Why This Recycling Article is Stupid

This rant here is to convince you that the article "Recycling Does Not Solve Environmental Problems," from the Opposing Viewpoints book is stupid. First of all, let's start with the title. Um, duh. Who exactly is claiming this? They would have to be quite uninformed. This article is also supposed to oppose "Recycling Benefits the Environment" even though both arguments and reports could easily be true at the same time. Who wouldn't be skeptical of an article titled "Recycling Solves Environmental Problems"? So much of the way we pollute the environment - gasoline burned in cars and factories, releasing hazardous chemicals into the air and ground water, logging trees, reducing rainforests, overproduction, and overconsumption, etc - has little to do with recycling specifically. However, in this day and age where everything is on a global scale we have to remind ourselves that everything effects everything else, and our environmental actions or lack thereof in one area affect the earth in ways we may not be able to predict.

Second of all, instead of talking about recycling, the authors start going off on why recycling cannot solve overpopulation, ozone depletion, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, etc. This should be obvious. Recycling was never supposed to be a be-all-end-all of preserving the environment. It's just part of what we can do, and is not as important as reducing and reusing, and regulations to decrease pollution. This goes into a really, really, stupid statement from this book: "Ironically, there is little or no debate over the solution to environmental woes. Virtually everyone's action of choice is-recycling." (page 73) Um... what? I must not be part of "virtually everyone, because I never would have said this. The slogan is "reduce, reuse, recycle" not "recycle, recycle, recycle." The authors talk about conspicuous consumption alongside recycling, which is a valid point, but they failed to make their point in a reasonable way: "[Have you ever] discarded 5 pounds of mail-order catalogs on the same day you place 3 pounds of materials out by the curb in your recycling bin?" (page 77) Um, no, I haven't. And nor, I think, would anyone, because they would put those 5 pounds in the recycling bin. (How much are they paying these guys to write these things? I mean, really.) Second of all, who buys mail order catalogs? I sure don't. In fact, I make a point of not getting them, or telling my mom that we totally don't need one, because they waste so much paper.

My mom yells at me for trying to fit writing over every part of a paper (like for math hw) and not throwing anything in the reycling bin until it's been sufficiently used for scratch paper. I've more or less stopped buying things like souvenirs because they just sit around and then end up in the trash. I use backpacks, binders, folders etc. until they are seriously falling apart. My mom calls me slobby, I call myself economical.

Also, the authors saying that we will expand to fill our container, and throw away clothes. I don't do that either, of course we give them to goodwill, and I think most people do too.

See, the authors are correct with their concern with overconsumption. But they are missing the point by saying that people put too much faith in recycling. See, this is wrong, because people don't care that much. I have such a hard time convincing people it's worth their while to recycle, and then you have people who don't know what's recyclable (pizza boxes are not recyclable guys, especially not greasy ones) and think they're doing something by only recycling big things, while throwing lots of scraps away. Same with my cousins' and neighbors' overconsumption. The majority of the public? Couldn't care less. Once the trash is gone, they don't think about it anymore. Really, I move that we not have trash trucks come by for 2 months - this might give people an idea of how much trash they generate and how little room they have for it.