Recycling vs. Our Throw Away Culture

Recycling vs. Our Throw Away Culture

Although it may seem like recycling is something new, in reality, forms of recycling have been used for many years. In the early 1900’s, waste paper and rags were often used to make paper when wood pulp was scarce and too expensive (Black). The economic depression also made recycling an important way for people to survive, as they couldn’t afford to buy new things (Grabianowski). People then began recycling scrap metal, nylon, rubber and other materials as they were rationed to help support the war efforts during World War II (Grabianowski). According to the Earth Day Network, current recycling trends were signaled in 1970 by the introduction of the first “Earth Day”, an annual day of observance in the U.S. meant to bring heightened awareness of the Earth’s natural environmental issues (“History of Earth Day”). This is when recycling really hit the mainstream as an environmental movement and its public acceptance began.
By 1997, the growth of public sector curbside recycling programs in the U.S. grew from 9 percent in 1989 to 28 percent in 1996 (Goldstein). This is when consumers embraced “green” living and began supporting the idea that recycling products could be beneficial to the environment. As curbside recycling sprang up in most every U.S. city, earth-friendly products filled the supermarkets, and words like “hybrid”, “organic”, and “eco-friendly” became commonplace. In order to understand the importance of recycling, one must first go back to the beginning. During a human lifetime, each person will produce waste materials of many kinds. While many of these materials are biodegradable or broken down by microorganisms into simpler substances and then used by nature, many are not. As science and technology soar, new materials are being developed and produced every day that nature cannot decompose, like plastics and synthetics. Many biodegradable substances, like food scraps and paper products, are also discarded more quickly than natural decomposition can accommodate (Hall, Garbage 6). The results are mounting piles of debris, also called solid waste or garbage, which must be dealt with in one of three ways: by burying it, burning it, or recycling it.
The most popular disposal technique is to burying the garbage. Commonly referred to as a “garbage dumping”, manmade piles of debris began piling up. Congress, recognizing the problem, passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act, setting disposal plans into action and helping to regulate garbage dumping by creating public landfills or dumping areas (Hall, Garbage 12).
Another disposal technique is to burn the garbage. Disposal of garbage by burning it goes back in time to the first civilizations. From prehistoric man to today’s American family, burning garbage has been a simple, effective way to get rid of waste (Hall, Garbage 25).

The last disposal technique is to recycle it. Simply enough, recycling means to use something again. There are two ways to do this. The first means to take an object and use it over and over again. Examples include toothbrushes, clothing, dishes, etc. The second means to take an object and reuse it for another purpose other than what it was originally created to do. Examples include using an old toothbrush to clean the tile in the shower, or making a birdhouse from a plastic milk jug (Hall, Recycling 4-5).
Today, about 63 percent of all solid waste ends up in landfills (Hall, Garbage 24). There are many problems with this disposal technique. As populations grow, more garbage is created and there are less and less places to store it. Hazardous waste is also a problem. This includes waste that is flammable like paint, corrosive like cleaning solutions, and waste that can mix with other materials or seep through the ground into water supplies and cause harm to people and the environment.
Burning the garbage has its own problems. Air pollution can harm people, animals and the environment, and in the end, the need for landfills is still necessary as ash remains. The popularity of industrial incinerators, however, is minimal. Although people tolerate them, only 16 percent of the solid waste in the United States is incinerated (Hall, Garbage 37).
Recycling has problems as well. Following Earth Day, recycling programs sprang up all over America and products began to accumulate, newspapers, cardboard boxes, glass bottles soda cans, plastics, etc. but collection centers did not have the tools to recycle them. They were sold to processing companies at very low prices, if they could be sold at all. Processing companies had issues with the high costs associated with running their facilities and communities had problems determining which items to recycle (Hall, Garbage 39). Although many of these issues have been alleviated, the National Recycling Coalition states that communities still struggle with balancing their budgets and providing recycling programs to debt strapped communities (O’Connell).
Despite recycling’s problems, critics of both dumping and burning garbage site that burning and dumping techniques undermine recycling efforts. They feel that recycling is essential in lessening the need for landfill space, which can then be put to more productive uses. They also feel that recycling saves money. They state that recycling material may not bring in large amounts of money, but the savings that come from avoiding the creation of new ones, does just that. Most importantly, critics feel that recycling helps the environment by conserving natural resources (Black).
Although quantifying the benefits of recycling can sometimes be difficult, the intangible benefits from recycling offer the most compelling case for it. These benefits include lower energy costs associated with the manufacturing of new materials, cutting down on pollutants like carbon monoxide and sulfur, and saving trees (Black).
In fact, today, recycling seems to have morphed from not only a disposal technique but into an even broader issue; that of sustainability of our planet. The height of this “green consumerism” began, in part, due to the 2006 documentary featuring Al Gore called “An Inconvenient Truth.” Suddenly Americans were faced with the notion that in order to avert global warming, sudden and drastic measures would need to be taken by each of us. In what began in the 1900’s as just a way to save money and use items one already had in his possession, became an emergency of national proportions. Today, recycling has risen to be a multimillion dollar initiative and program ideology marketed as one way to help save our planet (Hall, Recycling 38).
But does it really help to lower man’s human footprint? According to an article in the New York Times “[t]here is a very common mind-set right now which holds that all that we’re going to need to do to avert the large-scale planetary catastrophes upon us is make slightly different shopping decisions,” said Alex Steffen, the executive editor of “worldchanging.com[->0]” (qtd. in Williams). The article goes on to state that the solution to our sustainability issues is for each of us to reduce our consumption of goods and resources. Steffen adds “It’s not enough to build a vacation home of recycled lumber; the real way to reduce one’s carbon footprint is to only own one home.” The article suggests that instead of buy five pairs of organic threaded blue jeans, one should just buy one pair of jeans and wear them until they wear out (qtd. in Williams).
During the Great Depression, Americans “tightened their belts” and went without (Hall, Garbage 38). They conserved, reused, and recycled. Within a few decades, America, as a whole, set about with a whole new consumer mind set. Buy new, throw out the old. Even the original 1970’s idea of environmental sacrifice has been commercialized and brought into the present to mean that as long as one purchases environmentally friendly items, it is “just fine” to purchase as much or as many as one wants.
Recycling has gained a foothold in American life. Latest national data suggests that 28.5% of all solid waste in the United States is recycled, 7.4% composted, and 64.1% landfilled (Black). It appears that people are recycling. But, is it worth it or is it too little too late? Recycling’s economic and environmental influence may not be measurable for years to come and its success depends on continued effort and cooperation among everyone involved.
Advocates speak of “closing the loop”. They speak of an imaginary loop in the recycling symbol of three arrows in a circle. The arrows represent collecting, manufacturing, and buying and using recycled products (Hall, Recycling 30). But, will this save the environment… or will American consumerism cause the end of life as we know it? Only time will tell.

Works Cited

Black, Harvey. “Rethinking Recycling.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Nov. 1995. Web. 27 Jan. 2012
Goldstein, Nora. “Biocycle Nationwide Survey: The State of Garbage.” Biocycle. Apr. 1997: 60-67. Print.
Gore, Albert. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It. New York: Rodale, 2006. Print.
Grabianowski, Ed. "How Recycling Works." howstuffworks.com. 17 Aug. 2007. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.
Hall, Eleanor J. Garbage. San Diego, CA: Lucent Books, 1997. Print.
---. Recycling. Farmington Hills, MI: KidHaven, 2005. Print.
"History of Earth Day - History of a Movement." Earth Day Network. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.
O’Connell, Kim A. “Divided Over Recycling.” The American City & County 119.5 (2004): 36-40. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.
Williams, Alex. “Buying Into the Green Movement.” nytimes.com. New York Times, 1 July 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.

[->0] - http://Worldchanging.com