Recycling: Costs and Benefits

John Tierney writes at The New York Times that many supporters of recycling have little ideas of its environmental costs and benefits.

But how much difference does it make? Here’s some perspective: To offset the greenhouse impact of one passenger’s round-trip flight between New York and London, you’d have to recycle roughly 40,000 plastic bottles, assuming you fly coach. If you sit in business- or first-class, where each passenger takes up more space, it could be more like 100,000.

Even those statistics might be misleading. New York and other cities instruct people to rinse the bottles before putting them in the recycling bin, but the E.P.A.’s life-cycle calculation doesn’t take that water into account. That single omission can make a big difference, according to Chris Goodall, the author of “How to Live a Low-Carbon Life.” Mr. Goodall calculates that if you wash plastic in water that was heated by coal-derived electricity, then the net effect of your recycling could be more carbon in the atmosphere.

...

The national rate of recycling rose during the 1990s to 25 percent, meeting the goal set by an E.P.A. official, J. Winston Porter. He advised state officials that no more than about 35 percent of the nation’s trash was worth recycling, but some ignored him and set goals of 50 percent and higher. Most of those goals were never met and the national rate has been stuck around 34 percent in recent years.

“It makes sense to recycle commercial cardboard and some paper, as well as selected metals and plastics,” he says. “But other materials rarely make sense, including food waste and other compostables. The zero-waste goal makes no sense at all — it’s very expensive with almost no real environmental benefit.”

One of the original goals of the recycling movement was to avert a supposed crisis because there was no room left in the nation’s landfills. But that media-inspired fear was never realistic in a country with so much open space. In reporting the 1996 article I found that all the trash generated by Americans for the next 1,000 years would fit on one-tenth of 1 percent of the land available for grazing. And that tiny amount of land wouldn’t be lost forever, because landfills are typically covered with grass and converted to parkland, like the Freshkills Park being created on Staten Island. The United States Open tennis tournament is played on the site of an old landfill — and one that never had the linings and other environmental safeguards required today.

Citizenship and Recycling

A new study looks at different concepts of citizenship. In "The Story of Good Citizenship: Framing Recycling in the Context of Duty-Based and Engaged Citizenship," Donna L. Lybecker, Mark K. McBeth, and Kacee A. Garner of Idaho State University note that individuals differ on the question of "What is a good citizen?" In their abstract, they write:

Young individuals, in particular, are more likely to follow an engaged citizen view of citizenship. Engaged citizens are more participatory, global, and committed to social justice more than their duty-based counterparts. In this article we examine, with an innovative methodology and merging of citizenship and framing literature, the potential effects of increased engaged citizenship on policy issues. Our questions examine the characteristics of duty-based or engaged citizens and explore whether duty-based and engaged citizens would be more likely to support a policy, in this case recycling efforts, if the issue is framed in the context of their respective preferred citizenship norm. To provide an initial answer to these questions, we use the case study of recycling. We find that the engaged recycling frame was strongly supported by individuals with a more engaged view of citizenship while the duty-based frame was not necessarily more supported by duty-based individuals. We provide insights on how our study impacts political science and policy.

The full text of the article is in the February 2010 issue of Politics and Policy, available through your library.