From the time when you were a small child, you were probably taught the virtues of recycling: paper, plastic, aluminum; you did your part to save the Earth. But a growing number of voices are concerned that recycling may harm the environment by expending more resources than simple trash. Before you decide whether to toss that plastic bottle in the blue bin, what should you consider?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
If it made economic sense the companies that generate the wast to the consumers would be sieving the landfills for raw materials. The very fact that the governments need to pass laws to force recycling is the point in fact. They commandeer the public as the free labor force to justify the existence of recycling.
There are some cases where it is an economic benefit for companies to recycle, and in general it is an environmental benefit, but by no means is any consumer recycling any sort of economic benefit.
As long as there are people that do not care about the "recycling deposits" as important to their financial components of their subsistence, it will never be a question of economic sense. It's a bogus excuse and not needed to justify it's existence. Don't muddy the water with this straw man argument. It only provides the opponents with ammunition to counter the true rationale.
- tomcat2200
September 14, 2008 1:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the recycle bottles and cans were taken back where you bought them it might work. The idiots at California Department of Conservation didn't think to jam that down the retailers throat like they did the refund charge down ours. Recycle centers are hard to go to and full of dopers that dig in dumpsters to get drug money. I have a 10 yr old daughter that I will not let go to one of these centers.I would like to teach her to recycle but not at that cost. I don't even like to go there.
Make the sellers of these products take them back and it just might work. We do that with batteries, printer cases, auto parts and many other products. Or is someone getting a payoff from retailers to keep the laws like they are? Cal government is full of payoffs.
- purelabor September 26, 2008 12:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Businesses make a good point regarding the high expense of recycling many products headed otherwise to a landfill. Nevertheless, the high expense of recycling some products is ultimately created by the manufacturer who, in the design of their products, disregards its "after-use" status as a resource in the environment. After all, if the materials in that product are not currently in the manufacturing process, on the open market or in use, it is part of the environment from which they must draw further resources for manufacturing. With finite resources, it makes little business sense to take from the environment what is originally usable and, in the ultimate end, convert it to unusable environment. There is an end built in where all natural resources become unusable. How can one not see that as madness?
- Naumadd September 12, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is no question that recycling makes good sense. It is also good sense that government take a hands-off approach. Allowing freedom of choice in the market place is the only sane approach. Government interference in the past and present has created far more expense to the consumer and to business than it avoids. Reducing and eliminating government intrusion in a free market, however, is a much more complex problem to solve than dwindling natural resources and mounting garbage.
If anything, government ought to aid the consumer to watch and determine which businesses are acting responsibly with natural resources and which are not. It ought also aid the consumer in making smart purchase decisions. Where we ought to draw the line is in allowing government to make our decisions for us. That is not a proper role for government of the people, for the people, by the people.
- Naumadd September 12, 2008 3:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You're putting the fate of our environment and ultimately all of our lives in the hands of businessmen. That's never a good idea.
- Blue Linchpin December 19, 2008 9:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You're saying you trust the government over the market at delivering such a service correct?
- F2XL December 19, 2008 9:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I think the best people to trust this to are the people themselves, not men in offices. As for myself, we turn all organic goods into compost, try to reuse any plastic or paper, and recycle whatever's left (though usually very little is). However, seeing as how people in our country often seem incapable of getting up and doing anything themselves, the government processing recycling seems the next best option. The worst option, however, is turning control of these things over to those whose concern is money and not what's best for the environment or the people. Nothing is stopping them from tossing it while no one's looking--something companies have been doing in China for example, after taking recycled goods from the U.S.
- Blue Linchpin December 20, 2008 9:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree the people get things done better than bureaucrats.
"The worst option, however, is turning control of these things over to those whose concern is money and not what's best for the environment or the people. Nothing is stopping them from tossing it while no one's looking--something companies have been doing in China for example, after taking recycled goods from the U.S."
Market-based incentives can already exist in order for businesses not to pollute:
http://cei.org/issue/52
http://cei.org/gencon/005 ,04527.cfm
http://cei.org/gencon/019 ,02897.cfm
http://mises.org/story/2855
Also government is currently our biggest polluter (we both may agree on that):
http://www.adti.net/environment/bndunlop_kasten_1000.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaTQxCKiAI
What happened in China though when companies tried to do the same thing?
- F2XL December 20, 2008 11:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Here's the best link I can find right now, though was just with a very quick search, should have some information in it.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/11/video-chinas-ho.html
- Blue Linchpin December 20, 2008 11:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
All I can see from the video is the fact that China cannot manage all the e-waste it receives from all over the world. Not much about businesses who aren't under government control deciding to pollute the environment.
- F2XL December 21, 2008 5:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You must have missed it. They don't talk about it much but where all that waste is coming from is U.S. companies trying to save money. And that's a huge problem for me: when businesses put profit over things like consumer and environmental safety, like with the melamine tainted milk. Business just shouldn't be trusted with such things, because profit is NOT more valuable than human life. And while as an ancap I'm sure you'd love for there to be no restrictions on these companies, so they are free to dump the recycling waste while no one's looking, that's not what our environment needs.
Another reason for leaving it to the government instead of businesses (though, again, at-home recycling is best) is very few people are going to want to pay to get their recycling done when they can get away with not doing it. Government doing the recycling is more convenient because we just put it out and don't have to worry about it. And as the environment's health is crucial to our survival as a race (I suggest you take a look at the latest WWF report, by the way), this isn't really something we can do half-ass.
- Blue Linchpin December 21, 2008 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Good sense? "Good Sense" to a business endeavor is about as meaningful as "Brand New". That is, a freaking outright opposite of the true, when not just a plain old flat lie...
Profit driven marketing is mostly to blame for all of the crap lying around we have to figure out how to recycle or dispose of. Even houses are disposable these days.
Seriously, what credibility can CEI possibly have on this topic, expertise or no?
The difference between the government and the private sector here is that for some reason people don't hold the private sector responsible for wanting to do what's best for the people. But, I agree that there is unacceptable conflicts of interest in both sectors of modern civilization.
- Submariner June 25, 2009 4:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
'Cause the vibe I am getting is more like "Red FREAKING Alert" from the market I live in.
Dire straits is not the position that best suits decisions on long term sustainability and "pragmatism" that also allows for our grandchildren to not take gas masks to the park...
- Submariner June 25, 2009 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
it makes little sense to manufacture a product in such a way that much of its pure elements cannot be recouped through recycling. Just as the product is lost to the consumer, so too is it lost to the manufacturer. Every manufacturer must operate acknowledging the fact that the resources of the Earth are finite. To manufacture under the assumption of endless pure resource for one's products is irrational. It seems most sensical to manufacture one's products with an eye to recouping as close to 100% of its materials when it is no longer usable by the consumer. In this way, the manufacturing of that product can continue indefinitely and, when the product no longer has marketable value - new or used - its raw materials can still be recouped for the manufacture of new and different products. To fill the dumps with materials that have been manufactured to be unrecoverable is to rob today and tomorrow of those resources. This also is madness due to the truth of a finite planet with finite resources.
- Naumadd September 12, 2008 4:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It may seem like there is an endless supply of land available to dump our millions of tons of garbage every year, but I don't believe it. Land is being sold every day to developers and builders to destroy forests and meadows that have survived for thousands of years as things of beauty. So, I guess the bottom line is, lets keep using more and more land for construction and landfills, and take away what beauty the land offers us and the wildlife that have to survive in smaller and smaller areas, until nothing is left but landfills, condos, and asphalt!
- Glasscat September 17, 2008 7:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Certainly, many consumers fear the health risks of our landfills, however, health risk is only a minor consideration in the issue of recycling. The primary issue is the reuse of finite resources. Even if the landfills were 100% safe to the environment, the issue of dwindling finite resources would remain.
I believe most consumers are concerned about the raping of what beauty is left of our natural environment for the sake of their own lives and the lives of their children.
No one I've spoke to on the issues of recycling and the environment are primarily concerned over the health risks of landfills. This argument is misdirection.
- Naumadd September 12, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am disinclined to agree with an EPA assessment (from 1990 no less) simply because they are heavily invested in the landfill approval process. Second, the risk associated with landfills is not the cancer exposure they present. It is the contamination of underground aquifers rendering drinking water unpotable. Landfill membranes all leak eventually. Landfills are nothing less than mine tailings left to poison the future.
And yes, they are a wealth of resources buried. When future anthropologists of the next species colonizing the Earth dig up our landfill they will conclude that we were a frivolous race indeed to destroy our own water supply with buried wealth caches that we could not longer recover, especially when they were needed to save our species from extinction.
- fire1 September 14, 2008 5:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Minimal risks? Read about the tragedy of Love Canal at
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/lovecanal/01.htm
Read even more about it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
There was no 'minimal risk' for the former residents of Love Canal. The cost to the public has been enormous.
- Michael Glass
November 15, 2008 5:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mandating recycling when it is the least efficient to the market makes little sense, however, ultimately, the problem of highly expensive recycling is the fault of the manufacturer - not of the consumer or of government. If a manufacturer is irresponsible in creating a product from which its raw materials cannot be recovered easily and cheaply, it is they who are careless creating the overexpense to recycle such a product. It is they who are filling the dumps with unrecoverable materials.
I highly agree - if the consumer is free to make good purchase decisions AND are well informed as to the responsible manufacture of the products they purchase, irresponsible manufacturers will be drummed out of the marketplace in short work. Nevertheless, consumers are not always free as they ought to be to make wise purchase decisions nor are they nearly as informed as they ought to be on the responsibility built into the products they purchase or on responsible use of those products.
All in all, the issue of recycling must become a species-wide change in behavior. I have no doubt it will, however, there are many irresponsible individuals, institutions and organizations who must gain in maturity for it to happen.
- Naumadd September 12, 2008 4:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should We Recycle?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It just makes good sense ...
Assuming all products from this point on are made purely from naturally occurring resources, it stands to reason that, at some point in the future, all naturally occurring resources will have been used. We live on a finite world with only finite resources after all. At that point, finding the materials necessary to manufacture additional products will have to come from previously manufactured products. There will be no pure resources left.
All in all, it makes good sense to build into the manufacturing cycle the reuse of previously used resources. It seems it would be better to use what is already at hand rather than the trouble of scouting additional resources in nature, extraction, refinement, etc. It's my belief that, in the future, our landfills will be seen as the gold mines of those generations. Perhaps, we ought to mature enough to see our waste as a goldmine now and save much of the natural environment for future generations to enjoy. It is only arrogance for current generations to lay claim to anything and everything available to them and deny less of an extraordinary world to our children. We are not owners of the planet, but rather guardians of it. Consumption of natural resources with abandon is madness or, in the least, criminal.
- Naumadd
September 12, 2008 3:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Recycline
I love recycling. My house is almost entirely furnished and decorated with recycled items (as well as most items in our clothes closets). When we came from Canada to work with Juvenile Delinquents, we got rid of our possessions in Canada, as we were to live in residence with these youth. When we did get a house, it was a joyous journey to go to Goodwill and yard sales and make a home out of these recycled materials. There seems to be too much waste and even though recycling often is more work than purchasing something new, it is less expensive and a wonderful feeling to know you are not contributing to the waste in our nation.
- Canadian September 18, 2008 7:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not like it requires much energy...
Did you know that the amount of energy used to create one aluminum can is the same amount of energy it takes to recycle 11 cans?
Recycling doesn't take much time. Instead of throwing your papers/bottles/cans into the trash can, toss them into the recycling bin.
And volunteering an hour to an hour and a half every week like myself doesn't hurt. In fact, it can even be fun and helpful, if you round up some friends and are getting community service points that will go on your college application.
Help yourself and the environment at the same time.
- deepikaur
October 1, 2008 2:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We need real recycling
I believe very strongly in the concept of recycling but some of it doesn't work as well as you might think and other parts don't work at all. Aluminum works great for example. Easy to recycle, not hard on the environment. Paper recycling causes more environmental impact than making new paper does. In fact, if you recycle them, plastic bags are much better on the environment than paper bags when you factor in shipping the bags to the store.
To really tackle this issue correctly, we need to put far more emphasis on the real problem, the packaging of the goods we buy. It is infuriating to me to buy something and find that 90% of the packaging was useless. For example, musicians who claim to be environmentalists should switch to all digital distribution instead of the wasteful packaging inlcuded in CDs. Someone call Bono and Sting to walk the walk. We're not quite ready for digital distribution for films yet but at least DVDs could be shipped in much more environmentally friendly packaging.
And when a company does put something out with reduced packaging, we as consumers must buy it to support further changes. Start drinking tap water instead of bottled water. There are so many things we as consumers can do to promote true responsible actions that will really better our environment, not just things that make us feel good like dumping a bunch of stuff in the recycling bin, most of which ends up in the landfill anyways. Sad, but it's true.
- Pliskin
October 3, 2008 12:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Return to keep it simple
Back in the day - a bottle, egg carton, etc was taken to any store that sold the item and redeemed for cash. I don't know why or when the middle man mentality of 'redemption centers' came about but it is too inconvenient for all but the most dedicated.
So, recycle? Yes, always and all things. Do it wisely and everyone will be involved. Anyone making a profit from selling an item must also share the responsibility of being part the recycle chain.
- CharlieBravo
October 14, 2008 8:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This debate is poorly phrased
Looking at what the CEI was proposing I now realize this debate isn't about whether we SHOULD or SHOULDN'T recycle but whether we should MANDATE the whole process.
Would be very nice if OV would make that clear.
In the proper context I would have to agree with CEI, the market can best allocate resources in times of need since the incentive would be there for business.
- F2XL
October 22, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This should be a no-brainer
Recycling conserves our natural resources, reduces air pollution, and frees up land that would otherwise be used for landfills for use for development.
Hmmm....seems like an easy answer to me.
- bagpiper2005
January 30, 2009 9:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.