Cecil, your information condensation skills are waning. Your column goes point by point debunking the recycling hysteria that’s swept the country for years now, then concludes, “do it anyway 'cause maybe the evidence is wrong.” I suspect you’ve fallen prey to the same hysteria that has people in other threads writing, “of course I support recycling, but blah, blah blah”. Can’t be caught denying the recycling god.
So what’s the scoop, Cecil? The evidence ain’t there; why are you there?
Also, you really should have included the cost of individuals time in doing recycling into your formula. That by itself is probably the bigger national resource waste.
His conclusion about the poorer candidates for recycling seems equally lucid: *The poor candidates, at the moment, are plastics and mixed paper (including magazines). Plastics are too light and heterogeneous, while mixed paper contains too many contaminants. In the end we may conclude that this junk is best consigned to landfills. But given the advance of technology, who knows? * In other words, if it looks likely that recycling these other materials will soon be made cost-effective, why abandon the current practice of plastics/mixed-paper recycling now when we’d only have to set it up again in a few years?
I see no call for you to go knocking the Master’s “information condensation skills”, Bill, but it looks as though your information apprehension skills could use a little work.
There’s another aspect of recycling, too, that Cecil didn’t touch, and I don’t blame him because it’s complicated: the psychological aspect. It’s possible that encouraging people to recycle gets them to think about their impact on the environment and makes them more receptive to other lifestyle changes that reduce energy consumption, eliminate or restrict sources of pollution, and so forth. I’ve heard this referred to as the “foot in the door” approach - someone who has made a small contribution feels they have an interest in making a larger one. This would be a positive aspect of recycling. Unfortunately, it’s also possible that encouraging recycling leads people to believe that they are already doing their bit for the planet by separating their trash, thus making them less receptive to such changes.
Looking around, I’d say it’s hard to tell which effect is winning. I know people who are avid recyclers who also have made conscious decisions to use their car less or even do without a car totally, to buy less stuff and review purchasing choices, and so on. I also know people who figure that their recycling efforts entitle them to buy the biggest baddest SUV on the market. I have no idea if anyone has ever done a study on the psychological effects of recycling.
Also, please, note, Cecil sets the criteria of effectiveness as cost. But it’s not direct cost to YOU to recycle, it’s cost to the city, or waste-disposal companies.
And those companies are researching like crazy into ways to make recycling profitable. So, a statement about cost-effectiveness of recycling egg cartons (or whatever) today may be outdated next month or next year.