Arguments Against Recycling Research Paper
Recycling: make it the law?
In 2013 we produced 254 million tons of waste. Of this 254 million tons: we recycled 34%, which isn't a bad number. But of the rest of our waste that ends up in landfills: half could be recycled. That’s 84 million tons of waste that could be reused. So why are we just letting it get buried with the rest of our garbage? Recycling may be expensive and inconvenient in the beginning. But research shows the long term benefits of mandatory recycling programs. These benefits outweigh the initial inconvenience and expense.
Recycling can make a huge difference in our environment. There are many instances where we can see the positive effect recycling has had on our earth. Recycling is not a new concept. We have seen an …show more content…
Greenhouse gases are responsible for trapping heat in our atmosphere. The increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human activity are a primary cause of global warming.
“In 2013, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities” (Environmental Protection Agency).
The increased use of recycled material would lessen the demand for raw material. We can see the cost effectiveness of recycled vs raw material in today's markets. A perfect example would be the production of water bottles.
“ "Plastics News," a trade magazine, lists the recent price of PET virgin bottle resin pellets between 83 and 85 cents a pound, compared to only 58 to 66 cents a pound for PET recycled pellets” (Intagliata).
An increased use of recycled materials would reduce the demand for materials to be extracted from the environment. In many cases these raw materials come from unsustainable or non replenishable sources.
Recycling isn't just a good for the environment, it's also a good for society. We can see these positive effects on society today. Recycled material comes at a lower cost than raw material taken from the …show more content…
In 2003 the city of Seattle adopted a recycling mandate as a part of their “Zero Waste Resolution”.
“Seattle recycled 56.2% of its municipal solid waste in 2013. The city's recycling rate has risen 18% since the 2003 low of 38.2%” (Environmental Protection Agency).
San Francisco has also put into effect a mandatory recycling program. This recycling mandate is a part of their zero waste program. The city hopes to achieve zero waste by the year 2020. The city of San Francisco is now currently able to keep 80% of it’s solid waste out of landfills (San Francisco Department of the Environment). The zero waste initiatives in these large cities show the viability and benefits of mandatory recycling programs.
Now we have talked about the positive effects of recycling, but what about the negative? Recycling is not a cheap process. We can see the outright cost of recycling in some large cities such as New York City.
“Mayor Michael Bloomberg put a moratorium on recycling programs in New York City in 2002, and the diversion of recyclables to landfills for those 18 months was estimated to save the city $57 million”
In 2013 we produced 254 million tons of waste. Of this 254 million tons: we recycled 34%, which isn't a bad number. But of the rest of our waste that ends up in landfills: half could be recycled. That’s 84 million tons of waste that could be reused. So why are we just letting it get buried with the rest of our garbage? Recycling may be expensive and inconvenient in the beginning. But research shows the long term benefits of mandatory recycling programs. These benefits outweigh the initial inconvenience and expense.
Recycling can make a huge difference in our environment. There are many instances where we can see the positive effect recycling has had on our earth. Recycling is not a new concept. We have seen an …show more content…
Greenhouse gases are responsible for trapping heat in our atmosphere. The increase in greenhouse gasses caused by human activity are a primary cause of global warming.
“In 2013, CO2 accounted for about 82% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities” (Environmental Protection Agency).
The increased use of recycled material would lessen the demand for raw material. We can see the cost effectiveness of recycled vs raw material in today's markets. A perfect example would be the production of water bottles.
“ "Plastics News," a trade magazine, lists the recent price of PET virgin bottle resin pellets between 83 and 85 cents a pound, compared to only 58 to 66 cents a pound for PET recycled pellets” (Intagliata).
An increased use of recycled materials would reduce the demand for materials to be extracted from the environment. In many cases these raw materials come from unsustainable or non replenishable sources.
Recycling isn't just a good for the environment, it's also a good for society. We can see these positive effects on society today. Recycled material comes at a lower cost than raw material taken from the …show more content…
In 2003 the city of Seattle adopted a recycling mandate as a part of their “Zero Waste Resolution”.
“Seattle recycled 56.2% of its municipal solid waste in 2013. The city's recycling rate has risen 18% since the 2003 low of 38.2%” (Environmental Protection Agency).
San Francisco has also put into effect a mandatory recycling program. This recycling mandate is a part of their zero waste program. The city hopes to achieve zero waste by the year 2020. The city of San Francisco is now currently able to keep 80% of it’s solid waste out of landfills (San Francisco Department of the Environment). The zero waste initiatives in these large cities show the viability and benefits of mandatory recycling programs.
Now we have talked about the positive effects of recycling, but what about the negative? Recycling is not a cheap process. We can see the outright cost of recycling in some large cities such as New York City.
“Mayor Michael Bloomberg put a moratorium on recycling programs in New York City in 2002, and the diversion of recyclables to landfills for those 18 months was estimated to save the city $57 million”