“Too
Much Recycling Can Be A Waste Of Resources”
by Dr. J. Winston Porter
(As published in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 3/9/97)
In a recent Perspective article, Bill Sheehan and David Kirkpatrick asked, “Is zero waste, which means recycling nearly everything, achievable?” The answer is no. Not only is 100 percent recycling not reachable, but it is not even good for the environment.
Georgia and the nation are recycling more than 25 percent of their trash, thus meeting the national goal I set in 1988 while an assistant administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, most areas are not going much higher than 30 percent to 35 percent recycling for several reasons.
First, at least one-fourth of trash—including such items as kitty litter, paper towels, dirt and broken toys—is virtually nonrecyclable because it is hard to collect and has almost no value. So to reach even 50 percent recycling, about two-thirds of every “recyclable” item would need to be recovered.
Second, only a few of the 50 or so identifiable items in garbage are present in significant percentages: cardboard boxes (13 percent of trash) and newspapers (6 percent), to name two. Those items are already recycled at high rates. TO increase overall recycling dramatically, we would have to go after dozens of “one-percenters,” at great cost and inconvenience to consumer. How about 15-20 recycling bins at your curb?
There’s more. It is often difficult and expensive to recycle in rural areas. And much of our recycling is voluntary—we can’t force everyone to do it. Finally, we have to sell our recyclables, which is not easy when prices for these commodities soften, as they do periodically.
The zero-waste notion begins with the false assumption that reuse or recycling is always best for the environment. In March 1996, I conducted a study of reusable vs. disposable food service packaging, analyzing more than 30 European and American environmental investigations. The basic result was that a disposable package or container (e.g., a foam coffee cup) is preferable to a reusable one (e.g., a porcelain cup) from the standpoint of water supply and water pollution, since washing the reusable cup creates hot, soapy wastewater. Disposables are also safer from a public health viewpoint. The reusables are better from air and solid waste standpoints, but only if reused several hundred times.
It
is apparent that the zero-waste advocates are talking about zero solid wastes.
But what about air and water pollution or energy usage? Not to mention the
negative economic impacts of pursuing such a pie-in-the-sky venture.
Also, modern landfills, demonized by Sheehan and Kirkpatrick, have to meet
very stringent federal and state regulations and pose very small environmental
risks.
Finally, the zero-waste concept ignores the law of diminishing returns. We already recycle the items that make the most environmental and economic sense. As we force ourselves to go after less valuable wastes in more difficult locations—say, hotdog wrappers at ballparks or leftover napkins at the airport—the costs will skyrocket. Recovered items will be trucked greater distances, or more resources will be used to clean and process dirty recyclables.
Our goal should be to minimize the overall environmental impact of our products, not simply to shut the door in one area—solid wastes. And every dollar spent on zero waste is a dollar taken away from other environmental problems or from such areas as education, health care, or transportation.
©J. Winston Porter 2001