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.

May 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Great stuff everyone! I am particularly interested in the spirited debates I have seen popping up on this site lately. Great that we are hearing all sides and everyone is engaging in these open discussions.
Kelli, I find your articles are my favorties, keep up the good work!
August 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
uhm…most of these facts mentioned int he above article are outdated…its true that aluminum cans are cost effective as well as energy effective but the author above fails to mention that currently we have more efficient ways of dealing with garbage disposal
certain enzymes are released into modern landfills to break down biodegradeble products..as well as non/biodeg. therefore, perhaps in OLD landfills one coudl find papers from 1960 but in modern landfills everything is broken down with a maximum of 16yrs…also all the of toxic gas released from landfills (methane) can be collected and used for energy (60,000 homes/30years) unlike the CO2 released by the recycling factories, which IS a manufacturing process…
and addressing the arguemnt of energy..landfills PRODUCE enough energy to make up for the “extra” energy it takes to process virgin materials–to which i question her sources
this was a cute essay but the modern environmentalist would know better…if one would actually do their homework
the above mentioned arguements are at least 10years late to be worth anything scientifically…currently, we have stretched so far as to reduce the need for recycling only to nuclear and aluminum products (which would be the only environmental/cost effective processes)
the only reason why it exists today as such a widespread process is because it has become a cultural norm since the late 80s…thanks to the mobro 4000 garbage barge incident…
thank you. and throw away your garbage please!
August 17th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
uhm…most of these facts mentioned int he above article are outdated…its true that aluminum cans are cost effective as well as energy effective but the author above fails to mention that currently we have more efficient ways of dealing with garbage disposal
certain enzymes are released into modern landfills to break down biodegradeble products..as well as non/biodeg. therefore, perhaps in OLD landfills one coudl find papers from 1960 but in modern landfills everything is broken down with a maximum of 16yrs…also all the of toxic gas released from landfills (methane) can be collected and used for energy (60,000 homes/30years) unlike the CO2 released by the recycling factories, which IS a manufacturing process…
and addressing the arguemnt of energy..landfills PRODUCE enough energy to make up for the “extra” energy it takes to process virgin materials–to which i question her sources
this was a cute essay but the modern environmentalist would know better…if one would actually do their homework
the above mentioned arguements are at least 10years late to be worth anything scientifically…currently, we have stretched so far as to reduce the need for recycling only to nuclear and aluminum products (which would be the only environmental/cost effective processes)
the only reason why it exists today as such a widespread process is because it has become a cultural norm since the late 80s…thanks to the mobro 4000 garbage barge incident…
thank you. and throw away your garbage please!
August 31st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
There are so many untruths stated here.
There’s an old saying if you state something loud enough an long enough it will become truth.
You really need to do the studies and look at the data for yourself. Not believing everything you read.
DATA can be very much influenced by bias.