Green Myth-Busting: Recycling
Recycling is probably one of the most widely-practiced, common-knowledge, things you can do to live a greener life. There are now over 9,000 curbside recycling programs nationwide. However, myths still surround the actual benefits of recycling and the rationale for the need for recycling in general.
Myth: We are already recycling what we can.
Fact: Hardly. Although recycling has grown tremendously in the past thirty years, we should be able to recycle as much as 80% of our what currently goes into our landfills. Half of landfill contents is good old paper–easily recyclable.
Myth: We are not running out of "room" for our trash, so landfill space is not a problem.
Fact: In many areas of the country, there is plenty of room for trash. Not so in some heavily-populated areas of the East Coast, where landfill space issues have translated into higher landfill costs. Landfill space could be used for other things than trash, like the natural habitats landfills often displace.
Myth: It takes just as much energy to recycle as it does to produce "virgin" materials.
Fact: When comparing the impact of recycled vs. raw, you must compare the impact over the life cycle of the product. It almost universally uses less energy to recycle waste into materials than it is to produce the same materials from raw resources. More energy is needed to extract, process, and transport raw materials than is needed for collection, processing, and remanufacturing of recycled products. For example, aluminum production saves 95% of energy costs when the aluminum is recycled as opposed to produced with raw materials
Myth: It's okay to throw something away if its biodegradable.
Fact: The breakdown of organic material in a landfill is largely anaerobic. It can take hundreds of years for "biodegradable" items to truly break down, if at all. Research by William Rathje, author of Rubbish: The Archeology of Garbage, has shown that newspapers have been found intact and readable from as early as the 1960s.
Myth: Recycling is not cost-effective for communities.
Fact: It may not be profitable, but neither is typical waste-management, unless you are Tony Soprano. It's fascinating that in many communities, people pay for their trash through fees and taxes, but most places don't have (and would probably never think of charging) a recycling fee. Plus, since comprehensive recycling programs are fairly new, efficiency can only increase as the industry matures. Cities of all sizes, including Seattle, Cincinnati, San Jose, Portland and Austin are reporting per-ton recycling costs that are lower than per-ton garbage collection and disposal costs. This doesn't even acknowledge the economic benefits of the recycling industry to communities.
Myth: Recycling is no cleaner than landfills.
Fact: Using recycled materials instead of raw results in a net reduction in ten major categories of air pollutants and eight major categories of water quality indicators and water pollutants. Using recovered/recycled materials also generates less solid waste than using virgin products. Landfills also produce large amounts of leachate (trash juice, if you will) that must be treated by municipal sewage treatment plants, and landfills and incinerators produce a huge amount of greenhouse gases such as methane.
Kelli says: Seriously, even if we "have" the space, do we want more of our common areas taken for…trash? Take one visit to a landfill during a typical workday and see just how much trash is vomited out of the constant stream of trucks…trust me, you'll see the value of recycling. Personally, conservation starts at home; by avoiding waste to begin with, composting, and reusing. However, I like how my college town of Kirksville, MO promoted recycling: free curbside service for as much as you put out, but you only get one free bag of non-recyclables per week–you have to pay for ever bag after that.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
This company: BlueFire Ethanol was one of my first Cellulosic Ethanol investments. They convert landfill waste to Ethanol and other useful by-products… literally spinning straw into gold.
I really think we’ve only scratched the surface on real for-profit recycling in this country.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
April 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
You state:
“Myth: It takes just as much energy to recycle as it does to produce “virgin” materials.
Fact:… Less energy is needed to extract, process, and transport raw materials than is needed for collection, processing, and remanufacturing of recycled products. ”
Shouldn’t it say:
“MORE energy is needed to extract, process, and transport raw materials than is needed for collection, processing, and remanufacturing of recycled products.”
?
April 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Fixed! It was a LATE night last night. Thanks for the editing eye. Jimmy–Too true. It amazes me that people don't realize that recycled content is a commodity. It has value. Why we pay for someone to take away large quantities of valuable materials, I'll never know.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Same here on the paying to take recyclables away. I think the current model is based on “green guilt” — we’d probably have much better recycling rates if we handled trash and recyclables in something similar to the Kirksville model.
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
April 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
While we’re on the topic, don’t forget communities like Freecycle.orgthat help people to save their rough-diamond treasures from the trash pile altogether.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Thanks for pointing out the slow breakdown of trash in landfills. I always think of that when I buy a product that says it's biodegradeable…I should feel good that when it does break down in a few hundred years, it won't hurt anything? I guess I do, but it seems there should be a better way…
Here's a really basic question for you: Could I compost biodegradable items? Wouldn't that be more eco-friendly than trashing them, or does it take too long to break them down? I don't currently compost, but am thinking of starting… Thanks!
April 20th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Yes, actually a lot of people compost newspapers (shred them first).
May 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
More on community recycling: Where I live in (Weston, MA), the town dump gives you several options for disposing of your trash. You can buy a yearly pass for $190 ($130 if your over 65). If you don’t want to get a pass, you can recycle for free and pay a day pass of $7.50 for up to 5 bags of trash. As that’s rather steep, it really makes you think about all your garbage.
They also have a brush dump and do composting (though we do our composting in our backyard).
May 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I think we need more research and evidence of these facts that you are using to disprove the myths…I have found that with most of these “myth busting” articles.
“Busting a myth” is not merely giving the other opinion and some loose facts that somewhat support that opinion. I would like to see more research and information on where these myths, facts and counter-statements come from…a book, a report? How credible is the information you are using to refute these claims? For that matter, how credible is the information presented when these claims are made, it goes both ways.
Also, sometimes myths turn out to be a based on truth, or even true themselves…was this taken into consideration or did you simply use opposing data to prove your opinion and not reasearch the basis of the claim?
I understand this is not THAT intense an article, but with a little more research…each one of the myths stated here could be an article unto itself.
Criticla Thinking is key.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I have to agree with Andy, at least partially.
You mentioned cities, including Austin where I live, “are reporting per-ton recycling costs that are lower than per-ton garbage collection and disposal costs.” This has been taken slightly out of context, at least in Austin’s case. The reason Austin reports a lower per-ton recycling cost is that our recycling is managed, and billed, on a per-ton basis. With our communities actually doing *less* recycling that we would all like, we show a lower disposal cost on recyclables. If we were to recycle at a level at or above our traditional garbage production and disposal rate recycling would cost as much if not more.
I’m not blaming you for this incorrect information,
it’s the fault of whoever put it out there in their report.