TO RECYCLE OR NOT TO RECYCLE

A Probe into the Effectiveness of Recycling

LEE ZHI YU
           

Just as what American historian and environmentalist Wallace Stegner said, the dump was our poetry and our history. Trash has always been inseparable from our lives. Among several main waste management options, recycling is perhaps the most debatable one. Throughout years, we have been taught, by schools and media, that recycling saves our environment. Either for our environmental well-being or for economic advantages, all of us engage recycling in a favorable way. Surprisingly, according to a garbage expert Heather Rogers, more Americans recycle than vote. However, does recycling really help environment? Do its benefits outweigh its costs?

Some critics think that instead of protecting our environment, recycling is, more often than not, counterproductive. The argument between the proponents and opponents of recycling generally centers on its cost-effectiveness, environmental impact and technological practicality. Both sides base their arguments on credible proofs and logical reasoning. However, deciding on the best waste management options to employ is not as clean-cut as we might have thought. While recycling works in certain areas and for certain products, it might backfire in other instances. Therefore, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of recycling as a waste management option, a comprehensive assessment on its cost-effectiveness, environmental footprint and technological practicality should be done.

Recycling, just as other human activities, involves cost and returns.  Advocates of recycling programs claim that recycling saves more energy than the production of virgin products. A research by the National Recycling Coalition shows that recycling aluminum saves 95% of energy used in the extraction of aluminum ore while the same applies to recycled newspaper which saves 40% of energy and recycled plastics which conserves 70% of energy. (Miller 35) Besides, they claim that the operation cost of a well run recycling program is much less than that of other waste management options

Besides conserving energy, proponents of recycling also claim that recycling dismisses the need for building a new costly landfill site. The founder of How Stuff Works, Marshall Brain, claims that a typical landfill costs more than $20 million to build and millions of dollars per year to operate (Brain par. 3). Despite a huge amount of taxpayers’ money spent, landfill sites are still bound by its own capacity. When it reaches its limit, a new landfill site which involves higher cost in complying with stricter environmental regulations and in purchasing the land must be built. If the recycling rate is sufficiently high, the need for a new landfill site can be avoided.

However, the opponents of recycling claim that recycling is inherently inconsistent with our economic system. The author of The Hidden Life of Garbage, Heather Roger, argues, “Garbage . . . is the lifeblood of capitalism. Ever more consumption is what keeps our economic system moving forward. Capitalist growth and profitability depend as much on the destruction of wealth as on the production of it” (Rogers 30)

They also argue that recycling does not always conserve energy as proven in comparative study of energy consumption. As what Office of Technology Assessment states in the book Facing America’s Trash, the savings of energy by recycling various paper and paperboard products can be easily offset by the energy needed to collect, to transport and to de-ink the waste paper. In addition, recycled papermaking could not generate energy on and for its own like what virgin papermaking could do with its byproducts such as lignin, bark and wood waste. The two aspects mentioned above are often left out in estimating energy consumption. Therefore, the cost effectiveness of recycling is highly questionable. (142)

While both sides of this argument carry some truths, I choose to stand in between them. I think that the economic viability of recycling is hard to be determined due to the uncertainty and volatility in the evaluation process.  Recycled products are, after all, commodities and therefore are subjected to the volatility of commodity market. Along with the supply and demand of the markets, economical feasibility of recycling varies according to time and place. On top of that, the total cost of recycling is often not completely reflected in numbers because there are certain costs not being internalized in statistics. The real cost of recycling and other waste management options might be higher or lower than what appears on paper. For instance, government subsidy for the production of raw materials would make recycled products to be slightly more costly than virgin products when it might not be the case. Due to such uncertainty, we should always judge which waste management approach to be employed on case by case basis.

Another aspect of contention is the environmental impact of recycling program. Its supporters assert that recycling generally avoids the depletion of natural resources by extending the lives of raw materials. For them, it is axiomatic that recycling saves our environment. Natural Resources Defense Council states, “It is virtually beyond dispute that manufacturing products from recyclables instead of from virgin raw material … causes less pollution … on the earth’s natural habitat and biodiversity” (qtd. in Shaw 21). Marc Gunther, in his Fortune magazine article The End of Garbage, also alleges that recycling preserves energy, curbs global warming and avoids landfill contamination.

The opponents of recycling regard these claims as misinformed and exaggerated. They believe that recycling is unnecessary and in fact, sometime detrimental. “Available stocks of those resources are actually growing, and there is every reason to expect such growth to continue if the private sector is allowed to continue performing its functions” (Shaw 17). This is because of ingenious supply and demand system and technological innovation. The price of natural resources is always nearly inversely proportional to their availability. Consumers and producers also alter their behaviors in response. As the price rises, producers are encouraged to scout for more resources while consumers start conserving. Consequently, the resource available becomes more plentiful through such market behavior. (Shaw 20).

Another point opponents of recycling base on is that despite popular belief, recycling does not solve environmental problems. “Even after the enormous exertions of America’s cities and towns to recycle bottles, cans, newspapers and other consumer products, seventy percent of the products we buy are still going to landfills and incinerators” (Spiegelman par. 5) and to worsen the situation, recycling does not stem our waste production from the start. It has, therefore, no bearing in influencing the production and packaging practices among manufacturers. (Rogers 36)

In my opinion, any course of action in tackling environmental issues inevitably has its impact, positive or negative, on our environment. However, due to our limited knowledge on the environment, we are often caught in uncertainty in dealing with any environmental intervention including recycling. To stay on one side of the argument in this issue is to be one-sided. To rise above this vagueness, we should adopt a flexible waste management strategy which allows continual refinement when additional statistics become available. Such flexible approach may include a mixture of several waste management options such as incineration with recycling.

Undoubtedly, recycling has become more efficient with the revolution of technology. However, the efficacy of recycling is bound by its own nature which could never be overcome with technology. It must be understood that recycled products or recovered materials must compete with both their virgin counterparts and other secondary materials. Recycling unavoidably weakens the strength of the materials, making recycled products less appealing to consumers. Therefore, infinite recycling is virtually impossible. This is especially true in the case of recycled paperboard used in products such as folding cartons, paper tubes and so on. As written in the Facing America’s Trash by the Office of Technology Assessment, recycled paperboard was beaten by plastics and other virgin products when liquid detergent producers replace cartooned granules with plastic bottles since 1990s (148.) This trend is even more apparent among the higher priced consumer products because consumers generally associate recovered products with inferiority.

Recycling activists, on the other hand, argue that the advancement of technology due to increased investment in recycling facilities over time has made recycling even more appealing. Companies worldwide are searching for new sources of recyclables. Previously unrecyclable materials can now be put into recycle bins with newly introduced technology. Lynn Brown, the vice president of Waster Management (WM), announces that the company is “introducing new things that can be recycled, such as a recycling program for compact florescent bulbs and batteries.” (McNamara par.13) The CEO of Electronic Recyclers International (ERI), John Shegerian, also believes that the process of developing new technologies will move rather quickly now and that it is just a matter of scaling processes to the level needed (McNamara par.17). Basically, they believe that latest developments in science and technology can solve all the inherent problems with recycling.

In my opinion, I think that the technological practicability of recycling varies for different materials. Therefore, we should not judge the technological feasibility of recycling as a whole. Instead, we should evaluate it based on the materials we are handling. While recycling works perfectly well for one material, this is not necessarily the case for another material. Besides, we could not and should not decide the technological viability of recycling as a whole just yet because the prospects in research to avoid degradation of materials are unclear.

As seen from the above arguments, we can conclude that in order to discern the best among all waste management options, a detailed and comprehensive assessment of their costs and benefits has to be done specifically for different geographic region and different demographic composition. Despite the uncertainty and relativity in this issue, we should not stay remain undecided as any delay in tackling waste issues would spell disasters. Recognizing the vagueness innate in waste management issues, we should employ a flexible approach in undertaking waste management issues. Doing so allows us to rectify our policy from time to time and thereby, minimizes errors in managing waste.

Works Cited

Berry, Jennifer. "E-waste Beware: New Shredder Is Big & Hungry." 19 Dec 2008. Earth911. 1 April 2010 .

Brain, Marshall. Economic Thought Question: What if we eliminated Landfills? 2009. 1 Apl 2010 .

Environmental Protection Authority. Recycling Cost Analysis and Energy Balance. Perth, W.A.: Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority, 1990.

Gunther, Marc. "The End of Garbage." Fortune 14 Mar 2007.

Lomborg, Bjorn. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

McNamara, Brittany. ‘Back to the Future’ With New Recycling Technologies. 26 Jan 2009. 2 Apr 2010 .

Miller, Debra A. Garbage and Recycling. Detroit: Gale Cengage Learning, 2010.

Office of Technology Assessment OTA. Facing America's Trash: What's Next for Municipal Solid Waste. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992.

Rogers, Heather. Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage. New York & London: New Press, 2005.

SHAW, JANE S. Eight Great Myths of Recycling. BOZEMAN, MONTANA: THE CENTER FOR FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTALISM, 2003.

Spiegelman, Helen. "Beyond Recycling: The Future ofWaste." 2003. Grassroots Recycling Effort. 1 Apr 2010 .

                                                                                                                                                                  

Comments are welcomed and encouraged on ZewSays.com, but there are some instances where comments will be edited or deleted as follows:
1) Comments deemed to be spam or questionable spam will be deleted. Including a link to relevant content is permitted, but comments should be relevant to the post topic.
2) Comments including profanity will be deleted.
3) Comments containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive will be deleted.
4) Comments that attack a person individually will be deleted.
The owner of this blog reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted to this blog without notice. This comment policy is subject to change at anytime.

Facebook Blogger Plugin: Created by ZewSays.com

Tweet