Something I kind of figured a while ago, but here's a little information on the topic:

The Free Market: Don't Recycle: Throw It Away!

So, there are a few reasons why recycling isn't all it's cracked up to be. More resources to collect it, more pollution to recycle paper, etc. Now, I'm not one to be wasteful for the sake of being wasteful, but honestly, why the misleading, 'world's gonna end if we don't recycle everything' attitude?

Keep it civil, please.

 

Liberalism aka communism is going to be the death of this country if people don't smarten up and do something about it.

 

I had to smirk the whole time i was reading that dated 17 year old article. Times have changed and so has a lot since then. No, we will never be able to recycle all and stop filling landfills. But i have watched two separate landills actually fill from deep pits to very big mounds on the outskirts of Tulsa. I have been watching them grow since 1998. It saddens me to think how many of these toxic giant mounds will we be leaving to our future generations? I can't even imagine how much toxic liquid from batteries, household chemicals, garage chemicals, etc....end up buried out of sight and out of some peoples minds. I for one, would never want to live near a water shed/aquafer source near one of these land fills. I'm really suprised that one of the two i've been watching is on the banks of a local creek. When it rains and that water level rises it's just carrying down stream all the crap that is leaching from the landfill.

I'm not a tree hugger or activist. But i do a small part in recycling most of our glass and plastic home trash. We dont have trucks that make extra runs in the city to pick it up. We drive by the recycle center that is on my way to work. I do beleive in recycling. My family and i just visited the Tulsa Zoo today and they have a bunch of new benches sitting all over the grounds. Lo and behold, when you look at their surface closely you can see they are made of the recycled bits of plastic. That was neat to see. I can just imagine how many plastic bottles and grocery bags that were used in the benches, so they did not end up in a land fill somewhere. Even the plastic decking at the home improvements stores is helping to reduce the landfills. If anything recycling is easier, and cheaper now than it was back in 1995.

 

I'd say with SOME things it makes more sense to recycle. Aluminum is an obvious example.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that recycling things like aluminum and probably plastic bottles is a good idea, and, of course the chemicals should be taken care of properly, but what's your opinion on the old newspaper ink leaching out as a result of recycling? And, it's hard to debate the fact that it takes more resources to accomplish the massive task of recycling: trucks, fuel, people, etc, yes?

 

It would create additional jobs - if people were willing to work them...

 

Paper decomposes quickly and safely so i think that recycling paper is a waste.

However, used motor oil generally becomes fuel for ships, boilers and or becomes recycled fresh motor oil, this is good.

 

It depends, has the city converted over their trucks to CNG instead of diesel? That could be a huge savings in greenhouse gases and mpg. Not all cities provide extra truck runs for just recycling manmade materials. If there were multiple drop off locations within a city then they could have the citizens drop off the separated recyclable articles into the storage trailers. When full the city could go empty them and put them back in the same spot for more filling. I would think that would be a more fuel efficient means of collecting the recyclables?......

There's more to the recycling paper than just the inks leaching out. That falls more into the conservation category. I would think that it takes more time for a tree to grow big enough for harvesting, than it would for humans to exceed the need for more paper. It takes years for the trees to grow. We watch the trees grow at our local Christmas tree farm every year. They use some fast growing Virginia pine trees and they rotate their land plots every 2 to 3 years to keep up with the demand. They use maybe a 15 acre plot to provide enough trees for a small city of almost 30,000 citizens. Now, not every citizen will buy one, but every year for the last three years they have just about sold every grown tree, including the ones they had precut and trucked in from other states. That is just a small scale tree usage example.

Now imagine how many thousands of big trees are harvested from the west/northwest regions of the country. We're told that many harvesting companies are replenishing harvested trees with saplings. That replaces the ones that man cut down, but they will take years to mature. In the meantime the human population is growing all over the globe. The demand for paper will only increase each year.

Also, the yearly wildfires have to be taking some big chunks out of the tree harvesting areas.


When you say it takes more people/resources to recycle than not recycle, those extra people are working in newly created jobs. I just took a look some products in my kitchen and found these advertise made with recycled product on the packaging: SOS pads, Glad trash bags, Ritz Crackers, Kashi granola bars, Ziploc food storage bags, Cheerios box. That was just a glance of some of the products. I could probably spend an hour looking at all our groceries to find more that actively advertise that they practice recycling. If recycling was really such a bad thing would so many companies be spending their time, money, advertising, etc on recycling?........ I dont think so.


Think about this:say if you and i just toss all our trash into a hole and not even try to recycle, and say we each live to 80 years. All we are leaving for a legacy to our children are toxic, buried waste mounds. But if we attempt to recycle/reuse even 30% of our trash, then that could be 1/3 less cubic yardage of trash, and a reduction in useage of natural resources.


Some other points to ponder; did the early western settlers think much about conservation of the great buffalo? Nope. It was just a nuisance animal that was killed to make room for domesticated animal grazing, and to collect it's fur and some meat. It was almost an extinct animal. Eventually it was brought back from the brink with conservation teachings.

Also, how much less destructive could the great Dust Bowl be, if the people at the time really understood and practiced soil and water conservation? So many people at the time did not have wind break trees on their fence lines. Greed and the urge to squeeze every penny out of every square acre of land for farming was more important than soil and water conservation. Have you ever thought about why so many man made lakes exist? Some are used for power supply but also for drought control. The past two years the area i live in has teetered on drought conditions. It's been very dry and bad for crops but there were still many lakes and running streams that provided water for many livestock and farm lands.

 

Statistical sources: (1) Office of the Federal Environmental Executive, (2) Environmental Defense, (3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (4) Natural Resources Defense Council, (5) Aluminum Association, (6) Biocycle Magazine, (7) Steel Recycling Institute, (8) American Plastics Council, (9) American Forest & Paper Association, (10) Resource Recycling Magazine. Oklahoma Recycling Association






1. Recycling costs too much.

Well-run recycling programs cost less than landfills and incinerators.
The more people recycle, the cheaper it gets.
Recycling helps families save money, especially in communities with pay-as-you-throw programs.
Recycling generates revenue to help pay for itself, while incineration and landfilling do not.

2. Recycling should pay for itself.

Landfills and incinerators don’t pay for themselves; in fact they cost more than recycling programs.
Recycling creates more than one million U.S. jobs in recycled product manufacturing alone.1
Hundreds of companies, including Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, and the U.S. Postal Service, have saved millions of dollars through their recycling programs.
Through recycling, the U.S. is saving enough energy to provide electricity for 9 million homes per year.2

3. Recycling causes pollution.

Recycling results in a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water pollutants.3
Manufacturing with recycled materials, with very few exceptions, saves energy and water and produces less air and water pollution than manufacturing with virgin materials.
Recycling trucks often generate less pollution than garbage trucks because they do not idle as long at the curb. If you add recycling trucks, you should be able to subtract garbage trucks.4
By 2005, recycling will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 48 million tons, the equivalent of the amount emitted by 36 million cars.1

4. Recycling doesn’t save trees or other natural resources.

94% of the natural resources America uses are non-renewable (up from 59% in 1900 and 88% in 1945). Recycling saves these non-renewable resources.1
With recycling, 20% more wood will need to be harvested by 2010 to keep up with demand. Without recycling, 80% more wood would need to be harvested.4
95% of our nation’s virgin forests have been cut down and less than 20% of paper manufactured in the U.S. comes from tree farms.4
It takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to make it from raw materials.5 Making recycled steel saves 60%, recycled newspaper 40%, recycled plastics 70%, and recycled glass 40%. Landfilling never saves energy.4
Recycling saves 3.6 times the amount of energy generated by incineration and 11 times the amount generated by methane recovery at a landfill.2
Using scrap steel instead of virgin ore to make new steel takes 40% less water and creates 97% less mining waste.3
Tree farms and reclaimed mines are not ecologically equivalent to natural forests and ecosystems. Recycling prevents habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, and soil erosion associated with logging and mining.

5. There is no landfill crisis.

Recycling’s true value comes from preventing pollution and saving natural resources and energy, not landfill space.
Recycling is largely responsible for averting the landfill crisis.
Most states have less than twenty years of landfill capacity —who wants to live next to a new landfill?6
The number of landfills is decreasing, while the cost to send waste to them is on the rise.6

6. Landfills and incinerators are safe.


Landfills and incinerators can be major sources of pollution. For example, leachate from solid waste landfills is similar in composition to that of hazardous waste landfills.2
About 1/4 of the sites on the Superfund list (the nation’s most hazardous sites) are solid waste landfills.3
Landfills are responsible for 36% of all methane emissions in the U.S., one of the most potent causes of global warming.2
About 2/3 of operating landfills do not have liners to protect groundwater and drinking water sources.4
Landfill owners only have to check for groundwater contamination for 30 years. What happens afterwards?

7. If recycling makes sense, the free market will make it happen.

Government supports lots of services that the free market wouldn’t provide, such as the delivery of running water, electricity, and mail to our homes.
Unlike most public services, recycling does function within the market economy, and quite successfully.
If the market were truly free, long-standing subsidies that favor virgin materials and landfills would not exist, and recycling could compete on a level playing field.
8. There are no markets for recyclables.

Prices may fluctuate as they do for any commodity, but domestic and international markets exist for all materials collected in curbside recycling programs.
Demand for recycled materials has never been greater. American manufacturers rely on recyclables to produce many of the products on your store shelves.
By the year 2005, the value of materials collected for recycling will surpass $5 billion per year.1
All new steel products contain recycled steel.7
Over 1,400 products and 310 manufacturers use post-consumer plastics.8
In 1999, recycled paper provided more than 37% of the raw material fiber needed by U.S. paper mills.9

9. We are already recycling as much as we can.

The national recycling rate is 28%. U.S. EPA has set a goal of 35% and many communities are recycling 50% or more.3
Many easily recycled materials are still thrown away. For example, 73% of glass containers, 77% of magazines, 66% of plastic soda and milk bottles, and 45% of newspapers are not recycled.3
We are nowhere near our potential, especially if manufacturers make products easier to recycle.

10. Recycling is a burden on families.

Recycling is so popular because the American public wants to do it.
More people recycle than vote.10
More than 20,000 curbside programs and drop-off centers for recycling are active today because Americans use and support them.3

 

Besides all that, we have a finite amount of resources. Why not re-use some of them? Maybe it is not 100% cost effective yet, but the only way to learn how to do it efficiently is to start the program and modify it as you learn what works and what doesn't?

 

Dude. Waaay too much info for one post! You fired off all your ammo at one time! Thread Killer!! (Good post)

Seriously, though, I believe there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. Your Christmas tree example indicates that trees are being planted in order to conserve.

I like the idea of the free market running recycling centers the way Waste Management runs the garbage industry. It seems like it would work. I also think people need for recycling to be as easy as possible, or they aren't as likely to participate. For example, how many people do you know that simply toss their soda can in the nearest can instead of holding onto it until they come across a recycle bin?

Also, from my original link, do you agree with the concept that the number of trees in the country would decline if we recycled more? A supply and demand issue: the paper industry cuts down trees for paper, then plants trees to replace them.

I also agree that with more recycling efforts, the industry will develop better methods, especially if there's some incentive to do so- again, the free market should facilitate this, given the opportunity.

 

As I stated above, it really needs to be incentivized for companies to do it.
Allow the free market to develop the technologies and, if there's a market for it, it will flourish.

 

my bad. i hope that was not a thread killer. if anything i'm hoping your stoking the fire of recycling debate opens the eyes to others to at least consider or try recycling.

As for the number of trees declining if we recycled more....there's really no telling. Honestly, when i went to school we used a ton of Big Chief tablets, posterboards, looseleaf notebook paper, and hard bound study books. Nowadays my kiddos, use Smart Boards in the classrooms, computers, and generally less paper than i did when i was a kid.

........but........in the future shouldn't we expect to see more urban development all across the country?....cant u just imagine the U.S. getting so populated that it ends up looking like China?....wouldnt all that encroachment warrant the need for tree removal to make room for houses, retails buildings, parking lots, roads, etc.....so i guess in the very very very far off future i could see less trees. But who knows. I'm only here for another 40 years or so, if i'm blessed to be here that long.

 

Well, I see recycling and conservation as more of a cost cutting benefit than a resource benefit. I think we should all use less paper when we can. If I use less paper in my home I save a little money, and businesses that do the same also save money. I re-use things when I can and try to use less when practicable. The navy was supposed to go paperless years ago, and has the technology to almost be paperless (truly paperless isn't really attainable, IMO). However, we still have the sailors who are separating sign 8 copies of their DD214 so we can send them to various agencies throughout the country, yet we could very easily have 1 or 2 copies, scan them and email them to the same agencies. So, on a large scale, most agencies are simply not willing to make the effort to use less paper. That's a little off track, but the same agencies ask their employees to save energy by turning off the lights and turning off their computers each night, yet they rarely have a receptacle for aluminum cans. As I stated earlier, most people aren't going to hold onto their cans until they get home to put them in the proper container. I think this could be addressed, if enough people made the effort. Maybe I'll drop a note to the director where I work.

As far as world population goes, there's a theory that the population will likely peak at about 9 billion, around 2070, then begin shrinking. I've also heard that 9 billion will happen around 2050, and that 10 billion is when it will start to shrink. Either way, most of us will be long gone by 2070 (I plan on being around well beyond 2050), so it won't matter if it's 9 or 10 Billion.

Here's a couple of links:
New World Population Peak Forecasted: 10.1 Billion | Planetizen
Global population to peak in 2070 - 02 August 2001 - New Scientist

Of course, everything is speculation, even if it is done with a very good computer model. The other worry is about space for all those extra bodies. I think most people will still reside in or around large metropolitan areas, and the vast open spaces we still have in the world will be vast and largely empty. This is just speculation on my part, but as the population of the world grows, so does the ability of farmers to grow more food, in better ways, for more people. Here's one more article about food production:

As world population heads toward a peak, Malthusian worries reemerge - CSMonitor.com

I think that Africa is the ideal place to supply a very large percentage of the world's food supply. It has the climate, the resources and the space. In fact, if it weren't for the horrible political unrest on the continent (and more specifically, Zimbabwe), Africa would already be providing a huge percentage of food for the world.

 

hehe...i dont put much stock in future number predictions. I remember in the mid '80s when the radio commercials kept telling us that we'd be out of natural gas resources in 25 years or less if we kept up with the demand. Here we are that many years later and the natural gas reserves are plentyful and in fact the state i live in provides a lot of natural gas wells, and more pockets are being discovered each quarter.