Apr 07 2010
The True Benefits of Recycling
Growing awareness about the dangers of global warming and environmental destruction is leaving Americans scrambling for ways to reduce their own environmental impact. Many are turning to recycling, a tangible and easily accomplished way to protect the environment on a daily basis. But is the proliferation of recycling bins across the country truly contributing to waste reduction? And is recycling really a solution for environmental problems?
Robert Lilienfeld and William Rathje certainly do not think so, and in their book “Use Less Stuff: Environmental Solutions for Who We Really Are”, they argue that recycling “does not solve the…most serious environmental problems” (namely: global warming, overpopulation, ozone depletion, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, depletion of nonrenewable natural resources, and increased waste generation). Citing scientific evidence in the logical process of examining the effects of recycling towards each of these issues, they argue that recycling either has no direct correlation, has too small of an effect to be beneficial in the long term, or actually contributes to the problems through the processes it involves (collection, transportation, and cleaning, to name a few). They move on to contend that all of the aforementioned environmental problems either stem from or contribute to the “ever-increasing consumption of goods and services,” and recycling “merely delays the impacts of” this consumption. While they concede that recycling contributes somewhat to waste reduction, Lilienfeld and Rathje sum up their debate with the evocative metaphor: “Recycling is merely an aspirin, alleviating a rather large collective hangover.”
Sam Martin would beg to differ. In his article, “Recycle,” Martin concedes that recycling programs can adversely affect the environment in the ways Lilienfeld and Rathje outline, but also points out that alternative methods of handling garbage (such as landfills) are much more harmful. Contrary to Lilienfeld and Rathje’s process of determining the ineffective sides of recycling, Martin emphasizes what recycling is able to accomplish. He appeals to the authority of the executive director of the national Recycling Coalition by quoting: “You have to ask which activity leaves a smaller footprint on the environment,” and cites historical evidence and statistics to emphasize the detrimental affects of landfills (such as the technical difficulties and great expenses involved in their maintenance). By then contrasting this evidence with data about the materials recycling saves, he logically delves deeper into Lilienfeld and Rathje’s concession that recycling can contribute to waste reduction, and expands it to include the various types of pollution recycling reduces in industries such as plastic and paper. To supplement his argument, Martin finishes by discussing the widespread enthusiasm for recycling, and the benefits of purchasing recycled consumer goods.
I noted that Lilienfeld and Rathje and Martin’s arguments both include discussions of the role of consumption in environmental problems. What they may not realize is that their two arguments are not mutually exclusive. While it is true that recycling does not directly slow the environmentally detrimental, “ever-increasing” rate of consumer consumption (Lilienfeld and Rathje), it is also true that the sales of recycled consumer goods significantly reduce material waste, and can provide “financial support [for] federally subsidized incentives” for industries to become more environmentally friendly (Martin). Also, as Martin points out, a pro-recycling mentality is developing, and is fairly easy to promote. Perhaps this mentality will be the stepping stone for people to deepen their knowledge on the other environmental issues that Lilienfeld and Rathje discuss, and recycling can do more than just “alleviate” them after all.
Works Cited
Martin, Sam. “Recycling Benefits the Environment.” Garbage and Recycling : Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2006. 112-117
Lilienfeld, Robert and Rathje, William. “Recycling Does Not Solve Environmental Problems.” Garbage and Recycling : Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale, 2006. 112-117
2 responses so far
2 Responses to “The True Benefits of Recycling”
While there are many commendable aspects of this essay that I could touch on, I first would like to point out that I love how you took on a big topic that has recently received a ton of over-the-top hype and ‘end of the world’ melodrama (for example Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”) and made it accessible and again interesting to audience of highschoolers and beyond that have become all but apathetic towards global warming. In a nutshell, its great that you have found a fresh take on the issue and for me your first sentence does it all. You hit the nail on the head when you say that “Americans are scrambling for ways to reduce their environmental impact” because its completely true, yet when many people find it too inconvenient to carpool 4 or 5 days a week to work, they need an alternative option for ‘doing their share’ to save the environment. I highly recommend that as we get closer to week 5, you consider not only recycling as a possible solution for these people, but contribute a compromise that may include other steps being taken in addition to recycling, adding another rock onto the original “stepping stone”. As I have found with my issue of Genetic Engineering, one side is not completely right, as recycling has large benefits, but also has drawbacks and so again I look forward to reading your week 5 compromise!
As a very considered argument, however, you did an excellent job of removing yourself from the opinions of your sources and having them argue against each other until you develop your stance in the conclusion.
Thank you for your reply Chris! Your suggestion for the week 5 compromise has been duly noted.
You shouldn’t give me so much credit for the direction of my discussion; I was largely just analyzing the opposing arguments of two different sources, both of which were very specific and fact-based. At first I was hesitant about waiting until the conclusion to state my opinion, as readers would have to read much of the post without a definitive understanding of my position in the argument. However, the nature of my two sources allowed for logical flow of ideas to lead to my position. Your approval validated my decision!