Many students relish the opportunity to recycle and invest huge
amounts of time and energy (“Students cut down on
waste,” Feb. 3). These students, however, would be chagrined
to discover that many reasons for recycling rest on myth.
The justification for recycling is based mainly on three false
premises: first, the claim that we are quickly running out of
landfill space to dispose of our waste; second, the argument that
recycling is more energy efficient; and third, the assertion that
recycling is more environmentally friendly. It would behoove us to
examine each of the three arguments with careful attention.
According to John Tierney of The New York Times, the claim that
landfill space is becoming increasingly scarce started in the late
1980s, when a barge carrying trash from Long Island could not find
a landfill. It has since become clear that the hysteria was
misplaced. According to Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation, the
report focused on the number of landfills, rather than the actual
combined total landfill capacity ““ which has continued to
rise. Modern landfills, far from the bio-hazardous dumps of
previous decades, constitute a safe and relatively inexpensive way
of dealing with waste.
Put simply, recycling does not conserve energy for the same
reason that it is not economically feasible. Recycling’s
defenders would quickly point to recycling’s growing
popularity as evidence for its practicality. But this participation
of businesses does not take place in a free market: Federal
government subsidies ““ and legislation mandating the use of
recycled goods ““ are necessary for these businesses to
recycle.
If recycling post-consumer products saved energy and preserved
scarce resources, there would be a demand for ““ and a
potential for profit in ““ the sale of these items. But with
few exceptions recyclers suffer a net loss; governments at the
federal, state, and local levels subsidize recycling, distorting
the costs and benefits perceived by individuals and business in the
economy. This in turn creates potential for profit, but only
because the costs of recycling’s inefficiencies are hidden by
taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Recycling’s benefits for the environment in terms of
pollution are not always clear, as recycling involves two
manufacturing processes and additional transport; the recycled
material must be converted into the raw material before it can then
be reprocessed into the final product. This processing takes place
in factories, which produce emissions and other waste by-products,
the avoidance of which is the very reason cited by recycling
advocates as the motivation for recycling.
Paper recycling creates a toxic sludge, which, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency, is more harmful for the
environment than the by-product from the process of producing paper
directly from trees. Also, recycling necessitates that materials be
transported to separate recycling plants. This, in turn, leads to
an increase in the production and use of additional trucks,
offsetting much of the gain in emission reduction.
These drawbacks become even more significant when considering
that reduction of pollution in the recycling process is often
minor; for example, glass recycling only reduces pollution by
around 20 percent as compared to processing raw materials.
Recycling accomplishes the exact opposite of its stated
intention in other ways. Recycling proponents urge the recycling of
paper in order to preserve precious trees. Yet many trees are grown
for the precise reason of meeting the demand of wood for paper
production. Recycling, far from saving scarce trees, might
ultimately reduce the number of trees grown by lessening the demand
for trees grown for use in paper production. This might very well
result in fewer trees.
Arguments for recycling seem intuitive, which explains much of
its widespread success. But arguments which are accepted on the
emotional level, without challenge, often rely on faulty logic or
false factual bases that turn out to be false.
In any case, only the elimination of government subsidies and
requirements for recycling will allow us to determine whether or
not recycling is ideal. As in many problems that are further
compounded by government involvement, the free-market is already
best-suited to resolve the issue. If Americans had to pay for their
own garbage disposal, they would make the ideal choices and would
reduce waste or bear the cost of discarding their litter. If
recycling turned out to be the most efficient solution, then people
would do it anyway.
One thing is certain; if the premises cited by recycling
advocates are false, it is time to stop recycling or at least put
an end to its subsidization by the government.
Lazar is the vice chairman of the Bruin
Republicans.