Hmmm, and here I thought that checking multiple reputable sources before coming to my opinion counted as due diligence. But some random guy on the internet just corrected me, so I guess I'm wrong.

Anyway, those statistics I stated (but didn't cite because it's a from a long, long list of sources), came primarily from PRO-recycling sources that I considered honest in that they discuss current problems and potential solutions.

For instance, a quick search shows that some estimates are that as much as 80% of recycling winds up in landfills (PBS hosted Social Entepreneurs site):

http://www.pbs.org/now/enterprisingideas...

Likewise, treecycle.com lists all the horrible things that result from recycling paper:

http://www.treecycle.com/papers/we_lived...

The Institute of Mechanical Engineers flat out states that the recycling of plastic and paper a "waste of energy":

http://cleantech.com/news/3948/report-ca...

And on, and on, and on. Common sense dictates that if an enterprise was so helpful and profitable, the US government wouldn't need to spend $8 billion in subsidies (2007 Federal Budget) to support it. It should support itself, right?

I won't bother listing more sources, because they're easy to find. Simply look for reputable sources, and not those that stand to profit by promoting recycling myths.

rrichter, Wow! What a collection of largely incorrect statements! Where to start?

It always helps to describe exactly what we are talking about--terminology and describing one's assumptions are crucial.

I just Googled a few: http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recy....
http://www.recyclemorewisconsin.org/
http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/Land...
http://www.reachoutmichigan.org/funexper...

Some of these same issues are addressed at this Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_o...
Caution: Wikipedia is not the most reputable of sources; the quality depends on who has posted the material.

It's crucial to specify how an analysis is done. A Life Cycle Analysis on virgin vs. recycled would require a lot of detail and a fair amount of effort. Many of the arguments saying that recycling is too costly are based on the fact that our existing system does not charge for the environmental costs of extracting new resources, which would include the costs of cleaning up and restoring things like coal and copper strip mines in this and other countries.

Big Picture thinking is required.

Questions to all: How many products do you buy that feature any post-consumer recycled content? Apart from aluminum cans hardly anything. What do we spend in scarce dollars, trucks, labor, and diesel (greenhouse gas) to collect this whole mess when we all know it mostly goes in the same hole anyway??

40% of all recycling winds up in a landfill anyway. Only one form of recycling is profitable without government subsidies (aluminum cans). Almost all forms of recycling require more energy to be consumed than manufacturing the product from scratch.

Worse yet, many forms of recycling are worse for the environment. Take paper, for instance. Take 1 ton of paper and recycle it. You get more than 1 ton of toxic sludge (from bleach and de-inking solutions) as a result. Worse yet (and paradoxically so at first glance), recycling paper reduces the number of trees.

Trees in North America have tripled since the 1920's. This is mainly due to tree farms to support paper production. When you recycle paper, tree farming becomes less profitable. Do enough of it, and tree farming will not continue, and ultimately, less trees.

Also, the original intent of recycling (from an EPA paper in the 80's) was not to conserve resources, but rather to address the (erroneous) fear that we were running out of landfill space.

I am very much pro-environment, but recycling (with the exception of aluminum cans) does not pass any of the common sense tests in regard to whether or not we should be doing it in the first place.

Actually this is very much like the current situation with the nuclear fuel waste cycle. Spent nuclear fuel still has a tremendous amount of useable fuel left, and there was a time when we reprocessed such fuel (granted, the main motivator was for plutonium extraction, but recycling fuel was a nice bonus). Now, the economic situation dictates that it's cheaper to mine fresh uranium out of the ground and dispose of once-burned fuel in Yucca Mountain, even after accounting for the full price of such disposal. However, it's inevitible that this situation will eventually reverse itself and we will probably find ourselves re-opening Yucca Mountain and reprocessing all the valuable fuel inside.

recycling may have been "advertised" as the right thing to do, because it motivates more people to participate, but I think money was a motivator even from the beginning. Cities were willing to invest the up-front capital because they were expecting the pay-out later on. In turn, cities can "advertise" being more eco-friendly which draws (in some small way) residents and their tax money. It's not that different from companies that advertise being green, most of which are just doing so to encourage environmentalist-minded shoppers to buy from them.

I guess I would rather see recyclables not in need (if it's going to be a long-term situation) go into a separate "recyclables landfill", so when the situation changes they can be retrieved easier and cheaper than if they were just mixed in with the regular landfill. Somehow I doubt this will continue for so long that that would be worth it.

Oh, and beach, theres a difference between throwing your bottle out the window and putting it in the landfill (as opposed to recycling): when it goes in the landfill it gets buried, and therefore will not pose as much of a hazard to people or animals (spread of disease, broken glass, chocking/suffocating on plastic, etc). And, it's more aescetic (sp?). Coincidentally I don't recycle and I feel perfectly justified in throwing my plastic in the trash instead of out the window.

I do not think the original reason we began recycling was to supply a cost effective commodity. The argument at the time recycling became routine was it was the right thing to do environmentally speaking. I remember when mainstream recycling began, and despite the costs involved, it was pushed as the right thing to do. Is our recycling motive the moral, and potentially future fiscal, argument stating the environment is important to us? If I am correct, then we have already answered that when we determined to begin recycling despite tremendous upfront costs 10-15 yrs. ago. At no time did we hear an argument that we would be paying up front to subsidize the commodities market. Now this argument is the basis for cost savings? The cost saving should be realized in the lower cost for trash collecting. If a person thinks about the material they throw away in a day, they will see the amount of trash reduce to about 1/10th of what they normally end up with. I would much rather see a shift from trash fees and taxes to cover any recycling costs. If cost is the issue, then why do trash or recyclable collection at all? What a savings in taxes, land, machinery, manpower, and hassle. In fact, just think of the trash cans you could get rid of. Like your McDonalds bag in your car, toss the garbage cans and recyclables out your front door. We will all save money. Wait, sometimes we must be forced to do what is right. Proper trash disposal is "right" even if we must pay for cans, bins, collectors, landfills, and so on. Recycling is "right" for the same reasons. Laws force us to recycle as they do with proper trash disposal. Laws may have to help the commodity market to choose more recycled materials regardless of slightly higher cost. The benefits will be seen in future reductions in landfills and their associated costs, toxins in the ground, and raw material sustainability. The bottom line is recycling is the right thing to do for our environment. If you really disagree, then I challenge you to overcome your internal sense of wrongdoing and toss your plastic pop bottle or coffee cup out your car window the next time you finish your drink. Why not? It will save recycling costs, landfill cost, and trash collection costs, and most of all you will be acting on your beliefs. Reconsidering your motive to recycle?

Even on its best day, curbside recycling is a joke. Nobody, including the Gazette, ever seems to report how much of this crap really ends up in a landfill, and that includes the time when commodity prices were high. Why doesnt our media report on NET recycling?? In other words the amount of garbage that is actually recycled vs. what was collected.

Carey Hessenauer = "coolie".

Perhaps a more appropriate title for this article should be "Demand dwindles for materials- even recyclables". Another sign of things to come.

Kind of like conserving energy....Then the Power And Light Company wants to raise the rates cause they aren't making enough money. same goes for recycling.... good grief. whats next????? Try to do the right thing and BAM!!!!!

STAY SAFE!!!!