A very interesting and critical analysis of recycling was published in the NY Times this week here. The arguments in the story revolve around a lack of evidence that recycling (writ large) makes sense economically and offers relatively little environmental benefit given the ample space for landfills in most rural locations and the success of incineration in European countries. One of of the most pointed critiques in the article is the idea that, absent clear evidence for the benefits of recycling, the practice amounts to something more akin to seeking (religious) absolution for the sins of excess consumption than to a beneficial environmental action. Unfortunately, I have already seen a few posts from high profile environmental scientists that serve more to reinforce the claims in the article (regarding dogma and irrationality) than to refute them. My take is that the article raises several very important points and missing a couple of additional ones. What it gets right is the underlying point that we should use evidence to make decisions for activities like recycling & if in fact, recycling plastics generates more carbon than does the creation of new plastics, then it makes little sense to continue this practice. Similarly, if recycling is more a costly exercise in the alleviation of consumer guilt than a practical investment in environmental protection, then shouldn't we then consider whether these costs would be better spent toward another (environmental) goal?
Where the article doesn't go far enough in my opinion is toward the bigger questions of the assumptions in an economic system that allows the inexpensive extraction of finite natural resources and which under-values the costs of pollution and other environmental impacts. At an even broader level, the recycling debate offers an opportunity to consider the ethics of consumption and disposal and whether we are making appropriate use of the world's finite resources. Whether one agrees with the points in this article or not, I personally appreciate the provocation to think more generally how consumption, economics, and ethics collide in our modern world.
Where the article doesn't go far enough in my opinion is toward the bigger questions of the assumptions in an economic system that allows the inexpensive extraction of finite natural resources and which under-values the costs of pollution and other environmental impacts. At an even broader level, the recycling debate offers an opportunity to consider the ethics of consumption and disposal and whether we are making appropriate use of the world's finite resources. Whether one agrees with the points in this article or not, I personally appreciate the provocation to think more generally how consumption, economics, and ethics collide in our modern world.