english annotation

Ryan Lynch
Kristen Belcher
, 2013
Core Composition II
Annotated Bibliography

When thrown into a recycle bin in a college biology class, where does that plastic water bottle head off to? Does it arrive in a landfill in India, in the Gulf Coast, or reused in other bottles? The research question that will be addressed is; how efficient is recycling, from the bin to reusable material, and how well does it reduce landfills compared to incineration? Answering this question will be useful for environmental scientists and other related fields to determine the importance and necessity of material recycling. Reducing landfills using recycling can help to clean the environment and atmosphere so it is important to know exactly how much recycling helps and if it can improve.

"Recycling Basics | Reduce, Reuse, Recycle | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p.,

14 Aug. 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2013. .

This is an online article source through a credible agency, the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It very briefly outlines how recycling occurs and the benefits of recycling, including reducing landfills. The purpose of this article was to inform anyone who is new to this field of study and would like to know the general idea. The process is very vaguely outlined and does not go too far in depth as to be understood by nearly any reader. The main ideas are the benefits and the three stages of recycling. The three stages are represented by the triangular arrows and are Collection and Processing, Manufacturing, and Purchasing New Products Made from Recycled Materials. Collection and Processing consists of attaining the material in a variety of ways, including curbside, drop off, and collection agencies and then processing and sorting the materials that can be used for manufacturing. Manufacturing consists of using this material to make new products such as paper towels and aluminum can, with more products emerging annually. The last step that closes the recycling loop is Purchasing New Products Made from Recycled Materials which can be done by looking for merchandise that used recycled materials as well as buying products that can be recycled after use. This article would be useful in gaining a brief understanding of what recycling is as explained by reliable source. It could also help outline the process of recycling in the introduction of a paper explaining the efficiency of recycling.

Morris, Jeffrey. "Comparative LCAs For Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling Or
Incineration With Energy Recovery (12 Pp)." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10.4 (2005): 273-284. Print. This is a scholarly journal written by Jeffery Morris outlining a comparison using a couple different projects using LCAs (Life Cycle Assessments) of recycling or landfilling/incineration with energy recovery. The purpose of this article is to inform a reader that the positive effects of recycling outweighs other forms of waste disposal. This journal is contained within the Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management database which lends itself to be for the purpose of environmental scientists and or those interested in learning about waste management. This journal generally addresses and describes two studies. One study is performed for the San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority. This study directly compared curbside recycling to the curbside collection of refuse to be sent to landfills where collected gas is used for energy. The second study, performed by Washington State Department of Ecology, compared curbside recycling for three regions with the collection of the same materials in those regions that are brought to landfills where the landfill gas is collected and flared. Both of these studies used life cycle inventory, a technique used to measure the impact of 10 pollutants, 17 water born pollutants, and waste emissions, as well as Research-Triangle Institute and the Environmental Protection Agency to measure the environmental impacts of solid waste management and recycling. The conclusion of these studies seemed to be that the collection of conventionally recyclable materials for re-use in manufacturing processes instead of using virgin materials has far less of an environmental impact than that of collection of the same materials to be brought into landfills to be incinerated, even including the energy and resources spent collecting and processing the materials. The social benefits of recycling far outweighs the cost. This scholarly journal would be useful in providing a solid experimental background to help defend the argument that recycling has more benefit than cost. In a paper attempting to define the effectiveness of recycling, this journal gives two solid processes that are scientifically okay in methodology to show that merely sending the materials to a landfill would be far less economically and environmentally sound.
\
"Plastic Recycling: The Truth Behind the Myths - YouTube." YouTube. Moore Recycling
Associates, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_F4BiBOjw

This source is a video on youtube.com that provides a good amount of important information that would help to enlighten those who are confused about plastic recycling. The creators and sponsors of this video are Moore Recycling Associates who have been in the recycling business for 26 years. The speaker in the video is CEO of Moore Recycling Associates, Patty Moore. She explains many processes of recycling plastics, a very common recycled material while refuting several of the misconceptions of recycling. Of the myths discussed there are several that would be important to readers concerned and confused about the effectiveness and efficiency of recycling plastic materials. Patty Moore reveals that “Plastic Can Only Be Recycled Once” is a myth. Plastic can be recycled several times and can even stay the same quality and be reused to make the same exact product it originally began as. She explains that the FDA even sets up processes to make sure these recycled plastics are healthy enough to come in contact with food. Another important myth revealed is that “Plastic Bags Are Filling Up Our Landfills.” Patty Moore explains that plastic bags are only about a half a percent of the total landfills and that the majority of landfills are food. “Degradable is Better” is another myth covered. Degradable is in fact not better because these manufactured goods do not go entirely away and energy is saved in the manufacturing process with recycled material rather than degradable. Perhaps the most important myth covered in this video relevant to the research question is that of “Recycling Plastic Uses More Energy than It Saves.” Using a LCA like the one used in the study explained in the scholarly journal by Jeffrey Morris, it was determined that there was an 84% energy reduction for recycled P.E.T. flake versus virgin material production. This last myth helps to explain a specific example of why it is better to recycle material rather than just use new virgin materials in manufacturing processes or just incinerate it or put it into landfills. It is always better to recycle because of the intrinsic value from original manufacturing of the material. This video would be useful in the way that it can get rid of any preconceive notions of anybody going in to researching plastic recycling or any recycling for that matter since many of the concepts apply to other materials. It provides a solid source to learn about a real business that deals with recycling rather than just thinking about the concept of recycling as something that just happens without a business behind it. The downside about this video was that it was purely about plastic. More information would be useful about other materials. Overall, the video is a useful source to persuade any skeptics with preconceived and false notions about recycling.

Hobbs, Marian . "Recycling closes landfills." The Dominion Post [Wellington, NZ] 5 Mar. 2004, sec. News; National: 2. 360 LINK. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. (Old but you said it was okay)

This is a newspaper article that very briefly describes the situation of recycling in a country on a large scale. The country is New Zealand and the article outlines the overall success of the recycling program there. This success is measured by the amount of landfill closures that there have been from 1995 to 2004. Also it is measured by the level of access the New Zealand population has to recycling. The article describes a plan that was proposed in 2002 to reduce the chemical, sewage, and other hazardous waste. Recycling was a huge part of this effort. Recycling efforts have closed two thirds of the landfills in New Zealand, from 300 down to 100, and now 95% of the population have access to recycling facilities. Marian Hobbs shows strong evidence that cooperation between the government, corporations, and the people can greatly reduce the amount of landfills there are and increase the effectiveness of recycling. New Zealand is proof that effective recycling strategies and dedication can have a clear environmental impact. Not only is recycling economically efficient and environmentally friendly as outlined in Morris’ journal and the "Plastic Recycling: The Truth Behind the Myths - YouTube." video, but it is also possible on a large, nationwide, scale. A feat this large would be much more difficult to perform in higher population countries like China or the United States. However, a model of the plan could be implemented city by city and that is what Hobbs’ information could bring to an argument supporting the more broad use of recycling and how effective it could be. In a paper, this article could be used to give solid evidence for the effectiveness of dedication to recycling and that it is worth the effort and resources to implement it. The video by Moore Recycling Associates help to explain that recycling is more economically efficient than using virgin materials so in affect, a wide scale use of recycled products, such as what is happening in New Zealand, could be very economically efficient and significantly better than other forms of waste management.

"Incinerators: Myths vs. Facts about “Waste to Energy”." no-burn.org. Global Alliance for
Incineration Alternatives, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. .

This is an online article published the GAIA (Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives) that lays out several facts and fictions about incineration. The source is very biased against incineration but also uses several facts to back up the claims that are presented. Many of the pints presented focus on environmental and health concerns that are cause by incineration. The main points include health risks of incinerators, contribution towards climate change, lack of energy production, lack of job production versus alternatives, affordability, and comparison between European countries that have a high concentration of incineration and other countries like the U.S. that do not. Individuals living near these facilities are at risk because of high emissions of mercury. Even with modern filters, the emission of mercury is at least 14 times higher than that of coal burning plans according to the New York Department of Conservation. Also, “According to the U.S. EPA, “waste to energy” incinerators and landfills contribute far higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions and overall energy throughout their lifecycles than source reduction, reuse and recycling of the same materials.” (GAIA 2) This information helps support the claim that incineration is far less environmentally friendly than the alternatives. It is also said in the article that incineration produces more toxic carbon dioxide emissions than coal fired, gas fired, or natural gas forms of energy sources. An important comparison for the topic is how much energy that is wasted by not recycling and incineration instead. The energy output of 15 plants could be saved by simply recycling the materials instead of having them incinerated. Additionally, many people believe that incineration brings jobs to communities when in fact recycling would provide 10-20 times more jobs. This article is effective in presenting many of the downsides of incineration. The facts are backed up with citation and the organization is credible. However, the lack of acknowledgement for the effective use of incineration lends to the idea this article may be presenting the information in a biased way to persuade the audience. This aside, the environmental impacts of incinerators and health risks make a great case in a paper against incineration and for recycling. Recycling poses a very affective and healthy alternative and is used several times to counter the negativity of incineration. In essence, this article provided a viable argument against incineration to help bolster the idea that recycling is the only efficient and effective was of managing landfills and controlling waste management.

"Executive Summary." Waste Incineration & Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press, 2000. 6-7. Print.(A little old but you gave me your approval)

The couple pages I found in this book largely related to the public health of incineration created by credible sources such as Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, and National Research Council helps to provide an alternative and unbiased perspective about the health factors of waste incineration. The section I chose out of the “Executive Summary” chapter, titled Health Effects, outlines several key ideas that counter the claims made by the previous article. The main point is that there have been many studies about the health effects of incinerators on the nearby population that have not shown any significant correlation between the two. The idea is exemplified by the quote, ” Few epidemiologic studies have attempted to assess whether adverse health effects have actually occurred near individual incinerators, and most of them have been unable to detect any effects.” (Waste Incineration & Public Health 6) However, the writers did say that the lack of correlation could also be due to a small sample size. These people that live near the incinerators are exposed to other pollutants nearby. The correlation could also just be undetectable using available methods and databases. The section does provide an example of a small relationship that the workers at the incinerators develop long term health problems. Another important idea this section in the book describes is the suggestions needed in order to more accurately measure the relationship. This includes using multiple sites and pooling the data, monitoring worker exposure levels biologically, and paying more attention to the effect of specific matters on health such as mercury or lead pollutants. This book section helps provide an unbiased opinion about the health risks of incineration. The lack of definitive evidence provided makes several of the claims of how incineration is substantially unhealthy compared to recycling made by the "Incinerators: Myths vs. Facts about “Waste to Energy”” article seem slightly invalid. More information would now have to be provided to substantiate the claims made by that article. This section of the book provides a solid and reliable source to counter the opinion that incinerators are definitely unhealthy. However, the fact that these facilities are putting pollutants in the air still makes them substantially less healthy than recycling which does not put any of the mentioned pollutants into the atmosphere.

Bibliography: Morris, Jeffrey. "Comparative LCAs For Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling Or Incineration With Energy Recovery (12 Pp)." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 10.4 (2005): 273-284 Associates, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_F4BiBOjw This source is a video on youtube.com that provides a good amount of important information that would help to enlighten those who are confused about plastic recycling Hobbs, Marian . "Recycling closes landfills." The Dominion Post [Wellington, NZ] 5 Mar. 2004, sec Incineration Alternatives, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. . "Executive Summary." Waste Incineration & Public Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000