Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua4 (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 19 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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." 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." 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."

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."

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 (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 waste-to-energy incinerators, increased the cost of waste disposal."

Creates jobs

Critics often argue that while recycling may create jobs, they are often jobs with low wages and terrible working conditions. Recycling jobs have seen mention in publications listing the worst jobs to work in. In areas without many environmental regulations and/or worker protections jobs involved in recycling such as shipbreaking 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." 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.

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. The amount of timber in the U.S. has been increasing for decades and there is "three times more wood today than in 1920."

Economist Steven Landsburg 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.

References

1. Energy Information Administration Recycling Paper & Glass Accessed October 18, 2006
2. Environmental Protection Agency Frequently Asked Questions about Recycling and Waste Management Accessed October 18, 2006
3. Machine Design Save energy: Don't recycle Accessed October 18, 2006
4. Waste to Wealth The Five Most Dangerous Myths About Recycling Accessed October 18, 2006
5. ^ New York Times Recycling... Is Garbage (article reproduced) Recycling... Is Garbage (article reproduced) Accessed October 18, 2006
6. HEARTLAND INSTITUTE Recycling: It's a bad idea in New York Accessed October 18, 2006
7. Alternet The Ten Worst Jobs in America Accessed October 18, 2006
8. Environmental Protection Agency Let's Reduce And Recycle: Curriculum For Solid Waste Awareness Accessed October 18, 2006
9. Paper Industry Association Council Paper Industry Announces All-Time High of 51.5 Percent Paper Recovery Accessed October 18, 2006
10. Landsburg, Steven A. The Armchair Economist. p. 81.