Posted on 03/04/2003 7:16:56 AM PST by ZGuy
A group of Swedish environmentalists -- convinced that recycling is a colossal waste of time and money -- is urging people to toss their blue boxes in the garbage.
To the chagrin of fellow environmentalists in Canada and across the globe, the group said burning cardboard, plastics and other household trash is actually much better for the planet than any recycling program has turned out to be.
In fact, the group contends the so-called benefits of recycling are all but nullified by the environmental damage associated with hauling the waste to and from the recycling facilities.
Coupled with the overwhelming cost of collecting, sorting and reprocessing the material, the group is convinced that decades-old recycling initiatives are nothing short of a complete failure.
"Protection of the environment can mean economic sacrifices, but to maintain the credibility of environmental politics, the environmental gains must be worth the sacrifice," the consortium wrote in a recent newspaper article.
At the controls of this latest anti-recycling crusade are five residents of Sweden, a country well-known for its trailblazing initiatives aimed at protecting the environment. Made up of environmentalists and waste-collection companies, the team is lead by Valfrid Paulsson, a former director of Sweden's environmental protection agency, and Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy.
Based in a country already full of incinerators, the campaigners say technology has improved so much in recent years that the process is completely clean and safe. It also allows communities to generate significant amounts of electricity, reducing their dependency on oil.
Environmentalists in Canada, however, dismissed any suggestions that recycling is a foundering experiment that should be immediately scrapped.
"I think they're flying a kite," said Guy Dauncey, a Victoria-based author and environmental consultant. "It's nonsense."
For decades, Canada has built very few new garbage incinerators, largely over concerns that they emit harmful substances. Changing that philosophy is definitely not the way to solve any glitches associated with recycling, said Veronica Sherwood, who co-ordinates the Nova Scotia Environment Network, an umbrella organization for the environmental groups in the province.
"Recycling may not be the best choice," she said yesterday. "It burns considerable precious energy and does in fact add to fossil fuel emissions. However, incineration is not an ecologically sound alternative."
Burning recyclables, said Mr. Dauncey, would still entail the same amount of effort as traditional recycling. Simply ensuring that certain toxins do not filter into the air would involve the same level of methodical sorting that occurs now.
And, he said, transportation costs -- both financial and environmental -- would not decrease if incineration replaced recycling.
"You can't put an incinerator in the middle of downtown Toronto," he said.
"So you've still got to haul the stuff to an incinerator."
David Wimberly, a well-known Canadian environmentalist, said the campaigners are doing nothing more than trying to sell a few incinerators.
Either way, other observers said it is time that Canadians -- who produce approximately 21 million tonnes of garbage every year -- more rigorously debate the merits of recycling.
"It's always worth taking a look at the numbers and looking at the reliability and asking: Have we got the mix right now or should we be trying something else," said Donald Dewees, a University of Toronto professor who specializes in environmental economics.
When Philadelphia went to recycling a few years back and we all had to use those buckets, everything went out on the same day.
I would sort my trash and "file" it correctly, until one day
The trash truck rolls up and everything is tossed into the truck- a regular big yellow trash truck. I stopped filing my trash after that.
It is obvious that recycling in some pockets may be somewhat effective, but on the whole, as in Philadelphia, it is a scam.
It's sad to impliment a program and then trash it...so to speak. I wonder if the recycling center in Philadelphia sorts it at a central plant...or has convicts sorting it (good reason to shred papers with personal info on them). Folsom State Prison does sort jobs for the greater Sacramento area...trust me, I shred. :o)
We have 2 roll-bins, each about 4 ft tall. They're filled to the brim every two weeks. Our regular trash is maybe 1/3 full each week. Oh...and we have the yard waste bin too. I'd like to get a chipper and big composter some day..great for the gardens.
I would say that unless you are within a 100 mile distance of a paper mill, and an old one which makes no tissue(which there are less and less each year), recycling even paper is a silly venture(sorry to gore your ox). Paper composts wonderfully.
Between the float cell de-inking, debonders, stickies removal, bleaching aids, extra release agents, and the associated added processes, make it a real headache.
I would like to see more invested from private industry on digesting micro-organisms. Ones designed to eat plastics, paper, rubber, solvents, and garbage. They made a real good one that eats oil. Landfill technology has been based on capping each few feet and odor control,The exact opposite of what's good for bugs. Those little bugs dosed into each cubic foot of garbage could be like a bunch of bulemics at a Shoney's Buffet.
Philly does have model sewage treatment though. They do a super job there. Credit where credit is due and all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.