Are there any negatives to recycling?

Question

i'm trying to work out why people could possibly be against recycling and i can't think of a single good reason. why are some of you against the idea of recycling?

Answer 1

I don't think there is anything negative about recycling.  I think people are lazy and they would rather just throw their trash in the trash can instead of seperating it.  

Just this year I started to recycle and I try to recycle as many items as I can.

Answer 2

Some people are too lazy to take the time to recycle and in some cases the authorities find it is a way of making money.

Answer 3

Recycling is wasteful.

If recycling was such a good idea, there would be a market for recyclable materials. In other words, you would be paid for your rubbish rather than you paying to have it taken away. However, this does not happen because it costs more and uses more resources to recycle than to produce something from new.

This is why governments must subsidise recycling and enshrine it in law, because it makes no economic or environmental sense.

In effect, the government is forcing us to give up new materials (which are cheap and in good supply), in order that we should buy recycled materials (which are expensive and in short supply).

When recycled products are cheaper than new products, then it makes economic sense to recycle.

Until then, you are being had.

Answer 4

I know a problem with recycling!!!

Not everyone does it.

Answer 5

Here are a few link to some negative reasons regarding recycling.  Recycling is a good idea, but like many ideas it has drawbacks.

One of the links is a .pdf and another is a powerpoint, just so you know if you are on a slow connection.

Answer 6

Yes there are. In Blackpool we have 3 tyoes of rubbish and 3 different collections by differnt wagons. Yousee the heavy diesel wagons crawling along and stopped, blocking other traffic that create unnecessary exauxht fumes. As it is I believe recycling cost the environment more than it saves. Time to bring back horses and carts to collect rubbish.

Answer 7

It's a waste of time trying to save a species that is eventually going extinct anyway.

Answer 8

I just can not be @rsed

Answer 9

Its the right thing to do.

Answer 10

Although i agree that recycling is a good move forward i can't help thinking of the monies our councils are making from "OUR" rubbish, and now some of them are going to threaten us with criminal proceedings if we don't clean it and give it to them. Wonder what "d**k Turpin" would have to say about this kind of 'Highway Robbery' or is it 'Demanding Goods With Menaces' namely the end result being 'money'.

Answer 11

The relevant question about recycling is whether it costs more in carbon to turn the recycled material into a saleable commodity.

Here's a sample of the global thinking we need to do to stop the clock on climate change:

Many factors influence the carbon footprint of a product: water use, cultivation and harvesting methods, quantity and type of fertilizer, even the type of fuel used to make the package. Sea-freight emissions are less than a 60th of those associated with airplanes, and you don't have to build highways to berth a ship. Last year, a study of the carbon cost of the global wine trade found that is actually more "green" for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck. That is largely because shipping wine is mostly shipping glass. The study found that "the efficiencies of shipping drive a 'green line' all the way to Columbus, Ohio, the point where a wine from Bordeaux and Napa has the same carbon intensity."

The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised fifty miles away. "In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the UlK, which helps productivity," (Adrian) Williams (agriculture researcher at the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, in England) explained. That means the yield of New Zealand apples far exceeds the yield of those grown in northern climates, so the energy required for farmers to grow the crop is correspondingly lower. It also helps that the electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable sources, none of which emit large amounts of CO2. Researchers at Loncoln University in Christchurch, found that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to England produced 688 kg of carbon-dioxide emissions per ton, about a fourth of the amount produced by British lamb. In part, that is because pastures in New Zealand need far less fertilizer than most grazing land in Britain (or in many parts of the U.S.). Similarly, importing beans from Uganda or Kenya - where the farms are small, tractor use is limited, and the fertilizer is almost always manure - tends to be more efficient than growing beans in Europe, with its reliance on energy-dependent irrigation systems.

More about this in the blue bits here http://www.pokerpulse.com/gogreen.php.

Answer 12

As far as kerbside recycling is concerned - Effort in sorting out all the different materials. It is a pain in the butt to sort out and wash all the tins etc. You do wonder who is really shouldering all the cost and time burden here. The recycers don't do it because they couldn't justify their operatives doing the extra work, so they make the householders do it instead.

In addition, many counties don't recycle some materials. Caradon District Council in Cornwall won't touch squash or pop bottles.

Many recycling schemes require you to drive to a bottle bank etc. A lot of people don't have cars, so won't come anywhere near one.

Many recyclables have no home to go to. For example, where can you get polystirene recycled? It makes great underfloor insulation for the building trade, but where can you take or send it once it has been unpacked along with your new TV?

If it could be chipped and sent to these new homes developments that are springing up around the country then great.

Also, you do have to wonder whether the carbon footprint is actually being increased by recycling, especially when you see those huge scrap metal lorries driving around the countryside doing about 5 MPG.

Answer 13

The only thing I can think of at present is the cost of trying to find new ways of packaging that is recyclable, and the time it takes too. I know, I am clutching at straws here.

Answer 14

- Little overall effect, by the time you take it / its collected transported to plant then process a lot of the benefit to the environment is wiped out.

- A lot of the 'recycled' stuff is classed as 'contaminated' eg food in plastic containers so ends up in landfill anyway.

- The consumer is on the bottom rung of the ladder and made to feel guilty / bears the brunt of the cost.  When you buy milk from the supermarket you HAVE to buy a plastic container IF the manufacturers produced GLASS bottles that were collected & refilled there would be no need to recycle in the first place.

- For every ONE recycled can in the UK 100 will be thrown away world wide, so there is no real impact.

- Similarly its not solving the real problem OK I recycle a load of cans, the REAL damage is done by deforestation / aggressive mining, what I do makes no reall difference

Answer 15

Yes - there are some huge and good reasons. In the future robots will scavenge our land-fill sites and reclaim the rich inheritence that we will be leaving for the benefit of future citizens. We have already stolen all the fossil fuels from future generations and now we are denying them our detritus that will be their riches.

Answer 16

i dont think there are any disadvantages in recycling............unless you think its a waste of time.  Its just stupid that some people think its not a nescessity to recycle. youre trying to save your own world people. Supplies are growing short these days like coal (even though you cant recycle coal bad example but still an example) and coal takes a long time to form. it needs the sun some plants and other things. Ok  im getting off topic but the best choice is to start recycling if you want the earth to last longer.

ps inflation is going on.

Answer 17

It is still cheaper to produce items from virgin materials, than pay for an infrastructure to clean, sort, and manufacture from recycled products.

With the rising price of oil, it is becoming the better option though.

Answer 18

It actually takes MORE energy to transport and re-process all the "recycled" material than it does to produce NEW material.

Recycling is more of a "feel-good" than anything that actually HELPS.

Answer 19

i cannot honestly see anything negative about recycling.

as for recycling that white stuff - blitz it and mix with compost.  it aerates it wonderfully.

Answer 20

If we didn't recycle our wheelie bin would be full quicker, as it is it is only collected every two weeks.

The only gripe I've got is the food waste. It is absolutly disgusting, and when the summer is here and the magots come to tea round the bin!! Ugh, dreading it!

Answer 21

people still through the stuff in the trash and out the car window limiting what gets into the recycling bin it aint cheaper to get it new