Recycling Is Virtuous

__"In Defense of Recycling" by Allen Hershkowitz, in Social Research (Spring 1998), New School for Social Research, 66 W. 12th St., New York, N.Y. 10011.__

Recycling, which many regard as environmental virtue incarnate, has come under attack in recent years as itself a waste of human and natural resources, not to mention time and money. "Recycling Is Garbage," shouted a New York Times Magazine broadside in 1996. Hershkowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, rises to the defense.

"It is virtually beyond dispute," he says, "that manufacturing products from recyclables instead of from virgin raw materials ...causes less pollution and imposes fewer burdens on the earth’s natural habitat and biodiversity." Modern paper recycling mills, for instance, produce no air or water pollution and no hazardous wastes, while the virgin pulp and paper industry is among "the world’s largest generators of toxic air pollutants, surface water pollution, sludge, and solid wastes."

The 1996 New York Times Magazine writer, John Tierney, defied environmental correctness by asserting that a disposable polystyrene cup makes more ecological sense than a reusable ceramic mug, since making and continually cleaning the mug consumes large amounts of energy (and water). But Hershkowitz points out that "oil refineries and plastics production facilities that process crude petroleum into plastic cups and other consumer goods produce some of the most substantial public health threats—including lethal gases like phosgene—posed by any manufacturing process."

Critics have pointed out that the trucks used to collect aluminum cans and old newspapers spew pollutants into the air. Hershkowitz says recycling trucks and facilities generate no more pollution than garbage trucks and facilities, and probably less. Recycling trucks spend less time idling (because recyclables are lighter than garbage and thus easier for workers to carry), and they don’t have to travel to distant landfills.

Some recycling critics have also argued that curbside recycling is not economical when compared with garbage collection and landfill disposal. But the costs involved vary so much, both over time and from place to place, Hershkowitz says, that it is impossible to substantiate that claim. Sometimes recycling has the economic edge at the local level; sometimes it doesn’t. But any full accounting, he says, should include the hard-to-measure consequences for the environment, health, and society.

One of the biggest advantages of recycling, Hershkowitz writes, is that it reduces the need for landfills. During the last 15 years, more than 10,000 landfills have been closed in the United States, chiefly because of environmental problems. Critics of recycling tout the environmental safety of modern landfills, but Hershkowitz is not persuaded. "Landfills generate hazardous and uncontrolled air emissions and also threaten surface and groundwater supplies." Of the nearly 3,000 currently operating landfills, less than half even attempt to control dangerous air pollutants, and only one-third have synthetic liners to keep groundwater from being fouled.

With 7,500 recycling programs in operation (compared with only 1,000 a decade ago), almost 24 percent of the nation’s municipal solid waste is being recovered. "Of course, as a raw-material commodities business, recycling markets can’t guarantee profits," Hershkowitz concedes. "No market does." But the financial risks "in no way negate" recycling’s environmental benefits. And, he points out, while "some recycling programs lose money under adverse market conditions, dumping at a landfill or an incinerator always ‘loses money.’ "