Most of this is true, except the "room for landfills" one. And "worse for the environment"? How specifically? You're mentioned "consumes more energy" - is that the only way?

Recycling is Bullshit.

At least, most of the time.

recycling does take energy, but we will eventually run out of new materials, but never old stuff, unless it is thrown away. also, there is little room in landfills.

I've followed the references, but it's really tough to use Penn and Teller as an honest source.

The steam engine was pretty aweful for a long time. Some things take a little while to get going. And right now, we need an environmental outlook.

The sails on the HMS Surprise (remember Master and Commander?) are made of 100% recycled pop bottle tops. WOW!!!

Recycling also includes giving your old stuff away to someone who needs it and getting your things used and not new.

Recycling is a very broad term using a vast number different techniques and materials. im sure some of which maybe like ethanol fuel, looks good on paper, grown fuel?? hell yeah sounds great but in reality takes more energy than it produces and ends up costing the state billions in subsidies. If iowa wasnt the first primary(of a sort) on the US election circuit a lot of those subsidies would have been cut a long time ago. so yes im sure some recycling materials/methods fall into that kind of trap but on the whole it doesnt.

Asia is covered in small plastic bags, god some of the rivers look horrid here, i always use a cottton bag for food shopping, the world really doesnt need anymore platic bags. i like to buy products with limited packaging, individual cookies DONT need individual wrapping! in my home state bottle/can collecting provide a income for a lot of homeless. all these things are not cases where the "greener" way of doing things uses more energy or wastes time. but im sure some other recyling especially when it meets local coucil regulations falls into the usless and counterproductive side.

Recycling some things, like aluminium, is a good deal, and one hopes that a developed recycling industry would make other things worthwhile. But recycling most plastic is a waste of time (which is partly a reason to package soda pop in aluminium instead of plastic, of course).

Recycling food waste as compost is excellent. The first page of the NYTimes article, where we're told that only two plastic bottles could be recycled from a mound of trash, is wrong; much of that trash (at least the paper napkins and probably much more) could be composted. (And the anti-composting, anti-materialist quotation from Pilgrim's Progress at the end is BS. But then, so is the rest of Pilgrim's Progress.) A gardening programme would be a much better use of school time and resources than a recycling programme (at least if they have the land, which may not be possible in NYC); they can still go on garbage-collecting field trips, but their haul will be a lot more profitable.

Of course, better than recycling is reduction and re-use. The media's focus on recycling —which the 3R slogan considers a last resort— is a huge flaw. It's insane that, after a single collection trip, the school throws plastic gloves away. Those can be re-used! Why didn't that anti-gum-chewing kid notice that?

So I'm all for reduction, re-use, and recycling when sensible, and they often are. Gardening and composting gives you reduction and recycling, maintgallant described consumer re-use, and industry is already good at recycling and re-using paper and metal. But I don't think that I can defend that class field trip.

Maintgallant, of COURSE I remember Master and Commander, I've seen it hundreds of times; it's my favorite movie! I know it line by line lol.

Recycling is worthwhile, yes. It may be cheaper to do trash but there will come a point where everything is trash... then what do you do? You have to start recycling.

I finally read the rest of the NYT article (before I'd only read pages 1–3 and 10). It quotes ideological market libertarian groups as if they were politically neutral, and it uses some invalid math, especially on pages 4&5. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's right about the waste in school and municipal recycling programmes.

Pigrim's Progress is BS?!?!?

Must...resist...urge...to hijack.....thread!

"Most of this is true, except the "room for landfills" one. And "worse for the environment"? How specifically? You're mentioned "consumes more energy" - is that the only way?"

My opening post was just a short summary. You really have to read the NYT article to get the real gist of it. Apparently 1000 years of American garbage at current rates would only take up 35 sq miles at 100 yds deep in total. That suggests that landfill space is not in fact running out. The opposite impression was given because of a poorly researched EPA report following the Mobro incident.

"recycling does take energy, but we will eventually run out of new materials, but never old stuff, unless it is thrown away. also, there is little room in landfills."

It's suggested that materials aren't nearly as close to running out as is commonly thought, and neither is landfill space. At the same time, technological innovation will lead us to different resources. At one point copper and tin were thought to be critically low, but technology quickly substituted copper and tin and they are now extremely common materials.

"I've followed the references, but it's really tough to use Penn and Teller as an honest source."

That's true. They are grossly rhetorical and definitely have a political bias, but their sources aren't that bad, and behind the showmanship there is usually rational thought.

"Recycling also includes giving your old stuff away to someone who needs it and getting your things used and not new."

Yeah, this really only deals with the classic recycling, which is the reprocessing of materials.

"Asia is covered in small plastic bags, god some of the rivers look horrid here, i always use a cottton bag for food shopping, the world really doesnt need anymore platic bags. i like to buy products with limited packaging, individual cookies DONT need individual wrapping! in my home state bottle/can collecting provide a income for a lot of homeless. all these things are not cases where the "greener" way of doing things uses more energy or wastes time. but im sure some other recyling especially when it meets local coucil regulations falls into the usless and counterproductive side."

That problem is really a result of terrible littering. If garbage were properly disposed of then it would be significantly less of a problem. Plastic bags take up very little space in a landfill. That problem remains even with recycling because people continue to litter. Reusables are not always a better option, although your cotton bag probably is. Often people forget the energy required to produce reusables is far greater than disposables, as is the energy required to wash or maintain them. While individual wrapping often seems excessive, in many cases it leads to less waste because of less spoiled foods which take up much more room as wet waste than does a thin, cheap plastic wrapper.

"Recycling some things, like aluminium, is a good deal, and one hopes that a developed recycling industry would make other things worthwhile. But recycling most plastic is a waste of time (which is partly a reason to package soda pop in aluminium instead of plastic, of course)."

And before the Mobro scare and the legislation forcing mandatory recycling, private companies were already recycling aluminum because they recognized it remained profitable. Do we need the government regulation of recycling when the market naturally recycles that which is profitable to recycle?

"Recycling is worthwhile, yes. It may be cheaper to do trash but there will come a point where everything is trash... then what do you do? You have to start recycling."

That point is ridiculously far into the future. Such that if we still happen to be existence, we've probably expanded beyond Earth. The NYT quotes figures that say 1000 years of American garbage at it's current rate will only require a landfill 100 yards deep with an area of 35 sq miles.

"I finally read the rest of the NYT article (before I'd only read pages 1–3 and 10). It quotes ideological market libertarian groups as if they were politically neutral, and it uses some invalid math, especially on pages 4&5."

It's true that much of it smells of libertarianism but I don't recall the NYT being particularly known for such a bias... also I think the prevailing neo-classical economic theory would probably also call for a privatization of recycling and a pay-as-you-go garbage disposal program. Also how is the math invalid?

I'd just like to say that I might be playing Devil's advocate here. I put this forward partly because I'd like to hear arguments in favour of recycling since this is all quite a shock to me as well. I've been happily recycling for most of my life, but who knows, that might change now.

"Pigrim's Progress is BS?!?!?

Must...resist...urge...to hijack.....thread!"

Haha, good Jacob. Honestly, I thought the Pilgrim's Progress reference was unnecessary, and a strange allegory to pull.

Chrispminis: landfill does have problems associated with it. A lot of hazardous material goes into it. Certain Chicago suburbs who have invested heavily in landfills are beginning to see their water supply tainted due to eventual leaks that must occur. Lead and mercury are big problems in these sites, and that's just two: lots of noxious things are meshing together in these landfills that often times creates unsafe conditions...

and of course, it's good to have more than one source, even if it is the NYT. We'll get better at it. My hunch says the NYT figure is an extreme underestimate of the total waste.

Triple post.

The NYT is the main argument I'm presenting to you. Penn and Teller is loosely based upon the article and represents perhaps a more entertaining way to learn the argument against recycling. I really just put it there to make it a little more accessible, because not everyone is willing to jump over the hurdle that is a 10 page NYT article about waste disposal, which is probably in the bottom 10 interests of most people. But the meat is in the article.

maintgallant, landfills are heavily government regulated, and while there have been problems in the past, modern landfills are much, much safer.

Here's another source:
http://econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Mungerrecycling.html

Also, the Wikipedia article is pretty well cited if you want other sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_criticism

"At one point copper and tin were thought to be critically low, but technology quickly substituted copper and tin and they are now extremely common materials."

Yet copper recycling pays. My father-in-law the electrician saves all the old wire he yanks out of homes and gets a tidy sum for it. Goes back to your market based recycling argument.

But what of glass? I know we're not running out of sand anytime soon. Fuck it, I'm throwing all but the aluminum recycling bins out.

Why do you make the leap that because recycling is not economic, cost more, and uses more energy that it is therefore bad?

If I plant a tree, I derive no economic gain, it cost me money, it uses water, the sapling was transported by truck to where ever. But it can and probably is on the whole 'good'.

As in structuring an alliance in Diplomacy, do not yield your goals to someone else's perspective and determination of what is good or bad.

Thucydides, is recycling another case of the greater of two weevils?

(yeah... that's a great film...)

okay, this is bragging, but I sailed that ship for two weeks up to Newfoundland and back, though it was the HMS Rose back then, out of Boston Harbor

"okay, this is bragging, but I sailed that ship for two weeks up to Newfoundland and back, though it was the HMS Rose back then, out of Boston Harbor"

That's fantastic!

Edi, there is more to the argument than just the economic one. It was just that it was initially promised by the EPA that recycling would actually save money... which is just not the case. Many types of recycling actually do more harm to the environment than if you landfilled them and created new products from virgin materials. Paper recycling plants emit more pollution and require more energy than pulp mills, the paper must often be de-inked with chemicals, and it requires much more water.

Also I think you're misusing the word economic gain. What you mean to say is fiscal gain, because economic gain is supposed to consider externalities such as the whole 'good' produced by planting a tree, including the carbon dioxide to oxygen effect and the aesthetic value. Tautologically speaking if something gives us economic gain than it is the right way to go.

There are actually more trees in the United States than there once was because of tree farms planted by lumber companies for the production of paper. Recycling paper means less demand for new lumber, and as a result, less trees are planted.

I wish I weren't tired and with a head full of my school work... this would be a fun topic to jump into. Thanks anyway, Chrisp. Another day, I'm afraid.

"35 sq miles at 100 yds deep in total"

This is a great example of the math games that the article plays. See, it never said 35 sq miles, it said 35 miles square, which is actually 1225 square miles. Then when they compare it a paragraph later to 100,000 sq miles of federal parkland, it looks insignificant, when it's actually more than 1% (not that I'm sure why we're comparing those areas at all …). The author knew that people would read it as 35 sq miles, and that's either deliberate trickery or careless journalism. (I'm leaning towards deliberate, but maybe that's just the atmosphere of Diplomacy.)

Good catch Toby. also note that the numbers assume the current level of waste production. If we stopped recycling, that waste produciton would increase significantly as everything we currently recycle would suddenly become waste.

Bah. That certainly does compromise the journalistic integrity of the article... but even still 1225 square miles is still very affordable, especially given that timeframe. Toby I think they compare the two because many landfills get converted to parks.

Draugnar, that's not immediately apparent. For one thing, 40% of NYC's recyclables actually end up in landfills anyways, according to http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/38735. Recycling in many instances produces more waste than does simply producing from new materials. In addition, much of what is recycled can't be gotten rid of because very few private companies are willing to purchase recycled materials when virgin materials are so cheap. This recycled material sits tight and might as well be in a landfill, unless the government forces private companies to buy recycled materials or actually pays private companies just to take the recycled material off their hands.

I will say that the rate of waste production will undoubtedly increase in the future which makes that figure a little less relevant, but it still remains that what might be 1000 years of current levels still represents a hefty amount of time even factoring in rising waste production. The point remains that there really isn't any landfill space crisis.

"okay, this is bragging, but I sailed that ship for two weeks up to Newfoundland and back, though it was the HMS Rose back then, out of Boston Harbor"

ahhhhh you fiend!!

I've been on board it, as it's in San Diego... it's all screwed up now though :(

And yes... it is the lesser of two weevils hahah
I freaking love that movie

After all, Surprise is on our side hehe