skip to main |
skip to sidebar
John Tierney in NY Times: Recycling was ‘garbage’ in 1996, it’s still that way today, and the future looks even worse
From Mark Perry.
"In 1996, New York Times science columnist John Tierney wrote an article that appeared in the New York Times Magazine about compulsory recycling titled “Recycling is Garbage.” Tierney’s controversial argument in that article can be summarized as follows: Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America. Tierney wrote, “Rinsing out tuna cans and tying up newspapers may make you feel virtuous, but it’s a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources.
Americans have embraced recycling as a transcendental experience, an
act of moral redemption. We’re not just reusing our garbage; we’re performing a rite of atonement for the sin of excess.”
Now you can understand why Tierney’s recycling article set the all-time
record for the greatest volume of hate mail ever recorded in the
history of the New York Times Magazine.
Because it was
one of the first and most effective challenges to the naive,
pro-recycling propaganda that has been used to successfully brainwash
millions of American school children for the last quarter century, I’ve
featured John Tierney’s classic recycling article on CD many times over the years (especially around the “green holy days” known as “Earth Day” and “America Recycles Day”), including here, here, here, and here.
It’s
been almost 20 years since John Tierney taught us that “recycling is
garbage.” Fortunately, he has just provided a recycling update in
today’s New York Times with a new article titled “The Reign of Recycling.” So, what has happened over the last two decades? According to Tierney, “While it’s true that the recycling message
religion has reached more people converts
than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and
environmentally, not much has changed at all.” And what about
recycling’s future? It “looks even worse,” says Tierney.
Here’s a condensed version of Tierney’s new article on recycling, with my section titles and emphasis:
1. Background. In 1996, I wrote a long article for The New York Times Magazine (“Recycling is Garbage”)
arguing that the recycling process as we carried it out was wasteful. I
presented plenty of evidence that recycling was costly and ineffectual,
but its defenders said that it was unfair to rush to judgment. Noting
that the modern recycling movement had really just begun just a few
years earlier, they predicted it would flourish as the industry matured
and the public learned how to recycle properly. So, what’s happened
since then? While it’s true that the recycling message has reached more
people than ever, when it comes to the bottom line, both economically and environmentally, not much has changed at all.
Despite
decades of exhortations and mandates, it’s still typically more
expensive for municipalities to recycle household waste than to send it
to a landfill. Prices for recyclable materials have plummeted
because of lower oil prices and reduced demand for them overseas. The
slump has forced some recycling companies to shut plants and cancel
plans for new technologies. The future for recycling looks even worse.
As cities move beyond recycling paper and metals, and into glass, food
scraps and assorted plastics, the costs rise sharply while the
environmental benefits decline and sometimes vanish.
2. Costs vs. Benefits of Recycling.
Recycling has been relentlessly promoted as a goal in and of itself: an
unalloyed public good and private virtue that is indoctrinated in
students from kindergarten through college. As a result, otherwise well-informed and educated people have no idea of the relative costs and benefits.
They
probably don’t know, for instance, that to reduce carbon emissions,
you’ll accomplish a lot more by sorting paper and aluminum cans than by
worrying about yogurt containers and half-eaten slices of pizza. Most
people also assume that recycling plastic bottles must be doing lots for
the planet. They’ve been encouraged by the EPA, which assures the
public that recycling plastic results in less carbon being released into
the atmosphere.
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 EPA’s
life-cycle calculation doesn’t take that water into account. That single
omission can make a big difference. 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.
3. Recycling and Landfills.
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.
Though
most cities shun landfills, they have been welcomed in rural communities
that reap large economic benefits (and have plenty of greenery to
buffer residents from the sights and smells). Consequently, the
great landfill shortage has not arrived, and neither have the shortages
of raw materials that were supposed to make recycling profitable.
4. Recycling Economics.
As a business, recycling is on the wrong side of two long-term global
economic trends. For centuries, the real cost of labor has been
increasing while the real cost of raw materials has been declining.
That’s why we can afford to buy so much more stuff than our ancestors
could. As a labor-intensive activity, recycling is an increasingly expensive way to produce materials that are less and less valuable.
Recyclers have tried to improve the economics by automating the sorting
process, but they’ve been frustrated by politicians eager to increase
recycling rates by adding new materials of little value. The more types of trash that are recycled, the more difficult it becomes to sort the valuable from the worthless.
In New York City, the net cost of recycling a ton of trash is now $300 more than it would cost to bury the trash instead.
That adds up to millions of extra dollars per year — about half the
budget of the parks department — that New Yorkers are spending for the
privilege of recycling. That money could buy far more valuable benefits,
including more significant reductions in greenhouse emissions.
5. Recycling as a Religion. Religious rituals don’t need any practical justification for the believers who perform them voluntarily. But
many recyclers want more than just the freedom to practice their
religion. They want to make these rituals mandatory for everyone else,
too, with stiff fines for sinners who don’t sort properly.
Seattle has become so aggressive that the city is being sued by
residents who maintain that the inspectors rooting through their trash
are violating their constitutional right to privacy.
It would take
legions of garbage police to enforce a zero-waste society, but true
believers insist that’s the future. When Mayor de Blasio promised to
eliminate garbage in New York, he said it was “ludicrous” and “outdated”
to keep sending garbage to landfills. Recycling, he declared, was the
only way for New York to become “a truly sustainable city.”
But cities have been burying garbage for thousands of years, and it’s still the easiest and cheapest solution for trash. The
recycling movement is floundering, and its survival depends on
continual subsidies, sermons and policing. How can you build a
sustainable city with a strategy that can’t even sustain itself?
Bottom Line: Economist Steven Landsburg wrote that “Naive environmentalism
is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has
much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious
Fundamentalism. The antidote to bad religion is good science. The
antidote to astrology is the scientific method, the antidote to naive
creationism is evolutionary biology, and the antidote to naive
environmentalism is economics.” Kudos to John Tierney for his new
article that provides another effective economic antidote to the naive
environmentalist practice known as recycling."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.