Money: The Real Idea Behind Recycling?

http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against

Throughout my life I have always been taught to recycle as much as I can, as often as I can. I never questioned these teachings because it seemed like the “environmentally friendly” thing to do. However, in Jordan Elias’ article entitled “Recycling: Argument Against”, (September 2009) she challenges this concept by proposing her arguments against the accepted reasons as to why members of society recycle , and by eventually making a claim regarding what she believes is the real idea behind recycling. She states that the general ideas of why we recycle (to help the environment, save resources, cut costs) are in fact not true and attempts to use this evidence to back up her strongest claim. Elias explains:

“I have thought long and hard about the rationale behind recycling, and the only reason I can think of for the hard push made by so many government and private organizations to encourage recycling is this: there are billions of dollars to be made by recycling.” (Elias 2009)

Elias’ tactic to validate this claim is to argue against the common beliefs of why we recycle. She states that first of all, recycled paper actually requires more resources than that of non-recycled paper. She then goes on to suggest that although it is the customary understanding that recycled goods cost less, eventually taxpayers end up paying for the difference. Lastly, she argues that by recycling, we are ultimately doubling our contribution towards environmental pollution.

Not only do I think that the claim is incorrect, but I also believe that the suggested arguments made show no real evidence within them and are unsuitable to solidify this claim. I will share the ideas behind my opinion in the following sections of this blog.

In her first argument, Elias explains that in order to make recycled paper, old paper and fresh pulp must be combined, which then requires a paper plant whose energy derives from burnt coal, oil, or gas. Although this may be a true statement, it does not provide evidence as to why she believes recycled paper requires more resources than non-recycled paper, considering the latter demands even more fresh pulp, as well as a paper plant to produce it. Furthermore, this does not give any support to her idea that the government and large organizations promote recycling for the sole reason that there is big money to be made.

During her second argument, Elias makes notice that although a roll of toilet paper made from recycled materials might be for sale for half a dollar less than a roll of “new” toilet paper, that fifty cents does not make up for the tax dollars being used to pay the recycling programs and the employees at the government-run recycling programs. My perspective on this assumption is that there are no given statistics that actually prove how much of a tax payer’s money goes towards these programs and their employees, as well as the amount of money that is needed to run these operations. Also, even if a consumer chose to purchase a good created from raw materials instead, they are still paying however many tax dollars towards these programs. So why not buy the less inexpensive item? More importantly, I believe that Elias' assumption shows no connection towards her notion that large corporations (including the government) promote recycling because it can make them millions of dollars. Whether she believes that the logic behind her argument is relevant to her claim or not, she never states this anywhere throughout the article.

Throughout her last argument, Elias backtracks to her first argument and simply repeats herself using a different example. She restates that by creating materials from recycled goods, we are consuming substantial amounts of other resources such as oil, gas, and coal. She even concludes this argument by saying that we are actually doubling our contribution to the pollution in our environment because the chain of salvaging recycled materials is never ending. Now it may seem like I am also backtracking and am using the same reasons as to why I disagree with this altercation, but the fact is that this author has just reiterated herself and gave no logical reasoning as to how recycling materials consumes more energy than creating “fresh and new” materials. In reality, utilizing old materials to construct something new alludes to the fact that less “virgin” materials are required; therefore fewer of these energy consuming components need to be produced. When considering the relationship between production and the environment, the lesser the production, the better. Once again, this concept does not apply to her main claim, as there is no relationship between the two.

Elias essentially believes that recycling is a hoax, and defends her theory by stating that this so-called environmentally friendly activity actually increases our resource consumption and contribution to environmental pollution, as well as costs us more money. She uses these arguments as building blocks to stabilize her claim that society is encouraged to recycle in order for the government and corporations to make a profit. Unfortunately, not only do these arguments show a lack of logic, but they also have no connection as to how money can be made from recycling. Although in this day and age money plays a key role in our society, I optimistically believe that the act of recycling is not monetarily beneficial, but is environmentally rewarding. Not only does it reduce our consumption of raw materials, but it has the potential to reprocess something that would have otherwise taken up space in a landfill. I believed this previous to reading this article and Elias was unsuccessful to have me believe otherwise.

Reference
Elias, J. (2009) Recycling: Argument Against. Helium, September 2009. http://www.helium.com/items/912196-recycling-argument-against. Accessed 21 Sept 2009.