I heard recycling was not helpful to the environment, what would support this hypothesis?

Question

I recall reading in a Seth Godin book that New York city stopped their recycling program at one point because it had little impact on the environment. If I wanted to make this argument, what points could I use to support it.

(I'm not against recycling, I'm just curious)

Answer 1

recycling is not good or bad for the envronment on a short scale of time but if you look at it it is very good after a few years it has an all positive effect the reason it has a bad effect in the first few years is because of the development of the factories in which things are recycled and the emmissions these factories let off even though these emissions are minimal they still have a negative effect on the envrionment but in the long run the benefits of recycling outweigh the problems of it which are almost none so keep putting that trash in the blue bin!

Answer 2

Recycling isn't that great.  Other than high yield products like metals, most waste streams produce a relatively small amount of useful post consumer product when recycled.  In order to produce that small amount you do have to transport and process which does have negative environmental impacts.  

HAHA - sounds pretty negative doesn't it.  Well recycling is still better than not recycling even if the above statement is true.  However - I definitely agree with the other posters about the positives.  I would like to add one more thought though.  Recycling is a last ditch effort.  That's why the slogan is:

"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle"

If we are able to recycle something its already a waste.  The real goal should be to keep from creating the waste in the first place.  Include packaging as one of your criteria when shopping.  Use your own shopping bags.  Buy a water filter instead of all those drink bottles.  When you bring something into your house see if it can be repurposed before being recycled.

Answer 3

There is a segment of the political spectrum who likes to try and prove that things which are supposed to be green are not really. This makes them feel better about their polluting ways and makes those who are trying to do good look foolish. If you look at their calculations, they are seriously flawed. The best example of this is the calculation that a Hummer is less environmentally destructive than a Prius. See the link below.

Answer 4

Anyone remember the Toxic Waste Superfund from the 1980's?

6 of the top 10 Toxic Waste sites where once Recycling facilities.  Recycling paper creates tons of pollutants in, amongst other things, bleaching the fibers to remake the paper.

Then, of course, there is the petroleum used in gathering the resources together and bringing it to the recycling plant.  

Sometimes it's just not realistic to recycle everything.

Answer 5

First off, lets correct your grammar.  It would not be a hypothesis, but an argument against recycling.  Anyway....

It is not that recycling has "little impact on the environment", but rather if tax incentives are still given to industries and corporations that extract and use raw resources to make virgin products, those entities will not purchase the recyclable goods.  If we took away tax payer incentives to harvest virgin materials and mandated a % of post consumer materials be present in new products you would see a greater demand for recylable material (mining act of 1872, keeps demand for recycled material low and currently only consumers are driving any recylable demand, but with a poor economy and 200 million Wal-mart shoppers recycling demand will be low).

The only argument against recycling that is environmentally "bad" is when paper is recycled using bleach, but that can be taken care of in a closed loop system.  In the US we melt glass down (while in Europe it is sterilized and used again) to be reused and this process is still 95% more efficent than making glass from virgin silicon.  Aluminum is 95% more efficient to recycle than making it from virgin boxite ore, etc.

Recycling paper can be made sustainable if we made our paper from hemp and not trees, recyling other materials does not contribute more to green house gases, so your point is mute jig.

Answer 6

Recycling will always be more of a materical conservation than a real environmental impact.  Take plastic and aluminum, when recycled they still have to be colected, melted down, formed into a new object.  Each step requires energy.  Someone probable did the energy for mining vs. recycling.  Energy = polutants.  Recycling is really good.  Recycling does add fewer polutants to our landfills.

Answer 7

Easy, if no one wants what you are recycling and there is no market for it why do it?  Now days it should be easier to find markets for the different plastics.

Answer 8

In order for recycling to make sense and be environmental it needs to use less resources then sending the material to the landfill does.  So first off if your hauling the material long dietances from your city to recycle it then that uses a lot of gas, which comes from petroleum which is used in the plastic bottles your recycling.  So if you burn more gas then you recycle plasctic you've deferated the point.  Also if not many do it, then there isn't a good chain of use for the recycled product.  If no one is using the reycycled product, or it is again shiped miles to someone who does then you'd be better off placing the product in the landfill.

Answer 9

Ignorant people abound on this topic.  

Let's take a look at what happens to aluminum.

First, get a truck (burns diesel) to collect from homes.

Second, truck delivers to collection place, where they use electric to sort.

Third, more diesel vehicles to load and transport to ship.

Next, use ship (more diesel) to transport to China.

China, burns coal for the electric arc furnace to melt aluminum to over 2000 degrees.

More electric is used is mold and shape metal.  

Load it back on ship to transport to US.

If you ever watch Discovery Channel, there is a show called How It's Made that showed this process.

Answer 10

1. Recyling requires a factory-processing infrastructure seperate from one that hauls away regular garbage. More trucks, more factory polution, more green house gases.

2. Post-consumer material does not eliminate the need for virgin materials. This is especially true for paper, as you can only recycle paper a few times before it becomes a useless mush.

3. Materials like paper are drawn from tree farms, and not a cause of deforistation. Deforistation is happening, but is mostly the result of fine furinture productions and ranching in Latin American countries. The rainforest is not being made into copy paper.

Answer 11

I have never heard of such a thing.  That is ignorant!

Answer 12

That's ignorant.

If every1 in the world care about the world and recycle, then the planet will be a safe place

Answer 13

look for Penn & Teller's Bullshit on recycling.

anything except aluminium cans is actually a bad idea to recycle because it uses more energy and outputs more carbon than making new ones, and landfill is a really good idea for storage.