Is Recycling Utter Rubbish?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 07.13.06
The Financial Times is the UK's version of the Wall Street Journal, not a venue where we would expect to find radical positions on environmental issues and reducing carbon emissions. We are often impressed about how far ahead the UK is in environmental awareness, but Richard Tomkins, Consumer Industries Editor for the FT, has really surprised us in an article questioning the value of recycling. Like many in the UK, he suggests that climate change is the most serious environmental threat facing the human race, and that "When you think of all the energy consumed (and hence, carbon dioxide emitted) during the recycling process - householders driving their empty wine bottles to the bottle bank, lorries collecting the bottles and taking them to the recycling plant, the washing in hot water and the removal of labels, all before the reprocessing can even begin - it is plain that recycling has environmental costs as well as benefits." Then he gets radical with his 10 point program.
Actually, first he suggests we should just buy less. "Recycling bits of packaging is as nothing compared with the vast savings in energy and resources that could be made if people bought fewer products. The biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions is the energy used to manufacture and deliver the goods that end up in our homes - furniture, kitchen equipment, televisions, toys, computers, clothes and food. You do not need to recycle if you do not buy anything in the first place." That is not particularly good for the economy, so he then goes on to the 10 Points:
1Never, ever, fly on an aircraft again. Air travel is enormously damaging in terms of climate change and any government that genuinely cared about the environment would be pricing people out of the skies with unbelievably high levels of taxation on air travel. As it is, aviation fuel is completely untaxed internationally and governments almost everywhere have encouraged the proliferation of cheap flights, making air travel more popular and more environmentally damaging than ever.
2 Call on the government to ban incandescent light bulbs, which turn 90 per cent of the energy they consume into wasted heat. Instead, everyone would use the newer compact fluorescent lamps. Admittedly these are green in more ways than one, enveloping their unfortunate users in a ghastly green glare but the energy savings would be colossal - enough to shut down a power station or two.
3Switch to a diet of ready meals and McDonald's. It takes much less energy to make a mass produced meal than to assemble all the ingredients at home and cook them yourself. It also produces less waste. If you can take yourself to a centralised meal distribution depot such as McDonald's, so much the better, as long as you leave the 4x4 in the garage and take the bus.
4 Speaking of gas-guzzlers, obviously you should trade in your 4x4 for a Toyota Prius. But even trading it in for an ordinary family saloon would save as much energy in a year as your household would save if it spent the next 400 years recycling glass bottles. Then again, if you care about climate change, what on earth are you doing driving at all?
5 Sell the second home. Just think how much environmental damage is done by the duplication of household goods. Even worse, just think of all the journeys that the second home generates. It is bad enough if you drive there and back each weekend but if you are using cheap flights - really, are you trying to destroy the planet single-handed?
6 Lower your standards of personal hygiene. Apart from the energy that goes into making the goods we buy, the next biggest source of energy consumption in the home is hot water. So, shower once a week at most and wash your clothes less often. If anyone complains about a funny smell, blame global emissions.
7 Forget, for a moment, the edict about cutting consumption and buy a whole new set of domestic appliances. Modern washing machines, dishwashers and dryers are much more energy efficient than the old ones, and the environment will benefit in the long run, assuming you resist the temptation to fly-tip the old machines.
8 If you must buy any other manufactured product, make sure it comes from a country that uses renewable energy sources, such as Sweden, not fossil fuels, such as China. It must also be made out of renewable materials, such as wood, not non-renewables, such as plastic. In short: the only place you can shop is Ikea.
9 Consider joining the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a so-called deep ecology organisation that believes we should phase out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed. Then reject the idea. What, after all, is the point of saving the planet if there is no one left to enjoy it?
10 Recycle if you like but do not kid yourself that it will make a lot of difference. The ugly truth is that saving the planet really will mean sacrifices, however much we may like to pretend otherwise. The old rule applies: no pain, no gain - for the environment, as for everything else. ::Financial Times (subscription required) via our old favourite, ::Environmental Valuation and Cost-Benefit News
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Green Glossary: Great Wall of Traffic
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
WHoa...eat at McDonalds to save energy? What about buy local? grow your own, cook with pressure cookers, microwave, corckpots, solar powered cookers? What about the health impacts of eating all that fast food?
LA: I thought that one was a bit far-fetched as well.
This has to be a joke. Either that or this guy is totally off his rocker.
I'm sure his tongue is firmly in his cheek but he is making a serious point...
The ugly truth is that saving the planet really will mean sacrifices, however much we may like to pretend otherwise.
--
editor note: This is a tangent, but I think the word "sacrifice" is really relative. A lot of the things we do now we would consider "a sacrifice" at first if we had to stop, but I've found out that it soon isn't a sacrifice at all. It just gets replaced with something else - usually something much healthier - and it doesn't make you less happy.
What we need is "change", not necessarily "sacrifice".
He does make an interesting point. It would be more effiecient to have, say, neighborhood cafeterias than for each family in that neighborhood to prepare their own food.
I in part believe very much he has said. I believe he is being swiftian, or satirical. This is a major effort and in reality the only way recycling will be effective is we do it through the loop. i.e. we recycle and we buy things that are recycled.
On another note just to vent. I love things that have recycled paper packaging over a plastic sleeve. Isn't that just plan against the logical sense of reducing?
Keep it going, and attack, attack, and attack. We can not relent. We, the lucky few have to save the World!
Carry on!
Andrew
Grotesque oversimplications indicate the lack of serious thought and research. For example: "trading in" a car only increases material consumption, as someone else will buy the used one you traded in, and there is no consideration of environmental debits from the manufactrue of either the new or the old one. Simplistic thinkers class all recycling the same way because they do not understand the fundamental differences. In general, all open loop recycling ('down-cycling or over-cycling if you prefer') of all materials is economically and materially inefficient. THe more expensive fuel becomes and the greater the risk of climate change becomes, the worse it gets. The smaller and more dispersed the objects to be reclaimed, the worse the economics/.benefits. Conversely, all closed loop recycling (refilling beer bottles for example) has at least a fair chance at efficiency. The smaller the loop, the greater the efficiency. Hence. having numerous mini-breweries close to their customers and sharing a single bottle design, is the pinacle of recycling efficiency. This is the 19th Century model of local production that we must return to.
Summary: open loop bad, closed loop good. Small loops best.
What the hell, man? It takes 5 percent of the energy it takes to mine and produce aluminum then it does to recycle it.
"Switch to a diet of ready meals and McDonald's"
This has many benefits because if you die young of a heart attack and obesity, you will consume so much less. :)
Dead people are the best environmentalist because the consume so little. :)
And after mining the alumium and producing the alumium from the ore, we still have to go through large supply chain-S-, and move it home.
The reason why alumium and even plastic recycling cost so much is the scaling of it.
If we the populace of the planet were to go out and recycle. All of us 50% of everything we used. We would quickly notice two things.
1: Reducing is cool, because I don't want to recycle this much.
2: Man things are cheaper!
and then we may notice the other thing.
recycling technology has just spiked like the computer, cell phone, or chose other modern thing that has had scale play it's hand on making it easy, useable.
Carry on!
Andrew
Recycling:
1. People talk about whether or not they 'recycle'. Individuals don't 'recycle' - recycling companies do the recycling: we are just sorting our waste.
2. Recycling rather than just chucking stuff away makes you feel good about consuming. Can be counter productive.
3. They should restrict waste companies in the UK so they can only put the words "recycling" on their recycling vehicles - at the moment you get "recycling" trumpeted across normal waste trucks.
4. With composting you know where your waste is - you are in control. With recycling it could still end up at the landfill - you are trusting someone else.
5. People that recycle sometimes seem to think "There - I've done my bit".
yeah, this is totally tongue and cheek. sounds like the guy does care about the environment, but also thinks many of the small steps that are being taken aren't doing much besides giving people a small sliver of peace of mind.
The article is great in that it breaks open your mind, gets you outside of the "box". But we all know McDonadls would have to go local and organic to get Green approval.
Here's an idea let all plant and love three trees in our life: a fruit tree, a nut tree and an avocado. Walk to it and eat. Share with your neighbor and they'll share with you.
Everyone forgets that the original slogan was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle". Recycling is our option of last resort, not first.
I reduce by buying used clothing and household items, not new. I reuse by using glass jars formerly full of peanut butter or tomato sauce to store food and other items. I recycle by composting all organic materials.
Where's #7? Is that the mystery point? Or, by skipping it, is the author conserving energy?
In "Stupid White Men" Michael Moore totally bashes the idea of recycling, claiming he's followed recycling trucks and seen a lot of the stuff just thrown out and worse (it's been a while since I read it, but something about it being shipped off to foreign countries and worked by slave labor).
LA: we got this from a secondary source because FT is subscription only. We don't know what happened to point 7 but will correct it when we get the actual article (in snail mail to us)
UPDATE: Treehugger Bonnie sent us the snail mail, and we have added number 7. I can see why it was dropped by our source, it is questionable.
All he says is true, except for the ghastly green glare of CFLs. I just picked up a six-pack of Daylight bulbs, made by Phillips, for under $20. I am in love. I was just bemoaning how I couldn't find Daylights in CFL form.
Actually when I was talking about my:
1: Reducing is cool, because I don't want to recycle this much.
I was remembering exactly the reduce, reuse, recycle. I firmly believe that reuse if just an echo of reducing.
I'm also serious about the part where I chimmed about:
i.e. we recycle and we buy things that are recycled.
If we were to buy things that were recycled (we being the planet at large) and do the recycling thing. Then recycling would be profitable. Investors would be involved. They'd want profits. Believe me, at that point us treehuggers have won.
I totally agree with your point about recycling and people who are happy and then go and buy more.
I get sick when my family and I go out to restaurents and we have leftovers. Because then they go into these containers that won't be recycled. So if I'm not there they do that. If I'm their I'm prepared my backpack of awesome reuseable containers is deployed. Yet again we reduce(less food in garbage and containers.), reuse(the containers.), and recycle(something get's recycled.)
Don't forget that water is mother nature's best attempt at recycling and she does it well!
Keep it up,
Andrew Marconi
I dont know guys but i think that point number 9 is by far the best option. The world needs less humans and this option is the most realistic one unlike those cults who commit mass suicide. A presence has to remain to (for a bit anyway) to spread the word.
I say bring on the black plague, avian flu etc, its time to clean house.
Well then since recycling will be needed. Even if it is the last resort. How do we push the envelope. How do we bring this too a new level. How do we follow physics conservation of matter. Because the model is real. As real as you and me.
keep it coming,
Andrew
Less than 7% (might be closer to 3% by now) of all plastic and aluminum used in packaging gets actually recycled. Steel, however, which is not used in packaging much, is recycled at a rate up to 95%. Glass bottles are disappearing from the marketplace because plastic and aluminum bottles can be made so much cheaper and faster and printed up without a paper lable. The feel-good act of curbside redemption sorting is doing nothing at all to change this reality.
"All he says is true, except for the ghastly green glare of CFLs. I just picked up a six-pack of Daylight bulbs, made by Phillips, for under $20. I am in love. I was just bemoaning how I couldn't find Daylights in CFL form."
Anonymous, Where did you get them?
Option #2 is the best of 'em, I think!
Is Tuesday Soilent Green day?
Mmmmm.
I agree he's written this tongue firmly in cheek, but i don't buy the ikea advice. their success is down to combining good design with the cheapest possible production costs. meaning a lot of items are actually 'made in china' and other fossil fuel burning countries.
--
editor note: Ikea deserves some praise, I think:
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004677.html
Why does people not bring up energy consumption on virgin material? But when it comes to recycling, OH MY GOD THE ENERGY INVOLVED. Get real everything we do involves energy. HOW MUCH ENERGY DOES VIRGIN MATERIAL CONSUME???
The logic of recycling changes as the importance of saving energy increases. No question recycling saves space in landfills and reduces virgin resource use, the original motivators. Now the process needs to become localized and to be redesigned to save energy.
Richard Tomkins makes a valid point that apparently 'good' actions may not deliver the expected results. It is important to see the big picture and at least attempt to factor in all the costs and benefits. Some of his alternative suggestions for making an impact on climate change are also valid, especially the high impact of air travel.
However, I believe the article is misleading in two aspects. Recycling is a an excellent way for the public to 'get connected' to the larger issue of resource depletion, pollution, waste and climate change. That we have not capitalized on that increased awareness and further increased the public's understanding of the issue is neither the fault of recycling nor the public.
Secondly, even if the amount of material diverted from household waste is small relative to industrial waste, the total amount of household waste is still staggering. Furthermore, dumping it in landfill sites also requires energy, often pollutes groundwater, and effectively locks up materials such that they cannot be easily re-utilized.
More worrisome is the underlying message that nothing can effectively be accomplished. The sacrifices required are too great, political will too weak. Is the alternative a grey world of denial? Students of bio-inspired design will argue that nature has solved all of these problems while managing to sustain vibrant and diverse ecosystems. Nature seems not to require 'growth at all costs' to be successful. And all without requiring legions of scientists and researchers - which is not intended to disparage or downplay their efforts, but simply to point out one of Nature's mysteries.
If recycling is not efficient, make it more efficient - don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. As JL pointed out (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/is_recycling_ut.php#comment-31022), closed and short loop systems can be effective. Recycling needs to deliver value at each step. Organisms in nature do not actually recycle waste - for them, it is a valuable nutrient. If the Aylesford Newsprint plant can sell newsprint at a profit compared to virgin paper, and if there are no hidden costs, then their efforts should be applauded. Natural recycling systems are also typically 'fuelled from within' - why can recycling trucks and plants not derive all required energy from the materials they process? More to the point, how can recycling be brought 'closer to home'? Our local region is implementing a 'green bin' program for organic waste. We have been using two Green Cones to compost all organic household waste for over 25 years. Only a few steps from the kitchen to the composter to the garden.
As some other posts point out, we need to think bigger. Business needs to have 'skin in the game'. Some countries and companies have adopted product lifecycle policies, where the manufacturer takes back used goods. This has lead to some interesting design changes, including an emphasis on re-manufacturing. If the history of carbon emission reductions in business is any indication, manufacturers will likely still come out ahead. The opportunities for doing and living better are endless.