expressed in a 1995 article for The Free Market. | |||
| <ref name="FM">The Free Market Accessed November 4, 2006</ref> | |||
| <!-- if you have a problem with the valid sourced statements below, note your specific grievances in the talk page do not just unjustly remove them --> | |||
| When foresting companies cut down trees more are planted in their place. Most paper comes from pulp forests grown specifically for paper production.<ref name="A"/><ref name="FM"/><ref name="JWR">Jewish World Review Accessed November 4, 2006</ref><ref name="RPC"/> The amount of timber in the U.S. has been increasing for decades<ref name="FM"/><ref name="JWR"/> and there is "three times more wood today than in 1920."<ref name="A"/> Many ]s point out, however, that "farmed" forests are inferior to virgin forests in several ways. Farmed forests are less able to fix the soil as quickly as virgin forests, causing widespread soil erosion and often requiring large amounts of ] to maintain while containing little tree and wild-life ] compared to virgin forests.<ref name="baird">Baird, Colin (2004) ''Environmental Chemistry'' (3rd ed.) W. H. Freeman ISBN 0-7167-4877-0;</ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 09:10, 12 January 2011
Redirect to:
- From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.