Recycling - a waste of time? - Issue 9

[ukyp]

http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/.../recycling.pdf[/font]

By Catherine Rawsthorne, 17, MYP for Bury

We all like to do our bit to save the planet, right? Until the recession hits, that is.

If you listen to some of the critics with their tales of plummeting prices for recyclable materials leading to companies stockpiling paper in warehouses, and grim warnings about recycling actually adding to global warming, you could be forgiven for wondering if it’s all worth it. But before you dismiss recycling as a waste of time and go back to being able to dump your rubbish guilt-free, it’s important to remember just how far we’ve come and exactly what is at stake.

There has been a three-fold increase in recycling rates from 11% in 2000/1 to 34% in 2007/8, and the UKYP’s ‘Recycling: Free It!’ campaign has loads of schools signed up to its joint venture with Oxfam. By stopping now, we run the risk of undermining our success. Certainly, recycled products are as vulnerable to the credit crunch as any other consumer good, but to stop producing them is short-sighted and simply scrapping all of our waste is just burying the problem.

Landfills across the country are running out of space and incineration is a disaster environmentally. Indeed, at a time of recession, surely we should be using our resources more efficiently? Going green is not just something to practice when profitable and it is vital to recycle in order to instil good habits in future generations. Ultimately, a recession is only temporary, but the effects of failing to recycle will cost us the earth.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by ukyp

incineration is a disaster environmentally

Prove it! Modern Incinerators are very good environmentally, just like Nuclear Power is ... if the green movement want to be taken seriously they will have to stop scaremongering.

[CharlieGirl]

Personally i think that there is a problem with the whole recycling thing. although most plastics and food cartons are recyclable they wont be picked up from recycling bins. If recycling is necessary to save the earth then surely we should be encouraged to recycle everything we can and not just a few of the items. :S

[Matt. P]

I believe there is an all too prevalent mood of naturally assuming recycling is the best option. In many cases it is, and is being carried out surprisingly well. About 75% of our steel comes from recycled sources, saving huge amounts of energy and raw iron ore. People forget that being environmental is not thinking about costs, but of savings.

Nevertheless, there has never been an audit into what forms of recycling our environmental or not. The motion that incineration is environmentally damaging is false; CHP power plants that burn sewage at incredibly high temperatures (resulting in complete combustion and so minimal pollution) produces energy in many countries, saving greenhouse gases. Yet due to a government target that one third of our waste be recycled, there is not enough fuel.

Similarly, when something goes into the recycling box does not the end the story. It has to be taken somewhere and turned into new things, yet this is not always the case. A lot of this waste is sold to third world countries, for it to be stripped and re-used there, mainly because there is little demand for them here. This is a good use of raw materials but is it really environmentally beneficial to transport millions of tonnes of waste around the world to China among others. This is assuming that once it arrives it not simply burned or buried there, as very few records are kept once it is exported. Are we not perhaps transporting it to distant, exploitative countries (which all the emissions it entails) so it becomes "out of sight, out of mind"?

Most high-tech trash, like TVs or computers meet a similar story. There are sold to poor African countries so their valuable parts and metals can be stripped and sold off. The problem is that these also contain many toxic elements, such as lead, and the ways these devices are broken up do not, in a lighter-way of putting it, conform to 1st world standards. Needless to say, the life expectancy of the local workers are correspondingly shorter. (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...h/carroll-text)

It is simply given as fact that by recycling something it gives something to the environment. But in some cases it is a green screen but, with transportation emissions and the tendency to sell to third world countries with cheaper bids, simply pass on the environmental damage and health costs to other countries.

[kaity221]

Recycling wont save the world, it is too late for that. However there is no point in not recycling things where resources are available, even though it will only put a small dent in global warming. More money needs to be spent on re-newable energy sources and stuff that really will make a difference.

(or we could make pirates legal)

[Rebecca Jayne]

I am still unsure on the point of recycling. I mean sure! It sounds great, get us all to recycle various materials and we are all doing our bit to help the environment. I personally do recycle and wether I like it or not, don't see any difference being made. The last time you heard about British recycling it was found in India where it had washed up (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!)! I remember watching an episode of 'Tonight' where a woman had collected all the plastics she had, mainly margerine tubs and packaging. They took a bin full of the plastics all the way around the country to see who would take it off their hands and ensure that it could be recycled/ reused.
The result? The plastic still belongs to her now.

I think we may be beyond the help of recycling. That doesn't mean we should all grind to a hault! Maybe we need to extend our thoughts further and to a more economical solutions such as greener cars etc.

[Robbo]

What we throw out is determined by what we take in. Waste plastic is the biggest byproduct of consumerism. There should be a standard recycling code for all plastic containers used in this country.

[ewaddy]

Some massively important physics department has sent a report to the government basically saying it's too late and that we shouldn't waste our time and money on preventing it but defending ourselves from the repercussions of it

also, we're currently only feeling the repercussions from 40 years ago, when loads more damaging gases were being produced, so imagine how bad it will be 40 years from now.

in conclusion, recycling is a waste of time, although it's good to do it just so you dont ruin the country with ugly landfills etc

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by ewaddy

Some massively important physics department has sent a report to the government basically saying it's too late and that we shouldn't waste our time and money on preventing it but defending ourselves from the repercussions of it

also, we're currently only feeling the repercussions from 40 years ago, when loads more damaging gases were being produced, so imagine how bad it will be 40 years from now.

in conclusion, recycling is a waste of time, although it's good to do it just so you dont ruin the country with ugly landfills etc

Link and Name?

[casual1]

In my opinion I would say recycling is NOT a waste of time because it prevents us from using up more land fills. Things like plastic bags dont decompose for at leats more than 100 years or so. So I strongly disagree that recycling is a waste of time Its infact essential