Tooling around Western Springs today I noticed a truck from Allied Waste (AW), my garbage company, in front of me. For the first time, I saw as it turned a sort of billboard on the side which proudly declared that because of recycling efforts on the part of AW across the county last year, 41 million trees were saved. 41 million.
Apparently, Allied Waste considers this a grand thing. But I couldn’t help but wonder – even if recycling does save trees – why are we bothering to? Newsflash, trees grow back. Fast. They are probably the ultimate renewable resource. Moreover, recycling efforts have a real cost. From the pollution from the chemicals used to recycle, to the trucks sent to pick up the recyclables, to the money spent by municipalities to subsidize the recycling – money which could go to schools or police instead – the idea of “saving trees” and whether that’s a real benefit is questionable. Add to that the fact that recycled paper is always low grade because the fibers don’t survive the recycling process well, and the benefits of recycled paper grow more questionable.
Oh, and did I mention the pure waste from recycling – meaning paper which some folks (not me) dutifully bind up or put in paper bags on the curbside, only to have it end up in huge storage houses before it’s destroyed because there is just way more paper than can ever be used in recyclables? Add to that the waste of time involved, and one really questions whether recycling paper in particular is just a waste?
But it turns out there is more to it than that. Recycling paper may not save trees at all. Most paper in the United States does not come from whole trees to begin with. Large whole logs are typically used for lumber, because that’s what makes the most economic sense. Paper comes from small tees, often less than 8 inches in diameter, or the leftovers from saw mills. In other words, no one is “clear cutting” Redwoods for your child’s notebook paper. In fact, with current tree farming techniques, it takes as little as one year for a tree to go from seedling to paper. One year.
Maybe that’s why we are “long” on trees in the U.S. In the United States today there are for more trees now than there were at the time of our founding. Why? Because it makes economic sense to plant, grow, cut and sell them, then to start the process all over again, whether for paper, building materials, turpentine, fuel, even plastics. There’s a market for trees, so there are plenty of trees.
Perhaps nowhere is the recycling silliness that has overtaken our schools , businesses and communities more apparent than when it comes to “saving trees” by “saving” paper. One might be able to save landfill space by recycling paper (again, not necessary but that’s another column); one might be able to save money by using both side of the paper (fine, that’s a market mechanism) but one does not “save trees” which do not need saving, by “saving” paper.
This does not mean there is no benefit to recycling anything. About 10 percent of the waste stream can be economically recycled. There is a reason aluminum and some glass producers will pay you or your kids to bring them cans and glass. It makes economic sense. I personally love using stuff over and over again in my home – from meals to the sherbet container that become a plastic container. It’s economical.
And that’s typically a good test. If it makes “sense” for you to recycle, it will probably make “cents.” If it doesn’t make “cents” than it is probably a waste. And so you have nothing to feel guilty about by not “saving trees.”
**
Betsy Hart writes on media issues for the Chicago Daily Observer and other publications. She is the host of “It Takes a Parent” on AM 1160 Chicago-Thursdays at 2PM.
David Biddle says:
Ms. Hart's column here is quite uninformed. First and foremost throwing stuff in a landfill or burning it in an incinerator means it can never be used again...and you pay a lot of money to make sure that will be the case. Recycling virtually every standard consumer item in an urban area like Chicago when you look at the total economics than disposal.
More to the point though, Ms. Hart doesn't understand that recycling is not just about saving landfill space. It is about reducing our dependence on mining and logging -- activities that require massive amounts of energy and water that are rarely taken into account when recycling programs are evaluated.
There's no question that waste reduction is an important concept too, but big city recycling programs are about mining urban ore. In the past 3-5 years this has become a major, major economic endeavor worldwide. Recycling is fueling the Chinese economic revolution. It is only going to grow. American cities are one of the main sources of China's raw materials. It's only a matter of time before we figure out how to retool our own industrial capacity to compete again in the global marketplace.
David Biddle, Executive Director
Greater Philadelphia Commercial Recycling Council
David Tam, Northern California Recycling Assn. says:
Here's a source Ms. Hart may have overlooked, a study by DSM Associates and the Natural Resources Defense Council for the City of New York, Analysis of New York City Department of Sanitation
Curbside Recycling and Refuse Costs: http://docs.nrdc.org/cities/cit_08052.... According to the New York Times 28May08, Report Contends That Recycling Is Not So Wasteful,
“'Here is proof positive that recycling is cost competitive with other waste-disposal methods, to say nothing of cutting the city’s contribution to global warming,'” said Eric A. Goldstein, a senior lawyer with the defense council.
"New York’s recycling programs provide the same environmental benefit as taking roughly 338,000 passenger cars off the road each year, according to the report."
Of course, Northern Illinois may not run out of cornfields for landfills for another 500 years, but it will be spending more and more to haul them farther out, and polluting the air far more than from the in-town shipments of recyclable materials back to green businesses where they can be reused.
We in California are pleased to see that Chicago has stepped up its recycling efforts subsantially in the last few years.
David Tam, Northern California Recycling Assn. says:
Ms. Hart should also pick up on David Biddle's excellent point:
Recycling is fueling the Chinese economic revolution. It is only going to grow. American cities are one of the main sources of China's raw materials. It's only a matter of time before we figure out how to retool our own industrial capacity to compete again in the global marketplace.
Chicago and other rustbelt cities have lost millions of manufacturing jobs overseas. Part of the reason is the excessive cost of materials. We need to restore those jobs; closing the loop by reusing materials must be part of the solution. For a 15 minute video, Point of Return, that shows how the Bay Area is working on that, go to http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc....
For more about our recycling association, http://www.ncrarecycles.org.
[CORRECTIONS] TO LAST 2 GRAF OF PREVIOUS COMMENT:
Of course, Northern Illinois may not run out of cornfields for landfills for another 500 years, but it will be spending more and more to haul [recyclable materials] farther out, and polluting the air far more than from the in-town shipments of [them] back to green businesses where they can be reused.
We in California are pleased to see that Chicago has stepped up its recycling efforts subs[t]antially in the last few years.
Mark says:
Mr. Biddle says:
"First and foremost throwing stuff in a landfill or burning it in an
incinerator means it can never be used again...and you pay a lot of
money to make sure that will be the case."
But didn't Ms. Hart make a point that not all recycling is wasteful, but that some of it has downsides too? And when it comes to some renewable resources, such as trees for paper, it's not all bad news either? While it may be true that paper that goes into a landfill or incinerator will never be used again, does that make it a bad thing? Is paper that we consume any different than food that we consume? The food we eat will never be used again either. But we can plant and grow more food.
"More to the point though, Ms. Hart doesn't understand that
recycling is not just about saving landfill space.
It is about reducing our dependence on mining and logging
-- activities that require massive amounts of energy and
water that are rarely taken into account when recycling programs
are evaluated."
But didn't she also say that recycling some materials involves massive amounts of energy, water, chemicals that are often not taken into account as well?
I'm all for whatever is both economically feasible and good for the environment, but can somebody back up what they're saying rather than toss statements like "throwing stuff in a landfill means it can be never be used again", which seem to imply that it's such a bad thing, when perhaps it's not? Growing lots of young trees with the intent to harvest them for more paper is less resource intensive than recycling, then we should be doing less paper recycling, right?
Tree says:
Can you state your source(s) please.