Emptying the Landfills, One Product at a Time

By Sally Deneen, E Magazine. Posted June 23, 2006.

(Editor's Note: this article originally appeared in E: The Environmental Magazine. To reprint this article, contact Featurewell.)

Don't throw away those exercise videos and ubiquitous AOL CDs. Jim Williams wants you to mail old videotapes and CDs to him, so that more than 40 disabled staffers at his ACT Recycling in Columbia, Mo., can recycle them. And, oh, don't toss out those used Fed-Ex envelopes or broken smoke detectors -- their manufacturers take them back for recycling.

Indeed, these days, it seems that more castoffs than ever can be recycled. No matter where you live, you can recycle a wide range of discards -- aseptic juice packages, printer cartridges, ordinary batteries, iPods, PDAs and even cell phones.

Surprised? Recycling has leap-frogged ahead, meaning if you haven't checked the recycling scene since the mid-1990s, it's possible that much of what you thought you knew is wrong. Not only can you recycle more things, but your discards are very much in demand, perhaps more than you realize.

Get this: Recycling and reuse businesses now employ about as many people as the auto industry if not more, according to a 2001 "U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study" commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several states through an agreement with the National Recycling Coalition. At least 1.1 million people now work in the industry, more than triple the jobs in mining. BusinessWeek in February pegged the number of auto factory workers at about 950,000. Demand from industrializing China and India is helping spur the U.S. recycling industry, which now provides a "major source of raw materials," according to Jerry Powell, editor of Resource Recycling magazine.

"Without recycling, given current virgin raw material supplies, we could not print the daily newspaper, build a car, or ship a product in a cardboard box," says Powell. "Recycling is not some feel-good activity; it is one of the backbones of global economic development." To his way of thinking, recovering castoffs and putting them to good use "are key ingredients to industrial growth and stability."

Is the job getting done?

And yet, there is a problem. It becomes obvious when peering into a garbage can at a community festival or in the dumpster behind your local shopping mall. Curiously, while recycling has grown to more than 9,000 curbside programs nationwide, a greater percentage of recyclable plastic bottles and aluminum cans are ending up in the regular garbage.

Aluminum can recycling has dropped steadily, from a 1992 high of 65 percent of cans to 45 percent by 2004, according to the Container Recycling Institute. The Aluminum Association puts the latter figure at 51 percent. Plastic bottles fare worse: While nearly 40 percent of PET plastic bottles were recycled in 1995, only about half that many -- 21.6 percent -- were recycled in 2004, according to the National Association for PET Container Resources. Powell says recycling levels exceed 50 percent for such materials as corrugated cartons and steel.

Paul Gardner got an unanticipated glimpse into why recycling rates are slipping in Minnesota, thanks to a phone survey of 800 Minnesotans that included this single recycling-related question: "Do you think manufacturers need more cans, bottles and paper?" Only 36 percent said "we need more," and those folks tended to have a high-school education or less and be younger (ages 24 and under).

"The more education you have, the more likely you are to be cynical about recycling," concluded Gardner, who is executive director of the Recycling Association of Minnesota. "We don't know [why], to be honest," though the purpose of the survey question was "to see how many people in the state still cling to the idea that there is a glut of recyclables, because we need all the material we can get right now and more." He adds, "We've got some work to do, since almost three-quarters of Minnesotans think that we don't need to recycle more. Twenty-four percent of our garbage is still recyclable paper, so we have more to get."

Confronting the naysayers

Gardner also spends time combating impressions sometimes bandied about in the media, most famously in "Recycling Is Garbage," a 1996 cover story in The New York Times Magazine, in which libertarian writer John Tierney argued that recycling could be "the most wasteful activity in modern America." Tierney wrote, "Recycling does sometimes make sense -- for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative. Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems."

When the American Prospect in 2001 profiled Tierney and asked about his 7,800-word anti-recycling story, he said: "I could write something about the good side of recycling. And there are some benefits. But everybody else writes that." The Times Magazine story still reverberates. E, by the way, responded to Tierney's piece with its own cover story, "Talking Trash: Recycling is Under Attack," which appeared in the March-April 1997 issue. At the time, the New York Times Syndicate distributed both articles as a pro and con package.

Sally Deneen is a dedicated recycler in Seattle.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »