New Comm Ave

The mantra repeats in my mind as it did back in fourth-grade: "Reduce-reuse-recycle, reduce-reuse-recycle, Reduce-Reuse-Recycle!" The slogan is ingrained into all of us like initials carved into an oak tree, always there but only noticed or remembered when up close or when the tree is cut down. Drilled with environmental propaganda as an elementary student, I nevertheless meandered through middle school oblivious to the 2.5 million plastic bottles that Americans use each hour, and the twelve-foot high wall that could be erected from Los Angeles to New York using the paper thrown away each year (Cooper). Senior year of high school rolled around, and suddenly, the tree engraved with the "3R''s of protecting our planet" came crashing down on me (figuratively, of course) when I realized that our school completely lacked a recycling program. Had I let down the environmentalist of my childhood, or did the root of the problem run deeper than the lack of student initiative at our particular school?

Pushing these thoughts aside temporarily, my best friend and I implemented a recycling program in our school, and quickly came to understand that the process was not as simple as our eight-year-old minds remembered. No, the three-step course of reduce-reuse-recycle became entangled with the social hierarchies of the city and school administrations and limitless hindrances that seemed to serve no purpose whatsoever. By the end of our final year of high school, we had only just begun: one wing of our high school of fourteen hundred students was actively recycling. Yet I was still nagged by the long absence of recycling in our school without students or faculty batting an eyelash; was recycling actually beneficial? Furthermore, if it was economically, socially, and environmentally friendly, why delay the addition of a recycling regimen? Perhaps there is reason to doubt the traditional bona fide nature of recycling; recycling in the Michigan county where our friends'' lake house is located is not enforced, suggesting a broader scope of analysis beyond public schools. Today, critics of recycling hold that it uses up more resources than producing brand new goods does, and that curbside recycling, though noble, is inefficient. Recycling has had a rocky history; as America''s passion for the environment has ebbed and flowed, so has national endorsement of the program.

Recycling was first introduced in the 1940s, when women collected and recycled scrap metal and used tires to assist in wartime efforts (Cooper). In the 1960s, environmental spokespeople, such as First Lady Johnson, warned America of the damaging effects of placing toxic chemicals in landfills (Cooper). In response, the U.S. began minimal community recycling programs, where citizens were able to drop off newspapers, glass bottles and aluminum cans. About one hundred communities nationwide had started curbside recycling pickup along with the weekly trash by 1974 (Cooper). Then, in 1987, a large cargo carrier ship named Mobro 4000 set out from New York with 3,168 tons of garbage and hopes to find a willing landfill at which it could unload ("Recycling"). After sailing over six thousand miles, visiting five states and three countries (all of which refused the refuse—who wouldn''t?), it returned, and produced four hundred tons of ash that was, naturally, placed in a landfill in New York ("Recycling"). Broadcast of this event yielded an unprecedented nationwide concern for our future trash; how do we lessen this outrageous amount? Studies conducted at that time revealed that in the late 1980s every American was pumping out four pounds of garbage each day ("Recycling"). Multiply four pounds by the estimated population of the U.S. in 1990 (248,709,873 people), and you get approximately one billion pounds of garbage added to landfills each day ("Census ‘90").

Adding fuel to the environmental fire was the issue of the lack of places to put this massive amount of waste. It was a simple fact: eventually the landfills would fill, even if they were filled with non-reusable, non-recyclable materials—right? Patricia Poore, founder and editor of Garbage: The Practical Journal for the Environment, contends that, "There is—and always will be—plenty of room in this country for safe landfill" ("Recycling"). Near big cities, though, land is scarce and costly to build on, and landfills are not welcome additions in most communities. Incinerating the waste, as was done with the Mobro, would condense the amount of physical space that the trash fills by 25 percent ("Recycling"). Unfortunately, incinerators posed an ecological threat too, driving potentially toxic gas molecules into the atmosphere. The worrisome landfill issue, combined with the disadvantageous incinerators, made the reduction of solid waste a primary concern in late twentieth century America.

The crop of environmental concerns raised awareness and spurred on recycling as a viable option to alleviate the "green" anxiety. In 1988, shortly after the Mobro incident, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced its "nationwide waste-management plan", which encouraged each state to reduce at least a quarter of their normal waste output over a five year span. This advisement would lead to a 15 percent increase nationally in recycling efforts ("Recycling"). Several states were quick to pass laws requiring at least 25% recycled waste; Rhode Island even brazenly mandated 70% recycling of municipal waste (though this number was eventually reevaluated) ("Recycling").

Since that national shift towards a more environmentally friendly culture, recycling has evolved from a municipal task to a way of life. Recall the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" motto that was taught in grade schools across the country, beginning with the first Earth Day in 1970 (Cooper). Today, more than eight thousand curbside recycling programs exist Meanwhile, three thousand composting facilities enable millions more to don their environmental caps and sort their recyclables (Cooper). As a result, about 27% of municipal solid waste is recycled, while the remainder is burned or placed in landfills (Cooper). Though recycling appears to be an easy "go-to" solution to boost this statistic, there are many economic factors to explore.

Dissenters of recycling argue that cost-benefit analyses of recycling reveal its deficiencies. "Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources," asserts John Tierney, writer for the New York Times Magazine (Cooper). Tierney''s claim may come across as harsh, but sometimes it is more cost-effective to make a "virgin" product, one made from raw materials, instead of one made from recycled supplies. For example, depending on the type and the resin it is made of, plastic containers must be sorted, thoroughly cleaned and then reprocessed (Cooper). Lynn Scarlett, the vice president of research at a non-profit organization called Reason Foundation, agrees, more optimistically stating, "Where the material is of uniform quality, collected in large quantities and easy to isolate from contaminants, there are net benefits to recycling" (Cooper). But is this too much to ask? Has recycling become too complicated to be worthwhile?

In some cases, the process may be neither complicated nor expensive—it is simply unnecessary for materials that are available in excess. Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resources studies at the Cato Institute in Washington claims that glass, for instance, will never be in short supply because it is composed of sand, of which we have plenty ("Recycling"). Scarlett adds to this view, saying that the energy required to process cullet (recycled glass) is not significantly less than the amount when making glass from virgin silica, and therefore recycling glass is not immediately perceived as an environmental relief (Cooper). However, since glass is a relatively heavy material, energy will be needed if the cullet needs to be relocated and reprocessed. That fact may deem the process of recycling glass inefficient. The recycling of certain goods may be more expensive or unnecessary, but more importantly, opponents claim that it adversely affects the economy.

According to Mary Cooper, author of "The Economics of Recycling", the market for recyclables is "notoriously volatile". Weather and climate shifts as well as improvements in technology may result in a shortage of plastic, for instance. The price for recycled plastic would increase because the demand remains while the competition has deteriorated. While in the short term, this situation seems advantageous, it can compound over several years, resulting in an excess of recycled material. The most notable modern example of this was the collapse of the recycled paper industry in the 1990s (Cooper). Recycling paper was the most easy to commit to and thus the price of recycled paper became so cheap that major paper manufacturers made no net profit from the selling of their altered paper product, such as newspapers. The unfortunate result was recycling contractors dumping much of the collected paper in landfills (Cooper). Adversaries maintain that the unpredictability of the markets was due to more than the regular ebb and flow of the free market.

The government could partially be at fault for the economic flaws in recycling today. In 1993, President Clinton issued a five-year plan for federal agencies to buy paper made of at least 30% recycled material ("Milestones in Recycling"). Initially, the paper market sparked. Just two years later, recycled paper manufacturers were closing their doors and the entire market slumped. Today, though forty states have set recycling standards for residential areas, apartment buildings and commercial businesses often are not required by the government to recycle, despite the fact that most trash is expended from them, with a much smaller percentage generated from private residences (Cooper). Moreover, residential programs cost about two dollars per house whereas big businesses are more likely to profit from reduction ("Recycling"). Michele Raymond of Raymond Communications, a company that tracks state recycling efforts offers, "If they [the government] had actually studied where the trash was coming from, they would have put the mandates on industrial plants first, then commercial businesses and the multifamily housing units" (Cooper).

The tree hugger and environmental activist in me says that perhaps the economy needs to be disrupted. Raymond concurs, "[Americans are] just 20 percent the people in the world, but we consume 80 percent of the world''s resources," adding, "We''re trashing more that anyone else" (Cooper). Recycling proponents assert that both public opinion and, more notably, factual evidence support their cause. According to Cooper, over one thousand communities celebrated the very first "America Recycles Day" was held on November 15, 1998, affirming that the majority of Americans are recycling advocates and feel a sense of accomplishment from it. Recycling is undoubtedly one of the most convenient ways to help our planet. But has convenience come to overshadow the concrete financial benefits?

Promoters insist that economic advantages to recycling abound. While plastic requires extra steps to process and the recycled paper market undulates, steel scrap recycling has proven to be cost effective and has avoided government interference. According Ms. Scarlett of Reason Foundation, half of all steel consumed consists of recycled steel (Cooper). Aluminum soda cans are also in great demand, and can be processed inexpensively and with less pollution than mining bauxite into virgin sheet aluminum (Cooper). This rationale supports the economy, a cleaner environment, and even many reduce mining labor, which is known to be dangerous.

Furthermore, Richard Denison and John Ruston of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) argue:"Recycling is an environmentally beneficial alternative to the extraction and manufacture of virgin materials, not just an alternative to landfills… reduce environmental damage from activities such as strip mining and clear-cutting…conserve energy, reduce pollution and minimize solid waste" (Cooper).The EDF has conducted many studies gathering statistical evidence that supports recycling. They have discovered that one ton of recyclables collected at the curb saves at least $187 worth of electricity, petroleum, natural gas, and coal, making the energy conserved five times as valuable as landfill depositing (Cooper). Recycling buffs also point out that the recycling industry has stabilized since the paper slump of the 1990s, growing into a $30 billion enterprise ("Recycling"). While perhaps mining companies will suffer, over one hundred thousand people were employed by recycling processors and manufacturers in a study reflective of ten Northeastern states ("Recycling").

Besides having positive economic consequences, advocates maintain that recycling presents ethical advantages that would heighten the awareness of the stereotypically out-of-touch American. Nora Goldstein, editor of Biocycle magazine, aptly mentions that recycling has the power to reform the mind of the American consumer, forcing them to think about preservation and conservation instead of squandering resources ("Recycling"). She defends recycling, eloquently writing, "We live on Earth with limited resources. There is nothing criminal about developing a consciousness in the nation''s young—or their parents—that we should look at the trash we generate not as plastic bags full of junk…but instead as bags containing resources that should be recovered" ("Recycling"). In fact, current propositions for recycling suggest more than simply recovering. The origins of recycling do date back to the Second World War, and perhaps recycling needs to itself be recycled. Whatever happened to "Reduce" and "Reuse"? New innovative strategies could streamline this program.

The simplest way to actually reduce the waste consumption of Americans is called source reduction. It is defined as "any change in the design, manufacturing, purchase of use of materials or products (including packaging) to reduce the amount or toxicity before they become solid municipal waste" ("Recycling"). While incinerating the waste can reduce the amount of space it occupies, reducing the amount of extraneous packaging that accompanies so many products today could limit how much ash is produced. For example, many bottles of pills are bought in cardboard boxes around the actual container. Although the packaging may contain valuable information in some cases, it is usually unnecessary. Other, more radical thinkers believe a nationwide change in our consumer habits should coincide, if not precede, more environmental standards. Benjamin Barber, best-selling author and renowned political theorist, holds that the current global economy is producing "too many goods we don''t need, too few of those we do need, and, to keep the racket going, targets children as consumers in a market where shopping is a twenty-four business" (Barber). In essence, the choices we are making are not the right ones, and demanding these types of choices fuels our outrageous consumption. Barber offers three feasible solutions: tougher consumers who take the market into their own hands by demanding recyclable goods, a capitalistic approach that takes real risks to earn real profits fulfilling real human needs like water, and a retrieval of our citizenship. "Government is us. Government is our institutions. Government is how we make social and public choices working together" (Barber). I assert that recycling should be one of those choices.

Ironically, the event that rejuvenated modern environmentalism and sparked recycling was due to a careless sailor''s mistake, not the lack of landfills (he forgot to secure dumping rights for the infamous Mobro cargo carrier) ("Recycling"). In my opinion, implementing recycling in my high school was not sparked by a mistake. It was a premeditated criticism of the lack of thought that goes into where our trash is going. Although it is not a perfect process and has room for improvement, the idea is economically and morally sound. Let''s not be forgetful and lackadaisical about the trees, forget-me-nots, and daisies that share out planet. Initiated vigorously fifty years ago, recycling needs to be replanted, with new strategies fertilizing effective communication and a passion that will enthrall people of all ages once again.

Works Cited

Barber, Benjamin. Interview with Bill Moyers. Bill Moyers Journal. 21 Dec. 2007. PBS. WBGH, Boston. 21 Dec. 2007.

• 2008 Fall
• Research