Nah - it was quote recycling!
I don’t have a cite, but when we passed mandatory recycling in 1990, we were told that by the year 2000 garbage collection would pay for itself with the sale of recycled materials.
I think that this, like many things, is government gone wild. If we have a shortage of paper, steel, aluminum, etc, then the price of those things will rise to the point that recycling becomes profitable. Until then, throw them in the garbage can.
Cecil notwithstanding, newsprint is not that great a candidate for recycling. The gray pulp that recycling produces requires chlorine and dioxins to bleach it white enough for commercial re-use; several of the ten worst Superfund sites are newspaper recycling plants. We would damage the earth less by pillaging virgin redwood forests. Recycling’s primary benefit is that it makes Green types think they’re doing something useful and beneficial. They aren’t.
In the July 1993 issue of US Mayor, Norm Rice (Seattle’s mayor at the time) said “Our recycling program has been a great success. Unfortunately, there’s no market for our recycled goods.” We in the private sector have a name for that kind of success; we call it “failure.”
Cite?
So nobody bothered to read the previous thread I linked to above?
As I said in that thread:
Okay, and if we run into a shortage of landfill space, garbage disposal will become so costly that it will make financial sense to recycle.
This isn’t even close to true. This ranking system lists mostly smelters, mines, the military and landfills as the worst offenders. Dioxins may be used to bleach papers, but the recycling centers don’t come close to the top 10 Superfund sites.
All the Trouble In the World, PJ O’Rourke, 1994, citing a Cato Institute study. Yeah, it’s dated. But recycling newsprint gives us few things better than egg cartons.
Here in New England, at least, we are at that point now.
But regardless of whether you have the space or not, modern double-lined, capped, monitored landfills are VERY expensive.
And no matter how much you try to prevent it, landfills tend to leach contaminants into the environment. So if we can keep recyclable materials out of the landfills, we don’t fill them up with materials that don’t really need to go there, so we don’t have to build so many of them.
NJ & NY too.
Very dated and he’s a humorist, given to exageration for comedic effect.
Here’s a up to date wiki article on paper recyling. Note that certainly it’s disputed as to how effective it is, no doubt.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution.[18] Pulp mills can be sources of both air and water pollution, especially if they are producing bleached pulp. Modern mills produce considerably less pollution than those of a few decades ago. Recycling paper decreases the demand for virgin pulp and thus reduces the overall amount of air and water pollution associated with paper manufacture. Recycled pulp can be bleached with the same chemicals used to bleach virgin pulp, but hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydrosulfite are the most common bleaching agents. Recycled pulp, or paper made from it, is known as PCF (process chlorine free) if no chlorine-containing compounds were used in the recycling process.[19] However it should be noted that recycling mills may have polluting by-products, such as sludge. De-inking at Cross Pointe’s Miami, Ohio mill results in sludge weighing 22% of the weight of wastepaper recycled
Even this critique of recycling does not mention any problems on the level severity you claim:
So, yes, the effectiveness of paper recycling is often over-stated and is somewhat in dispute. But in general, it seems to be better than cutting down trees.
New England, NY, and NJ may be out of space for landfills, but there are plenty of states with lots of land that are quite happy to get paid to accept trash from elsewhere. Room is not an issue.
Transport does, however, add to the pollution cost of landfilling the trash.
As long as we keep on throwing things into holes in the ground, there is little reason to try making them easier to recycle - that’s another possible reason why it might be desirable to start recycling, even if it is a bit more costly for some materials, to begin with.
I’m sure there are other areas of human endeavour where we didn’t wait until something became cheap and easy to start doing it (indeed, without starting, we might wait forever for that to happen)
So can I assume you re-use all those glass containers since it makes financial sense?
I ask rhetorically - you may well re-use them, but most people in the United States don’t, despite the fact that with a cost of effectively $0 the re-used glass container makes financial sense.
My point is: people don’t do things because it makes financial sense. They do things because it’s easier/more convenient/fits in with their preconceived notions/someone they trusted told them to do it/it offered the benefit they desired.
We wouldn’t have the massive banking problems we have right now if people did things because they made financial sense. No Income/No Asset (NINA) home loans don’t make financial sense, yet they were being made by people working for major financial institutions.
I’ll add that the appropriate financial sense is not necessarily the direct financial return on, say the amount of reusable fiber in recycled paper. To effectively determine whether recycling makes sense, it has to be evaluated from a life-cycle perspective. This includes the long-term impacts of landfilling vs. other waste management options (recycling, waste-to-energy, etc.) as well as the energy and other resources required to collect, separate, and redirect the recycled waste streams. One would need to account for leachate into groundwater and generation and emission of methane and hydrogen sulfide, for instance, when looking at landfilling.
jtgain noted that when we run out of landfill space, then recycling would become more financially viable. But it’s not simply a matter of acreage - it’s a matter of siting the landfill, and that has become about as easy as siting a nuclear plant. We can all decry the NIMBY mentality of others, but the fact is that nobody wants to live next door to a landfill. Perhaps I’m wrong - any volunteers here in Dopeland?
As has been pointed out by others, the financial viability of recycling, like most other issues, is not a simple yes/no proposition. It depends upon the location, the waste stream, and changes in markets. But it’s also an issue that is adequately evaluated only by a clear understanding of the entire life cycle of both the recycled material and the ore or other resource it is displacing.
You knock my cite–which drew on then-contemporary data from Cato Institute studies–because O’Rourke wears clown pants, and then you cite two Wikipedia articles to counter the argument? I know Wikipedia’s credibility is better than it once was, but it still wears floppy shoes and a rainbow wig; few colleges allow students to use it directly on Works Cited pages. Let’s raise the bar a little.
Paper recycling spills dioxins and saves trees. Trees are not in short supply. According to this (dated, 1996) NYT article:
Glass recycling saves sand. If the Mojave runs out, I’m sure we can import from Mexico. The real issue, as numerous prior posts state, is landfill space.
How much space are we talking about? The figure I keep running across is “100 yards high and 35 miles square” for all our needs in the next millennium [A. Clark Wiseman, Gonzaga University, Spokane]. That’s all the suburbs between Baltimore and Washington, a bleak picture indeed, but that kind of land is findable for the purpose.
Again, this figure is from the Clinton era and may have been revised. But it may have been revised downward. The big culprits fifteen years ago were newspapers and fast food. But a McDonalds meal actually generates less refuse than a home-cooked meal. And newspapers are dropping dead or going exclusively online.
The arguments for mandating recycling programs are backed up mainly by the Green equivalent of religious fervor. I’m unmoved by the spirit.
Glass recycling saves energy. Recycled glass cullet melts more readily than the raw ingredients for making new glass.
You misspelled Jersey 
1st, your cite was 15 years old, in this sort of thing, that makes it worthless. You cite is like saying that there never will be a use or need for personal computers as they take up whole rooms with all those tubes and things.
PJ rarely gets facts wrong, but he does exagerrate to make a joke.
Wiki is not allowed as a primary cite in college as it just too damn easy. It was like citing the EB back in the old days.
I’m fairly sure that this is the case for several varieties of plastic, as well. And even if the process of turning existing X into recycled X products isn’t a net energy saver, it’s surely a net savings to send items to a local recycling center than to a very much not local (and perhaps even out of state) landfill.