Should we really recycle?
Everyone raves about the benefits of recycling but what are the hidden costs. Do the benefits of recycling outweigh the costs? Recycling paper, plastic, and metal products have a very complex process to separate the non-recyclable components. Many components that went into making the products must be separated in order to get the paper, plastic, or metal back in its original form to use, some of which can be quite toxic. Many water and air pollutants are emitted during these processes and the plants do not sometimes monitor these emissions levels. There have been two instances where recycling plants have been fined for not properly monitoring the emissions that are harmful to the environment. Environmental officials found that a battery recycling plant in California was leaking lead from processing batteries. Then another plant in New Jersey was fined for not continuously monitoring the emissions levels. If these plants keep running in this manner then it would not be worth it to recycle these items if the costs are so high. Also the process to remove the inks from paper to recycle it can also be quite harmful to the environment. Pollutants called effluents are emitted. Thus, there are also risks associated with recycling.
Some people also argue that new trees are planted when old ones are cut down to produce the paper. Tree farms are created for the sole purpose to be cut down for paper. Thus, tree population is replenished. Thus, we must look at both sides before jumping to conclusions that recycling is the best method to help save the environment. Reduction of consumption is the best way so less is produced and less pollution is emitted.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/recycling_plant_fined_for_not.html
http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=9414
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html
http://www.ecology.com/features/paperchase/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, what an interesting idea for a blog post! I would say yes, everything must be recycled... but not necessarily yet? I personally have a lot of faith in the ability of human scientific progress to eventually solve most problems related to chemistry. According to conservation of matter, nothing can be destroyed but must eventually transform into something else. You may have a point, though, in that perhaps we should wait and recycle certain materials only after we have found a way to do so cleanly. The problem with this strategy, though, is that as long as people CAN put something off they most often WILL. In the midst of economic crises, wars, and other controversial or profitable political issues, I fear that people will not care enough to invest in recycling research.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very compelling question. It’s true that recycling is encouraged by a plethora of environmentalists, and recycling is even sometimes monetarily rewarded by recycling companies. Having seen the inside of a recycling plant, I can personally attest to the amount of smoke seen pouring from their chimneys and the range of chemicals they use to break down recyclable components. Furthermore, I have to wonder about the amount of energy they use? Just how much oil or coal is burned to break down recyclables? Given the rising costs of fuel, how will recycling plants that are not energy efficient stay open? I think the main question here is whether recycling plant damages are superior to damages of nonrecycled objects, and I’m not sure how society will decide to answer that question.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a very interesting blog post and an argument I myself have never read or heard about in my entire life. The idea that recycling may actually be bad for the environment is quite an overwhelming one. In your argument, you present very reasonable examples on how recycling can be bad for the environment. The fact that recycling plants have been cited by the EPA for environmental violations is disconcerting, and the notion that pollutants can be released into the air and water by recycling seems counterintuitive. Again, these examples are strong, but to me they do not justify an anti-recycling agenda. Mainly, you cite that there have been two instances where recycling plants have been fined by the EPA. This is not good; however on a large scale it is not awful. There are hundreds if not thousands of recycling plants across the United States. While no recycling plants should ever use practices which would result in fines by the EPA, the fact that only two of them have been fined is not too horrifying. So although I agree that recycling should be monitored more closely, I cannot support your statement that it should be terminated completely.
ReplyDelete