Why should one n
ever recycle?
Think about it. Where are most of the recycled products you purchase produced? China. Then, consider the path paper, glass, and plastic you recycle in the U.S. must travel before you purchase it again as a finished product.
From New York to Beijing is approximate 6,900 miles one way. In China, materials must be sent to factories to be reduced into workable materials. At a minimum, this is another few hundred miles, China is huge. Once these materials are reduced to workable forms, they are reshipped again to factories that can re-manufacture them into finished goods. This could be only a few miles of course, but that is never the case. More likely another few hundred miles.
Yet let's say for argument sake the distance traveled in China and the amount of fuel used to reduce an item and re-manufacture it into a finished good is minimal (I assure you this is NEVER the case). That still results in at least 7,000 miles of travel, burning fossil fuels every step of the way, only for what? To take trip AGAIN all the way back to our country.
Now the finished product has traveled a minimum of 14,000 miles to the shore of the United States. From there, it must be shipped to the distribution centers of those retailers who intended to sell it, then eventually to the stores. Adding even more miles, more burned fuel, and more pollutants into our atmosphere.
Ever wonder why recycled goods cost so much? Did you think you were being robbed? You are not. The cost element of recycled goods is huge due to the process outlined above. And the worst part is most people do NOT buy them. Why? As every consumer knows, the cost of a non-recycled good is about 60% less than those that are recycled. On top of it, the tons of pollutants produced from the travel across the world is far more harmful to the environment than what is produced by the item itself.
So one is in fact damaging the environment MORE by using recycled goods than if the materials were produced from virgin resources (materials not formerly produced from used goods).
If recycling is bad for the environment and is resource intensive, mostly of those resources we are trying to use less such as oil, why is it we are forced to participate wherever we go?
One is that environmentalism, mostly practiced by well intended people but at its foundation is driven by a movement that has more in common with religion than science. This is best underscored by the recent findings surrounding the CRU (Climate Research Unit) emails and the subsequent resignations of top officials.
The second is that of politics. In order for a person to attain power, one must build influence. Influence is extremely hard to acquire through one's efforts alone, yet is it much easier to build influence by using those groups on the extreme to advocate for you. What is gained by advocating forced recycling despite the facts? Most people of good intention will think the better of you, and those on the extreme who take the lead in your advocacy. A win/win for everyone but those who consider the facts and the environment.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
I agree with that part, the rest, hmmm...
And doesn't ownership of the good and its container transfer to the user when he or she buys it? Don't they then take the recyclables to a place where they become the property of whoever collects them, and wouldn't most of those be Americans running American recycling companies? Just wondering.
Because people believe buying recycled goods is a net benefit to the society. This is not true in regard to those produced in Asia from recycled materials originating from the US.
And doesn't ownership of the good and its container transfer to the user when he or she buys it?
Yes, I do not believe the article is saying this is not the case.
Don't they then take the recyclables to a place where they become the property of whoever collects them, and wouldn't most of those be Americans running American recycling companies
Sure, there is no question money it to be made in the recycling business. I am only saying that there is no net benefit to the environment
.
This is not done for several reasons. First, a lot of the recyclable components that we ship to China for processing are so toxic, that we'd rather have someone else do the dirty work than us; this is worst with computer components. Instead, our government should enforce more Eco-friendly manufacturing of products to make it easier to recycle once these products reach their end of life.
Of course, given our form of government and our private sector, we'd rather continue life as usual until we get forced either by government or nature to be more conscientious about our usage of natural resources, and find ways to be better at recycling properly.
http://www.worldcrunch.com/e-trash-stemming-tide-global-trade-high-tech-toxic-waste/3650
We have thrived because we insist on making money, not running a charity service project, and we contribute to the economic health of our community by harvesting money from the trash and teaching our community how to participate with us. From a small part of our small town's trash, we are now averaging close to $500 per month in revenue and growing at a rate of more than 30% per year. Every step of the chain is designed to make money, when you work at this level, except for our customers, but for them and for everyone who works in this, including myself, the intrinsic rewards are deep and involve the creation of real wealth through reconnecting a community process that includes giving students autonomy, knowledge and a reason to feel they make a difference.
I do not doubt your premise that we are shipping toxic materials back to China, particulary electronic waste, and we have not figured out what to do to stop that in our community either. As a full-time teacher, my life is overfull and many such problems remain on the horizon, awaiting solutions. But I would hope that before launching such broad attacks on recycling, you might take a true tour of the industry, at a level much deeper than your local recycling center.
Actually I do not. I said most, because most products are produced in Asia and specifically China.
"We have thrived because we insist on making money"
I never said you didn't. Plenty of misinformed people in the market today thinking they are "saving the environment" by buying recycled goods. My point is that they are not when those goods are produced in China. The fact that people are exploiting their ignorance is completely beside the point.
There is a reason why a pencil made from recycled goods cost five times as much as a pencil that was not made from recycled goods, and there no question in my mind there is profit being made at every level of the supply chain.
"I do not doubt your premise that we are shipping toxic materials back to China"
This was not my premise, I was only questioning the qualifier used by Philippe of "a lot".
There are two unquestionable results of buying recycled products produced in Asia:
1. MORE pollution due to the necessity of having to transport the goods back and forth from Asia
and
2. That because the cost of burning so much fuel is sky high, the cost of the goods are sky high.
These are the facts.
I am a businessman who has worked in the import industry. My article is a reflection of first hand knowledge of this market. Your comment that you "find your outsider's perspective sad" is either due to the fact that you are in fact the one who is misinformed, or you are informed by care more about the religion of environmentalism than the facts. But those are the only two options, may I ask which one it is?
When I was importing I tried desperately to get resellers to purchase products made form bamboo. This is FAR more eco-friendly than recycled goods because it is a 100% renewable resource that is biodegradable and only has to be shipped once. They wouldn't hear of it or ever try it. Why? Because people like you are spreading your preconceived notions and falsehoods because you value your group or business more than the truth it seems to me.
Thank you for pointing out my failure to proofread carefully. That's important to me because subtle things like that do have an effect on written discourse. With that in mind, I don't think I was able to interpret your meaning very well and will only stir your wrath if I try. Would you mind creating a short list of exactly what your premises about recycling are (not that you haven't already tried, but I didn't get it)?
I suspect that there is more common ground here than is at first apparent. Your attempt to import bamboo products seems like a very eco-friendly endeavour, and I would very much like to avoid doing the work of the plastics industry; it is a nuisance that requires great effort, as a 400-lb. bale of #1 plastic is only worth $20 to us. White paper and cardboard on the other hand are relatively valuable and the energy benefits of recycling them are well-documented, or no business would touch them. Metals are moderately valuable, but we don't get paid nearly enough for the scrap steel of used oil filters to pay for the messy work we do with them. It's only because we can harvest free used oil from them to heat our building that we handle them at all. We don't take glass because we do not have a market that would pay us anything for it.
I would much prefer to not import any products from China but rather work within a local circle of material use, or at least national, but I haven't figured out how to do that. So I'm doing what I can, where I am, and very much enjoying it. I look forward to your reply.
Completely agree Gerry. So often (not you) people read the headline, which is supposed to capture one's attention, and then make huge assumptions on what is being said.
Your attempt to import bamboo products seems like a very eco-friendly endeavour
It is! I am an environmentalist, and as the title of the article suggests, one should always try to reduce and reuse, but my contention is that using recycled products produced in China is not good for the environment.
I have often said to some of my eco-groovy friends that care more about the rhetoric than facts, "I care way too much about the environment to ever recycle. Just throw that plastic container with everything else." This does not go over well!
We don't take glass because we do not have a market that would pay us anything for it.
Very interesting, why is this Gerry do you think?
"I look forward to your reply." Right back at-cha. Thank you for your insights.
One gram of gold wiring can make one wedding ring. See if this is something you can start interest in your communities, lighting fires up--so to speak with community foundries.
You all know now the price gold commands, nearing 20K per oz!
I take it to heart that wasting not is wanting not or at least very llittle.
I spend when I must, hate big ticket items, think twice about spending making need the motive rather than want. Not a good model for capitalism, no?
There's also the keeping-up-with-the-others, wanting all that cool stuff seen on TV. There'll be those who have disposable cash and can spend it.
For me, single, it's easy to get by with little, making as light a footprint as I can. I get satisfaction doing that.
Unless you are taking your money and putting it under a mattress, you are participating in capitalism. It is just as beneficial to a capitalist society when people are frugal as when they spend their money on the highest value. Why? What happens when your money is put in a bank? The bank increases its securities allowing it to lend money to others, thereby increasing their capital.
A minimalist approach such as you and me are great for capitalistic societies. Keep it up!
Is your profile image from the Bhagavad Gita?
Also, the red/black/yellow totes used with USPS, most stores for produce are also recycled plastic, made right up in "yep" Northern MN. (my husband use to work for the company)
Recycled glass is use to make pavements, garden mulch, stain glass windows, dishware..and yep, it is done in US, in fact it is Dlubak Glass Company
Sorry to burst bubbles..son works at a recycling company, and does the paperwork for where the recycled stuff goes.
NEVER???
I was suspicious of your argument, based on your comments on my article, MY NEW CHEVY VOLT: FUEL EFFICIENCY. Your argument there basically was the same - electric cars would have no net benefit for the environment. And since you were wrong there, I suspected you'd be wrong here too. Here is an article that takes a little wider view of the issue of recycling. The author notes that the benefits to recycling are more widespread than you have indicated. And while she agrees that recycling is the least best option of the 3Rs (reuse, reduce, recycle), she definitely encourages recycling.
Eco Etiquette: Is Recycling Bad For The Environment?
Btw, here are a couple of article that may interest you:
ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVs) TO BE POWERED BY SOLAR STATIONS
SOLAR ENERGY AS CHEAP AS COAL BY 2015
The context is broader than the costs of shipping, which your argument rests on. The other thing I would say about your argument, is that perhaps the problem isn't recycling - but outsourcing. Alot of things are done in China these days. If you're going to stop recycling, maybel you should also stop buying everything else that comes from China.
Your argument also ignores the benefits of recycling, re: fewer virgin materials needed for production and lower landfill costs.
This could be a very good point. What were you thinking Steve?
perhaps the problem isn't recycling - but outsourcing. Alot of things are done in China these days. If you're going to stop recycling, maybel you should also stop buying everything else that comes from China.
If most of the production was done in the US, then I would recycle early and often. But it is not. Whether we should be buying items from China is another story. I personally like the fact that I my spending power (and particularly those who are poor) is greatly increased by the fact there is a comparative advantage to have China manufacture for us.
fewer virgin materials needed for production and lower landfill costs.
This is a good point, but the net benefits to the environment are what they are. People should have a choice to make the decision on their own. I am simply making the case for not recycling. Personally, I'd prefer more landfill costs over more toxins in the air.
It is economical to recycle sometimes, and other times it is not. As I say so often, let's leave it to the market and see what happens.
What does corn-ethanol have to do with recycling? The only people, who think corn-ethanol is a good idea, are the subsidy-fat corn agribusinesses. But, again, your statement is too broad. I'm not a fan of ethanol, but algae-ethanol, for example, is not the same thing as corn-ethanol.