Reduce! Reuse! Recycle! Whitney Prose
aegis 2008 34
Reduce! Reuse! Recycle! Every student born after the environmental turmoil of the 1970s knows this creed by heart. Unfortunately, the education to go with these aspects tends to be lopsided and only recycling is focused upon. This is reflective not only in the current “Green Slogans” such as Recycling Makes Cents but also in the large amount of recycling programs versus reducing or reusing organizations. Some organizations, such as the Californian government (1989; 1994), recognize that Reduce, Reuse, Recycle is a hierarchy and reducing is the most important—but this idea is generally glossed over when taught to the general public (§40051 and §40196). This paper attempts to analyze and discuss, without prejudice, the actual value or lack thereof of recycling. Due to the large amount of materials that can be “recycled” and the fact even the term “recycling” is disputable, this paper will concentrate on just two materials: aluminum and paper. What is recycling? According to the American Environmental Protection Agency, (1997)—hereafter abbreviated as the EPA—“[a] material is ‘recycled’ if it is used, reused, or reclaimed” (CFR 261.2(c)(7)). Therefore, anything taken out of the main waste stream, anything not going to the public waste landfill, is considered ‘recycled.’ The food one eats, the jar one reuses to hold pennies, the hazardous waste shipped to be incinerated “recycled” because it has been used, reused, or reclaimed. Something “reclaimed” is either broken down into something usable, or “recharged” into a valuable use (261.2(c)(4)). The EPA (1997) uses batteries as their example: the lead in batteries can be taken out and is instantly usable either for more batteries, or another use. Typically, this is the part of recycling that is taught to the public. What is not taught as often is the various ways a material can be used that is also considered recycling. The EPA (1997) defines reusing as taking a material that could be considered waste and using it for another purpose—such as coal companies who gather their fly-ash byproduct of burning coal and reuse it to stabilize their sludge from the same process of burning coal (Conesville personal interview 2007). But, a material isn’t recycled if it is removed from the waste stream, processed, and makes a new item but leaves behind unusable portions—the EPA (1997) gives the example of recovering metals from a machine but having a bunch of plastic, rubber and other non-recyclable items left behind during the process (CFR 261.2(c)(5)(i)). Additionally, if the item recycled replaces a commercially available item it is not considered “recycled” by the EPA’s definition because the company could have bought the material (CFR 261.2(c)(5)(ii)). The EPA (1997) cites using old picking brine as a sludge stabilizer in a waste water treatment plant as an example of not recycling. The reason it is considered not recycled is because the brine was heading to the waste water treatment plant anyways, and the brine was made by making pickles—not as a result of treating waste water. Additionally, when coal plants sell or give their fly ash to cement companies it is not considered recycling because the fly ash was made as a by product of coal—not cement making— and the cement company could buy different materials than fly ash to use in the making of their cement. Obviously, the public’s idea on what is recycling and the official government’s idea varies.
