A single person in the United States today generates “4.4 lbs of waste daily” (Kraft), compared to the meager “2.7 lbs of waste” produced in 1960 (Griffin). Recycling has long been a controversial topic in our world, with pro-recycling lobbyists fighting for the environmental benefits mandatory recycling provides and the opposing party stating that recycling is too costly and in actuality adds to pollution. Mandatory recycling would be advantageous in the United States because it reduces landfill waste; reduces air, ground, and water pollution; can be cost-effective for cities and manufacturers; and can bring the environmental standing of the US closer to the green European countries.
Because many families dump all of their household wastes into landfills, recycling can help reduce the amount of waste each household contributes to already-overcrowded landfills. Those who are against mandatory recycling argue that there is plenty of room in the United States’ landfills and that additional land can be transformed into alternative landfills. However, many Northeastern states, including New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, already travel out of state to deposit waste in landfills, a costly venture (Griffin). Federal laws that declare states must accept out-of-state waste have even been introduced. These laws may constrict the power of each state to reject out-of-state waste and increase the landfill cost for the residents of the state that must accept this waste. Soon, the state that must accept waste might overwhelm its landfill capacity and have to take their waste to yet another state, compounding the issue. One disturbing statistic states that “by the end of the next decade, three-quarters of the nation’s existing landfill space will be exhausted or closed” (Griffin). Critics of recycling falsely assert that the transformation of unused land into brand new landfills is straightforward and inexpensive. For example, developers of a proposed landfill in Kentucky estimate a cost of $500,000 to $1 million, not including the landfill liner that provides protection against harmful leaks or the per-acre cost of $75,000 (“The Lowdown On Landfills”). New landfills are expensive temporary solutions that exhaust the land, supporting the need for new waste disposal solutions. No strong grounds exist to refute that US landfills are overflowing with waste. In fact, “the growth rate of our municipal solid wastes will only increase” (Kraft), furthering the demand for an available recycling alternative.
The decomposition of waste, the conundrum of landfill leakage, and the production of non-degradable plastics have caused a significant amount of air, ground, and water pollution, respectively, that mandatory recycling will help alleviate. If cities and communities recycled instead of throwing away their waste, less trash would be deposited in landfills, consequently lessening the amount of carbon dioxide and methane gas released into the air. According to a 1996 methane gas study, “36 percent of all methane emissions in the United States” come from landfills (Denison). Landfill leakage in our world contributes to the accumulation of lead, mercury, and other organic compounds in the soil and groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified two-hundred fifty toxic waste sites that were once landfills, attesting to the fact that new measures- such as recycling- are imperative to the reduction of landfill pollution (Denison). Lastly, recycling plastics for reuse can minimize the considerable quantity of new plastic products manufactured. Since plastic is a non-degradable substance, plastic waste simply accumulates in the ocean and environment over time. Today, “90 percent of all marine debris is unnatural, and 70 to 80 percent of it is post-consumer waste” (Dumas). Greater than double the size of France, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a grouping of plastic in the Central Pacific Gyre, is one example of the tragic environmental consequences plastics generate. In some sections of the ocean there are over one hundred thousand plastic pieces per square kilometer (Dumas). Mandatory recycling can moderate the amount of waste deterioration, landfill leakage, and plastic production that begets air, ground, and water pollution.
Thirdly, mandatory recycling has proven cost-effective in cities such as Seattle and in the manufacturing of products. Even though some anti-recyclists state that recycling is too costly for standard use, this falsehood is easily proven inaccurate as Seattle, San Jose, Austin, Cincinnati, and Portland have reported lower per-ton recycling costs compared to per-ton garbage disposal costs (Denison). These cities have implemented cost-efficient means, such as charging small fees for household garbage (Kraft) and cutting back waste collection from twice weekly to once weekly, to promote recycling in such a way that no increase in residential bills occurs. The implementation of these policies can increase a city’s recycling percentage by eight to ten percent. Manufacturers also prefer recycled materials to virgin materials because they are already refined and processed. It is less expensive to reuse scrap metal and paper to create new products than it is to purchase, refine, and then finally process the virgin materials. Multiple studies, including those by the Argonne National Labs, Department of Energy and Stanford Rose Institute, Sound Resource Management Group, and Tellus Institution, have validated that recycled goods require less energy, create fewer pollutants, and generate less solid waste (Denison). New paper manufacturing mills that use recycled paper to assemble newsprint, corrugated boxes, and cartons generally have lower operating costs than those of their counterpart mills that use virgin wood. Recycled aluminum is also a lower-cost manufacturing option for smelters (Denison). In the United States, two-thirds of steel, one-half of copper, one-third of aluminum, and one-half of paper come from recycled materials (Wiener). Cities such as Seattle and companies engaged in product production have successfully implemented cost-effective means of recycling.
Finally, the United States has fallen behind on the recycling curve as many European countries stress the importance of recycling programs. As a country that states its prominence as a world leader, the US has not been applying these same standards to the protection of the environment. Europe has technologically advanced its recycling process, producing less than twice the amount of waste as the US and leaving the United States far behind industrially. If America would like to improve its world standing in this category from below the top ten, the US must add incentives for recycling and instigate stronger measures to reduce excess packaging. America has a 24 percent recycling rate compared to European countries which have a 40 to 70 percent recycling rate (Lacey). When comparing energy from waste (EfW)- the controlled combustion of recycled materials to produce energy without contributing to greenhouse emissions (“EfW Facilities vs Incinerators”)- rates, the United States has a meager 7 percent EfW rate compared to Europe’s 22 to 49 percent EfW rate (Lacey). As all citizens in many European countries must recycle or be charged with steep fines, one main discrepancy between Europe and the US is the enforcement of recycling measures. In the US, even the states that mandate recycling do not enforce that law, allowing residents to disregard the law without punishment. European countries have also benefited by cutting back waste by 20 percent, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from waste sectors by 34 percent in some areas (Lacey). By following the example of countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria, the United States can improve its environmental standing and technological development. These countries employ strong recycling and EfW policies to eliminate landfilling. They also reduce excess packaging by compelling companies to pay for the recycling of packaging containers, a measure that would significantly reduce the amount of excess plastic produced in the United States. As a country that values its leader status, the United States must implement new recycling methods to take the lead over competing European countries.
The implementation of recycling would be beneficial in the United States. Mandatory recycling would benefit the environment by minimizing landfill space and pollution. Cities and manufacturers also benefit from the cost-effective results mandatory recycling provides. Finally, mandatory recycling benefits the US image as a leader by allowing its recycling programs to meet up with Europe’s superior recycling standards.