Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?
 |
| Waste water from recycling paper. |
This article is about recycling, but rather than positively, the author takes a negative view. The article at the beginning admits that the idea of recycling is good and in the beginning it did seem good to renew used resources. That's about as positive as the article gets. It then says that while recycling rates are rising fast, consumption of resources is also rising. This is because "American consumers assuage any guilt they might feel about consuming mass quantities of unnecessary, disposable goods by dutifully tossing those items into their recycling bins and hauling them out to the curb each week." The article uses the plastic industry as an example, saying that while it tells the public to recycle plastics, the industry also helps consumers justify the use of plastics by believing anything they toss will be recycled and everything will be better.
When the demand for a recycled material drops, it is then stored in a warehouse with the hopes of demands rising again. If demands don't rise however, the material is sometimes dumped into a landfill which is where the materials would have gone anyways. Another problem with recycling is that people need to recycle things correctly for it to work. Someone has to first dispose the right materials correctly, then it has to be collected, and then the recyclers have to find someone to sell the recycled products to.Some things can be recycled but aren't because of the chance of cross mixing with something else. The article uses the example of PVC and PET, both look alike but will cause a brown resin if mixed, which then has to be thrown out as waste. This is the same reason bio-plastics aren't recycled either.
Another problem with recycling is the emissions from the recycling centers. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted is greater than if people were simply told to use less resources. Even with low energy recycling processes like glass and plastic, the particles emitted are still pollutants. In a recent study, it is shown that recycling centers were one of the Oakland's polluters.
Opinion:
I find that this article is informative, and unlike a lot of things I've read before finding this article, it actually has links to external sources. I find it strange to think that what we've considered good for the environment may actually be negative. The idea that even after all the energy used to recycle something it may still end up in a landfill, not by consumers but by the recycling plant. The main problem with this is that it would have been less energy to just throw out the item. This article is not going to stop me from recycling completely, but I'm probably going to think through what would have the least impact first.
Questions:
- Is this article lying or are the pro-recycling articles lying?
- Is it possible to develop a more efficient way to recycle in the future?
- Is there anything people should still recycle even with the problems?
Is it weird to watch My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic? How about Legend of Korra?
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteI find this article to be, as Nam said, informative. I did not however, find this article anti-recycling. It is true that it points out the process and follow through to be spotty, and often misleading, but it also states that the concept is good. This article is purely anti-method, possibly even anti-capitalist (Kommunist anvone?), but not anti-recycling. The article says that it should be done, but it is not done properly as of now. I find that this article is mostly a call to reform (arms?), neither an anti-environmental tirade nor a pro-environmental preaching.
Answer to thoughtful inquiry:
1. As I have stated, I believe that this article actually is pro-recycling. I also do not believe that it is lying. Most of the time, the secrets of the underbelly of the upper crust of society's secrets do not come crumbling down until LONG after their moronic plans reach critical mass and meltdown. Kind of related is Joseph Stalin. We're STILL finding out about all of the nasty stuff he did!
Over-analysis of nonsensical inquiry:
4. The interwebs were founded by geeks, nerds, and weirdos like us, Nam, ergo your argument is invalid.
opinion:
ReplyDeleteThis article is very unique to me. This is the first article I have ever read that explains the negative affects of recycling. It shows how bad recycling can be if nobody wants to use or buy the products. This is very interesting. I have never thought that recycling could be harmful to the environment and use up too much of our resources. It also takes a different perspective than I thought it would. Instead of saying not to recycle it is saying to do it more efficiently. This is a very good point.
Answer to a question:
1. Neither are lying. They both have good and bad points, but they all lead to the same goal which is helping the environment. This article is a little bit better because it talks about how recycling needs to get better while others just give posotives.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteI found this article actually quite enlightening. Its interesting and at the same time scary to see something you had always viewed as positive, in such a negative way. I'm personally a big fan of recycling, and my family takes it very seriously. Making this all the more devastating. It really makes you question whether we are really trying to help the environment, or using recycling as a front to make ourselves feel less responsible for the deteriorating state of our world. This article also made me question what other presumably "environmentally friendly" processes are being falsely carried out.
Answer to Thoughtful Question:
1. This reminds me a little of what we are working on in class with pro/anti-fracking. Its not that either side is lying, each side has both believable and more lacking aspects of their arguments. It all comes down to whether the pros outweigh the cons, and vice versa.
Answer to Thoughtless Question:
KORRA GUIDAGUGAUGDADAD LOVE UHIUSHIS THAT UHDIUDHDD SHOW. In my opinion, it's weird if you DON'T watch it. That show is seriously amazing.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteI like this fresh look on recycling. I did not really think there was a negative way to look at recycling. To think that it could be promoting us to buy and use more plastic is crazy but makes sense. I can see a lot of people not caring about the amount of plastic they use because they think it can just be recycled. If I were in charge of the recycling business I would make sure the plastic I receive will be used for good. In my family, we are moderate recyclers, but have never really payed any attention as to where is goes. So this article was nice to see another side.
Answer to Thoughtful Question:
2. I am very much into the whole "always room for improvement" thing so of course we can improve the way we recycle. It sound to me that the article explained that recycling centers put some of the leftovers in landfills and I think we should use every last bit.
In general, it costs more to recycle most materials than it does to just make them new using conventional processes. "Costs more" generally means it "takes more energy", and "more energy" usually means "more pollution".
ReplyDeletePeople who work in the materials and power industries have known this for many years, but people usually don't listen to us. Don't ask me why, I don't know....
So you'd generate less pollution by not recycling, paradoxically enough. There are some exceptions, some metals and glasses for example, but it almost never makes sense to recycle paper and plastic, no matter how you look at it.