|
Recycling May Be Worst Choice By Katherine Kersten When I hear the grocery clerk's familiar refrain -- "paper or plastic?" -- I don't hesitate a moment. I assume that everyone, from the grandmother in line behind me to the bag boy, knows that people "concerned about the environment" choose paper. I'm not too clear on the science involved -- I have a vague notion that paper is "biodegradable," while plastic sits in landfills for a thousand years. My decision to choose paper is based, not on science, but on what has become a moral imperative in a society that makes few moral demands: "Reduce, reuse, recycle." Scenes like the one in the grocery store are played out in homes and businesses across our nation every day. Our schools, in particular, teach the "3 R's" as an orthodoxy not open to question. It is a rare parent who has not endured finger-wagging lectures from a second-grader about the evils of styrofoam cups or plastic packaging. So I was surprised to open the "New York Times Sunday Magazine" recently and discover a story entitled "Recycling Is Garbage," by staff writer John Tierney. "Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous," ran the sub-head, "but recycling could be America's most wasteful activity." Too often, the article maintains, recycling is "a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources." The "Times" story notes that recycling makes sense for some materials -- like aluminum cans and office paper -- at some times and places. But in recent years, states and municipalities have established rigid quotas, typically requiring that at least 40 percent of trash be recycled. Though intended to save money, curbside recycling programs usually add substantially to the cost of waste disposal. (New York City is under court order to recycle more trash, but hasn't complied because it doesn't want to increase its deficit.) Moreover, recycling programs have produced a glut of paper, glass and plastic that few want to buy.
Why this American love affair with recycling? The "Times" story addresses several "myths" that fuel it. For example, plastic packaging is widely criticized because it doesn't decay in landfills. But paper and cardboard -- though technically biodegradable -- also tend to remain intact, and actually use far more landfill space than plastic packaging, which has steadily gotten smaller as manufacturers develop stronger, thinner materials. In fact, it takes 12 plastic bags to fill the landfill space occupied by one paper bag. Though fast-food containers and plastic packaging may seem wasteful, the "Times" article claims that they actually save resources and reduce trash. Lightweight plastic packaging keeps food fresh longer, and takes much less energy to manufacture and transport than cardboard or paper. The typical household in Mexico City buys fewer packaged goods than American households, but it produces one-third more garbage, because Mexicans buy fresh foods in bulk and throw away large amounts that are spoiled or stale. Not surprisingly, food manufacturers save money when they use resources efficiently. A typical McDonald's discards under two ounces of garbage per customer, less than what's produced in an average meal at home. Most of us believe that it is more "virtuous" to drink from a ceramic mug than a styrofoam cup. But according to the "Times" article, it takes much more energy to manufacture the mug, and each washing consumes significant quantities of both water and energy. One scientist has calculated that a person would have to use a mug 1,000 times before its energy-consumption-per-use is equal to the cup's. In other words, says the "Times" story, "If the mug breaks after your 900th coffee, you would have been better off using 900 polystyrene cups." Why do I take the time to recycle soup cans? I have always assumed that my efforts save precious natural resources, and help ensure that future generations won't be buried by the garbage I generate. The "Times" article casts doubt on both these rationales. Recycling newspapers, it suggests, often makes little sense. Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production. We are hardly running out of timber -- American forests contain three times more wood today than in 1920. Our concerns about depleting non-renewable resources may also be overblown. Copper, tin and other metals are cheaper than ever, though 40 years ago conservationists urged rationing so that future generations would have telephone wires and food containers. Today, we send our phone calls through fiber optic cables, made from sand, and most food containers contain no tin at all. Thanks to human ingenuity, the cost of most natural resources has been declining for years. The "Times" article suggests that, generally, the cheapest and best way to dispose of garbage is to bury it. Modern landfills have little in common with the smelly town dump we remember from childhood. They are regulated by strict federal safety standards, and courts have routinely found them to be acceptable alternatives to expensive incinerators. In fact, the article notes, that "mountain of garbage" we fear is highly unlikely to materialize. According to one calculation, if Americans generate garbage at current rates for 1,000 years, and put it all in a landfill 100 yards deep, by the year 3000 the whole lot will fill a piece of land 35 miles square. Many will quarrel with the "Times" article's conclusions about recycling and waste disposal. What is clear, however, is that these issues involve scientific and economic questions that are far more complex than common wisdom suggests. Why, then, do we continue to teach our children -- as an article of faith -- that plastic packaging is bad? Why do we take such satisfaction in saying "paper please," or sorting milk jugs and bottles, while remaining contentedly fuzzy on how all this really benefits our community? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the peculiar circumstances of modern life. We live at a time when meaning and purpose are hard to come by, and the pace of technological change often seems overwhelming. It is comforting to think that -- simply by making the "right" choice at the grocery store, or engaging in a daily six-minute recycling ritual -- we can advance the transcendent task of "saving the planet." But we must resist the temptation to reduce issues as complex as waste disposal to bumper sticker slogans. "Getting things right" will demand much more from us. -- Katherine Kersten is chairman of Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis and a commentator for National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." |