# data[].attributes.body
why stop. the world has enough pollution already. together we can help by RECYCLING

# data[].attributes.body
XAN ZAMAZZIKE ON THE XAN LIL XAN UH

# data[].attributes.body
To begin with, the U.S. recycling system isn't sufficient. The slogan "reduce, reuse, recycle" that promotes these programs is actually an emotional slogan and not a reasonable environmental policy. According to "PRO/CON: Should the U.S. scrap the recycling program?", it explains how sending an extra fleet of trucks around town once a week and other activity is actually not assisting the environment. In addition, many have been told that recycling will help preserve scarce landfill space. However, we aren't even remotely close to running out of space for our garbage. Thus, making the concert of "drowning i

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before we conclude that recycling is the "answer," perhaps we should think hard about the question.

If the question before Congress is how best to protect the environment, conserve scarce resources, and provide for landfill space, then mandatory national recycling is not the answer.

A brief examination of the case for mandatory recycling makes that abundantly clear.

First, we are told that recycling will help preserve scarce landfill space. We are not, however, even remotely close to running out of space for our garbage. Despite the "garbage trucks could ring the Milky Way galaxy" rhetoric, all of the trash America will produce over the next 1,000 years could fit into a landfill 15 square miles in size.

Clearly, concerns about "drowning in our own garbage" are misplaced.

Although we aren't running out of places to put landfills, many regions are failing to site the facilities necessary to meet future disposal needs. That is a result of political gridlock stemming from the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) phenomenon. National recycling mandates, however, will do little to alleviate the increasing shortfall in capacity.

Recycling 50 percent of the solid waste stream by the year 2000 (a difficult if not impossible proposition), for example, would still leave 95 million tons of garbage to be disposed of annually.

In California, recycling 50 percent of the waste stream tomorrow would exhaust that state's landfill capacity by 2008 instead of 1999.

Second, we are told that recycling will help protect the environment because the alternatives - landfilling our garbage or burning it in waste-to-energy facilities - represent severe environmental threats. That, however, is specious nonsense.

Even the Environmental Protection Agency considers municipal solid waste landfills to be minimal health risks. According to the agency's own findings, which were based on ultra-conservative, worst-case assumptions, 83 percent of America's solid waste landfills pose a lifetime cancer risk of less than one in one million (about the same risk inherent in drinking a glass of tap water).

A full 60 percent pose less than a one in one billion health risk. Landfill design criteria recently promulgated by the EPA will reduce those minor risks even further.

The facts about incineration are similar. Using worst-case assumptions and relying on data from old, obsolete incinerators without today's standard air pollution control devices, the EPA found that air emissions from those facilities pose a cancer risk of from one in 100,000 to one in one million.

Since modern incinerators routinely remove more than 90 percent of all toxins from the smokestack, it follows that the true health risk from modern incinerators is less than one in one million.

The only study to examine incinerator ash in actual monofills (as opposed to stringent laboratory analysis), a study co-sponsored by the EPA and the United States Conference of Mayors, concluded that ash leachates "were close to meeting drinking water standards."

So even if ash leachates somehow found their way into groundwater, there would be little cause for concern.

The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board recently put the negligible risk posed by modern waste incinerators into perspective when it noted that "the risk of a child contracting cancer from eating one peanut butter sandwich per month for 15 years is approximately 500 times greater than the risk of contracting cancer" from the emissions of an incinerator that is being considered by Drava County, Pa.

Contrary to popular belief, recycling is not risk-free. Most recycling processes generate large amounts of hazardous waste. In the final analysis, what's more worrisome - old newspapers buried in the ground, or the toxic sludge generated in the process of de-inking them for recycling?

Finally, we are told that recycling conserves scarce resources. That statement is true only when the economics of recycling a given material are favorable.

The price mechanism, in the final analysis, is a reflection of the relative scarcity of human and natural resources. If virgin paper is cheaper for a manufacturer to use than recycled paper, it can only mean that the resources required to produce virgin paper are relatively more plentiful than the resources necessary to provide recycled paper.

Mandatory recycling under those conditions would mean that the recycling process would consume more resources - energy, labor, capital, or other materials - than would be consumed if non-recycled virgin materials were used.

"Imagine a business in which the cost of the raw materials far exceeds any revenues the firm's product can generate, and the product supply far outstrips demand. You have just grasped the economics underlying curbside garbage recycling," noted Forbes Magazine in October 1991.

The environmental lobby ignores that simple but important fact and advocates the same sort of economic central planning which ultimately led to the collapse of Eastern Europe.

Finally, let's keep in mind that the natural resources supposedly "conserved" by recycling programs are not even remotely close to depletion.

For example, approximately 80 percent of all material recycled today is paper - yet recycling paper doesn't save forests. Fully 87 percent of our paper stock comes from trees that are grown as a crop specifically for paper production.

Acting to "conserve trees" through paper recycling is like acting to "conserve wheat" by cutting back on bread consumption.

In fact, to the extent that paper recycling increases, tree planting will decrease as a result of reduced demand for pulp.

We are not running out of trees or forests. America has three-and-one-half times more forest land today than it had in 1920. America is growing 22 million new acres of forest annually while harvesting but 15 million acres, for a net gain of 7 million acres each year.

And why the rush to recycle glass? Are we really running out of sand?

We are told that recycling saves energy, yet energy costs are clearly part of the economic calculations that go into the pricing mechanism. Why, then, are recycled materials still more expensive for manufacturers to use than virgin materials?

Because often ignored in the energy-savings calculations peddled by the environmental lobby is the energy necessary to deliver the recyclables to collection centers, process the post-consumer material into usable commodities for manufacturers, and deliver the processed post-consumer material to manufacturing plants.

In the final analysis, the campaign for mandatory national recycling amounts to charging into a crowded theater, turning out the lights, blocking all the exits, and shouting, "Fire!"

The result is a panicky stampede through the only door left ajar - the door with Snow White's picture on it, marked "recycling." Behind that door, however, lies a path leading to wasted resources, increased environmental stress, and economic models based on those of Eastern Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before we conclude that recycling is the "answer," perhaps we should think hard about the question. If the question before Congress is how best to protect the environment, conserve scarce resources, and provide for landfill space, then mandatory national recycling is not the answer.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  Recycling saves money
2.  Helps the environment
3. Saves energy

# data[].attributes.body
Even more importantly, the recycling plan is a very expensive process. For instance, PRO/CON: Should the U.S. scrap the recycling program? establishes, " Paper mills pay for the trees they process. If it was cost-effective to recycle scrap paper, paper companies would be beating down your door to buy it — but they aren’t." This means it is more costly and grueling work to recycle rather than to plant and grow new trees.  To add to that, landfills are more cheaper and easily accessible to use and build, compared to building a new recycling center or working a new recycling center.

# data[].attributes.body
To begin with, the U.S. recycling system isn't sufficient. The slogan "reduce, reuse, recycle" that promotes these programs is actually an emotional slogan and not a reasonable environmental policy. According to "PRO/CON: Should the U.S. scrap the recycling program?", it explains how sending an extra fleet of trucks around town once a week and other activity is actually not assisting the environment. In addition, many have been told that recycling will help preserve scarce landfill space. However, we aren't even remotely close to running out of space for our garbage. Thus, making the concert of "drowning in our own garbage" inaccurate.

# data[].attributes.body
Some may argue that Americans are emboldened by the idea of charging trash for money. On the contrary, the cost of the recycling system exceeds the benefits. As a matter of fact, it takes more energy to produce resources than it is to use. According to The Pros and Cons of Recycling, if you consume fewer items you’re doing more for the environment than if you consume more and then recycle what you can. Moreover, recycling locations are unhygienic as debris are engulfed with infectious diseases. Furthermore, recycling isn't enough to change climate change and pollution. Given these points, the U.S. recycling program is too costly, yet it hasn't helped the Earth in any effective way.

# data[].attributes.body
In addition, recycling could make people think that they're doing a lot to help the environment. According to an article titled "The Pros and Cons of Recycling" on smartasset.com, it states, "Some critics of recycling say that recycling gives people the sense that they’re doing all they need to do on behalf of the environment, when in fact recycling alone isn’t enough to, say, fight climate change or eliminate pollution." This is important because people who recycle won't do more to help the environment. Hence, the people who do things to harm the environment will think it's okay   because at least they recycle.

# data[].attributes.body
To conclude, the question of whether or not the U.S. should scrap the recycling program is controversial.  Generally, the reason why people favor recycling is because of the want to protect the environment. I harshly disagree with their thoughts. To me, the recycling program is waste of time and money due to the little effect it will have towards the environment and the program's expensive cost. In addition, my second reason is because it fools people in believing they are doing a lot for the environment when they're really not. My analysis of this issue has left me with little doubt that the U.S. recycling program has little effect and is not beneficial when compared with the efforts used to utilize the recycling program.

# data[].attributes.body
Since 500 B.C., we've been told that the recycling program can make an impact on the environment as the slogan reduce, reuse, recycle has been widely known among Americans. This slogan recognizes the recycling as an essential way to reduce the amount of waste Americans produce every year. In reality, research has shown that the recycling program may not work as efficiently as others may think.

# data[].attributes.body
PRO/CON: Should the U.S. scrap the recycling program?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | PRO/CON: Should the U.S. scrap the recycling program?

# data[].attributes.body
Is recycling worth it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those blue bins have earned their fair share of critics over the years, but some environmentalists say don’t give up yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you recycle in your home or office? How about when you're out on the street or in a park? The recycling rate in the U.S. is around 34% and has been for years. The country has struggled to reach recycling rates seen in other developed countries. For a detailed look at the issue, let's examine some of the pros and cons of recycling.

Pro 1: There's an Environmental Benefit

Okay, this one is obvious. When you recycle materials you divert them from the landfills or incinerators where trash usually goes. Whether burned in incinerators or left to rot in landfills, materials in our trash can leach chemicals into the air, ground or water. Recycling reduces the waste that goes to polluting landfills and incinerators and reduces the need to devote land and resources to traditional waste disposal methods.

Pro 2: Recycling Creates Jobs

Recycling is a source of jobs in a community. Recycling plants, the manufacture of recycled products and the creation of recycling-related materials like recycling bins all contribute to job growth in the economy. Recycling can be a source of good, middle-class jobs for people without a lot of education under their belt. Along with renewable energy, recycling is a source of green jobs, which some say are critical to a strong 21st-century economy.

Pro 3: Recycling Raises Overall Environmental Consciousness

Recycling can be a gateway to other forms of environmental activism. A homeowner might start out by recycling and graduate to composting or installing solar panels. Recycling, particularly in cities that offer curbside pick-up of recyclables, is an easy way to do something good for the environment and it can lead to other green lifestyle changes, too.

Pro 4: Recycling Reduces the Energy Used to Manufacture Goods

Say a company wants to make a garment. To generate the textile from scratch would mean harvesting the cotton or linen crop, or manufacturing the synthetic fabric. But if the same company uses recycled textiles it can cut out that first step of the manufacturing process, saving energy as a result. To the extent that recycling reduces the need for growing, mining or extracting raw materials it has significant environmental benefits.

Con 1: Recycling Takes Energy

Have you heard of the phrase, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle?" Well, some environmentalists argue that "reduce" and "reuse" have more environmental benefits than "recycle." That's because if you consume fewer items you're doing more for the environment than if you consume more and then recycle what you can. That's because recycling takes energy, as does manufacturing products from recycled materials.

Con 2: Recycling Can Lead to Pollution

Some say the environmental benefits of recycling are overrated, not just because it takes energy but because it can lead to pollution. This is said of electronics recycling in particular. Many electronics slated for recycling are shipped overseas to less-developed countries, where they are sorted by hand. During the sorting process, metals and other chemicals may leach into the land and water where the recycling is taking place. This takes a toll on the environment and its inhabitants.

Con 3: Recycling Is Costly

Some critics of recycling say the costs outweigh the benefits and/or exceed community resources. Some towns and cities say they can't afford to operate recycling programs. In the U.S., landfill space is generally cheaply available, which means that the cost of recycling can exceed the cost of landfill waste disposal in many places.

Of course, some materials cost more to recycle than others, which is why some city governments choose not to recycle glass or plastic. The costs of recycling can vary not just based on the materials recycled but on the administration of the recycling program and on-demand for recycled materials.

Con 4: Recycling Isn't a Slam Dunk

Some critics of recycling say that recycling gives people the sense that they're doing all they need to do on behalf of the environment, when in fact recycling alone isn't enough to, say, fight climate change or eliminate pollution. These critics worry that there will be too many people who shop a lot, eat a lot of animal products and take long-haul flights but think that recycling offsets the environmental impact of their other choices.

Most people agree that recycling has significant benefits, even if it isn't a perfect solution to our environmental problems. Though it can be a bit of an inconvenience, recycling has empowered households and businesses to feel like they're doing something to make their community - and their country - a more eco-friendly place.

Tips for Being Socially Responsible

And you don't have to stop at recycling either. With the help of a financial advisor, you can also make a difference by investing your money in a socially responsible manner. Finding the right financial advisor doesn't have to be hard. matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you're ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, SmartAsset's free tool get started now.

If you choose to invest on your own, you can look into socially responsible investment funds as a good option to help keep your finances as focused as your recycling efforts.

Photo credit: ©iStock.com/jat306, ©iStock.com/ms_seal, ©iStock.com/hroe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pros and cons of recycling don't always come up in conversations about greening America. Many people assume that recycling has no downside, but there...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Advantages and Disadvantages of Recycling - Conserve Energy Future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recycling is a form of waste management that involves converting waste and other used materials into reusable products. Recycling helps to reduce energy usage, reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduce air pollution and water pollution.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Recycling costs a lot.
2. Recycling makes people think that they're doing a lot.
3. Reduce, reuse, recycle is a bad slogan.