The problem of waste management has become one of the central problems of the 21st century. Billions of tons of waste are generated every year, with people producing garbage the size of Mount Everest. The waste recycling problem is global, which causes activists, scientists, and public officials to constantly search for solutions. However, with such emphasis on this dilemma, many do not realize that recycling can be not only helpless but unprofitable. While contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases and landfills, the process remains unreasonably costly and inefficient.
Despite the established opinion about the benefits of recycling, John Tierney, the author of the article, debates the advantages of this process. According to the first article Tierney wrote in 1996, the recycling process is “costly and ineffectual” (Tierney, 2015, para.2). However, many people disagreed with this opinion and predicted the flourishing of the industry. In the article The reign of recycling written in 2015, the author sheds light on the current position of recycling. The purpose of this article is to not solely debunk the preconceived idea of recycling but encourage people to learn more about the practical ways of preserving the planet.
At the beginning of the article, Tierney asserts that nothing much has changed since 1996. Though the message about the benefits of recycling has traveled across the world and reached many people, the economic and environmental problems remain at the same level. According to Tierney, it is more costly for authorities “to recycle household waste than to send it to a landfill” (Tierney, 2015, para.4). The government may set higher goals for this procedure, but recycling will still be in stagnation. While affluent neighborhoods support the idea of recycling, less prosperous neighborhoods reject it.
Second, the author sets a dreadful prognosis for the future of recycling. While the prices for recycling rise, the benefits of this process diminish. By commenting on people’s inability to differentiate between the various effects of recycling and its benefits, the author tries to bring awareness to the problem and prompts them to educate themselves. Here Tierney brings the example given by Chris Goodall, stating that washing plastic bottles in water, “heated by coal-derived electricity,” could lead to bigger emission of carbon into the atmosphere. Therefore, there is a strong need to not blindly follow the rules but fact-check them, relying on science and statistics.
Nevertheless, the process of recycling for many government officials remains the problem of morality, not cost-efficiency. In this part of the article, the author compares mayor Bill de Blasio of New York and an E.P.A. official, J. Winston Porter. The former strives to withdraw entirely from using landfills by 2030. The latter asserts that no more than 35% of the nation’s trash is “worth recycling” (Tierney, 2015, para.12). As a result, recycling more than the norm established leads to unmet goals. Therefore, there is a necessity to differentiate between products worth recycling and products that make little to no difference.
In addition to covering the disadvantages of this process, the author does not shun the advantages. Recyclability contributes to the environment primarily by eliminating the need to produce new goods. While having a negative impact on the industries, such an approach will reduce “emissions of greenhouse gases” (Tierney, 2015, para.14). Still, recycling has more negative than positive factors. Despite the fact of reducing emissions, it proves to be more costly. While labor costs have been increasing through the centuries, the costs of raw materials have been decreasing. This decreasing trend causes recycling to be expensive and therefore inefficient.
In order to provide solutions to such a situation, the author presents the conclusions made by Thomas C. Kinnaman, an economist at Bucknell University. Kinnaman states that taxes on every ton of the trash that goes to the landfill and subsidies on recycling specific metals might contribute to the positive environmental impact. As a result, such measures might offset the greenhouse impact and therefore reduce recycling. The only remaining problem will be the pressure from activists.
In the article The reign of recycling, the author remains objective and unbiased and views the problem from different angles. While listing the disadvantages of recycling, Tierney focuses on the primary benefits of the process. Moreover, the author relies on statistics and the opinions of notable scientists and professors, making his writing trustworthy. The work is completed with the help of the author’s tone. Tierney refuses to use formal language with scientific and recondite words, opting for a more simplistic yet expressive, straightforward, and persuasive set of words. As a result, a reader develops a clear idea of recycling and might build his own opinion regarding this topic.
Hence, though recycling is viewed not only as morally acceptable but environmentally beneficial, the given article confirms that the advantages of this process remain questionable to this day. While recycling might be helpful in reducing greenhouse gases, it is proven to be cost-inefficient. What is more, another problem is based on the blind contribution of people to recycling without educating themselves and realizing that many products yield little to no results.
Work Cited
Tierney, John. “The Reign of Recycling.” The New York Times, 2015, Web.