November 9, 2009

• KMSG
  English 101
  8 November 2009
  Recycling Versus Garbage
  Recycling has become a common and popular practice among people today. Companies remind customers to recycle their products, businesses have designated bins scattered throughout their buildings, and average citizens can help start their programs for their communities. But despite all positive claims people make for recycling and the increase in participation, is recycling truly beneficial? The question immerging today is whether recycling is an effective response to waste from an environmental, economical, and personal standpoint.
  Environmentalist’s main objective is to help earth by saving resources and avoiding as much waste as possible. They claim that recycling reduces pollution, saves resources, and eases the impact people make on the environment. Recycling cans takes less than a quarter of energy to make new aluminum cans than using virgin ore (qtd in Martin 103). Sam Martin illustrates the benefits of recycling by explaining that “If all morning newspapers read around the country were recycled, 41,000 trees would be saved daily and 6 million tons of waste would never end up in landfills” (107). On the other hand, Tierney argues “recycling newsprint creates more water pollution than making new paper: for each ton of recycled newsprint that’s produced, an extra 5,000 gallons of waste water are discharged”. Also, most trees are planted for the intention of harvesting and there is a market incentive for private landowners to replant trees- almost three million acres every year (Reed 155). Those opposed to recycling dispute that it does not reduce pollution and actually wastes resources. Recycling requires more trucks for curbside pickup which results in air and noise pollution. Anti-recyclers also argue that we produce twice as much output per unit of energy as we did 50 years ago and we use less resources due to improved engineering (Benjamin 79). The energy consumed to manufacture a mug and wash it is so much more than the manufacturing of a disposable cup that it would take 1,000 uses before the mug’s energy-consumption-per-use is equal to the cup (Tierney).
  The economics of recycling is another issue both environmentalists and anti-recyclers face. While recycling is a more expensive process, making and maintaining landfills is also very costly. The demand and value for recycled items is very low- many states have to pay in order to get rid of their recycled matter. But for other states, landfill fees are high, it is costly to transport the garbage to a distant location, and it is cheaper to recycle at a plant that is nearby. Tierney points out that recycling programs require administrators, campaigns to explain the rules, enforcement agents, and extra collection workers and vehicles. He also notes that collecting a ton of recyclable items is three times more expensive than collecting a ton of garbage. The market price for recycled materials is so low that some cities have to pay private recyclers to take it off their hands. On the other hand, recyclers insist that if communities treated recycling as a replacement instead of an add-on to disposal systems, split the collection crew in half, and replaced half its collection days with collection of recyclables, recycling would be a much more cost-effective and successful system (Platt). When communities recycle in high levels, it costs less than trash collection and disposal. Recycling also creates more jobs than landfills and incinerators, for things such as building recycling centers, sorting, and recycling-based manufacturing.
  Personal attitudes towards recycling are a critical contribution to its effectiveness. The more participation, the more cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly recycling is. One difficult problem recycling faces is many people view recycling as forced labor. It is a time consuming and occasionally gross activity when the recycling involves rinsing out materials. In contrast to the “forced laborers”, others consider recycling a morally uplifting activity and enjoy having a cause to contribute to.
  The choice to recycle can be based off of several decisions. Efforts to save resources and energy can be argued from both sides, with more support for some materials and practices than others. Money –your tax dollars– is an additional criteria that mainly depends on the area. Lastly, participation and personal convictions affect the effectiveness of recycling. Chaz Miller, an editor of Recycling Times, says “There’s been a messianic zeal that’s hurt the cause. The American public loves recycling, but we have to do it efficiently. It should be a business, not a religion” (qtd in Tierney). Now the American public has to decide whether they should recycle based on their belief systems concerning the environment and marketing.
   
  Works Cited
  Benjamin, Daniel. "The Benefits of Recycling Are a Myth." Garbage and Recycling. Ed.
  Mitchell Young. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2007. 79-80. Print.
  Martin, Sam. "Recycling Can Reduce Pollution." The Environment. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf.
  Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2005. 103-07. Print.
  Platt, Brenda. "The Five Most Dangerous Myths About Recycling." The Benefits of Recycling
  Are a Myth. Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Sept. 1996. Web.
  Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. MCC-Blue River Library. 19 Oct. 2009
  .
  Reed, Lawrence. "Recycling Is Often Wasteful." Garbage and Waste. Ed. Bruno Leone, et al.
  San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. 155-56. Print.
  Tierney, John. "Recycling Is Garbage." The New York Times 30 June 1996. Web. Opposing
  Viewpoints Resource Center. MCC-Blue River Library. 19 Oct. 2009
  .

  • 2:18 pm
  • 1 Comment