David Lazar’s submission about the downside of recycling
was not entirely inaccurate (“Reduce, reuse, and stop
recycling,” Feb. 7). It was just a lazy, vague, unconvincing
take on the subject.
In that article, Lazar finds fault with recycling because it
uses up energy and resources that recyclers think they help
conserve; it’s unprofitable and depends on subsidies; and it
isn’t necessary because we have loads of land perfectly
suited to holding trash. These could be perfectly legitimate
observations, but it depends entirely on the form of recycling in
question. Lazar’s article neither distinguishes between, nor
acknowledges, the various forms of recycling and their respective
impacts.
The terms “downcyling” and “upcycling”
are useful in making these distinctions. They were coined in a book
by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, “Cradle to
Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things,” and refer to the
two potential fates of any product whose future holds a rendezvous
with a recycling plant.
Aluminum-can recycling serves as an example of downcycling.
Since they are not pure aluminum, the remelted cans yield a product
of lower purity and quality than mined aluminum and it can’t
serve as many purposes. Upcycling, however, means that the used
product becomes a high-quality raw material for new production.
Lazar, then, objects to downcycling, or expending effort to recycle
goods in ways that do as much harm as good. But this is not cause
for rejecting recycling entirely.
He writes that transporting recyclable material takes energy
““ some nebulous quantity of it ““ and is therefore
wasting what the recyclers want to conserve. This energy is
supposedly enough to render benefits of glass recycling in
particular “minor” and meaningless. However, he omits
the part about how much energy it takes to mine raw goods,
especially ones that are nonrenewable like minerals, metals and
petroleum.
To be precise, a 1992 report prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency determined that 470 metric tons of fuel were
saved by recycling 1,000 metric tons of glass as opposed to making
the same amount of new glass. Additionally, 400,000 gallons of
water were saved and toxic-waste production was reduced by three
metric tons.
The energy savings for aluminum recycling were even more
staggering with savings of 21 million kilowatt-hours of energy and
1,700 metric tons of fuel for every 1,000 metric tons of aluminum
made from recycling rather than from raw materials.
Despite these benefits, one reason that recycling doesn’t
always prevail is because many materials aren’t engineered
with the goal of being easy to recycle ““ an irresponsible,
wasteful policy that will have to change.
Lazar goes on to make the laughable claim that we might not have
as many trees if we recycle paper since lots of trees are grown
strictly for the purpose of being chopped down, pulped and pressed.
When people say they want more trees, though, they don’t
usually mean plantations of pines planted in tidy rows (e.g.
pulp-tree farms). No, they want to protect old-growth forests full
of diverse, colorful life from being converted into lumber,
shingles and flat white sheets.
I’d like to suggest some practices that avoid problems
with recycling and are also painless and effective, so as to allay
fears that we might be inconveniencing ourselves and/or hurting the
earth by recycling.
The first is to use a mug to hold your coffee ““ most
coffee shops are happy to fill these in place of a normal cup.
There are many soaps out there that biodegrade readily in water, so
washing a dirty mug or thermos ends up being much better than
throwing away two or three paper cups a day.
The second is to raid the recycling bins you see around campus
printers.
Thousands of sheets are thrown out daily, most printed on only
one side. Take notes on the unused side and you help eliminate
problems with both new paper production and paper recycling.
Finally, recycle your used printer cartridges at office-supply
stores: They can truly be upcycled by being cleaned and refilled
with ink for another go around.
The important thing to remember is that the intentions behind
recycling are good. By redirecting the energy we devote to
downcycling toward reduced consumption or upcycling, we can make a
difference that is both positive and real. We should dismiss
Lazar’s extreme view, as his article was more interested in
touting the virtues of capitalism as a cure-all than the act of
recycling itself.
Walsh is the activities coordinator for Environmental
Bruins.