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.
I know many people like this, including relatively conservative talk show host, Curtis Sliwa, of WABC radio in NYC.
The priests and priestesses of the so-called environmental movemnet have made acolytes of so many! Don't you, as a conservative (presumably, by your screen name), see the absurdity of adopting this 'feel good,' but futile and even counterproductive doctrine?
A few years back, American Spectator Magazine had an article about recycling. What the author of the piece found out was that a lot of the trash hauling contractors pay lip service to recycling when they deal with municipalities. When the recycled goods go down the road to wherever that stuff gets centralized, its often centralized into the same hole in the ground as your other household garbage.
I was watching the recycling truck recently from an upstairs window. The guy jumped out of the cab, grabbed our orange bin containing newspaper, tin cans, plastic containers (only #2), looked around presumably to assure no witnesses, and threw it all into one of the sections on the truck.
This is obviously not a group of "real" environmentalists. Monetary cost does not matter to real environmentalists.
Sorry!
For decades, Canada has built very few new garbage incinerators, largely over concerns that they emit harmful substances.
No thought as to what emits more harmful substances. Any process that emits any harmful substance is equally bad.
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.
Can't change the philosophy! That might mean admitting that we were wrong! And how much do you want to bet that this "umbrella organization" is a figment of Veronica Sherwood's imagination?
"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."
So recycling is not the best choice, incineration is not ecologically sound. Is there any way of dealing with garbage that is acceptable?
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.
It would not just require sorting, but exactly the same amount of sorting that is required for recycling. Let alone the fact that in one scheme you are sorting out different materials for re-use and in the other you are picking out toxins, through some sort of divine miracle, both of these process involve exactly the same level of methodical sorting. Amazing!
And, he said, transportation costs -- both financial and environmental -- would not decrease if incineration replaced recycling.
Again, by some cosmic coincidence, the transportation costs for recycling and incineration are exactly the same. They don't go up or down mind you, but are some kind of universal constant, like e or pi.
"You can't put an incinerator in the middle of downtown Toronto," he said.
So we might as well not put it anywhere at all.
"So you've still got to haul the stuff to an incinerator."
Which makes it just as bad as recycling, don'tcha know.
Gosh. I'll have to tell that to my husband...who happens to manage a paper and aluminum recycling plant.
Next time you grocery shop take a look at the bottom of the paper bag. That's just *one* clue as to how paper is being recycled.
Toodles.
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.