Problems with Opposing Viewpoints

Okay, here's the promised list of all my gripes with this book. Be warned, it's long.

From the con side:
•There is a lot of overquoting of John Tierney's "Recycling Is Garbage" article from the New York Times in this book. They need more sources. Almost every single anti-recycling article managed to quote him. And said article was crap, anyway.
•When the critics talk about recycling being wasteful, they do not take into account that some materials are more useful than others to be recycled (ie, Aluminum is way more useful than #6 plastic)
•One article mentions that styrofoam is not recyclable. While that used to be true, and is true in most places, there are some places, including ours, that can recycle styrofoam (although I think they just burn it, reclaiming the energy)
•"Recycling Does Not Solve Environmental Problems" makes a big deal over how recycling does not solve global warming or biodiversity, and here's why that's ridiculous.
•Mentioning the "Classic Maya" as an example of the hypocritical nature of recycling at the same time overconsuming is just weird. It's an interesting historical example but has little to do with today's society. Besides, what about the historical societies who did reuse everything without sacrificing tools to dedicate a building? I'd imagine that the Classic Maya were more the exception than the rule. These societies were a lot more the norm, and we've learned about them - the way the Native Americans would bless the animal before they killed it, then use every part of it they could, from the edible meat and skin for clothing to the bones that could be used for tools.
•EPA mentions that many people claiming that recycling is not beneficial only compare collecting and processing recyclables with straight waste disposal, without considering broader benefits, long-term effects, revenue generated from recycled material, and variability in cost
•one of the pro-recycling articles mentions problems with John Tierney's article - Tierney uses Charles City County as an example of how landfills create jobs, without effectively comparing how recycling centers can also create jobs
•according to article: very few communities want landfills near them, which is why they have to compensate with benefits for schooling, etc. The communities that have them (such as Charles City County) are often very poor and because of this are forced to consider landfilling as a option for their community. John Tierney doesn't mention this.
•One article says that many studies find that recycling centers create more jobs than landfills. The Idiot's Guide mentions this too.
•This whole focus on creating jobs is just weird to me - why are you look at recycling or landfilling to create jobs? Either way it isn't that much. When politicians talk about creating jobs - think about the presidential debates- they will never say that implementing more recycling programs or landfills helped create jobs. There are so many better ways to create jobs, and ways we should be focusing on instead.
•One of the anti-recycling articles again fails to consider the broader costs of recycling in its cost-benefit analysis. Also, it fails to taken into account variable costs.
•The above article also misses the point. Instead of presenting evidence about how recycling costs too much, we should be researching which specific methods are costing the most, and what we can do to decrease costs. There is a lot of inefficiency in programs like these, and until you can eliminate that, you really have no valid comparison (goes back to variable costs, again) And we should be putting some time and energy into researching more efficient ways to recycle (and into alternative energy, because that would drastically reduce the energy costs of recycling plants)
•One article mentions the statistic that the United States could put the next 1000 years worth of garbage in a pit 30 square miles, 100 yards deep. We don't know where they got that statistic, and the article doesn't mention whether this is feasible, what the biggest landfill we have now is, and whether having one such landfill would adversely affect the environment. Moreover, you couldn't just have one, because of proximity issues, obviously. Also, it doesn't mention whether this statistic takes into account the population growth or increased garbage production.
•This quote from "Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources" is just pathetic: "It has long been known that most trash isn't worth reusing, recycling programs usually lose money, and landfills offer a safe disposal method." (page 91) "It has long been known" implies it is general knowledge by everyone, or the general thought of everyone. This is not true, or we wouldn't recycle to begin with. Also, there are a few articles in this book which give pretty good evidence as to why landfills aren't that safe (especially considering hazardous chemicals and all.) Whether or not this is true, it certainly hasn't "long been known."
•This article also finally mentions what John Tierney says in his article, instead of just saying how wonderful he is. And it's pretty stupid: "Packaging saves resources, reducing food spoilage." So all packaging is necessary, including the binder paper sized plastic around a tube of nail polish? No, this isn't food, but the point is, here's some completely unnecessary packaging. People are not saying "no packaging" but "less packaging" to get rid of the extraneous and showy packaging used to sell a product.
•By mentioning the "simple" fact that it takes more trucks to pick up recycling and garbage than just garbage, the critics are forgetting all the "trucks" it takes to harvest virgin materials. (page 85)

From the pro side:
•A lot of the articles (mainly from the pro-recycling side) mention that landfills have decreased, but fail to take into account the size of the landfills - the number has decreased, but the size has increased
•The main problem with the "Mandatory Recycling Works" Article is that it focuses all its analysis on one place, and then concludes that mandatory recycling will work for all places.

General:
•The book has this problem with comparing apples to oranges sometimes. For instance, the two "opposing" are-landfills-dangerous articles essentially compare air pollution to leachate (the liquid drained) rather than taking into account many facets of possible problems associated with landfills.
•The "Garbage Crisis Has Been Averted" article mentions that we didn't have the proposed garbage crisis in the 1980s, but we should still be conserving. This isn't an opposing viewpoint so much as common sense. The garbage scare was indeed overplayed by the media, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't bother conserving and recycling. I would have put this under the "Good Points" section except for the fact that this article was trying so hard to be partisan.

The Good Points:
Let's not ignore these. I am not going to take the one-sided postion that this book "entirely sucks" when it really only mostly sucks.
•lots of chemicals are used in paper making and paper recycling, but paper making require the resources of logging for new trees
•recycled product sales are not what they should be - either because they are too expensive or unavailable
•aluminum, steel, and glass have a 30-40% recycled content according to article
•mentions need for Americans to purchase materials with less packaging, and mentions some statistics
•many businesses will ignore recycling and other environmental concerns for economic reasons, because it saves them money
•the cost of solid waste management varies widely depending on the landfill and the area, it can vary as much a 300% according to the article. So you can find statistics to support either side, and that's why I don't like statistics in general
•This one article actually argues something well - that the Natural Resources Defense Council is bad at arguing its case. I can certainly buy that
•It also mentions the huge cost of collection, whether recycling or garbage; says it's 2/3 of disposal cost. Since this affects both recycling and garbage, why not focus our energy on ways to engineer better, more efficient and less costly collection methods? Instead of having a recycling truck and garbage truck, why not put different comparments of the truck depending on what it is?

What bothers me a lot about this book: it seems like it's using its "PhD and Masters Cred" to show that these articles are well written and valid. I just in highschool and I can pick out quite a few holes in this book. So note, everyone: being a PhD does not mean you're infallible.