| Revision as of 02:15, 19 October 2006 editJoshua4 (talk | contribs)604 editsNo edit summary | Latest revision as of 09:10, 12 January 2011 edit undo68.3.119.83 (talk) ←Redirected page to Recycling#Criticism | ||
| (198 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}} | |||
| The following are criticisms of many popular points used for recycling. | |||
| ==Saves energy== | |||
| There is controversy on just how much energy is saved through recycling. The EIA 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 landfill methods. This argument is followed from the curbside pickup of recyclables, which critics note is often done by a second garbage truck 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. Aluminum 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, bauxite."<ref>Environmental Protection Agency Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> Recycling materials such as glass, paper, and plastic, however, is said to actually consume more energy than it saves "and it may even pollute the air more than just pitching this stuff in the trash."<ref>Machine Design Accessed October 18, 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 Institute for Local Self-Reliance argues that the cost of recycling depends on various factors around a community that recycles, such as landfill fees and the amount of disposal that community recycles. It states that communities start to save money when they treat recycling as a replacement for their traditional trash 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 a 1996 article for the New York Times, John Tierney 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 Solid Waste Association of North America (]) that found in the six communities involved in the study, "all but one of the curbside recycling programs, and all the composting operations and waste-to-energy incinerators, 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> 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 U.S. was recovered for recycling. <ref>Paper Industry Association Council Accessed October 18, 2006</ref> | |||
| Even without recycling, forests in the U.S. were never at risk due to paper production. 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"/> The amount of timber in the U.S. has been increasing for decades and there is "three times more wood today than in 1920."<ref name="A"/> | |||
| Economist ] has claimed that paper recycling actually reduces tree populations. 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 smaller forests.<ref name="landsburg">Landsburg, Steven A. ''The Armchair Economist.'' p. 81.</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.