Recycling is a huge part of today's society, it is a very key component of modern waste reduction. It does not only turn used products into potentially useful materials but also reduces the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduces energy usage,air pollution(from incineration), and water pollution(from landfilling). Recycling is what steers us away from "conventional" waste disposal and significantly lowers our greenhouse gas emissions. It is a process that has always been admired and respected for it's certain environmentally friendly benefits. Although it is very uncommon for anyone to think otherwise, few people don't see the recycling industry in the same way. In the blog " The Recycling Myth" the author who goes by the name "the revolution" strikingly regards the cycling industry as a "myth". He claims that recycling isn't worth it, with his main point arguing that the environmental benefits of recycling do not equal the costs required to run and maintain the recycling industry. " The Revolution" believes that recycling only increases emissions. He supports this by exposing the faults and defects he sees in the recycling process. However, despite his interesting opinion "The Revolution" makes a very weak argument due to his lack of strong sufficient evidence, his biased opinion, and only including few examples in supporting his claim.
The author starts off supporting his claim by arguing that the recycling bin itself is non-environmentally friendly. Stating that fossil fuels are being used in the production of every plastic recycling bin which, according to the author, puts us in an "environmental hole" and contributes to our carbon footprint even before we start to recycle. Secondly, " the revolution" discusses the running of the trucks on recycling day and that the fuel expended by these trucks increases carbon emissions and harms our atmosphere rather than helping it. He claims that recycling causes garbage trucks to be run "twice as often as otherwise needed"("The Revolution" 2010). Another argument that the author presents is that all recycling plants are run on fossil fuels, claiming that when recycling a bottle it is processed in a plant run on oil which also only increases emissions and harms the environment. He states that environmentalists want to take a stand against fossil fuels but are using them without regard. With these arguments " The Revolution" presumes that recycling is just contributing to a negative impact on our environmental footprint. His argument against recycling would be much more convincing if there were any evidence or stronger examples used. Although some of his arguments may be true how are we supposed to be convinced of them if he has only his opinion to back it up? " The Revolution" assumes that all plants are run on fossil fuels and all recycling bins require fossil fuels to be made. There is nothing that the author tells us or gives as an example that lets us know how fossil fuels are used or how much is used during these processes. It is true recycling plants do use fossil fuels but only a very minimal amount is used, and many recycling bins are made out of plastic but not all of them are. There are eco-friendly recycling bins available made out of recycled plastic or even wood and paper.
In making the accusation that recycling is worse for the environment than it is good, the author is assuming that these environmental costs of the recycling industry that he outlines in his blog outweigh the many environmentally friendly benefits associated with recycling. In the blog the author also gives us his solution to this " problem". He states that we should eliminate recycling completely which would get rid of the "extra" pickup day and reduce garbage truck emissions by 50%. He also states that we should shut down all recycling plants which will stop all fossil fuels being used by them and will, in turn, supposedly improve our carbon footprint. It is clear that " The Revolution" hasn't done his research. His solution is indicating that there should be virtually no recycling and only waste. In my opinion this would be significantly worse for the environment. Plastic bottles constitute close to 50% of recyclable waste in the dumps, the average time taken by plastic bottles to decompose in a landfill is close to 700 years. Plastic not only adds to landfill space and takes forever to decompose, used plastic dumped into the sea kills and destroys sea life at an estimated 1,000,000 sea creatures per year( Statistics Canada 2008). Without recycling, the amount of waste would skyrocket and possibly have a detrimental affect on the environment. Landfills produce about 25% of Canada's methane emissions, one of the most powerful greenhouse gases (Statistics Canada 2008). Without recycling this number would be sure to rise. These are just a few of the many reasons why the authors' solution is a very unrealistic one with negative outcomes. "The Revolution" only looked at and discussed the negative effects of recycling and assumed that if these were taken away that it would only be helpful in decreasing carbon emissions. He did not take into consideration the many benefits of recycling or the cons of his solution.
The author only had points against the recycling industry and did not give very much information on the benefits of recycling. There is a vast amount of benefits and reasons which suggest that the recycling industry is a very efficient one and should continue to exist for many years. Because " The Revolution" did not address or anticipate any of these opposing objections and did not bring evidence to hear these opposing objections the writing is biased and therefore a unreliable unconvincing argument and source of information.
In conclusion, " The Revolution" presents an interesting opinion on the recycling industry but a very weak argument. The blog lacked the evidence and examples needed to make a reliable convincing argument to the reader. The claim that the costs outweigh the benefits of recycling is not backed up with enough evidence to persuade people of this opinion. The assumption of having no recycling at all will decrease the size of our carbon footprint is unrealistic and impractical. It is clear that a world with recycling is much more environmentally friendly than a world without it. The authors' argument is also a biased due to overlooking the considerations of opposing arguments. Overall I beleive that this blog states an interesting opinion but nothing more, it is a unreliable source of information and a unconvincing argument.
References
The Revolution,(2010). 2010, October, 5. Retrieved from http://therevolutionagain.blogspot.com/2010/10/recycling-myth.html
Recycling In Canada. (2008). Statistics Canada, Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2007001/article/10174-eng.htm
Words: 1084
By: Sean Ellison
No comments:
Post a Comment