{"id":645,"date":"2018-10-26T23:30:36","date_gmt":"2018-10-27T03:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/commoncents.blogwyrm.com\/?p=645"},"modified":"2018-11-09T10:20:16","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T15:20:16","slug":"truth-about-recycling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/commoncents.blogwyrm.com\/?p=645","title":{"rendered":"Truth About Recycling"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019ve often wondered if recycling really makes sense.\u00a0 Before exploring some of the possible answers to this question, I'd better define my terms so that there is no chance of misunderstanding.\u00a0 By recycling I mean the usual gathering and separating of the various materials of modern life (e.g., paper, plastic, glass, etc.) for subsequent pickup, future processing, and reappearance in some other guise in consumer packaging or content.\u00a0 Contrast this with conservation, where the original material is saved and reused locally or simply isn\u2019t used to begin with.\u00a0 Conservation always makes sense \u2013 it is always better to not waste a thing \u2013 but recycling may be another thing\u00a0entirely.<\/p>\n

Despite the conventional wisdom that immediately insists that recycling is the \u2018green way to go\u2019, there are several possible wrinkles in a recycling scenario that may sway the logic one way or another.\u00a0 I\u2019ll focus on two questions central to the decision to recycle:\u00a0 1) is it better for the environment to recycle, and 2) is it economically viable to recycle.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The answer for question 1 seems obvious; any passing examination usually and unequivocally supports recycling, since it seems always better to recycle a thing rather than simply to toss it out.\u00a0 But deeper considerations usually lead to far less certainty.\u00a0 Take a moment to reflect on the fact that it takes energy to run a recycling program.\u00a0 Most experts agree that the energy used to recycle is usually less than the energy expended in creating the product from raw resources, but the recycling process consumes fossil fuels in order to take used content and transform it into recycled product.\u00a0 It is possible that the carbon footprint of a recycling process is larger than generating fresh from raw materials.\u00a0 In addition, other pollutants can also result.\u00a0 Paper processing, for example, creates a variety of unwanted fluids (effluents is often the name used) that have the vestiges of the dyes and inks and toner that once decorated the paper as well as the chemicals used to bleach the paper.<\/p>\n

In The Reign of Recycling<\/a><\/em>, John Tierney notes similar issues.\u00a0 Tierney cites Chris Goodall\u2019s book How to Live a Low-Carbon Life<\/em>, in which Goodall calculates that the carbon footprint associated with washing plastic materials in hot water that was heated by coal-derived electricity can easily result in more atmospheric carbon than is saved in the recycling.\u00a0 This undesired outcome results since recycling one ton of plastic saves just a bit more than one ton of carbon.\u00a0 The mandatory washing of the plastic prior to its pickup can easily tip the scales into a negative environmental impact.\u00a0 Plastic is not alone as a dubious recyclable.\u00a0 It, glass, and compostable materials (food and yard waste) are the worst three materials to recycle, with compostable materials resulting in 20 tons of released carbon for every ton of material processed.\u00a0 According to Tierney, the EPA estimates that more than 90 percent of greenhouse benefits come from a few materials: paper, cardboard, and metals like aluminum.\u00a0 He also stresses that modern incinerators \u2018\u2026release so few pollutants that they\u2019ve been widely accepted in the eco-conscious countries of Northern Europe and Japan for generating clean energy\u2019 and yet are completely banned from discussion in the U.S..<\/p>\n

In Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?<\/em><\/a>, Amy Westevelt argues that the recycling trend lulls the consumer market into a false sense of comfort, giving \u2018manufacturers of disposable items a way to essentially market overconsumption as environmentalism.\u2019\u00a0 Her point is that, while it is always a good idea to recycle waste and to conserve virgin materials by using less in packaging or content, reporting on modern recycling misdirects public sentiment to focus on rising recycling rates rather than the continued increase in consumption that has kept pace with or exceeded the levels of recycling.\u00a0\u00a0 She suggests that the backers of plastic recycling (American Plastics Council and the Society of the Plastics Industries, Inc.) sell recycling success as a way to distract or assuage the consumer conscience into believing that no change in behavior is warranted.<\/p>\n

Westevelt isn\u2019t alone in her concern about the environmental impact of this plastic bait-and-switch.\u00a0 As 5 Gyres suggests in The Truth About Recycling<\/a><\/em>, thinking that we\u2019ve solved the plastic problem by recycling is not only false, it also prevents us from fully appreciating the possibility of exploring alternative materials.<\/p>\n

Likewise, a careful consideration of question 2, based partly on the analysis of question 1,\u00a0suggests economic forces that point towards creating from virgin materials rather than recycling existing products.<\/p>\n

Michael Kanellos, in his article Profits Become Elusive In Recycling<\/a><\/em>, points out that the economics of recycling are as susceptible to the laws of supply and demand as any other business.\u00a0 If the commodity market stays high then there is financial incentive to dig into the \u2018garbage mines\u2019 to find value.\u00a0 If it is low, then the cost of recycling fails to support the value gained from the reclaimed products.\u00a0 Kanellos coins the term \u2018garbitrage\u2019 to describe the thin and fluctuating profit margins that the recycling vendor has to contend with to make recycling worth the effort.\u00a0 As an example, Kanellos presents the case of Waste Management, one of the largest waste haulers and processors in the US.\u00a0 In 2008, Waste Management was an enthusiastic recycler, looking to triple its processing load within a decade.\u00a0 By 2012, less than halfway through their program, Waste Management was reporting an operating loss for the previous 18 months.<\/p>\n

Investor\u2019s Business Daily recently ran an editorial, entitled Some Inconvenient Truths About Recycling<\/a><\/em>, in which they attack the \u2018article of faith in the U.S. that recycling is a good thing\u2019.\u00a0 They stress that mounting evidence is showing that recycling is a waste of time and money.\u00a0 The reason for this is the changing relationship between the U.S. and China, which had been the biggest importer of recyclable product.\u00a0 Given the current economic climate, China is effectively closing its shores to our waste.\u00a0 As a result, many of the activities associated with recycling are merely rituals that waste time and economic resources that would be more profitably spent elsewhere.<\/p>\n

All the commentators agree that much of the collected, recyclable material now finds its way into landfills, often after a lengthy preparation, collection, and sorting processes.\u00a0 Given the associated opportunity costs of these ultimately useless activities, we would all be better off by:<\/p>\n