Thanks, Joel, but I couldn't get to it. Said the file couldn't be found.

Lynn, here's the link: http://media.www.unewsonline.com/media/storage/paper953/news/2006/04/06/LettersToTheEditor/Recycling.Is.Ineffective-1801719.shtml

Hey, Joel, can you cite your article? Helps lead to other things to look into. Thanks.

Erin, I have no idea about the rain forests either. That was part of an article I pasted.

I agree buying and making quality goods that last is where part of where the recycling focus should be directed. We buy something of quality at a thrift store rather than buying some piece of crap at Walmart. I put most of the responsibility on the consumer. The people that buy crappy products are responsible for keeping the company that sells them in business.

As to the main cause of the depletion of the rain forests I am ambivalent (and I mean that as an invitation to tell me what you know that I don't, not as a challenge), but as to the inefficiency of recycling: I agree wholeheartedly. It is far more important to reduce your energy consumption by reducing your overall consumption of goods. Buy local produce, buy your clothing used, or make it. We all know how to do these things, we all know how our own grandparents once lived, not 70 years ago, but we can't seem to break away from the lifestyle that we have been told is rightfully ours: driving two blocks to the grocery store, buying cheap clothing that will last maybe one year at H&M, throwing out things that break when we could easily fix them, getting a new cellphone every 6 months. Anyway, here are some cool pictures:
www.chrisjordan.com

Thanks Joel - I hadn't heard this point of view. Definitely gives me something to look into and think about.

Until I see evidence to the contrary recycling, as we know it, is a waste of time, money, and can be more harmful to the environment than help. At the very least it is more of an exercise in making people "feel" good than having a deep meaningful impact. To me the focus should be on reducing consumption. In many cases it takes more resources to renew something than it does to just make a new piece of paper for example.

I encourage all passionate recyclers to at least look at some contrary evidence and facts before they spend half their free time washing out their plastic shampoo bottles to give to the recycling scam. Maybe you should do the prudent thing for the environment and throw away your plastic. Here's a more in depth article:

I wonder how people have critically interrogated the accepted thinking about recycling's perceived benefits. Certainly, humans should leave as small a footprint on nature as possible, but, despite the claims of both well-meaning and self-interested environmentalists, recycling does nothing to reduce energy use or keep our environment clean.

First, I ask students to consider that recycling is a labor- and energy-intensive process. When you recycle, someone has to collect what you gathered, always separately from your normal trash collection. That's another large truck on the road making the same rounds, fully doubling the total amount of fossil fuels used in the collection of waste. And the reprocessing of these materials is not a natural process but a heavily industrial one, generating much the same industrial waste and chemicals that environmentalists fear, though this fact does not seem to ever make it into the public discourse about recycling. I'm willing to bet that most of that waste ends up in landfills anyway (which, by the way, are beautifully engineered, spacious and environmentally friendly).

I would argue that the only material it makes sense to recycle is the aluminum can: It is more efficient to recycle aluminum than it is to mine the bauxite to make it. Your street urchins already know this: Nobody picks through your garbage for paper products, because they are without real value.

Recycling paper is perhaps the biggest sham. Have you ever heard of a paper crisis, one like the gas crises we periodically experience? Nor are you likely to. Trees are a crop, just like potatoes or soybeans, and business treats it as such. The logging industry is highly regulated, and as with any other useful renewable resource, loggers replant what they take. If you want more trees, use more paper.

Our national forests have actually grown in size since the beginning of the last century. Of course, the depletion of the rainforests is a problem, but one that is caused by poverty, not big business.

Because recycling is so economically unrewarding, recycling programs are largely funded by taxpayers, who subsidize this colossal waste of time and resources. It seems unfair to me that I should be forced to fund a largely useless industry.

I would actually be interested to hear about what you've discovered about the recycling pros and cons. People in Germany are required to recycle and we all have four large garbage cans and four separate garbage trucks come each month to pick it up. We recycled before we came here but we didn't do compost which is required. I have no problem doing compost if I have somewhere in the yard to dump it but having it waiting in a large garbage can?! Gets pretty nasty in the Summer. I love Ready Made and I need to try making some things. Like you we reuse paper bags, containers food come in (we don't reuse them to put food in if they have recycling code numbers 3 or 7) and use plastic grocery bags for trash etc. I like your plastic placemats:)

you can do this with vinyl records as well. although, i think you set the oven at 250.